========================================================================
  THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN THE TIME OF JESUS CHRIST
  by Emil Schurer
========================================================================

Emil Schurer's comprehensive historical study of Jewish life, religion, and
institutions during the period of Jesus Christ, providing essential background
for understanding the New Testament world.

  Chapters: 105

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Preface
    2. Introduction
    3. � 1. Scope And Literature
    4. � 2. Auxiliary Sciences
    5. A.�Jewish Archaeology
    6. B.�Geography
    7. C.�Chronology
    8. D.�Numismatics
    9. E.�Inscriptions
   10. � 3. The Sources
   11. A.�The Two Books Of Maccabees
   12. B.�Non-Extant Sources
   13. C.�Josephus
   14. D.�Greek And Roman Writers
   15. E.�The Rabbinical Literature
   16. First Division
   17. First Period
   18. The Rise Of The Maccabees And The Period Of Freedom, B.C. 175-63
   19. A Sketch Of The History Of Syria During The Last Century Of The Seleucid Dynasty, B....
   20. � 4. Religious Destitution And Revival, B.C. 175-165
   21. � 5. The Times Of Judas Maccabaeus, B.C. 165-161
   22. � 6. The Times Of Jonathan, B.C. 161-143
   23. � 7. Simon, B.C. 142-135
   24. � 8. John Hyrcanus I., B.C. 135-105
   25. � 9. Aristobulus I., B.C. 105-104
   26. � 10. Alexander Jannaus, B.C. 104-78
   27. � 11. Alexandra, B.C. 78-69
   28. � 12. Aristobulus II., B.C. 69-63
   29. Second Period
   30. The Roman-Herodian Age, B.C. 63-A.D. 135
   31. Sketch Of The History Of The Roman Province Of Syria, B.C. 65-A.D. 70
   32. � 13. Hyrcanus II, B.C. 63-40. Rebellion Of Antipater And His Sons Phasael And Herod
   33. � 14. Antigonus, B.C. 40-37
   34. � 15. Herod The Great, B.C. 37-4
   35. � 16. Disturbances After Herod's Death, B.C. 4
   36. � 17. The Sons Of Herod
   37. � 18. Herod Agrippa I., A.D. 37, 40, 41-44
   38. � 19. The Roman Procurators, A.D. 44-66
   39. � 20. The Great War With Rome, A.D. 66-73
   40. � 21. From The Destruction Of Jerusalem To The Overthrow Of Bar-Cochba
   41. Appendices I-VIII
   42. Appendix I
   43. Appendix II
   44. Appendix III
   45. Appendix IV
   46. Appendix V
   47. Appendix VI
   48. APPENDIX VII
   49. APPENDIX VIII
   50. Second Division
   51. � 22. The State Of Culture In General
   52. I. Mixture Of Population, Language
   53. II. Diffusion Of Hellenic Culture
   54. � 23. Constitution. Sanhedrim. High Priest
   55. I. The Hellenistic Towns
   56. II. The Strictly Jewish Territory
   57. III. The Supreme Sanhedrim In Jerusalem
   58. IV. The High Priests
   59. � 24. The Priesthood And The Temple Worship
   60. I. The Priesthood As A Distinct Order
   61. II. The Emoluments
   62. III. The Various Functions Of The Priesthood
   63. IV. The Daily Service
   64. Appendix
   65. � 25. Scribism
   66. I. Canonical Dignity Of Holy Scripture
   67. II. The Scribes And Their Labours In General
   68. III. Halachah And Haggadah
   69. IV. The Most Famous Scribes
   70. � 26. Pharisees And Sadducees
   71. I. The Pharisees
   72. II. The Sadducees
   73. � 27. School And Synagogue
   74. I. The School
   75. II. The Synagogue
   76. Appendix
   77. � 28. Life Under The Law
   78. � 29. The Messianic Hope
   79. I. Relation To The Older Messianic Hope
   80. II. Historical Survey
   81. III. Systematic Statement
   82. � 30. The Essenes
   83. I. The Facts
   84. II. Nature And Origin Of Essenism
   85. � 31. Judaism In The Dispersion. Proselytes
   86. I. Extension
   87. II. Constitution Of The Jewish Communities
   88. � 32. The Palestinian Jewish Literature
   89. I. Historiography
   90. II. The Psalmodic Literature
   91. III. The Gnomic Wisdom
   92. IV. Hortatory Narrative
   93. V. Pseudepigraphic Prophecies
   94. VI. The Sacred Legends
   95. VII. Books Of Magic And Magical Spells
   96. � 33. The Graeco-Jewish Literature
   97. I. Translations Of The Holy Scriptures
   98. II. Revision And Completion Of Scripture Literature
   99. III. Historical Literature
  100. IV. Epic Poetry And The Drama
  101. V. Philosophy
  102. VII. Jewish Propaganda Under A Heathen Mask
  103. � 34. Philo The Jewish Philosopher
  104. I. The Life And Writings Of Philo
  105. II. The Doctrine Of Philo

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: PREFACE
========================================================================

PREFACE IT is a reconstruction of the Manual of the History of New Testament
Times which here appears under another title. I believe that this new title
expresses more plainly and correctly than the old title the actual contents of
the book. For in fact, whether in its former or present state, it does not
profess to be more than a History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus
Christ, to the exclusion of the state of the heathen world. I could not decide
on admitting the latter, because the selection to be made must have been an
arbitrary one. The external framework of the book has undergone but little
alteration in this new revision. Most of the paragraphs remain the same. The
only additions are the section on the Priesthood and the Temple worship (§ 24),
and the two paragraphs on the Palestino-Jewish and the Graeco-Jewish literature
(§ 32 and 33), which replace the former section on the Apocalypse. Thus the
number of paragraphs is only increased by two. Within this former framework,
however, the book has certainly become almost a new one. Renewed consultation of
authorities and continued occupation with the subject furnished so much fresh
material, that a considerable increase of extent was unavoidable. The matter of
this Second Division is threefold that of the first edition, although I have
earnestly striven not to expand the form beyond the limits then observed. It is
only in verbal citations from documentary authorities that I have allowed myself
somewhat more liberty than in the former edition. An apology is needed on my
part for issuing the second half of the book before the first. This inversion of
the natural order was not at first contemplated. I merely began operations on
this second half because there was more to be done here than in the first, my
purpose being to print both parts in one volume as before. The work, however, so
grew under my hands as to render a division necessary. At the same time, the
completion of the whole was consequently so delayed, that it seemed desirable to
publish what was ready at once. This was the more possible because this half
also forms a comparatively independent whole. While thus issuing this Second
Division first, I can at the same time express the hope, that the First
Division, which will not expand in the same proportion, may, with the needful
index, follow it within the space of one year. E. SCHÜRER GIESSEN, Sept. 1885.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

INTRODUCTION


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: � 1. SCOPE AND LITERATURE
========================================================================

§ 1. SCOPE AND LITERATURE IN the fullness of time the Christian religion sprang
out of Judaism; as a fact, indeed, of divine revelation, but also inseparably
joined by innumerable threads with the previous thousand years of Israel’s
history. No incident in the gospel story, no word in the preaching of Jesus
Christ, is intelligible apart from its setting in Jewish history, and without a
clear understanding of that world of thought-distinction of the Jewish people.
Thus it becomes the bounden duty of Christian theologians to examine into and
describe that realm of thought and history in which the universal religion of
Christ grew up. Nor is it enough to know simply that older literature which has
been collected together in the canon of the Old Testament. On the contrary, the
gospel of Jesus Christ is much more closely connected with its immediately
contemporary surroundings, and the tendencies of thought prevailing in that
particular age. The recognition of this has already led many investigators to
devote special attention to the History of the Times of Jesus Christ. Besides
such scholars as have continued the history of Israel in a comprehensive manner
down to the period of Christ and His apostles, Schneckenburger and Hausrath, in
particular, have treated separately of that era under the title, History of New
Testament Times. The present work, too, in its first edition, was published
under that designation. Though the name is now abandoned on account of its
indefiniteness, the purpose and scope of the work remain practically the same.
The task, however, which we set before us is more limited than that proposed by
Schneckenburger and Hausrath. While Schneckenburger undertakes to describe the
condition of the Jewish and Gentile world in the times of Christ, and Hausrath
even adds to that the history of primitive Christianity, we shall here attempt
to set forth only the History of the Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ,
for this alone in the strict and proper sense constitutes the presupposition of
the earliest history of Christianity. The predominance of Pharisaism is that
which most distinctly characterized this period. The legalistic tendency
inaugurated by Ezra had now assumed dimensions far beyond anything contemplated
by its originator. No longer did it suffice to insist upon obedience to the
commandments of the scripture Thora. These divine precepts were broken down into
an innumerable series of minute and vexatious particulars, the observance of
which was enforced as a sacred duty, and even made a condition of salvation. And
this exaggerated legalism had obtained such an absolute ascendency over the
minds of the people, that all other tendencies were put entirely in the
background. This Pharisaic tendency had its origin in conflicts of the Maccabean
age. During the course of those national struggles the legalistic party not only
obtained the victory over those favourably inclined toward Greek learning and
customs, but also secured the entire confidence of the people, so that they were
encouraged to put forth claims of the most extravagant and immoderate
description. The scribes were now the rulers of the people. No other
intellectual or political force was sufficiently strong to counteract their
influence in any appreciable degree.—The battles of the Maccabean age, however,
were also epoch-making in the political history of the Jews. By them was the
foundation laid for the construction) of an independent Jewish commonwealth, and
for its emancipation from the dominion of the Seleucidae. This deliverance was
wholly effected in consequence of the Syrian empire. Judea became an independent
state under native princes, and continued in this position until conquered by
the Romans.—On the ground, therefore, of spiritual development and political
history, we are justified in beginning our exposition with the history of the
Maccabean age. In determining also the point at which we should close our
investigations, a glance at the spiritual as well as the political history will
lead to the same result. Political independence was in some measure preserved
under the domination of the Romans. In place of the priestly dynasty of the
Maccabees, the new order of the Herodians made its appearance. After this line
of rulers had been set aside by the Romans, Palestine was for a long period
governed by a series of imperial procurators. But even under them there was
still a native aristocratic senate, the so-called Sanhedrim, which exercised
most of the functions of government. It was not until the time of Nero and
Vespasian that all political independence was taken from the Jewish people in
consequence of the great revolt which they had endeavoured to carry out. The
complete abolition of all Jewish national freedom was finally effected on the
suppression of the outbreak under Hadrian.—And just as the concluding of our
inquiry with the age of Hadrian recommends itself on outward or political
grounds, so also it will be found to correspond to the course of the spiritual
development of the people. For it was just during the reign of Hadrian that the
Jewish scholars for the first time committed to writing the hitherto only really
communicated traditional law, and in this way laid the foundation of the
Talmudical code. With the age of Hadrian, therefore, a new epoch begins also for
the intellectual and spiritual development of the people, the Talmudic, in which
no longer the Thora of Moses, but the Talmud, forms the basis of all juristic
discussion. All the same, this, too, is the period in which Pharisaism, in
consequence of the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth, becomes a purely
spiritual and moral power, without, however, thereby losing, but rather gaining
in its influence over the people. For with the overthrow of the temple the
Sadducean priesthood was also set aside, and in the Dispersion the lax and
inconsistent Hellenistic Judaism could not permanently maintain itself over
against the strict and consistent Judaism of the Pharisees. The state of the
sources of information at our disposal makes it impossible for us to follow step
by step the inner development of the people in connection with each particular
institution that comes under consideration. We are therefore under the necessity
of appending to the outline of the political history a description of the inner
condition of the people in a separate division. The political history falls into
two main periods: the period of independence, and the period of the Roman
domination. In reference to the internal conditions, the following points should
be kept prominently in mind. We shall have to describe, first of all, the
general character of the culture prevailing throughout Palestine, with a
particularly careful account of the spread of Hellenism on the confines of the
Jewish territory and within that territory itself (§ 22). Then, as supplementary
to the political history, the church constitution of the Gentile communities of
Palestine as well as of the Jewish people must be explained, which belongs to
the inner or spiritual history, inasmuch as it brings into consideration the
self-administration of the communities in contradistinction to the political
schemes and undertakings of the whole land. The exposition of the Jewish
communal constitution gives the opportunity also to add the history of the
Sanhedrim and of the Jewish high priest (§ 23). The two chief factors in the
internal development, however, are, on the one hand, the priesthood and the
temple services (§ 24), and, on the other hand, the institution of Scribism (§
25). Inasmuch as the priests occupying prominent and official positions during
the Greek era were more absorbed by worldly and political than by religious
interests, those who were still zealous for the law now formed themselves into
an opposition party under the leadership of the scribes. The party of the
Sadducees grouped themselves around the official priests, while around the
scribes gathered the party of the Pharisees (§ 26). The erection of schools and
synagogues served to preserve and spread the knowledge of the law among all
classes of the people (§ 27). In order to give a general view of the results to
which the efforts of the scribes and Pharisees led, we have sought in another
section to describe life under the law (§ 28). Zeal for the law, however, has
its nerve-centre in the Messianic hope. For the gracious reward of God, which
one regards himself as being made worthy of receiving by a life in accordance
with the law, is thought of pre-eminently as one that lies in the future and is
heavenly (§ 29). Zeal for the law and the Messianic hope are therefore the two
centres around which the life of the Israelite moves. Then, after the exposition
of the inner conditions of the everyday Palestinian Judaism in its main features
has been concluded by a description of those two powerful tendencies just
mentioned, it remains for us to glance at the Jewish monastic institution of the
Essenes (§ 30), and at the much more influential, and even for the early history
of Christianity much more important, Judaism of the Dispersion (§ 31). Finally,
we have to show from what remains of the Jewish literature of our period how, in
spite of the predominance of Pharisaism, the intellectual interests and
spiritual struggles of Judaism spread out in various directions. This is seen
even in the Palestinian literature (§ 32), but in a still higher degree in the
Hellenistic literature (§ 33); and last of all, though really belonging to this
group just named, the Jewish philosopher Philo, on account of his very peculiar
importance, may have his writings and his speculation treated of in a distinct
section (§ 34). LITERATURE PRIDEAUX, The Old and New Testament connected in the
history of the Jews and neighbouring nations from the declension of the kingdom
of Israel and Judah to the time of Christ. 2 vols. London 1716-1718. 10th ed.
1749.—This once celebrated work, which appeared both in German and in French
translations, though necessarily inadequate, may still be referred to on many
points with advantage. EWALD, History of Israel. 8 vols. London 1867-1886. Vol.
v. The History of Ezra and of the Hagiocracy in Israel to the time of Christ.
Vol. vi. The Life and Times of Christ. Vol. vii. The Apostolic Age. Vol. viii.
The Post-Apostolic Age.—In these volumes the history of Christ and the Apostles
is connected with the history of the people of Israel. HAUSRATH, History of New
Testament Times: The Time of Jesus. 2 vols. London 1878.—This work treats not
only of the Jewish history of the period, but also of the life of Jesus; while
later volumes, not yet translated, discuss the history of primitive
Christianity, and introduce many details of Roman history. RAPHALL,
Post-Biblical History of the Jews from the close of the Old Testament, about the
year 420, till the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70. 2 vols.
London 1856. MILMAN, The History of the Jews from the earliest period down to
modern times. 3 vols. 3rd ed. London 1863.—The first volume closes with the
suppression of Jewish worship by Antiochus Epiphanes; the second continues the
history from the appearance of Mattathias down to the third century of the
Christian era. JOST, History of the Jews from the Maccabees to the present day.
New York 1848.—From the rationalistic standpoint of Reform-Judaism. STANLEY,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. Third series: From the Captivity
to the Christian Era. London 1876. REDFORD, Four Centuries of Silence; or, from
Malachi to Christ London 1885. STAPFER, Palestine in the Time of Christ. London
1886.—More archaeological than historical. A “series of studies on the social
and religious life of the Jews in the first century,” using as sources the New
Testament, the writings of Josephus, and the Talmud. KEIM, History of Jesus of
Nazareth. 6 vols. London 1873-1884.—In the first volumes this work deals with
the history of Herod and the Roman Procurators, and with the state of the Jews
generally during that period. WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four
Gospels. London 1864. DÖLLINGER, The Gentile and the Jew in the Courts of the
Temple of Christ. 2 vols. London 1862.—The exposition here given of Judaism is
much shorter than that given of Heathenism. In the discussion of the state of
the heathen world the special value of this work lies. PRESSENSÉ, The Ancient
World and Christianity. London 1888.—Confined to an examination of the pagan
religion and the state of the heathen world in the times of Christ. LECHLER, The
Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Edin. 1886. Vol. i. pp.
67-87, Relation of Jewish Christians to the Israelite People; pp. 144-160,
Relation of Jewish Christians with non-Christians. SCHNECKENBURGER, Vorlesungen
über Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Edited from his MS. by Löhlein. Frankfort
1862. HOLTZMANN, Judenthum und Christenthum in Zeitalter der apokryphischen und
neutestamentlichen Literatur. Also under the title, Geschichte des Volkes
Israel, by Weber and Holtzmann. 2 vols. 1867.—Extends from the time of Alexander
the Great to Hadrian, after the manner of Ewald, but considerably shorter,
connecting the history of primitive Christianity with the history of the Jewish
people. HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel von Anbeginn bis zur Eroberung
Masada’s im J. 72 nach Chr. 2 vols. Leipzig 1869.—Treats of the later history
from the time of Alexander the Great with comparative fulness. WELLHAUSEN, Die
Pharisäer und die Sadducäer. A contribution to the inner history of Judaism.
Greifswald 1874.—This short monograph gives more information about the inner
history of Judaism during our period than many an extensive work. REUSS, Die
Geschichte der heiligen Schriften alten Testaments. 1881.—Properly only a
history of the literature; it gives this in connection with the history of the
people. SEINECKE, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vol. ii. From the Exile to the
Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 1884. HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes
Israel. From the completion of the Second Temple down to the Deposition of Simon
Maccabee from the Priesthood and Government. 2 vols. Nordhausen 1855.—The first
volume treats of the political history from the completion of the Second Temple
down to B.C. 135; the second volume gives the inner history of the same period.
JOST, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten. 3 Bde. 1857-1859.—Gives a
history of the inner development of Judaism from the exile to the present day.
The first volume reaches to the destruction of Jerusalem. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der
Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Bd. iii-xi.
1853-1870.—Deals with period from B.C. 160 to A.D. 1848. Bd. iii. 3 Aufl. 1878
appeared also under the title: Geschichte der Juden von dem Tode Juda Makkabi’s
bis zum Untergang des jüdischen Staates. Bd. iv. 2 Aufl. 1866 appeared also
under the title: Geschichte der Juden vom Untergang des jüdischen Staates bis
zum Abschluss des Talmud.—Bd. i. ii., the latter in two divisions, appeared
later, 1874-1876. The second division of the second volume goes from the
Babylonian exile to the death of Judas Maccabaeus. GEIGER, Urschrift und
Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des
Judenthums. 1857.—Seeks particularly to show how the inner development of
Judaism in the postexilian period has been peculiarly influential upon the
formation of the Old Testament text. GEIGER, Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte.
Bd. i.-iii. 1864-1871.—Describes only the main features of the inner development
of Judaism. Vol. i. carries the history down to the destruction of the Second
Temple; vol. ii. down to the end of the twelfth century; vol. iii. to the end of
the sixteenth century. The concluding vol. iv. has not yet appeared.—Compare
also: Innere Geschichte der zweiten Tempelperiode und deren Behandlung (Jüd.
Zeitschrift für Wissensch. und Leben, 1868, pp. 247-277). SALVADOR, Histoire de
la domination Romaine en Judée et de la ruine do Jérusalem. 2 vols. Paris 1847.
Also in German under the title: Salvador, Geschichte der Römerherrschaft in
Judäa und der Zerstörung Jerusalems. 2 Bde. 1847.—Treats of the period from
Pompey to the destruction of Jerusalem; but gives almost nothing beyond a bare
reproduction of documents. WIESELER, Beiträge zur neutestamentlichen
Zeitgeschichte (Studien und Kritiken, 1875, pp. 516-556). Compare also: Beiträge
zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangelischen Geschichte. 1869.
HIMFEL, Politische und religiöse Zustände des Judenthums in den letzten
Jahrhunderten vor Chr. In Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1858, pp. 63-85.
BAUMGARTEN, Der nationaljüdische Hintergrund der neutestamentlichen Geschichte
nach Josephus. In Jahrbb. für Deutsche Theologie, 1864-1865.—In four divisions:
I. The Literary Character of Josephus, 1864, pp. 616-648. II. The Idumean-Roman
Rule in Judea, 1865, pp. 605-635. III. Last Struggle and Defeat of the Jewish
Nation, 1865, pp. 636-668. IV. Outlines of the Effects produced on one another
by the last Struggles of the Jewish Nation on the one hand, and the New
Testament history on the other, 1865, pp. 668-693. DERENBOURG, Essai sur
l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine, d’après les Thalmuds et les autres
sources rabbiniques. P. I. Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu’ à
Adrien. Paris 1867.—Does not give a history of the people of Israel during the
period named, but only a collection of rabbinical traditions relating to that
history. BOST, L’Époque des Maccabées, histoire du peuple juif depuis le retour
de l’exil jusqu’ à la destruction de Jérusalem. Strassbourg 1862. LEDRAIN,
Histoire d’Israël. 2 vols. Paris 1879-1882.—Treats most fully of the
Graeco-Roman Age. DE SAULCY, Histoire des Machabées ou princes de la dynastie
asmonéenne. Paris 1880. CHAMPAGNY, Rome et de la Judée au temps de la chute de
Neron. From A.D. 66 to A.D. 72. 2 vols. Paris 1865. LOOMAN, Geschiedenis der
Israëliten van de babylonische ballingschap tot op de komst van den Heere Jezus
Christus. Meteen aanhangsel, inhoudende de geschiedenis der Israëliten van den
dood van Herodes 1 tot op de verwoesting van Jeruzalem. Amsterdam 1867. On
Jewish doctrines and customs during the times of Christ:— DRUMMOND, The Jewish
Messiah. A critical history of the Messianic idea among the Jews from the rise
of the Maccabees to the closing of the Talmud. London 1877. STANTON, The Jewish
and Christian Messiah: a Study in the Earliest History of Christianity.
Edinburgh 1886. VITRINGA, The Synagogue and the Church. Condensed from the
original work, De Synagoga vetere, of A.D. 1726. London 1842. REVILLE, A Manual
of Religious Instruction. London. Pt. i. ch. v., Judaism, pp. 52-73. KUENEN, The
Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State. 3 vols. London 1881-1882.
HARTMANN, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen. Hamburg
1831.—Seeks to show how the Old Testament was treated and expounded in the time
of Christ, and in this connection discusses very thoroughly the Sanhedrim and
the Synagogue. GFROERER, Das Jahrhundert des Heils. 2 vols. Stuttgart 1838. Also
under the title: Geschichte des Urchristenthums. Bd. i. ii.—Gives a systematic
view of Judaism in the time of Christ. LUTTERBECK, Die Neutestamentlichen
Lehrbegriffe oder Untersuchungen üs Zeitalter der Religionswende, die Vorstufen
des Christenthums und die erste Gestaltung desselben. 2 vols. 1852. The first
volume treats chiefly of the religious condition of Judaism in the time of
Christ. NOACK, Der Ursprung des Christenthums. Seine vorbereitenden
Grundlegungen und sein Eintritt in die Welt. 2 vols. 1857.—The first volume
treats of preparatory circumstances and conditions, but in a very superficial
manner. LANGEN, Das Judentlum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi. 1866.—Gives, like
Gfroerer, a systematic description of the Jewish theology in the time of Christ,
but is distinguished from Gfroerer by declining to use as sources the later
Jewish literature of the Talmud and Midrashim. WEBER, System der altsynagogalen
palästinisehen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud dargestellt. Edited
after the author’s death by Delitzsch and Schnedermann. Leipzig 1880.—A good
independent account, drawn from the sources of Jewish theology in the Talmudic
Age. NICOLAS, Des doctrines religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux siècles
antérieurs à l’ère chrétienne. Paris 1860. REVILLE, Le peuple juif et le
judaïsme au temps de la formation du Talmud (Revue des Deux Mondes, 1867, Nov.
number, pp. 104-137). Also Le judaïsme depuis la captivité de Babylone, d’après
Kuenen (in the same Review, 1872, March, pp. 114-141). STAPFER, Les idées
religieuses en Palastine à l’époque de Jésus-Christ. 2nd ed. Paris 1878.
Contributions to the Jewish history of our period will be found in the following
Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias, and Magazines:— SMITH, Dictionary of the Bible,
comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history. 3 vols.
London 1860-1863. The American edition, New York 1871, in 4 vols., by Hackett &
Abbot, is considerably enlarged and improved. FAIRBAIRN, Imperial Bible
Dictionary, historical, biographical, geographical, and doctrinal. 2 vols.
London 1864-1866. KITTO, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, 3rd ed., re-edited
and recast by Dr. W. Lindsay Alexander. 3 vols. London 1869-1876. SCHAFF-HERZOG,
A Religious Encyclopaedia; or Dictionary of biblical, historical, doctrinal, and
practical theology. 3 vols. Edinburgh 1884. A condensed reproduction of the
great work of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck, in 18 vols. Leipzig 1877-1888.
M’CLINTOCK and STRONG, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theology and Ecclesiastical
Literature. New York 1866 ff. RIEHM, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Alterthums
füldete Bibelleser. 2 vols. 1874-1884. WINER, Biblisches Realwörterbuch. 2 vols.
3rd ed. Leipzig 1847-1848. SCHENKEL, Bibel-Lexikon. Realwörterbuch zum
Handgebrauch fütliche und Gemeindeglieder. 5 vols. Leipzig 1869-1875. HAMBURGER,
Real-Encyclopaedie fül und Talmud. Division I. Biblical Articles, 1870. Division
II. Talmudical Articles, 1883. THE JEWISH QUARTERLY, editüed by Abrahams and
Montefiore, London; begun in 1888, “devoted to the interests of Jewish
literature and theology, history and religion.” WISSENSCHAFTLICHE ZEITSCHRIFT
FÜR JÜDISCHE THEOLOGIE, edited by Geiger. 6 vols. 1835-1848. DER ORIENT,
Berichte, Studien und Kritiken für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur. Together
with “Literaturblatt des Oriente,” edited by Fürst. 12 vols. 1840-1851.
ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR DIE RELIGIÖSEN INTERESSEN DES JUDENTHUMS, edited by Frankel. 3
vols. 1844-1846. MONATSSCHRIFT FÜR GESCHICHTE UND WISSENSCHAFT DES JUDENTHUMS,
edited from 1851 to 1868 by Frankel; from 1869 by Grätz. JÜDISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT
FÜR WISSENSCHAFT UND LEBEN, edited by Geiger. 11 vols. 1862-1875. JAHRBÜCHER FÜR
JÜDISCHE GESCHICHTE UND LITERATUR, edited by Brüll, vol. i. 1874, vol. ii. 1876,
vol. iii. 1877, vol. iv. 1879, vols. v. and vi. 1883, vol vii. 1885, vol. viii.
1887. MAGAZIN FÜR DIE WISSENSCHAFT DES JUDENTHUMS, edited by Berliner and
Hoffmann, beginning in 1876. REVUE DES ÉTUDES JUIVES, Quarterly publication of
the Société des études juives. Paris 1880 sqq.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: � 2. AUXILIARY SCIENCES
========================================================================

§ 2. AUXILIARY SCIENCES BY way of supplement to the literature given in § 1, we
mention here the more important works under those departments which may he
regarded as auxiliary to that branch of study now before us. To this class
belong the following:—I. Biblical and Jewish Antiquities or Archaeology, which
has to describe the religious and civil institutions, manners, and customs of
the Jewish people. II. The Geography of Palestine. III. Jewish Chronology. IV.
Jewish Numismatics. V. Jewish Inscriptions. The Geography and Chronology afford
us the framework, not to speak of space and time, in which the history with
which we are concerned is contained; the Numismatics and Inscriptions afford the
original documentary materials.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: A.�JEWISH ARCHAEOLOGY
========================================================================

A.—JEWISH ARCHAEOLOGY A rich collection of older monographs on Biblical and
Jewish Archaeology was made by Ugolini in his Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrum, in
34 folio vols., Venice 1744-1769. The shorter handbooks treat for the most part
either of the whole range of “Antiquities,” or of particular departments, such
as the religious worship of the civil law and constitution. The material of
Archaeology is also dealt with in the various Biblical Dictionaries and
Encyclopaedias. Finally, expositions of Jewish institutions and usages in
post-Talmudic times afford supplementary details. A very complete list of the
older literature is given by Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2. 118-207. Lists
of the more recent literature are given in Winer, Handbuch der theol. Literatur,
i. 133 ff.; Rüetschi in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 608 f. KEIL,
Manual of Biblical Archaeology. 2 vols. Edinburgh 1887-1888. EWALD, The
Antiquities of Israel. London 1876. JAHN, Biblical Antiquities. 3rd ed. Oxford
1836. MICHAELIS, Commentaries on the Law of Moses. 4 vols. London 1814. RELAND,
Antiquitates sacrae veterum Hebraeorum. Utrecht 1708, Jena 1713.—Notas adj. Eb.
Rau, Herborn 1743.—A. Blasio Ugolino amplissimo commentario illustratae, in
Ugolini Thes. t. ii. 1744.—Edited, with the notes by Rau and Ugolini, by Vogel.
Halle 1769. IKEN, Antiquitates hebr. secundum triplicem Judaeorum statum,
ecclesiasticum politicum et oeconomicum. Bremen 1730. WAEHNER, Antiquitates
Ebraeorum de Israeliticae gentis origine, fatis, rebus sacris civilibus et
domesticis. 2 vols. Göttingen 1743. CARPZOV, Apparatus historico-criticus
antiquitatum sacri codicis. Frankfort 1748. Properly a reprint of an older work:
Goodwin’s “Aaron and Moses” of 1616, but with notes which in extent and
importance far exceed the original text. DE WETTE, Lehrbuch der
hebrisch-jdischen Archäologie nebst einem Grundriss der hebräisch-jüdischen
Geschichte, new ed. by Räbiger. Leipzig 1864. SAALSCHÜTZ, Das Mosaische Recht,
nebst den vervollständigenden Talmudisch-Rabbinischen Bestimmungen. 2nd ed. 2
vols. Berlin 1853.—Also by same author, Archaeologie der Hebräer. 2 vols.
Königsberg 1855-1856. SCHOLZ, Die heiligen Alterthümer des Volkes Israel. In 2
parts. Regensburg 1868. HANEBERG, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel. Munich
1869. SCHEGG, Biblische Archaeologie, edited by Wirthmüller. Freiburg 1887.
BODENSCHATZ, Kirchliche Verfassung der heutigen Juden, sonderlich derer in
Deutschland. 4 vols. 1748-1749. SCHRÖDER, Satzungen und Gebräuche des
talmudisch-rabbinischen Judenthums. Bremen 1851.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: B.�GEOGRAPHY
========================================================================

B.—GEOGRAPHY The exploration of the Holy Land has been conducted during the
present century with such energy that it is difficult out of the enormous
literature to select the works that are most important. We distinguish among
these two classes—1. Comprehensive treatises by authors who have not been
themselves upon the scene, but who work up the materials brought them; and 2.
The researches carried on in the land itself. Under the former category there
are two great works which stand out from all the rest in the rich abundance of
their materials, Reland presenting the older material, and Ritter the more
recent. These two works will long be indispensable to the student. A convenient
handbook is that of Raumer, of which, however, we have no more recent edition
than that of 1860. Among treatises that embody original research, mention should
be made, first of all, of the American Robinson’s epoch-making work, which
furnished a profusion of new and important facts. Still more completely and
systematically has the French scholar Guérin explored and described the whole of
the country west of the Jordan from place to place. Both of these writers, along
with a communication of the results of their research, give a very full account
of the historical associations. The Memoirs, which accompany by way of
explanation the large English map, deal simply with the Palestine of the present
day. The topography of Jerusalem forms a science by itself.—Two magazines, an
English and a German, are devoted to the recording of the more recent
discoveries.—Among historical atlases which show clearly the political history
from step to step, that of Menke is to be specially recommended. In the
department of map-drawing, all earlier productions have been put in the shade by
the great English map, in twenty-six sheets, produced on the spot by the
Palestine Exploration Society during the years 1872-1877, according to exact
topographical measurement of the country west of the Jordan. The English have
also supplied the best groundwork for a topography of Jerusalem. In the years
1864-1865 Sir Charles Wilson made a topographical survey of Jerusalem, and in
the years 1867-1870 the English Palestine Exploration Society conducted the most
thorough excavations and measurements on the site of the temple, to which the
labours of the Germans could only contribute some further details. A complete
list of the older Palestinian literature is to be found in Meusel, Bibliotheca
historica, i. 2. 70-118. A good survey of that literature down to 1840 is given
in Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii., Appendix A, pp. 1-28.—An
oppressively complete list of Palestinian literature is given in Tobler,
Bibliographia geographica Palaestinae, Leipzig 1867. A yet fuller catalogue of
the earlier travellers’ accounts down to the tenth century after Christ than is
given there, may be found in Tobler’s Bibliographia geographica Palaestinae ab
anno CCCXXXIII. usque ad annum, M. Dresdae, 1875 (reprinted as a separate
monograph from Petzholdt’s Neue Anzeiger für Bibliographie und
Bibliothekwissenschaft, 1875).—Continuations of and additions to Tobler’s work
have been made by Ph. Wolff in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1868 and
1872; Röhricht and Meisner, Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem heiligen Lande,
Berlin 1880, pp. 541-648; and Socin and Jacob in their yearly summaries and
reviews, in the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Bd. i-ix., by
Socin; later volumes by Jacob.—A sketch and review of the literature is also
given by F. W. Schultz, in article “Palästina,” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2
Aufl. Bd. xi. (1883) pp. 800-804. 1. Treatises Presenting Results RELAND,
Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata. Utrecht 1714. RITTER, The
Comparative Geography of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula. 4 vols. Edin.
1866. This is a translation of portions of Die Erdkunde im Verhältniss zur Natur
und zur Geschichte des Menschen, 2nd ed., greatly enlarged and partly rewritten.
Parts xiv.-xvii. Berlin 1848-1855. Of this work Part xiv. (1848) treats of the
Sinai Peninsula; xv. 1 (1850), of the Great Depression of the Jordan Valley, the
Course and the Region of the Jordan; xv. 2 (1851), of the country west of the
Jordan and the Dead Sea (Perea); xvi. (1852), of Judea, Samaria, Galilee; xvii.
1 (1854), of Phoenicia, Lebanon, and the mountain lands of Northern Syria; xvi.
2 (1855), the Course of the Orontes in the flat country of Northern Syria with
the Amanus Range. PORTER, Holy Land, Syria, Palestine, Peninsula of Sinai, Edom,
Syrian Deserts, Petra, Damascus, and Palmyra; with Maps and Plans. In Murray’s
Handbook Series. SOCIN, Traveller’s Handbook to Palestine and Syria. In
Baedeker’s Series. London 1876. HENDERSON, Handbook on Palestine. Edin. [1886].
RAUMER, Palästina. 4th ed. Leipzig 1860. QUANDT, Judäa und die Nachbarschaft im
Jahrhundert vor und nach der Geburt Christi. Gütersloh 1873.—Short, but
independent. BOETTGER, Topographisch-historisches Lexicon zu den Schriften des
Josephus. Leipzig 1879.—Collects all the material out of Josephus. NEUBAUER, La
géographie du Talmud. Paris 1868.—Gathers together material from rabbinical
literature, but by no means in a complete or thorough way. In the Dictionaries
of Smith, Fairbairn, Kitto, M’Clintock and Strong, Winer, Schenkel, Riehm,
place-names occurring in the Bible are dealt with. 2. Records of Original
Research ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia
Petrea. A journal of travels in the year 1838 by E. Robinson and E. Smith,
undertaken in reference to biblical geography. 3 vols. London 1841. Also: Later
Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent Regions. A journal of travels
in the year 1852 by E. Robinson, E. Smith, and others. Drawn up from the
original diaries, with historical illustrations by E. Robinson. London 1856.
Physical Geography of the Holy Land. London 1865. STANLEY, Sinai and Palestine
in Connection with their History. London 1856. WILSON, Lands of the Bible
visited and described in an extensive journey undertaken with special reference
to the promotion of biblical research. 2 vols. Edin. 1847. VAN DE VELDE, Journey
through Sinai and Palestine. 2 vols. Edin. 1854. VAN LENNEP, Bible Lands and
Customs. 2 vols. London 1875. THOMSON, The Land and the Book; or, biblical
illustrations drawn from the manners and customs, the scenes and scenery of the
Holy Land. London 1859. THE SURVEY OF WESTERN PALESTINE. This is the general
title of the work, the several portions of which have the following special
titles: Special Papers on topography, archaeology, manners and customs, etc.,
contributed by Wilson, Warren, Conder, Kitchener, Palmer, George Smith,
Greville-Chester, Clermont-Ganneau, etc. London 1881.—Arabic and English Name
Lists, collected by Conder and Kitchener, transliterated and explained by
Palmer. London 1881.—Memoirs of the topography, orography, hydrography, and
archaeology, by Conder and Kitchener. 3 vols. London 1881-1883.—Jerusalem, by
Warren and Conder. London 1884.—The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, by Tristram.
London 1884.—All together in 7 vols., with the large map referred to below and
the large plans of excavations in Jerusalem. See two papers in the Expositor,
one by Socin criticizing the work of the English Exploration Society (Expos.,
third series, vol. ii. pp. 241-262), the other a defence by Conder (Expos.,
third series, vol. iii. pp. 321-335). CONDER, Tent Work in Palestine. Published
by Palestine Exploration Fund Committee. 2 vols. London 1878. TRISTRAM,
Topography of the Holy Land. London 1876. TRELAWNEY SAUNDERS, An Introduction to
the Survey of Western Palestine: its waterways, plains, and highlands. London
1881. MERILL, A record of travels and observations in the countries of Moab,
Gilead, and Bashan during 1875-1877. New York 1881. TOBLER, Bethlehem in
Palästina. 1849.—Golgotha: seine Kirchen und Klöster. 1851.—Die Siloahquelle und
der Oelberg. 1852.—Denkblätter aus Jerusalem. 1853.—Zwei Bücher Topographie von
Jerusalem und seinen Umgebungen. 2 vols. 1853-1854.—Dritte Wanderung nach
Palästina im Jahre. 1857. Rittdurch Philistäa, Fussreisen im Gebirge Judäas und
Nachlese in Jerusalem. 1859. Nazareth in Palästina. 1868. SEPP, Jerusalem und
das heilige Land; Pilgerbuch nach Palästina, Syrien und Aegypten. 2 vols. 2nd
ed. Schaffhausen 1873-1876. DE SAULCY, Voyage en Terre Sainte. 2 vols. Paris
1865. Jerusalem. Paris 1882.—On earlier works of De Saulcy, see Tobler,
Bibliographia geographica, p. 180 f. GUÉRIN, Description géographique,
historique et archéologique de la Palestine. I. Judé. 3 vols. Paris 1868-1869.
II. Samarie. 2 vols. Paris 1874-1875. III. Galiée. 2 vols. Paris 1880.—The
volume promised on Jerusalem has not yet appeared. 3. Topography of Jerusalem
Topographical descriptions of Jerusalem are given in the books above mentioned
of Ritter, Raumer, Robinson, Socin, de Saulcy, Sepp, and Tobler. In addition to
these we may name the Monographs of Olshausen, Schultz, Krafft, etc. WILLIAMS,
The Holy City. London 1845. 2nd ed. 1849. THRUPP, Ancient Jerusalem. London
1855. BESANT and PALMER, Jerusalem, the city of Herod and Saladin. London 1871.
CASPARI, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ.
Edinburgh 1876. Appendix: Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 256-308. Also various
essays in the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, by Schick (vol. i.
15-23), Alten (i. 61-100, ii. 18-47, 189-200, iii. 116-176), Klaiber (iii.
189-213, iv. 18-56, xi. 1-37), and Spiess (xi. 46-59); and of these Klaiber
makes contributions of special value. Materials for the topography, especially
in reference to the site of the Temple, are given in the reports of the
Excavations and Researches of the English Society. A good general sketch will be
found in: WILSON and WARREN, The Recovery of Jerusalem, edited by Morrison,
London 1871; and Our Work in Palestine, being an account of the different
expeditions sent out to the Holy Land by the Palestine Exploration Fund since
1865. London 1877. WARREN, Underground Jerusalem. London 1876. Schick, Beit el
Makdas oder der alte Tempelplatz zu Jerusalem wie er jetzt ist. Jerusalem 1887.
4. Atlases, Charts, and Plans SMITH and GROVE, Atlas of Ancient Geography,
biblical and classical, intended to illustrate Smith’s Classical Dictionaries,
and especially the Dictionary of the Bible. London 1875 (43 maps). MENKE,
Bibelatlas in acht Blättern. Gotha 1868. KIEPERT, Bibelatlas. Berlin 1847. 3rd
ed. 1854 OORT, Atlas voor bijbelsche en kerkelijke geschiedenis. Groningen 1884.
VAN DE VELDE, Map of the Holy Land, with memoir to accompany it. London
1858.—The best map before that of the English Society had appeared. MAP OF
WESTERN PALESTINE, in 26 sheets, from surveys conducted for the Committee of the
Palestine Exploration Fund by Conder and Kitchener during the years 1872-1877.
Photozincographed for the Committee at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
London 1880.—This map is of the highest value, but the printing is not so clear
as could be wished. The scale is 1 inch to the mile.—Another smaller edition on
the scale of 3/8 of an inch to a mile has been issued under a similar title.
London 1881.—This map, in 6 sheets, is most suitable for ordinary use. In
clearness of printing it is far behind that of Van de Velde. WILSON, Ordnance
Survey of Jerusalem during 1864-1865.—This plan of the Jerusalem of today in
respect of accuracy and exactness supersedes all earlier attempts. WARREN,
Plans, Elevations, Sections, etc., showing the results of the excavations at
Jerusalem, 1867-1870, executed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration
Fund by Warren. London 1884.—Contains fifty plans on a large scale, with the
most minute details on the topography of the Temple site. 5. Journals Palestine
Exploration Fund. Quarterly Statement.—Issued since 1869. Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins, edited by the Committee carrying on the work under
the direction of Hermann Guthe.—Issued since 1878.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: C.�CHRONOLOGY
========================================================================

C.—CHRONOLOGY The various methods of time-reckoning among all nations and in all
ages have been collected and set forth by Ideler in his Handbook, which,
notwithstanding the great amount of research since his day, has not yet been
antiquated. For Roman chronology the Fasti consulares form unquestionably the
most reliable source of information.—Chronological surveys of Hellenistic and
Roman history, with references to the original sources, will be found in the
works of Clinton, Fisher, and others. IDELER, Handbuch der mathematischen und
technischen Chronologie. 2 vols. Berlin 1825-1826. Lehrbuch der Chronologie.
Berlin 1831. GUMPACH, Hülfsbuch der rechnenden Chronologie. 1853. MOMMSEN, Die
römische Chronologie bis auf Cäsar. 2 Aufl. Berlin 1859. MARQUARDT, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, Bd. iii. (2 Aufl. bes. von Wissowa 1885), pp. 281-298, 567
ff.—An excellent summary account of the Roman Calendar. MATZAT, Römische
Chronologie. 2 vols. Berlin 1883-1884. MÜLLER, art. “Aera,” in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthums-wissenschaft, i. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 404-422.
BOUCHET, Hémérologie. Paris 1868. On the Jewish Calendar, see Appendix iii. at
the end of vol. ii. Fasti consulares ab A.U.C. CCXLV. ad A.U.C. DCCLXVI. qui
supersunt inter se collati cura Th. Mommseni (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. i. pp.
481-552). KLEIN, Fasti consulares inde a Caesaris nece usque ad imperium
Diocletiani. Lips. 1881. CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici: The civil and literary
chronology of Greece and Rome, vol. iii. From the CXXIVth Olympiad to the death
of Augustus. Oxford 1830. 2nd ed. 1851. CLINTON, Fasti Romani: the civil and
literary chronology of Rome and Constantinople from the death of Augustus to the
death of Justin II. 2 vols. Oxford 1845-1850. FISCHER, Römische Zeittafeln von
Roms Gründung bis auf Augustus’ Tod. Altona 1846. PETER, Zeittafeln der
römischen Geschichte zum Handgebrauch. 4 Aufl. Halle 1867.—Considerably shorter
than Fischer. ZUMPT, Annales veterum regnorum et populorum imprimis Romanorum.
ed. 3. Berol. 1862.—A summary sketch without quotation of authorities. KNAAKE,
Wie rechnet Josephus die Jahre der römischen Kaiser? (Zeitschrift für luth.
Theol. 1871, pp. 224-247). WIESELER, Ueber die Regierungsjahre der römischen
Kaiser nach Josephus (Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1872, pp. 55-63). SEYFFARTH,
Chronologie der römischen Kaiser von Cäsar bis Titus in Bezug auf das Neue
Testament (Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1873, pp. 50-76). On Biblical Chronology
LEWIN, Fasti Sacri; or, a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament London
1865.—An able survey, in the form of annals, not only of the biblical, but also
of the Roman and Jewish history, from B.C. 70 to A.D. 70, with abundant
quotations from original sources after the style of Clinton. CASPARI,
Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ. Edinburgh
1876. WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, translated by
Venables. London 1864. [German original. Hamburg 1843.] FAIRBAIRN, Hermeneutical
Manual or Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the New Testament Scriptures.
Edinburgh 1858. SEYFFARTH, Summary of Recent Discoveries in Biblical Chronology.
New York 1882. ELLICOTT, Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord Jesus
Christ, being Hulsean Lectures for 1859. London 1860. WURM, Astronomische
Beiträge zur genäherten Bestimmung des Geburtsund Todesjahres Jesu. In Bengel’s
Archiv für die Theologie, 1816, pp. 1-39; 1817, pp. 261-313. WIESELER, Beiträge
zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien der evangelischen Geschichte. Gotha 1869.
SEYFFARTH, Chronologia sacra, Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr des Herrn und
die Zeitrechnung des Alten und Neuen Testamentes. Leipzig 1846. QUANDT,
Zeitordnung und Zeitbestimmungen in den Evangelien (also under the title:
Chronologisch-geographische Beiträge zum Verständniss der heiligen Schrift, i.
1). Gütersloh 1872. SEVIN, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu. 2 Aufl. Tübingen 1874.
LJUNGBERG, Chronologie de la vie de Jésus, deux études. Paris 1879. (1. On the
day of Jesus’ death, 2. On the year of Jesus’ birth, see Lit. Centralbl. 1879,
p. 537.) MÉMAIN, La connaissance des temps évangéliques. Paris 1886 (543 pp.).—A
French companion treatise to Wieseler’s Synopsis. The following works treat
specially of the year of Jesus’ birth and the year of Herod’s death:—
SANCLEMENTE, De vulgaris aerae emendatione. Romae 1793.—The classical work on
the subject. RÖSCH, Zum Geburtsjahr Jesu, in Jahrbb. für deutsche Theologie,
1866, pp. 3-48. Compare also his reviews of the work of Caspari, Zumpt, and
Sevin in the Stud. und Krit. 1870, pp. 357-388; 1871, pp. 515-538; 1875, pp.
585-596. ZUMPT, Das Geburtsjahr Christi. Leipzig 1869. RIESS (S. J.), Das
Geburtsjahr Christi. Freiburg 1880. SCHEGG, Das Todesjahr des Königs Herodes und
das Todesjahr Jesu Christi. 1882. RIESS, Nochmals das Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi.
1883. EWALD, History of Israel. London 1885. Vol. vii. “The Apostolic Age,”
especially pp. 37-43, “The Chronology of this Period.” WURM, Ueber die
Zeitbestimmungen im Leben des Apostels Paulus (Tübinger Zeitschrift für
Theologie, 1883, 1 Heft, pp. 3-103). ANGER, De temporum in actis apostolorum
ratione. Lips. 1833. WIESELER, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters.
Göttingen 1848 (in which also on pp. 6-9 we shall find lists of more of the
older literature). LEHMANN, Chronologische Bestimmung der in der
Apostelgeschichte, Cap. 13-28, erzählten Begebenheiten (Theol. Stud. und Krit.
1858, pp. 312-339). ABERLE, Zur Chronologie der Gefangenschaft Pauli (Theol.
Quartalschr. 1883, pp. 553-572).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: D.�NUMISMATICS
========================================================================

D.—NUMISMATICS A rich abundance of coins, which is being constantly increased by
new discoveries, is helpful in illustrating: 1. The History of the Seleucidae;
2. The History of the Phoenician and Hellenistic cities; 3. The Jewish History.
The Jewish Numismatics in particular has been developed with special zeal since
A.D. 1854, when De Saulcy’s Recherches sur la Numismatique judaïque appeared. 1.
Seleucid Coins GOUGH, Coins of the Seleucidae, Kings of Syria; from the
establishment of their reign under Seleucue Nicator to the termination of it
under Antiochus Asiaticus. With historical memoirs of each reign. Illustrated
with twenty-four plates of coins, from the cabinet of the late Matthew Duane.
London 1803. GARDNER, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. The
Seleucid Kings of Syria. With twenty-eight plates. London 1878.—Rich in
material, and extremely serviceable. The twenty-eight plates give good
photographs, with coin, portraits of the successive Seleucid kings. BUNBURY,
Rare and unpublished Coins of the Seleucidan Kings of Syria. In the Numismatic
Chronicle, 1883, pp. 65-107. HEAD, Historia numorum, a Manual of Greek
Numismatics, London 1887, pp. 637-649. ECKHEL, Doctrina numorum veterum, t. iii.
(1794) pp. 209-249.—The classical work on the subject. MIONNET, Description des
médailles antiques, t. v. (1811) pp. 1-109. Supplément, t. viii. (1837) pp.
1-81.—The classical work on the subject. TRÉSOR, de numismatique et de glyptique
(edited under the direction of Lenormant), Numismatique des rois grecs, Paris
1849, pp. 83-114, planches xxxiv.-lv. (folio). DE SAULCY, Mémoire sur les
monnaies datées des Séleucides. Paris 1871 (publication de la Société française
de Numismatique et d’archéologie). DE SAULCY, Monnaies des Séleucides munies de
contremarques (Mélanges de Numismatique, t. i. 1875, pp. 45-64). DE SAULCY,
Monnaies inédites de Tryphon, frappées dans les villes maritimes de la Phénicie
(Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, pp. 76-84). FRIEDLÄNDER and SALLET, Das
königliche Münzkabinet [at Berlin]. Geschichte und Uebersicht der Sammlung nebst
erklärender Beschreibung der auf Schautischen ausgelegten Auswahl (2 Aufl.
1877), pp. 122-131. FRIEDLÄNDER in Sallet’s Zeitschr. für Numismatik, vi. 1879,
p. 7; vii. 1880, pp. 224-227.—On coins of Antiochus VIII. and IX. IMHOOF-BLUMER,
Monnaies grecques (in Verhandelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen,
Afdeeling Letterkunde, veertiende deel, Amsterdam 1883), pp. 422-438.
IMHOOF-BLUMER, Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen hellenischer und hellenisirter
Völker, Leipzig 1885, pp. 28-32, Tafel iii. n. 8-28; iv. n. 1-13 (admirable
photographs). 2. Coins of the Free Cities a. Phoenician HEAD, Coinage of Lydia
and Persia. In the International Numismata Orientalia. London 1878. At p. 31
ff., Phoenician coins with figures of Persian kings. SIX, Observations sur les
monnaies phéniciennes. In Numismatic Chronicle, 1877, pp. 177-241.—The most
complete treatise on the subject. BRANDIS, Das Münz-, Maass- und Gewichtswesen
in Vorderasien. Berlin 1866. REICHARDT, Beiträge zur phönischen Numismatik
(Wiener Numismat. Zeitschrift, ii. 1870, pp. 1-16). IMHOOF-BLUMER, Monnaies
grecques, 1883, pp. 440-449. L. MÜLLER, Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand.
Copenhagen 1855.—The bilingual coins of Alexander form the transition from the
Phoenician to the Greek. On the Alexander coins of Akko, in Div. ii. vol. i. p.
91. b. Greek and Roman REICHARDT, Unpublished Greek Imperial Coins. In
Numismatic Chronicle, 1862, pp. 104-122. HEAD, Historia numorum, London 1887,
pp. 662-681. ECKHEL, Doctrina numorum veterum, iii. pp. 328-445. HUBER, Unedirte
Bronzemünze in Tiberias Galilaeae unter Commodus geprägt (Wiener Numismat.
Zeitschr., Bd. i. 1869, pp. 401-414). MIONNET, Description des médailles
antiques, v. 281-552. Supplément, viii. 192-377. DE SAULCY, Numismatique de la
Terre Sainte, Description des monnaies autonomes et impériales de la Palestine
et de l’Arabie Pétrée. Paris 1874. 3. Jewish Coins The more recent literature,
since A.D. 1849, is enumerated by Madden in Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, pp.
222-234; and in Coins of the Jews, pp. 317-324. a. Comprehensive Treatises
MADDEN, Coins of the Jews. London 1881.—Now the classical work on Jewish
Numismatics. We have here an earlier work: History of Jewish Coinage of money in
the Old and New Testament, London 1864, rewritten, with all more recently
discovered material incorporated, including various papers exhibited to the
Numismatic Chronicle, 1874, 1875, 1876. ECKHEL, Doctrina numorum veterum, iii.
445-498. LEVY, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen. Leipzig 1862. MERZBACHER,
Untersuchungen über althebräische Münzen (Sallet’s Zeitschr. für Numismatik,
iii. 1876, pp. 183-215; iv. 1877, pp. 350-365; v. 1878, pp. 151-176, 292-319).
MIONNET, Description des médailles antiques, v. 552-576. Supplément, viii.
377-381. TRÉSOR, De numismatique et de glyptique (edited under the direction of
Lenormant), Numismatique des rois grecs, Paris 1849, pp. 118-130, planches
lvii.-lxii. CAVEDONI, Biblische Numismatik oder Erklärung der in heil. Schrift
erwähnten alten Münzen. From Italian. 2 Thl. Hannover 1855, 1856. DE SAULCY,
Catalogue raisonné de Monnaies Judaïques recueillies à Jérusalem en Novembre
1869 (Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 235-255). DE SAULCY, Recherches sur la
Numismatique judaïque. Paris 1854.—Contributes a large abundance of new
material. b. Shorter Treatises on Matters of Detail REICHARDT, Inedited Coins of
Judea, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1862, pp. 268-277.—Also: Remarks on some Jewish
coins and some inedited coins of Phoenicia, Judea, etc., in Numismatic
Chronicle, 1864, pp. 174-189.—Also: Unpublished coins of John Hyrcanus, in
Numismatic Chronicle, 1882, pp. 306, 307. POOLE, article “Money,” in Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible, 1863.—Very complete. MADDEN, Coins of the two revolts
of the Jews, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, pp. 36-65.—Also: Rare and
unpublished Jewish coins, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1879, pp. 13-22. Also:
article “Money,” in Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. HEAD, Historia
numorum, a Manual of Greek Numismatics, London 1887, pp. 681-685. LEWIS, Shekel
of the year five, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, p. 322. The Academy, vol. vi.
(July-December 1874) pp. 277 (5th Sept.), 296 (12th Sept.), 321 (19th Sept.),
459 (24th Oct.), 486 (31st Oct.), 536 (14th Nov.).—Correspondence in regard to
the genuineness of a Jewish Shekel found by Besant, Evans, and Conder at
Jericho. EWALD, Recension von de Saulcy’s Recherches, in den Gött. gel. Anzeigen
1855, 641-655.—Also: Ueber das Zeitalter der ächten Münzen althebräischer
Schrift, in dem Gott. “Nachrichten” 1855, pp. 109-122. ARNOLD, article “Gold,”
in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. iv. 1856, 763 ff. In 2 Aufl. revid. von
Rüetechi, v. 32-37. ZUCKERMANN, Ueber talmudische Gewichte und Münzen. 1862.
HERZFELD, Metrologische Voruntersuchungen zu einer Geschichte des ibräischen
resp. altjüdischen Handels, Thl. i. 1863 (im Jahrb. für Geschichte der Juden).
CAVEDONI, Neuere Untersuchungen über die antiken jüdischen Münzen, übers, von
Werlhof (Münzstudien, herausg. von Grote, v. 1867, pp. 9-37). REICHARDT, Ueber
die Münzen Simons des Makkabäerfürsten (Wiener Numismat. Monatshefte, herausg.
von Egger, Bd. ii. 1866, pp. 137-143).—Also: Ueber die Münzen der
Makkabäerfürsten (ebendas. iii. 1867, pp. 103-116).—Drei merkwürdige Münzen der
Könige Agrippa I. und II. (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschrift, iii. 1871, pp. 83-90).
MOMMSEN, Zu den Münzen Agrippa’s I. und II. (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschrift, Bd.
iii. 1871, pp. 449-457). MERZBACHER, De siclis nummis antiquissimis Judaeorum.
Berol. 1873.—Also: Jüdische Aufstandsmünzen aus der Zeit Nero’s und Hadrian’s
(Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. i. 1874, pp. 219-237).—Also: Jüdische Sekel
(Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. iii. 1876, pp. 141-144). HULTSCH, Griechische
und römische Metrologie (2 Bearbeit. 1882), pp. 456 ff., 602 ff. HAMBURGER,
Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, 2 Abtheil, 1883, art. “Munzen.” STICKEL,
Jüdische Münzen aus Jerusalem (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii.
1884, pp. 211-214). GRÄTZ, Bedeutung der jüdischen Münzen mit dem Feststrauss
(Lulab) und dem Portale (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums,
1887, pp. 145-176).—Also: Les monnaies de Simon du temps de l’insurrection des
juifs sous Adrien (Revue des études juives, t. xvi. 1888, pp. 161-169). DE
SAULCY, Lettre à M. de la Saussaye sur les monnaies de cuivre frappées à
Jérusalem par l’ordre des gouverneurs romains de la Judée depuis le règne
d’Auguste jusqu’ à celui de Néron (Revue Numismatique, 1853, pp.186-201).—Also:
Nouvelles observations sur la numismatique judaïque (Revue Num. 1864, pp.
370-400).—Lettre à M. J. de Witte sur la numismatique judaïque (Revue Num. 1865,
pp. 29-55).—Also: Étude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois juifs
Agrippa I. et Agrippa II. (Mémoire de la Société française de Numismatique et
d’Archéologie, Section d’histoire et d’ethnographie, 1869. This same part
contains other two treatises, pp. 3-25, and the above named, pp. 26-56. The
several memoirs are, as a rule, published separately under a special
title).—Also: Note sur quelques monnaies d’Ascalon (Annuaire de la Société
française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. iii. 1868-1873, pp.
253-258).—Notes sur les monnaies de Philippe le tétrarque (ibid. pp.
262-265).—Numismatique de Tibériade (ibid. pp. 266-270).—Also: Numismatique des
Macchabées (Revue archéologique, nouv. série, vol. xxiii. 1872, pp. 1-19).—Also:
Description de quelques monnaies judaïques nouvelles insuffisamment connues
(Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, pp. 85-94). DE VOGÜÉ, Monnaies Juives,
Eléasar (Revue Numismatique, 1860, pp. 280-292). RÉVILLOUT, Note sur les plus
anciennes monnaies hébraïques (Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique
et d’Archéologie, t. viii. 1884, pp. 113-146. Revised reprint from Revue
Egyptologique).—Seeks to show that the Hebrew-Phoenician shekel was first
reckoned equal to four drachmas by the Ptolemies, whereas the old Hebrew shekel
was only half the weight, viz. two drachmas.—Compare also the correspondence
between Lenormant and Révillout in Annuaire, viii. 1884, p. 210 sqq.; ix. 1885,
p. 89 sqq. REINACH, Une monnaie hybride des insurrections juives (Revue des
études juives, t. xv. 1887, pp. 56-61).—Les monnaies juives (Revue des études
juives, 1887, p. cxxxi.-ccxix.). RENAN, L’église chrétienne, 1879, pp.
546-551.—On the coins of Barcochba. SALLET, Die Silbermünzen des Barcochba
(Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. v. 1878, pp. 110-114). GARRUCCI, Monete delle
due rivolte giudaiche (Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario argomento, vol. ii.,
Roma 1865, pp. 31-39).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: E.�INSCRIPTIONS
========================================================================

E.—INSCRIPTIONS The inscriptions falling under our consideration here are of
various kinds: Non-Jewish and Jewish, Palestinian and extra-Palestinian; written
in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic.—1. The non-Jewish Greek and Latin
inscriptions from Palestine and neighbouring countries have been collected in
the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, vol. iii., and in the Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum, vol. iii. Both collections, especially the former, have meanwhile
been largely supplemented by the discoveries of Wetzstein, Waddington, and
others. The inscriptions referred to afford highly important information
regarding the state of civilisation and culture in the pagan districts of
Palestine (see § 22). Besides the Palestinian inscriptions, many that have been
found in other places are of interest in connection with the history of our
period, as are also many Semitic inscriptions in Palestine and outside of it,
among which the Nabatean inscriptions collected by De Vogüé and Euting are
specially important.—2. Of the Jewish inscriptions, those in Hebrew have been
collected by Chwolson in the Quarterly edited by him. More numerous are those in
Greek and Latin, mostly epitaphs on tombstones in Palestine and outside of it;
and most numerous and important of all are those taken from the Jewish catacombs
at Rome. 1. Non-Jewish Inscriptions Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, t. iii.
1853, n. 4444-4669. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, t. iii. 1873, n. 86-211,
6027-6049. Additional inscriptions from the Haurân and the eastern desert of
Syria, communicated by G. C. Graham, and edited with a preface and notes by John
Hogg (Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, second series, vol. vi.,
London 1859, pp. 270-323). ALLEN, Greek and Latin inscriptions from Palestine
(American Journal of Philology, vi. 1885, pp. 190-216). WETZSTEIN, Ausgewählte
griechische und lateinische Inschriften, gesammelt auf Reisen in den Trachonen
und um das Haurângebirge (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1863,
philol.-histor. Classe, pp. 255-368).—Compare also: Wetzstein, Reisebericht über
Hauran und Trachonen. Berlin 1860. MORDTMANN, Griechische Inschriften aus Arabia
(Trachonitis) (Rhein. Museum, xxvii. 1872, pp. 146-148, 496).—Only six
inscriptions, mostly fragmentary, of which two, the most complete, were
previously given by Waddington.—Also: Griechische Inschriften aus dem Hauran
(Archäol.-epigr. Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich, viii. 1884, pp. 180-192).—Also:
Beiträge zur Inschriftenkunde Syriens (Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 119-124). GILDEMEISTER, Bemerkungen zu den
griechischen Inschriften Frei’s und Schuhmacher’s (Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, xi. 1888, pp. 38-45). WADDINGTON in: Le Bas et Waddington,
Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. The
inscriptions from Syria are in vol. iii. 1870; the text in Pt. 1, pp. 449-625,
the explanations in Pt. 2, pp. 435-631.—The number of new discoveries
communicated by Waddington is very considerable. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Inscriptions
grecques inédites du Haurân et des régions adjacentes (Revue archéologique,
troisième série, t. iv. 1884, pp. 260-284).—Single inscriptions may be found
quoted in various reports of travel in Palestine. Inscriptions referring to the
Herodian princes have been collected by me in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift für
Wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1873, pp. 248-255.—To this collection may be added:
Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, t. iii. pars 1, 1878, n. 550, 551, 556. Corpus
Inscriptionem Graecarum, n. 2502 (Herod Antipas in Coos). Bulletin de corres.
hellénique, t. iii. 1879, p. 365 sq. (Herod Antipas in Delos). Archäolog.-epigr.
Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich, viii. 1884, p. 189 f.=Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p. 121 f. (Agrippa II.). The Roman inscriptions
referring to the Jewish history from Vespasian to Hadrian have been collected by
Darmesteter, Revue des études juives, t. i. 1880, pp. 32-55. The Semitic
inscriptions have been collected in the most complete manner in the Corpus
Inscriptionum Semiticarum, which has been in course of publication at Paris
since 1881. Up to the present only the Phoenician inscriptions have been issued.
With reference to one of these, the inscription of Eschmunazar which gives dates
important for the history, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 88, 89. The most interesting
in relation to our subject of the non-Jewish Semitic inscriptions are the
Nabatean, which have been made available to us in the editions of DE VOGÜÉ,
1868, and Euting, 1885. For further particulars regarding these, see Appendix
II. at close of second volume.—It is only the slightest possible sort of
connection with our subject that can be claimed for the numerous Aramaic and
Greek inscriptions of Palmyra (edited by DE VOGÜÉ, Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions
sémitiques. Paris 1868), among which, especially the bilingual Tariff of Taxes
of Palmyra, discovered in 1881, belonging to the age of Hadrian, is most
important. The Aramaic text is edited in the best style by Schroeder, Sitzungsb.
der Berliner Akad. 1884, pp. 417-436; the Greek text by Dessau, in Hermes, Bd.
xix. 1884, pp. 486-533. 2. Jewish Inscriptions MADDEN gives a list of Jewish
Inscriptions in his Coins of the Jews, pp. 34-39. CHWOLSON, Corpus Inscriptionum
Hebraicarum, containing epitaphs from the Crimea and other epitaphs and
inscriptions in the old Hebrew square characters, as well as specimens from
manuscripts of ninth and fifteenth centuries. St. Petersburg 1882.—Besides the
epitaphs from the Crimea, it gives a collection of all inscriptions in the
Hebrew square characters down to the eleventh century after Christ.—A partial
list is also given by Merx, Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. i.
360-362. Among the oldest inscriptions collected by Chwolson, the following are
elsewhere treated of separately:—1. The epitaph of the Benê Chesir on the
so-called tomb of St. James at Jerusalem, belonging to the Herodian period (de
Vogüé, Revue archéologique, nouv. série, t. ix. 1864, pp. 200-209). Also: Le
temple de Jérusalem, pp. 45, 130 sqq., pl. xxxvii. n. 1. De Saulcy, Revue
archéolog., nouv. série, t. xi. 1865, pp. 137-153, 398-405. Merx, Archiv für
wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. i. 360 sq.).—2. Some Synagogue Inscriptions
in the north of Galilee, from the time of the Roman Emperors (Renan, Mission de
Phénicie, pp. 761-783). To these may also be added a similar one from Palmyra,
which contains the beginning of the Jewish Schma Deuteronomy 6:4-9 (Landauer,
Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1884, p. 933 ff.).—3. The numerous
Jewish Epitaphs. Among the latter are those from the Crimea of a much later date
than previously Chwolson, on the basis of false dates attached to them by
Firkowitsch, supposed them to be (for the literature, see Div. ii. vol. ii. p.
219); the Palestinian inscriptions are older, but very short. On these, partly
in. Hebrew, partly in Greek, the following authors, before and after Chwolson,
specially treat:— CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Nouveaux ossuaires juifs avec inscriptions
grecques et hébraïques (Revue archélogique, nouv. série, t. xxv. 1873, pp.
398-414).—Also: Ossuaire juif de Joseph fils de Jean (Revue archéol., nouv.
série, t. xxxvi. 1878, pp. 305-311). Hebraic. VIKTOR SCHULTZE, Sarkophage und
Grabinschriften aus Jerusalem (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, iv.
1881, pp. 9-14). GRÄTZ, Die jüdischen Steinsarkophage in Palästina
(Monatsschrift. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1881, pp.
529-539).—Treats not so much of the inscriptions, as of the tablets on which
they are engraved. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Epigraphes hébraïques et grecques sur des
ossuaires juifs inédits (Revue archéol., troisième série, t. i. 1883, pp.
257-276).—Also: Un nouveau titulus funéraire de Joppe (Revue critique, 1885, n.
27, p. 14 sq.). Greek. EUTING, Epigraphische Miscellen (Sitzungsberichte der
berliner Akademie, 1885, pp. 669-688, Tafel vi.-xii.).—Principally Palmyrene
inscriptions and Hebrew-Greek epitaphs from Palestine. Apart from the epitaphs,
Greek inscriptions of Jewish origin are rarely met with in Palestine. The most
interesting are the Warning Tablet on the entrance to the Outer Court of the
Temple (see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 266, note [1] and the Greek inscription among
the ruins of the synagogue at Casiun (Renan, Mission de Phénicie, p. 774=Guérin,
Galilée, ii. 447 sq.). [1] One of those inscriptions was discovered and
published in the year 1871 by Clermont-Ganneau. For an account of it, see
Clermont-Ganneau, Revue archéologique, new series, vol. xxiii. 1872, pp.
214-234, 290-296, pl. x. Derenbourg, Journal asiatique, 6th series, vol. xx.
1872, pp. 178-195. Piper, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1876, p. 51 f. The
inscription runs thus:— ΜΗΘΕΝΑ ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗ ΕΙΣΠΟ ΡΕΥΕΣΘΑΙ ΕΝΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΕ ΡΙ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ
ΤΡΥΦΑΚΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΡΥ ΟΣ Δ ΑΝ ΛΗ ΦΘΗ ΕΑΥΤΩΙ ΑΙΤΙΟΣ ΕΣ ΤΑΙ ΔΙΑ ΤΟ ΕΞΑΚΟΛΟΥ ΘΕΙΝ
ΘΑΝΑΤΟΝ. The extra-Palestinian Greek and Latin inscriptions, in so far as they
are of any value at all, are given in § 31, i. and ii. 1 (Div. ii. vol. ii. pp.
220-242). Special attention may be called to the great inscription of Berenice
(Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 231).[2] Something may also be learned from Caspari,
Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. 1875, pp. 268-274—Among these, too,
the majority are epitaphs. Most numerous are the inscriptions from the Catacombs
of Rome and Venosa, which, together with some others, are collected in the
following works:— [2] In addition to the above, the interesting communications
of Reinach, Revue des études juives, t. vii. 1883, pp. 161-166; x. 1885, pp.
74-78; xii. 1886, pp. 236-243=Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 1886, pp.
327-335 (all from Asia Minor), may be consulted.—Also the two inscriptions on
the temple of Pan at Apollonopolis Magna in Egypt, in which Jews offer their
obeisance to the “god,” ought to have been referred to in the exposition
(Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Égypte, t. ii. p.
252=Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4838c).—Of Jewish origin is probably also the
inscription of Hammam-Lif, referred to in Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 64. See Renan,
Revue archéologique, troisième série, t. i. 1883, pp. 157-163; t. iii. 1884, pp.
273-275, pl. vii.-xi.; Kaufmann, Revue des études juives, t. xiii. pp. 45-61;
Reinach in same Review, pp. 217-223. BURGON, Letters from Rome, 1862, pp.
168-174. Quoted by Madden in his Coins of the Jews. GREPPO, Notice sur des
inscriptions antiques tirées de quelques tombeaux juifs à Rome. Lyons 1835.
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, t. iv. n. 9894-9926 (edited by Kirchhoff). LEVY,
Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Juden, in Jahrbuch für die Geschichte
der Juden (edited by Goldschmidt), Bd. ii. 1861, pp. 259-324. LENORMANT, Essai
sur la propagation de l’Alphabet Phénicien dans l’ancien Monde, vol. i. pp.
264-267. GARRUCCI, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei scoperto recentemente in Vigna
Randanini. Roma 1862.—These inscriptions from the newly-discovered Catacombs of
the Vigna Randanini have very considerably enriched our materials.—Also:
Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario argomento, vol. ii., Roma 1865, pp.
150-192.—Forms a useful supplement to the preceding work. HIRSCHFELD, Bullettino
dell’ Institute di corrisp. archeol. 1867, pp. 148-152.—Gives the first notice
of the Catacombs of Venosa in South Italy, discovered in 1853. FIORELLI,
Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Raccolta epigrafica, ii. Iscrizioni
Latine (Napoli 1868), n. 1954-1965.—Describes the inscriptions now to be found
in the Museum of Naples from the Catacombs of Rome. ENGESTRÖM, Om Judarne i Rom
under äldre tider och deras Katakomber. Upsala 1876. SCHÜRER, Die
Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit nach den Inschriften
dargestellt. With forty-five Jewish inscriptions. Leipzig 1879. ASCOLI,
Iscrizioni inedite o mal note greche, latine, ebraiche di antichi sepolcri
giudaici del Napolitano. Torino e Roma 1880.—Gives the inscriptions from the
Catacombs of Venosa; of the Greek and Latin inscriptions, however, only those
which also have a Hebrew paraphrase. Compare Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1880,
485-488; Grätz, Monatsschr. 1880, pp. 433-451; Chwolson, Corp. Inscr. Hebr. col.
149 sqq.; also: Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 240. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, t. ix.
1883, n. 647, 648, 6195-6241.—The Greek and Latin inscriptions from Venosa are
given more completely than in Ascoli. LENORMANT, La catacombe juive de Venosa
(Revue des études juives, t. vi. 1883, pp. 200-207).—Gives a part of the
inscriptions after new copies. NIC. MÜLLER, Le catacombe degli Ebrei presso la
via Appia Pignatelli (Mittheilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archäolog.
Instituts, Römische Abtheilung, Bd. i. 1886, pp. 49-56).—A communication in
regard to a newly-discovered Jewish catacomb. According to a statement on p. 49,
the author seems to entertain the idea of writing a Monograph on “The Old Jewish
Cemeteries of Italy.”—For an explanation of the inscriptions communicated by
Müller, compare also the remarks of Gomperz in: Archäologisch-epigraphische
Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, x. 1886, p. 231 f.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: � 3. THE SOURCES
========================================================================

§ 3. THE SOURCES THE chief sources of information in regard to the spiritual and
intellectual life of the Jewish people during our period must evidently be such
literary works of the Jews as had their origin in that period, and have come
down to us. In regard to these, we can here only refer to the accounts of that
literature given in § 32-34. Among these documents is included the New
Testament, in so far as it was composed by Jewish writers or makes reference to
Jewish affairs. The coins and inscriptions, of which the literature has been
given in the last section, are also to be ranked among the documents of primary
importance. All these works and documents, however, would not afford us material
for writing a history of our period if we had not been possessed of the two
Books of Maccabees and the works of Josephus, which relate the main incidents in
the course of events, and, indeed, often go into very minute details. They form
the most important, yea, almost the only, source of information in regard to the
political history. As supplementary to them, we have, on the one hand, the Greek
and Roman writers, who treat in a comprehensive way of the general history of
that age; and, on the other hand, the rabbinical literature, contained in
Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, Targum, which sets forth the results and preliminary
summing up of the work of the scribes, who were at the very height of their
activity during this period, and is, in so far at least, an indirect witness to
the state of matters at that time.—Before considering the information supplied
us by Josephus, we shall take a general view of the non-extant sources, partly
in order that we may obtain a glimpse into the circumstances and conditions of
an earlier age, partly and mainly in order to secure solid material for
answering the question about the sources drawn upon by Josephus. This will give
us the following five divisions:—1. The two Books of Maccabees; 2. The
non-extant Documents; 3. Josephus; 4. Greek and Roman Writers; and 5. The
Rabbinical Literature.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: A.�THE TWO BOOKS OF MACCABEES
========================================================================

A.—THE TWO BOOKS OF MACCABEES The First Book of Maccabees is the main source to
be relied upon for the first forty years of our history, from B.C. 175 to B.C.
135. The second book treats only of the first fourteen of those years, B.C. 175
to B.C. 161; but in respect of credibility stands far below the first, and can
scarcely be said to be of independent value except in regard to the period that
precedes the rise of the Maccabees. On the character of both of these works and
the circumstances of their origin, all that is necessary will be found under §
32 and 33, in Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 6-13, 211-216. All that we are required to
do here is to determine what is to be regarded as the starting-point of the
Seleucid era, in accordance with which both of these books fix their dates. The
usual Seleucid era begins with autumn 312 B.C. But it is open to question
whether in the two Books of Maccabees, or whether even in one of them, this
usual starting-point is presupposed. In order to help to a decision, we set down
in order the examples of dating by months given in the First Book of Maccabees:—
1Ma_1:54 : τῇ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ Χασελεῦ. 1Ma_1:59 : τῇ πέμπτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ
μηνός. 1Ma_4:52 : τῇ πέμπτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ ἐννάτου, οὗτος ὁ μὴν
Χασελεῦ. 1Ma_7:43 : τῇ τρισκαιδεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Ἀδάρ. 1Ma_7:49 : τὴν
τρισκαιδεκάτην τοῦ Ἀδάρ. 1Ma_9:3 : τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου ἔτους τοῦ δευτέρου καὶ
πεντηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ. 1Ma_9:54 : μηνὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ. 1Ma_10:21 : τῷ ἑβδὁμῳ
μηνὶ ἔτους ἑξηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ ἐν ἑορτῇ σκηνοπηγίας. 1Ma_13:51 : τῇ τρίτῃ
καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ δευτέρου μηνὸς ἔτους ἐνὸς καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ. For the
same occurrence the Megillath Taanith gives the date 23rd Ijjar. 1Ma_14:27 :
ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῃ Ἐλοὺλ, ἔτους δευτέρου καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ. 1Ma_16:14 :
ἐν μηνὶ ἑνδεκάτῳ, οὗτος ὁ μὴν Σαβάτ. From these dates it is put beyond all doubt
that the author reckoned the months from the spring season. With him Ijjar or
Zif is the second mouth (chap. 1Ma_13:51); Tizri, therefore, the month of the
Feast of Tabernacles, was the seventh (chap. 1Ma_10:21); Chisleu is the ninth
(chap. 1Ma_4:52), and Shebat is the eleventh (chap. 1Ma_16:14). The numbering of
the months, therefore, begins with Nisan or Abib, that is, in the spring (see
list in Appendix III. at the end of vol. ii.). From this it seems to be put
beyond all reasonable doubt that the year by which the author reckoned also
began in the spring season. But the Seleucid era, according to which he reckons,
is usually supposed to start with autumn,[3] just as it was customary in Syria
generally to commence the year in the season of harvest. Among the Jews, too, it
was the custom in very early times (Exodus 23:16; Exodus 34:22) to begin the
year in autumn,—a custom older probably than that of starting with the
spring.[4] In the post-exilian times we certainly have both of these methods of
reckoning the beginning of the year existing side by side. The cycle of
religious festivals begins in the spring season; and so from it the months are
counted in the First Book of Maccabees as well as in the Priestly Code. But just
as even the Priestly Code could not prevent the celebrating of the new moon of
the month Tizri with a religious festival (Leviticus 23:23-25; Numbers 29:1-6),
in later times the beginning of the year came to be counted from that day, ראֹשׁ
הַשָּׁנָה. The Mishna, indeed, says distinctly that “for the year” simply,
therefore for the numbering of its months, the beginning is made with the 1st of
Tizri.[5] According to Josephus, too, the beginning of the year with Nisan, as
ordained by Moses, holds good with reference only to sacred things; whereas, on
the other hand, “for buying and selling and other business,” the year begins
with Tizri according to the more ancient pre-Mosaic ordinance.[6] In these
circumstances it is quite possible that the First Book of Maccabees too,
notwithstanding the numbering of the months from the spring season, may have
reckoned its dates from the autumn. We should indeed have felt ourselves
obliged, if no very decided reasons could be adduced against such a supposition,
to accept this as the most probable explanation, seeing that it is from autumn
as a rule that the dates in the Seleucid era are reckoned. This is the view
taken by Wernsdorff, Clinton, and myself in the first edition of this work. But
now it seems to me that weighty grounds can be given for thinking that the era
of our book begins with the spring. [3] Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 444
ff. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 372 ff. [4] The passages referred to, Exodus
23:16; Exodus 34:22, belong to the very oldest portions of the Pentateuch,
whereas the Priestly Code numbers the months throughout from the spring, and
expressly insists upon this numbering (Exodus 12:2). The question, which of the
two systems of numbering is the older, is therefore of great importance in the
criticism of the Pentateuch. See, on the one hand, Wellhausen, History of
Israel; and, on the other hand, Dillmann, in the Exeget. Handbuch, on Exodus
12:2; Exodus 23:16, and Leviticus 23:23. [5] Mishna, Rosch haschana i. 1: “There
are four different beginnings of the year. The 1st Nisan is the new year for the
kings and the festivals. The 1st Elul is the new year for the tithing of cattle;
R. Elieser and R. Simon say, the 1st Tizri. The 1st Tizri is the new year for
the civil year (לַשָּׁנִים), for the Sabbath year and the year of jubilee, for
planting of trees and sowing of seed. The 1st Shebat is the new year for the
gathering of fruit; so says the School of Shammai; but the School of Hillel
says, the 15th of the month.” [6] Joseph. Antiq. i. 3. 3: συνέβη δὲ τοῦτο τὸ
πάθος κατὰ τὸ ἑξακοσιοστὸν ἔτος ἤδη Νώχου τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἐν μηνὶ δευτέρῳ, Δίῳ μὲν
ὑπὸ Μακεδόνων λεγομένῳ, Μαρσουάνῃ δʼ ὑπὸ Ἑβραίων· οὕτῳ γὰρ [therefore beginning
the year in autumn] ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἧσαν διατεταχότες. Μωυσῆς δὲ τὸν
Νισᾶν, ὅς ἐστι Θανθικός, μῆνα πρῶτον ἐπὶ ταῖς ἑορταῖς ὥρισε, κατὰ τοῦτον ἐξ
Αἰγύπτου τοὺς Ἑβραίους προαγαγών. Οὗτος δʼ αὐτῷ καὶ πρὸς ἁπάσας τἁς εἰς τὸθεῖον
τιμὰς ῆρχεν· ἐπὶ μέντοι γε πράσεες καἱ ὠνἀς καὶ τὴν ἄλλην διοίκησιν τὸν πρῶτον
κόσμον διεφύχαξε. 1. According to 1Ma_7:1, Demetrius I. withdrew from Rome in
the year 151 of the Seleucid era, and became king of Syria. After this we meet
with no other note of time in the First Book of Maccabees until we come to the
43rd and 49th verses of the 7th chapter, where we are told that Nicanor lost the
battle and his life in fighting against Judas on the 13th Adar. The year is not
thereby determined. But in chap. 9:3 it is further said that in the first month
of the year 152 of the Seleucid era a new army was sent by Demetrius into
Palestine. According to this statement, it must then be assumed that the defeat
of Nicanor took place on the 13th Adar of the year 151 of the Seleucid era.
Since, then, by the “first month” of the year 152, after what had just been
stated, the month Nisan of that year must evidently be understood, and since,
further, Nisan follows immediately after Adar, if we suppose the year to begin,
not on 1st Nisan but on 1st Tizri, a space of three months would intervene
between the one event and the other. But according to the context of the story
it is much more probable that the one followed almost immediately upon the
other, and that therefore the beginning of the year was counted from 1st Nisan.
2. According to 1Ma_10:1, Alexander Balas raised himself to the Syrian throne in
the year 160 of the Seleucid era. According to chap. 10:21, Jonathan put on the
high priest’s garments for the first time “in the seventh month” of this same
year 160 of the Seleucid era, at the Feast of Tabernacles, therefore on the 15th
Tizri. If, therefore, the year had begun on 1st Tizri, it would follow that all
the occurrences reported in 1Ma_10:1-21 would have taken place within fourteen
days, which is impossible. Should we insist upon putting the beginning of the
year in the autumn, we would be obliged to set it later than the Feast of
Tabernacles, and then that festival would be thrown into the end of the year, as
indeed is presupposed in the old legislation of Exodus 23:16, בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה.
But after what has been said above about the New Year Festival on the 1st Tizri,
on the supposition of the year beginning generally in the autumn, for our period
only the 1st of Tizri can come into consideration. 3. When in the year 150 of
the Seleucid era, which date is given us in 1Ma_6:20; 1Ma_7:1, Antiochus V.
Eupator and Lysias came into Palestine with a great army, the garrison of
Bethzur was obliged to submit to them, and those besieged in the fortress of
Mount Zion suffered the direst privations (1Ma_6:48-54). And both of these
disasters happened from their being deprived of the means of sustenance on
account of the Sabbatical year, “the year of rest to the land” (1Ma_6:49;
1Ma_6:53). This seventh year of rest was counted from autumn to autumn, as is
shown in the passage quoted above from Rosch haschana i. 1. The want of
victuals, however, could not have been felt before the middle of the seventh
year, after the stores of the previous year had been used up and no new fruits
were coming in during spring and summer. On the other hand, at the time when
these events occurred, the Sabbath year had not yet expired (chap. 6:49:
σάββατον ἦν τῇ γῇ; 6:53: διὰ τὸ ἕβδομον ἔτος εἶναι). They must therefore have
taken place in the period between spring and 1st of Tizri. But we know that the
siege of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius also occurred during a Sabbath year
(Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 2; comp. xv. 1. 2). That siege, however, is certainly
to be dated in the summer of B.C. 37 (see below, § 14). Thus the year B.C. 38-37
was a Sabbath year. If, then, we reckon back from this, we shall find that the
year B.C. 164-163 reckoned from autumn to autumn was also a seventh year of
rest. The occurrences in question must therefore fall to the summer of B.C. 163.
But the year B.C. 163-162 corresponds with the year 150 of the Seleucid era. Had
that been counted from autumn, this reckoning would not tally. It will agree
only if the Seleucid era is made to begin with spring. As a confirmation of our
understanding of the Sabbath year, may be quoted the somewhat late rabbinical
note that it was מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית when the temple was destroyed by Titus
(Seder Olam, ed. Meyer, p. 91 ff.: אותו היום מוצאי שבת היה ומוצאי שביעית היתה.
So, too, Arachin 11b, Taanith 29a). By מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, according to the
well-established usage, is certainly to be understood the year after the Sabbath
year (see Schebiith v. 5, vi. 4; Sota vii. 8; Machschirin ii. 11; comp. מוצאי
שבת, meaning the day after the Sabbath, and ערב שבת, meaning the day before the
Sabbath, in Chullin i. fin.). Accordingly the year A.D. 68-69 was a Sabbath
year. And if we reckon back from this, we shall find that also the years B.C.
164-163 and B.C. 38-37 were Sabbath years. Only one historical date on a Sabbath
year stands opposed to the views that have been here set forth. According to
1Ma_16:14, Simon Maccabeus died in the month Shebat of the year 177 of the
Seleucid era. Since Shebat corresponds in part with our February, this date,
whether one counts the Seleucid year from spring or from autumn, must be
rendered February B.C. 135. But, according to the report of Josephus, after the
murder of Simon, John Hyrcanus besieged Simon’s murderer in the fortress of
Dagon, and was then obliged after some time to raise the siege when the Sabbath.
year came round in which the Jews are required to rest. His words are these:
“The year of rest came on upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do
on every seventh day” (Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 4). “That year on which the Jews
used to rest came on; for the Jews observe this rest every seventh year as they
do every seventh day” (Antiq. xiii. 8. 1). The year B.C. 135-134 must therefore
have been a Sabbath year, whereas according to our calculations we should have
expected it to have been B.C. 136-135. The statement of Josephus, however, is
open to suspicion on other grounds. The reason given there to show the necessity
of raising the siege is that rest is enjoined during the seventh year as on the
seventh day. This was indeed the idea that prevailed among Gentile writers. So
Tacitus says, Hist. v. 4: dein blandiente inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae
datum. But in the Pentateuch rest in general during the seventh year is by no
means enjoined, but only the leaving of the fields unsown (see Leviticus
25:1-7). And so far as my knowledge goes, even the later refinements on the
interpretation of the law have never gone farther than this. There is therefore
good reason for the suspicion that Josephus, who is in this place following
Gentile authorities, as is certain on other grounds, has simply transcribed
without sifting the statements which were before him. It would also appear that
the real occasion of the raising of the siege was not the coming round of the
Sabbath year, but the failure of provisions during the course of that year of
rest to the land. If this interpretation be accepted, then B.C. 136-135 will be
the Sabbath year in full agreement with the other dates.—Wieseler, who indeed
places the Sabbath year in B.C. 136-135, sets down the death of Simon as
occurring in Shebat, or February B.C. 136; and seeing that this, according to
our reckoning, would be the Shebat of the year 176 of the Seleucid era, he makes
the Seleucid year of the First Book of Maccabees begin in accordance with the
Roman practice in January,—an eccentricity of view that need not now be
seriously criticized. Against the cycle of the Sabbath year here adopted I
argued in the first edition of this work that the year A.D. 40-41 could not have
been a Sabbath year, as according to our cycle it must have been. For the Jews
omitted to sow the seed in the last month before Caligula’s death, during
November A.D. 40, not because it was the Sabbath year, but because for weeks
they were going in great crowds to lay before Petronius their complaints on
account of the profanation threatened to the temple (Antiq. xviii. 8. 3; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 10. 5). From this it would appear that the sowing of the fields
during that year had been expected. But we are obliged to admit that this
indirect argument, when put over against other possible explanations that may
still be given, is not strong enough to overturn the very positive proofs that
have been advanced in favour of regarding this year as a Sabbath year.[7] [7]
Wieseler (Studien u. Kritiken, 1875, p. 529 f.) assumes that these events had
occurred in the autumn of A.D. 39. Had this been so, then every difficulty would
be removed. But according to the connection of the narrative, the events must
have taken place a few months before Caligula’s death. Compare generally on the
reckoning of the historically attested Sabbath year in our periods (which by
many are made about a year later than by us): Anger, De temporum in actis
apostolorum ratione, Lips. 1833, p. 38 (and the earlier works of Scaliger,
Petavius, etc., there quoted).—Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender,
Brussels 1848.—Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, ii. 458 ff.—Zuckermann,
Ueber Sabbathjahrcyklus und Jobelperiode, Breslau 1857 (and the older literature
quoted there, pp. 2, 3).—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. (3 Aufl. 1878)
pp. 636-639, note 7.—Wieseler, art “Aere,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. i.
159 f. Also: Stud. und Krit. 1875, p. 527 ff.—Caspari, Chronological and
Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, 1876, pp. 23-28. Also: Die
geschichtlichen Sabbathjahre (Stud. und Krit. 1877, pp. 181-190).—Rösch, Stud.
und Krit. 1870, p. 361 f., and 1875, p. 589 ff.—Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens
Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1874, p. 58 ff.—Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1880, pp. 45 f.,
229-236. Besides the reasons which we have adduced for believing that the
Seleucid years of our book begin with the spring, we may also add the important
fact that it is also from the spring that it numbers the months. Even had it not
been otherwise impossible to suppose that its cycle of years began in autumn,
this circumstance would have caused very great difficulty, especially in those
passages in which the name of the month is not mentioned, but only the number of
the month and the year. Thus we read “in the first month of the year 152, ”
chap. 9:3, etc. This form of expression would scarcely have been adopted unless
a uniform mode of determining the order of the month had prevailed. We assume
then, with the great majority of critics, that the Seleucid era of the First
Book of Maccabees begins, not in autumn, but in spring. And however
extraordinary it may at first sight appear that in Palestine they had a Seleucid
era which differed to the extent of about half a year from that current in the
rest of Syria, this will no longer appear extraordinary to one who is acquainted
with the circumstances. Almost every one of the more important cities in the
neighbourhood of Palestine had during the Graeco-Roman period its own era, yea,
even its own calendar (see § 23). It is therefore quite conceivable that the
Jews on adopting the imperial era should modify it in accordance with their
calendar. We find, too, that exactly this same era was in use in the city of
Damascus. The year began in Damascus and in the Roman province of Arabia in the
spring (see Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 413, 437). But the coins of
Damascus are dated according to the Seleucid era. And although on an inscription
discovered in recent times a specifically Damascene era is spoken of, this can
mean nothing else than the Seleucid era beginning in spring, just as in our
book.[8] [8] Revue archéologique, troisième série, t. iv. 1884, p. 267: κατὰ
Δαμασκοῦ ἔτους θπχʹ [689]. And in addition the explanations of Clermont-Ganneau,
pp. 267-269. By all that has been said, the question is not yet settled as to
whether the era of our book begins half a year before or half a year after the
date usually assigned, whether in spring B.C. 312 or in spring B.C. 311. The
French scholar Gibert pronounces in favour of the former view. But the opinion
generally accepted, that spring of B.C. 312 is the starting-point, can be proved
to be certainly the right one. It will be enough here, apart from all other
grounds, to refer to the remarks made in reference to the Sabbath year. If the
year 150 of the Seleucid era were to be regarded, as Gibert desires, as
equivalent to B.C. 162-161, then the Sabbath year must be fixed a year later,
which would be in direct conflict with the date of the siege of Jerusalem by
Herod and Sosius, with which Gibert can reconcile himself only by very
artificial and far-fetched reasoning. The era of the Second Book of Maccabees is
still more open to dispute than that of the first book. We have also an
apologetic interest in determining the era, inasmuch as certain dates of the
second book are reconcilable with those of the first only if the years in each
era were reckoned according to different eras. And, indeed, the era of the
second book seems to have a later starting-point than that of the first. But in
regard to this matter, too, the most diverse opinions prevail. Some assume half
a year’s difference, some a whole year’s, and some a year and a half. The last
mentioned is the view of Ideler, who dates the epoch of the first from spring
B.C. 312, and that of the second from autumn B.C. 311. The dates upon which
arguments are based are indeed very few; practically only the following two:—1.
The death of Antiochus Epiphanes is set down in 1Ma_6:16 at the year 149 of the
Seleucid era; whereas, according to 2Ma_11:33, he must have died at the latest
in the year 148 of the Seleucid era, for there a decree of his successor Eupator
is quoted, bearing the date of that year. 2. The second campaign of Lysias,
according to 1Ma_6:20, was undertaken in the year 150 of the Seleucid era;
whereas, according to 2Ma_13:1, it is placed in the Seleucid year 149. But in
reference to the former date, the facts of the case are different from what at
first appears. The subject treated of in 2Ma_11:33 is not really the date of the
death of Antiochus Epiphanes, but rather the date of the first campaign of
Lysias. And although 2Ma_11:33 assigns that event to the Seleucid year 148, this
is quite reconcilable with 1Ma_4:28; 1Ma_4:52. The difference consists,
therefore, not in a diverse mode of reckoning time, but simply in this, that the
Second Book of Maccabees erroneously sets down the first campaign of Lysias
after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, while both books agree in assigning it
to the year 148 of the Seleucid era. In the other pair of passages,
however,—1Ma_6:20 and 2Ma_13:1,—we actually do come upon a diversity of dates.
But Grimm on 2Ma_13:1 has justly remarked, after repeating his own earlier
opinion, that one “certainly does too much honour to the abounding historical
and chronological errors of which the author of the second book has been
convicted, by a great expenditure of combinations either in reconciling
diversities, or in seeking, by the assumption of a different beginning of the
Seleucid era, to explain the chronological difference between him and the First
Book of the Maccabees.”—There is therefore no sufficient ground for assuming a
special era for the Second Book of the Maccabees. We have therefore before us
the choice of regarding the era of that book as the Palestinian Seleucid era
employed in the First Book of the Maccabees, or as the Seleucid era prevailing
throughout the rest of Syria. Compare on the eras of the two Books of Maccabees:
Froelich, Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae (ed. 2, 1750), Proleg. p.
22 sqq.—Wernsdorff, De fide historica librorum Maccabaicorum, 1747, pp. 18-31
(contests the view previously maintained by Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Prideaux,
Foy-Vaillant, des-Vignoles, Froelich, and others, that the era of the First Book
of Maccabees begins with a spring year).—Gibert, Mémoire sur la chronologie de
l’histoire des Machabées (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, alte série, t. xxvi. 1759, pp. 112-156).—Clinton, Fasti
Hellenici, iii. 375-382.—Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 531-534.—Wieseler,
Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel, 1839, p. 110 ff. Also:
Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 1864. Also: art. “Aere,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. i. 159 f. Also: Stud. und Krit. 1875, pp. 520-532; and
1877, p. 510 ff.—Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, iii. 11 f., iv.
186 f. Also: Bissel and Wace (in Speaker’s Comm.) in their Introductions to
Maccabees.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: B.�NON-EXTANT SOURCES
========================================================================

B.—NON-EXTANT SOURCES The following survey embraces—1. All special works on the
Jewish history of our period known to us only through quotations or fragments,
whether they are used by Josephus or not; and 2. Those of the more general
historical works now lost, to which the exposition of Josephus is directly or
indirectly indebted. To one or other of these categories belong all the works
enumerated in the following paragraphs:— 1. Jason of Cyrene He wrote a work in
five books on the history of the Maccabean rising, from its beginning down to
the victory of Judas over Nicanor in B.C. 161. All this period is treated of in
one book in our so-called Second Book of Maccabees: “All these things being
declared by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we shall essay to abridge in one
volume,” 2Ma_2:23. He is supposed to have lived not long after the events which
he narrates, somewhere about the middle of the second century B.C.; comp. Div.
ii. vol. iii. p. 211. 2. The History of John Hyrcanus A history of John Hyrcanus
was known to the writer of the First Book of Maccabees: “The chronicle of his
priesthood,” 1Ma_16:24. This book, in a style similar to that of the First Book
of Maccabees, described his long and honourable career. It seems to have got
lost at an early date, for it was evidently unknown even to Josephus. Comp. Div.
ii. vol. iii. p. 13. 3. Posidonius of Apamea The celebrated Stoic philosopher
and historian Posidonius, from Apamea in Syria, lived chiefly in Rhodes, where
he founded a Stoic School. He is hence called “the Rhodian.” Since he was also a
scholar of Panätius, who at latest must have died B.C. 110, he cannot have been
born later than B.C. 130. In the seventh consulship of Marius, B.C. 86, he went
as ambassador to Rome, and there saw Marius shortly before his death (Plutarch’s
Marius, chap. xlv.). Immediately after Sulla’s death (B.C. 78), Cicero heard him
in Rhodes (Plutarch’s Cicero, chap. iv.). Pompey visited him there repeatedly.
During the consulship of Marius Marcellus, B.C. 51, he went once more to Rome
(Suidas, Lexicon, art. Ποσειδώνιος). He may therefore be described as having
flourished between B.C. 90 and B.C. 50. According to Lucian. Macrob. chap. xx.
he lived to the great age of eighty-four years. Of his numerous writings, it is
his great historical work that here interests us. It is frequently quoted in the
historical sketches of Athenäus, Strabo, Plutarch, and others. From the
criticisms in Athenäus it would appear to have consisted of at least forty-nine
books. It is not, therefore, open to doubt that Suidas (Lexicon, under the word
Ποσειδώνιος) has this work in view when he makes the erroneous remark about the
Alexandrian Posidonius: ἔγραψεν Ἱστορίαν τὴν μετὰ Πολύβιον ἐν βιβλίος νβʹ. The
extant fragments, too, make it probable that the work begins where Polybius
ends, with B.C. 146. How far down it carried the history is uncertain. It went
on, according to Suidas, ἕως τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ Κυρηναϊκοῦ καὶ Πτολεμαίου. Müller
(Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 250) believes that instead of this we ought to read
ἕως τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Κυρηναϊκοῦ, that is, down to Ptolemäus Apion of Cyrene,
who died B.C. 96. The fact, too, that the fragments that have been preserved
from the 47th and 49th books refer to the period from B.C. 100 to B.C. 90, goes
to confirm this supposition. But, according to a fragment of considerable extent
quoted by Athenäus, it appears that Posidonius also gave a detailed account of
the history of the Athenian demagogue Athenio or Aristion, B.C. 87-86. And
further, according to a notice in Strabo (xi. 1. 6), he also treated of the
history of Pompey: τὴν ἱστορίαν συνέγραψε τὴν περὶ αὐτόν. From this Müller
concludes that Posidonius had dealt with the period after B.C. 96 in a “second
part,” or a continuation of his great work. This elaborate hypothesis, however,
has no substantial support in the evidently corrupted words of Suidas. The
fifty-two books may have quite easily embraced the period from B.C. 87-86, and
the work, as Scheppig maintains, may have been brought down to that time. Arnold
would have it carried down even to B.C. 82. Much further it certainly could not
have extended, since in the 47th and 49th books the writer had got no farther
than the period B.C. 100-B.C. 90. The history of Pompey must therefore have
formed a separate work. The great work of Posidonius was held in high esteem by
later historians, who seemed to have used it as they did Polybius, as a
principal source for the period of which it treats. It is certain that Diodorus
has drawn upon it (Müller, Fragmenta, t. ii. p. 20, t. iii. p. 251). But even
Trogus Pompeius refers to it as an authority (see Heeren in: Com. Soc. Sc. Gött.
t. xv. 1804, pp. 185-245; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 258. 4, and
the literature given there). And so probably it was used by most who treated of
this period. It is therefore highly probable that the passages in Josephus which
deal with that time are essentially based upon Posidonius,—not indeed directly,
but indirectly, as he had found him quoted and used by Strabo and Nicolaus
Damascenus. Josephus used Strabo and Nicolas as authorities of the first order
for the period referred to. That Strabo had made use of Posidonius in the
composition of his history is abundantly evident, for he quotes him frequently
and with great respect in his Geography (ii. 102, xvi. 753). In Nicolaus
Damascenus, too, there are unmistakeable traces of use having been made of
Posidonius (Müller, iii. 415).—Josephus mentions Posidonius only once, in his
Treatise against Apion, ii. 7. Strongly marked resemblances, however, are
discernible between his exposition and that of Diodorus and Trogus Pompeius.
Compare the account of the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes in
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 2-3, and in Diodorus, xxxiv. 1; and that of the
Parthian war of Demetrius II. in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11, and in Justin,
i.e. Trogus Pompeius, xxxvi. 1. 3. If, then, these two—Diodorus and Trogus
Pompeius—rely upon Posidonius, then so also does Josephus. Further details in
Nussbaum, Observ. in Fl. Jos. Antiq. xii. 3-xiii. 14; Destinon, Die Quellen, §
52; J. G. Müller on Josephus “Against Apion,” 214 ff., 258 f. The historical and
geographical fragments of Posidonius are collected by C. Müller, fragmenta
historicorum Graecorum, iii. 245-296. Compare generally, Fabricius, Bibliothec.
graec. ed. Harles, iii. 572-574, iv. 34.—Bake, Posidonii Rhodii reliquae
doctrinae, Lugd. Bat. 1810.—Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. under years 143,
86, 78, 62, 60, 51.—Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, i. 1842,
357-363.—Toepelmann, De Posidonio Rhodio rerum scriptore, Bonnae 1867.—Scheppig,
De Posidonio Apamensi rerum gentium terrarum scriptore, Halis Sax.
1869.—Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, ii. 182 f., 242 f.—Blass, De
Gemino et Posidonio, Kiel 1883.—Arnold, Untersuchungen über Theophanes von
Mytilene und Posidonius von Apamea, in Jahrbb. für class. Philologie, 13
Supplementalband, 1884, pp. 75-150 (seeks to prove that Appian in his
Mithridatica has used both of these authors).—Schühlein, Studien zu Posidonius
Rhodius, Freising 1886; a careful sifting and arranging of biographical detail.
Zimmermann in: Hermes xxxiii. pp. 103-130; on the use made of Posidonius in the
Geography of Strabo.—On Posidonius as a philosopher, see Ueberweg, History of
Philosophy, vol. i. pp. 185, 189; and Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and
Sceptics, London 1869. Also: Wendland, Posidonius Werk περί θεῶν (Archiv für
Geschichte der Philos., Bd. i 1888, pp. 200-210). 4. Timagenes of Alexandria
Timagenes, by birth probably a Syrian, had been taken prisoner in Alexandria by
Gabinius during his Egyptian campaign in B.C. 55. He was then carried off to
Rome, where he continued ever afterwards to reside (Suidas, Lexicon, under the
word Τιμαγένης). He was notorious for his loose tongue, on account of which he
was forbidden by Augustus to enter his house. He was nevertheless held in high
esteem, and enjoyed the intimate friendship of Asinius Pollio. Seneca in his de
ira, iii. 23, says: Timagenes in contubernio Pollionis Asinii consensuit, ac
tota civitate dilectus est: nullum illi limen praeclusa Caesaris domus abstulit.
His numerous works were much prized on account of their learning and their
elegant rhetorical form. Ammianus Marcellinus, xv. 9, speaks of Timagenes as et
diligentia Graecus et lingua. Even Quintilian, x. 1. 75, names him among the
most famous historians. The few extant fragments are not sufficient to lead us
to form any definite judgment upon the contents and style of his work.—The
quotations in Josephus are confined to the history of Antiochus Epiphanes
(Treatise against Apion, ii. 7), of the Jewish king Aristobulus I. (Antiq. xiii.
11. 3), and of Alexander Jannäus (Antiq. xiii. 12. 5). It is evident, however,
that Josephus did not use the work of Timagenes at first hand, but borrowed his
references from other historians. In Antiq. xiii. 11. 3, he introduces a
quotation in this fashion: “as Strabo bears witness in the name of Timagenes,
who says thus.” So, too, the quotation in Antiq. xiii. 12. 5 is taken from
Strabo, who is himself immediately afterwards quoted in Antiq. xiii. 12. 6. The
fragments of Timagenes are collected by C. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum
graecorum, iii. 317-323. Comp. also Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 2nd ed. p.
573 ff.—Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 1971, and the literature
quoted there.—Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgesch. ii. 188.—Gutschmid in a paper
on “Trogus and Timagenes,” in Rhein. Museum, vol. xxxvii. 1882, pp. 548-555,
seeks to show that Trogus Pompeius is only a Latin reproduction of an original
Greek work, and assumes that the latter was the work of Timagenes. 5. Asinius
Pollio C. Asinius Pollio, the well-known friend of Caesar and Augustus,
composed, besides other works, a history of the civil war between Caesar and
Pompey, in 17 books, in the Latin tongue. This, at least, is the most probable
rendering of the confused statements in Suidas’ Lexicon, under the names Πωλίων
and Ἀσίνιος (see Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 221. 3). Plutarch,
Appian, and others made use of the work (Plutarch. Pompeius, c. 72; Caesar, c.
46; Appian. Civ. ii. 82). Since it was an authority of the first order, as being
the work of a contemporary man of affairs, an investigator like Strabo naturally
did not allow it to escape him. From a notice in Josephus it would appear that
Strabo had used it and quoted from it in the history of Caesar’s Egyptian
campaign. In his Antiq. xiv. 8. 3, Josephus thus introduces a quotation: “Strabo
of Cappadocia bears witness to this, when he says thus in the name of Asinius.”
Compare on Asinius Pollio generally, Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. i. 2, 2
Aufl. pp. 1859-1865; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 221, and the
literature quoted in both places.—Something may also be found in Hübner,
Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die römische Literaturgesch. 1878, p. 181.—On the
history of the Civil War, Thouret, De Cicerone, Asinio Pollione, C. Oppio rerum
Caesarianarum scriptoribus (Leipz. Stud. zu class. Philol., Bd. i. 1878, pp.
303-360; on Asinius Pollio, pp. 324-346). A discussion is being carried on in
regard to the authorities used by Appian, but nothing definite has been reached
as to how far he may have employed the work of Asinius Pollio. 6. Hypsikrates
Hypsikrates, a writer otherwise unknown, is quoted twice by Strabo in his
Geography. The one quotation refers to the history of Asander, a governor of the
Bosporus under King Pharnaces II., in the time of Caesar (Strabo, vii. 4. 6).
The other quotation refers to the ethnology of the Caucasian nations (Strabo,
xi. 5. 1). In a third passage a quotation about the natural history of Libya is
attributed to Iphikrates, but this name is most likely to be read Hypsikrates
(Strabo, xvii. 3. 5). According to Lucian. Macrob. c. 22, Hypsikrates was a
native of Amisus in Pontus, and lived to the age of ninety-two years. Since he
treats of the times of Caesar he cannot have been much older than
Strabo.—According to a statement in Josephus, Strabo had borrowed from this
Hypsikrates in his account of the Egyptian campaign of Caesar: “The same Strabo
says thus again, in another place, in the name of Hypsikrates,” Antiq. xiv. 8.
3. Compare generally, Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 493
ff.—Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 1560. 7. Dellius Dellius, a friend
of Antonius, wrote a work on the Parthian campaign of Antonius, in which he had
himself taken part. (Strabo, xi. 13. 3, p. 523: ὥς φησιν ὁ Δέλλιος ὁ τοῦ
Ἀντωνίου φίλος, συγγράψας τὴν ἐπὶ Παρθυαίους αὐτοῦ στρατείαν, ἐν ᾗ παρῆν καὶ
αὐτὸς ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. Plutarch. Anton. c. 59: πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φίλων οἱ
Κλεοπάτρας κόλακες ἐχέβαλον … ὧν καὶ Μάρκος ἦν Σιλανὸς καὶ Δέλλιος ὁ ἱστορικός).
It is possible, as Bürcklein and Gutschmid surmise, that all the accounts of
later historians regarding the Parthian campaign of the years B.C. 41-36, and
so, too, that of Josephus, are drawn either directly or indirectly from this
work. Josephus mentions Dellius in Antiq. xiv. 15. 1; xv. 2. 6; Wars of Jews, i.
15. 3; not, however, as a historian, but as a comrade of Antony. Compare
Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römischparthischen Feldzüge in den
Jahren, 713-718. An Inaugural Dissertation, 1879 (on Josephus, pp.
41-43).—Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, p. 97.
Generally, Haakh in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 899. Teuffel, History of
Roman Literature, § 255. 3. 8. Strabo Besides his Geography, which has come down
to us, and will be treated of under § 3. D, among extant authorities, Strabo was
the author of a large historical work which, with the exception of a few
fragments, has been lost. It had been completed before Strabo began his
Geography. In the introduction to this latter work he refers to his history:
Διόπερ ἡμεῖς πεποιηκότες ὑπομνήματα ἱστορικὰ χρήσιμα, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνομεν, εἰς τὴν
ἠθικὴν καὶ πολιτικὴν φιλοσοφίαν. From another quotation which he makes, it
appears that the 5th book of that history began where the work of Polybius
ended, i.e. with B.C. 146: εἰρηκότες δὲ πολλὰ περὶ τῶν Παθικῶν νομίμων ἐν τῇ
ἕκτῃ τῶν ἱστορικῶν ὑπομνημάτων βίβλῳ, δευτέρᾳ δὲ τῶν μετὰ Πολύβιον. This
overlapping of the narrative explains how it is that the character of the first
four books is different from that of the books μετὰ Πολύβιον; the former being
summary in the style, the latter detailed and full. In the earlier books the
times of Alexander the Great must have been treated of, for Strabo says in a
third passage that he had come to see the untrustworthiness of the reports about
India when he was engaged upon the history of Alexander the Great: καὶ ἡμῖν δʼ
ὑπῆρξεν ἐπὶ πλέον κατιδεῖν ταῦτα ὑπομνηματιζομένοις τὰς Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις.
According to an explanatory note by Suidas, Lexicon, under the name Πολύβιος,
the work “after Polybius” was composed of forty-three books: “Strabo,” it is
said, “wrote the μετὰ Πολύβιον in forty-three books;” while the whole work was
made up of forty-seven books. From the quotations in Josephus it may be
concluded that the history had been carried down at least to the conquest of
Jerusalem by Herod in B.C. 37. It may therefore have closed with the
establishment of sole and absolute monarchy under Augustus. The most of the
quotations are made by Josephus, who evidently used this work as his main
authority for the history of the Asmonaeans from John Hyrcanus to the overthrow
of Antigonus, B.C. 135-37, because he culls from this large general history the
passages and allusions that have reference to the history of Palestine. Such
notices will be found in Antiq. xiii. 10. 4, 11. 3, 12. 6; xiv. 3. 1, 4. 3, 6.
4, 7. 2, 8. 3; xv. 1. 2. Compare also a statement with reference to Autiochus
Epiphanes in the Treatise against Apion, ii. 7. This history of Strabo is also
expressly cited by Plutarch, Sulla, c. 26; Lucull. c. 28; Caesar, c. 63; and by
Tertullian, de anima, c. 46. But much as the loss of this work is to be
regretted, it is at least some satisfaction to know that Josephus used it along
with Nicolaus Damascenus as one of his principal authorities. For Strabo was a
thoroughgoing investigator, who employed the best sources with circumspection,
subjecting them to a careful critical examination. Even in the few fragments
preserved in Josephus he three times cited his authorities by name, Timagenes,
Asinius Pollio, and Hypsikrates. That he made use of the great work of
Posidonius cannot be doubted. And though his name is not once mentioned, we
cannot say how much Strabo may have been indebted to him for the information
given in his comprehensive work. Josephus frequently calls attention to the
agreement between Strabo and Nicolaus Damascenus. “Now Nicolas of Damascus and
Strabo of Cappadocia both describe the expeditions of Pompey and Gabinius
against the Jews, while neither of them says anything new that is not in the
other,” Antiq. xiv. 6. 4. But it is not probable that the one had made use of
the other, seeing that they were contemporaries. Nicolaus Damascenus is quoted
by Strabo in his Geography (xv. 1. 72, 73). On the other hand, the historical
work of Strabo is rather older than that of Nicolas. The agreement between them
to which Josephus calls attention must therefore have resulted from their using
the same authorities. It was a decided mistake on the part of Lewitz (Quaest.
Flav. specimen, 1835) to describe Strabo the historian and Strabo the geographer
as two different persons. Josephus does indeed speak of his authority as a
Cappadocian, whereas the geographer belonged to Amasia in Pontus. But the
district of Pontus is also called by Strabo ἠ πρὸς τῷ Πόντῳ Καππαδοκία (xiii. 1.
4); and Pliny names Amasia among the cities of Cappadocia (Nat. Hist. vi. 3. 8).
Mithridates, king of Pontus, is styled on an inscription: Μιθραδάτης
Καππαδοκί[ας βασιλεύς]. See Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, iii. 136a.
Kuhn, Die Städtische und bürgerlich Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 148. The
fragments of Strabo’s historical work are collected by Müller, Fragmenta
historicum graecorum, iii. 490-494. 9. Commentaries of Herod Like other royal
personages of that age, such as Augustus and Agrippa (Teuffel, History of Roman
Literature, § 220), Herod the Great wrote Commentaries or Memoirs, which are
once referred to by Josephus. “This account we give the reader as it is
contained in the Commentaries of King Herod,” Antiq. xv. 6. 3. Whether Josephus
had actually seen them himself is extremely doubtful, since in his own history
of Herod he follows Nicolaus Damascenus as his chief authority, and besides him
used only a source that was unfavourable to Herod. The preterite περιείχετο
awakens the suspicion that the work cited did not then lie before the writer,
but was known to him only at second hand. On the philosophical, rhetorical, and
historical studies of Herod, see the fragment from the Autobiography of Nicolaus
Damascenus in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 350.—The view which I had myself
at one time advocated, that Josephus had made a direct use of the Commentaries
of Herod, does not now appear to be tenable. This is the opinion also of
Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, 1882, 121 ff. But we have not the
materials for arriving at any final and definite result. 10. Ptolemäus In the
work of Ammonius, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, the following statement
is made under the word Ἰδουμαῖοι: “Idumaeans and Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) differ from one
another, as Ptolemäus says in the first book of his Life of King Herod. For the
Jews are the original inhabitants; but the Idumaeans were originally not Jews,
but Phoenicians and Syrians.” The work of one Ptolemäus on Herod, here referred
to, is otherwise quite unknown. The statements quoted about the semi-Judaism of
the Idumaeans are without doubt taken from an independent and unbiassed
investigation as to the descent of Herod, such as a royal historiographer would
never have ventured to publish. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 3. The author
cannot therefore have belonged to the court officials of Herod, among whom we
meet with two men of the name of Ptolemy. One of these was a brother of Nicolaus
Damascenus, who, after Herod’s death, took the side of Antipas, as we are told
in Antiq. xvii. 9. 4, and Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 3. The other, after Herod’s
death, joined the party of Archelaus along with Nicolaus Damascenus, and is
spoken of in Antiq. xvii. 8. 2, 9. 3, 5, and in Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8; ii.
2. 1, 4. Seeing that our author can be neither of these two, one naturally
thinks of the grammarian Ptolemy of Ascalon, the only writer of the name of
Ptolemy mentioned by Ammonius in De adfin. vocab. differentia in any other
passage than the one above quoted. Stephanus Byzantinus indeed (s.v. Ἀσκάλων)
speaks of this Ptolemy as a contemporary of Aristarchus; and if this were so, he
must have lived in the second century before Christ. But Bäge (De Ptolemaeo
Ascalonita, 1882) has made it highly probable that this statement of Stephanus
is erroneous, and that Ptolemy had lived rather in the early part of the first
century after Christ. In that case he would be, in respect of time, in the very
best position for writing a biography of Herod. Many accomplished scholars, as
Fabricius in Biblioth. graec., v. 296, Ammon in his note on the passage from
Ammonius, and Westermann in his edition of Vossius, De historicis graecis, p.
226, regard Ptolemy of Ascalon as the author of Herod’s biography. Compare in
regard to him generally, the literature given in Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 28,
29.—Müller, Fragm. hist. graec., is inclined to look for the author among the
courtiers of Herod. The statement about the Idumaeans, quoted above, is found
also in an abbreviated form in a writing ascribed to Ptolemy of Ascalon, περὶ
διαφορᾶς λέξεων, which has recently been published in a complete form by Heylbut
in Hermes, vol. xxii. 1887, pp. 388-410. In this work the passage runs as
follows: “Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) and Idumaeans (Ἰδουμαῖοι) are not the same; for the
Jews are the original inhabitants, but the Idumaeans were originally not Jews,
but Phoenicians and Syrians.” But this passage, as well as all the rest of this
reputed work of Ptolemy, appears to be nothing else than an extract from
Ammonius, who had on his part quoted from the genuine work of Ptolemy of
Ascalou. 11. Nicolaus Damascenus No writer has been used by Josephus who yields
such abundance of good material for the post-Biblical period as Nicolas of
Damascus, the trusted friend and counsellor of Herod. He belonged to a
distinguished non-Jewish family in Damascus. His father, Antipater, held the
highest official appointments there. Since Nicolas, immediately after the death
of Herod, in B.C. 4, speaks of himself as about sixty years of age, he must have
been born about B.C. 64. He acquired a thorough Greek education, and in his
philosophical views followed mainly Aristotle. Hence in the Fragments collected
by Müller he is called “Nicolas the Peripatetic,” “one of the Peripatetic
philosophers.” According to Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem in the beginning
of the seventh century after Christ, he is said to have been the tutor of the
children of Antony and Cleopatra. When Augustus was in Syria in B.C. 20, Nicolas
saw in Antioch the Indian ambassadors who came there (Strabo, xv. 1. 73).
Probably even then, but at the very latest by B.C. 14, he lived in the closest
intimacy with King Herod, by whom he was employed in some important diplomatic
negotiations. In B.C. 14 he was in the retinue of Herod when he visited Agrippa
in Asia Minor. At a later period he went with Herod to Rome. When Herod, on
account of his proceedings in Arabia, had fallen into disfavour with Augustus,
Nicolas was sent to Rome as his ambassador. Also in his conflicts with his sons,
Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, Nicolas occupied a prominent place as
counsellor of the king. After the death of Herod he represented the interests of
Archelaus before the emperor at Rome. All these particulars are derived from his
autobiography, as given in Müller’s Fragments and the corresponding sections of
Josephus. He seems to have spent his last years in Rome. Of the tragedies and
comedies which Nicolas is supposed to have written, no single vestige now
remains. Even of his philosophical productions very little has been preserved.
Undoubtedly by far the most important of his writings were his historical works,
regarding which Suidas, in his Lexicon, under the name Νικόλαος, makes the
following remark: “He wrote a general history in eighty books, and an account of
the life of Caesar, and also of his own life and career.” Besides these three
works, he wrote, according to Photius, Biblioth. cod. 189, a παραδόξων ἐθῶν
συναγωγή. Of all the four works we possess fragments of greater or less extent.
We owe the greater number of the fragments that are preserved to the great
undertaking of the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, A.D. 912-959, who had
the most trustworthy statements of the old historians collected into certain
volumes. There were in all fifty-three volumes or heads among which those
collections were distributed. Only a few of those fifty-three books have been
preserved, and of those that are extant, only two come into consideration at
present (1) The extracts De virtutibus et vitiis, edited by Valesius in A.D.
1634; and (2) the extracts De insidiis, first edited by Feder, from a codex
Escurialensis, in A.D. 1848-1855, with other extracts, in 3 vols. At the same
time, and independently of Feder, Müller edited the same manuscript in his
Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 1849.—Compare on the undertaking of Constantinus
Porphyrogennetus generally, Fabricius-Harles, Biblioth. graec. viii.; Schulze,
De excerptis constantinianis quaestiones criticae, Bonn 1866. De Boor, Zu den
Excerptensammlungen des Konstantin Porphyrogennetos (Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, pp.
123-148). 1. The great historical work of Nicolas contained 144 books
(Athenaeus, vi. p. 249). When Suidas speaks of only eighty books, this must be
explained either by assuming an error in the MSS. of Suidas, or by supposing
that only eighty books were known to Suidas. The extensive fragments preserved
in the Constantine excerpts, de virtutibus and de insidiis, are taken
exclusively from the first seven books, and refer to the early history of the
Assyrians, Medes, Greeks, Lydians, and Persians, down to the times of Croesus
and Cyrus. Of books 8-95 we possess as good as nothing. Of book 96 some
fragments have been preserved by Josephus and Athenaeus. Books 96, 103, 104,
107, 108, 110, 114, 116, 123, 124 are distinctly quoted. In books 123 and 124 an
account is given of the negotiations with Agrippa in Asia Minor in favour of the
Jews residing there, in which Herod and Nicolaus Damascenus represented the
Jewish interests (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 2; comp. xvi. 2. 2-5). These
negotiations were carried on in the year B.C. 14. The remaining twenty books
would undoubtedly treat of the following ten years, down to the beginning of the
reign of Archelaus, in B.C. 4. One only requires to read Josephus connectedly in
order to see immediately that the uncommonly complete and detailed authority
which he follows in books xv.-xvii. on the life of Herod, breaks off at the
beginning of the reign of Archelaus. What he tells regarding that reign in book
xviii. is so desperately poor and meagre, that it is utterly impossible that he
could have had at his disposal a document like that upon which he drew for books
xv.-xvii. But this complete and detailed authority can have been no other than
the work of Nicolas of Damascus, who is expressly cited in Antiq. xvi. 7. 1, and
who in his autobiography gives a historical statement that reads almost like an
extract from Josephus. Hence it is evident that it gives in briefer form the
story of the events recorded at greater length by the author in his larger
historical work.—But the historical work of Nicolas is used by Josephus, not
only for the history of Herod, but also for the history of the Asmonaeans, in a
similar way to that in which he uses the historical work of Strabo (Antiq. xiii.
8. 4, 12. 6; xiv. 4. 3, 6. 4). Josephus also expressly cites Nicolas’ work for
the history of primitive times (Antiq. i. 3. 6, 3. 9, 7. 2), for the history of
David (Antiq. vii. 5. 2), and the history of Antiochus Epiphanes (Treatise
against Apion, ii. 7). 2. Of the biography of Augustus, Βίος Καίσαρος, there are
still extant two large fragments, of which the one in the Constantine excerpts,
de virtutibus, treats of the history of Octavian’s youth and education; while
the other, which is particularly extensive, in the Constantine excerpts, de
insidiis, refers to the time immediately subsequent to Caesar’s assassination,
there being added to it, in the form of a large note or excursus, c. 19-27, a
complete account of the conspiracy against Caesar, and of the circumstances that
preceded his murder. This second fragment, which was first made known in the
publications of Feder, Müller, and Piccolos, makes it possible fairly to
estimate the historical value of the work, which, notwithstanding its general
panegyristic character, is considerable. 3. The autobiography, of which several
fragments are preserved in the excerpts de virtutibus, and upon which probably
Suidas mainly relies for the facts given in his Lexicon articles on the names
Ἀντίπατρος and Νικόλαος, is interesting on account of the undisguised
self-complacency and conceit of its author, which he shows in the unbounded
praise lavished upon all his own achievements. 4. The collection of “Remarkable
Habits and Customs,” Παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή, which was seen by Photius
(Biblioth. cod. 189), is known to us only from the extracts in the Florilegium
of Stobaeus. A complete collection of the fragments of Nicolas, with the
exception of the philosophical fragments, was first issued by Müller in his
Fragmenta historicorum graecomm, iii. 1849, pp. 343-464, and iv. pp. 661-664.
Compare generally, Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 574 f.—Grätz,
Geschichte der Juden, ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 483, note 20, proving that Nicolas was
not a Jew.—Nicolai, Geschichte Literaturgeschichte, ii. 536 f.—On his exposition
of early history, books i.-vii.: Steinmetz, Herodot und Nicolaus Damascenus,
Lüneburg 1861.—On Nicolas as an authority with Josephus: Bloch, Die Quellen des
Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 106-116. Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus,
1882, pp. 91-120. The Βίος Καίσαρος was separately edited by Piccolos, Nicolas
de Damas., vie de César, fragment récemment découvert, etc., Paris 1850.—It is
discussed by the following: Bürger, De Nicolai Damasceni fragmento Escurialensi
quod inscribitur Βίος Καίσαρος, Bonnae 1869; and O. E. Schmidt, who writes in
the Jahrbb. für class. Philologie, 1884, pp. 666-687, on Nicolaus Damascenus and
Suetonius Tranquillus, supporting, in opposition to Bürger, the historical
importance of the Βίος Καίσαρος, and seeking to show that Suetonius had made use
of it. The fragments of the Παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή have also been collected and
edited in a separate issue by Westermann, Παραδοξογράφοι, 1839, pp. 166, 167.—On
the passage referring to the Lacedaemonians, see Trieber, Quaestiones Laconicae,
pars I.: De Nicolai Damasceni Laconicis, Berol. 1867. Of the philosophical
writings of Nicolas there remain only a number of titles and short fragments.
See Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ed. 2, iii. p. 574 ff.—Roeper, Lectiones
Abulpharagianae, Danzig 1844, pp. 27, 35-43.—Müller, Fragm. histor. graec. iii.
344.—Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, London 1869.—Zell in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1679 f., art. “Aristoteles.”—Diels,
Doxographi graeci, 1879, p. 84, Anm. 1.—The pseudo-Aristotelian writing de
plantis has been ascribed by E. H. F. Meyer to Nicolaus Damascenus, and
published under his name.—Another pseudo-Aristotelian tract, περὶ κόσμου, has
been by several scholars in earlier and later times attributed to Nicolas. The
grounds for so doing are very insufficient. Becker, Bernays, and Zeller,
however, still incline to ascribe it to our author. On its later reproduction by
Apuleius, see Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 367. 6.—So far as we can
judge from the quotations and fragments of the philosophical works of Nicolas,
they are closely related to those of Aristotle, and were not so much independent
works as short expositions or compendia and illustrations of the several
departments of the Aristotelian philosophy. Roeper, Lectiones Abulpharagianae,
pp. 35-43, and Usener in: Bernays’ Ges. Abhandlungen, ii. 281. Roeper gives the
most complete collection of quotations and fragments. This is the view also
taken of them by Ueberweg in his History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 184. 12. The
Commentaries of Vespasian In the 65th chapter of his Life, Josephus refers to
the Commentaries of Vespasian as vouching the correctness of his statements:
“Nor is it only I who say this: but so it is written in the Commentaries of
Vespasian the emperor.” At the same time he brings the charge against his
opponent, Justus of Tiberias, that he could not have read those commentaries,
since his statements are in direct contradiction to this in the emperor’s work:
“For neither wast thou concerned in that war, nor hast thou read the
Commentaries of Caesar, of which we have evident proof, because thou hast
contradicted those Commentaries of Caesar in thy history.” In the Treatise
against Apion he engages in a polemic against those who judged unfavourably of
his History of the Jewish War, and denies to them the right of making such a
criticism: “How impudent must those deserve to be esteemed who undertake to
contradict me about the true state of those affairs, who, although they pretend
to have made use of both the emperor’s own memoirs, yet they could not be
acquainted with our affairs who fought against them.” These memoirs “of the
emperor’s” are evidently identical with the Commentaries of Vespasian referred
to in the Life. Nothing more than this is known about them. Compare Teuffel,
History of Roman Literature, § 311. 2. Josephus evidently came to know them only
after he had composed his work on the Wars of the Jews, since he does not
mention them among his authorities for that work (Treatise against Apion, i.
9-10). 13. Antonius Julianus Minucius Felix, in his Octavian. c. 33. 4, refers
for proof of his statement that the Jews had brought their misfortunes upon
themselves by their own evil deeds, to their own writings and those of the
Romans: “Read again their writings, or if you prefer those of the Romans, look
into those of Antonius Julianus, and you will find that their own wickedness has
occasioned their calamities.” The work of Antonius Julianus treated probably of
the war of Vespasian. For a Μάρκος Ἀντώνιος Ἰουλιανός is also mentioned by
Josephus as Procurator of Judea during the time of the Vespasian war (Wars of
the Jews, vi. 4. 3). Bernays (Ueber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus, 1861, p.
56) conjectures that this work of Antonius Julianus may have been used by
Tacitus, on whom again the work of Sulpicius Severus depends. This is possible.
But it should not be forgotten that there were yet other works on the Vespasian
war. Josephus, indeed, distinguishes such books into two classes. To the one
class belonged those who knew the events of the war at first hand from having
themselves been engaged in it, but through prejudice in favour of the Romans or
against the Jews, told the story in a false and garbled manner. To the other
class belonged those who knew the matter only from report, and were often misled
by the incorrect and inconsistent reports on which they relied. “Some men who
were not concerned in the affair themselves have gotten together vain and
contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical
manner; and those who were then present have given false account of things, and
this rather out of humour of flattery to the Romans or of hatred to the Jews,”
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, preface 1. Compare also the remarks at the end of
the preface to the Antiquities, in the Treatise against Apion, 1. 8 at the end,
and in the letter of Agrippa, quoted in chap. 65 of the Life of Josephus. 14.
Justus of Tiberias About the life of Justus of Tiberias we know only what
Josephus has told us in his Life (chaps. 9, 12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 65, 70, 74). He
was a Jew who had received a Greek education (c. 9), and along with his father
Pistus occupied a conspicuous position in his native city of Tiberias during the
Jewish war of A.D. 66-67. Being a man of moderate tendencies, he attached
himself more under compulsion than voluntarily to the revolution party, but
quitted his native town even before the subjugation of Galilee, and fled to
Agrippa (c. 70). Condemned to death by Vespasian, and given over to Agrippa for
execution, he had his sentence commuted by him, through the intercession of
Berenice, to a long period of imprisonment. He seems then to have gone again to
reside in Tiberias, but led, according to Josephus, a rather mysterious and
doubtful sort of life. Agrippa sentenced him twice to imprisonment, and had him
repeatedly banished his native city. Once he pronounced against him sentence of
death, and pardoned him only at the entreaty of Berenice. In spite of all this,
Agrippa entrusted him with the τάξις ἐπιστολῶν. But in this office, too, Justus
proved himself unserviceable, and was at last, for good and all, dismissed by
Agrippa (Josephus’ Life, c. 65). He was still alive in the beginning of the
second century after Christ, for his Chronicle reaches down to the death of
Agrippa in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100. His works are: 1. A History of
the Jewish War, against which the polemic of Josephus in his Life is directed.
The later writers who mention this work, Eusebius, Jerome, his translator
Sophronius, and Suidas, obtained their knowledge of it only from Josephus. It is
also very doubtful whether Steph. Byz. s.v. Τιβεριάς, drew directly from this
work.—2. A Chronicle of the Jewish Kings from Moses to Agrippa II. It was known
to Photius, and is briefly described by him (Biblioth. cod. 33). Also Julius
Africanus, from whom the quotations in the Chronicle of Eusebius and in
Syncellus are borrowed, made use of it. A notice in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 5.
41, has probably to be referred to another work of Justus.—3. The existence of
the Commentarioli de scripturis, mentioned by Jerome in his de viris illustr. c.
14, is very questionable, since no other author knows anything about it. In
regard to the part played by Justus during the Jewish war utterly false opinions
have very widely prevailed, owing to the misleading statements of Josephus. He
has generally been regarded as an extreme patriot and bitter foe of the Romans.
So especially by Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, 1887. But a critical examination
of all these assertions of Josephus affords us an essentially different picture.
On the one hand, Josephus describes him as a chief agitator in pressing on the
war, and affirms that he had moved his native city of Tiberias to revolt from
Agrippa and the Romans (Life, 9, 65, 70). For proof of this Josephus adduces his
campaign against the cities of Decapolis, Gadara, and Hippos, on account of
which lie was accused by the representatives of those cities to Vespasian, and
by him given over to be punished to Agrippa, so that he escaped death only
through the intercession of Berenice (c. 9 at the end, 65, 74). Further, his
connection with the revolutionary chiefs, John of Gischala (c. 17) and Jesus,
son of Sapphias (c. 54), is advanced as evidence against him. But in spite of
this effort to brand Justus as one mainly to blame for the revolutionary rising
in Galilee, Josephus is yet guileless enough to confess even at the outset that
Justus belonged neither to the Roman nor to the revolutionary party, but to a
middle party which “pretended to be doubtful about going to war” (c. 9). And a
whole series of facts prove that Justus was by no means enthusiastically in
favour of war. His nearest relatives m Gainala were murdered by the
revolutionary party (c. 35, 37). He himself was one of the prominent men who
opposed the destruction of the palace of Herod in Tiberias (c. 12). Indeed, he
was one of the councillors whom Josephus had put in prison just because they
would not join in the revolution, to whom he also then declared that he did
indeed know the might of the Romans, but that for the present they could do
nothing else than join “the robbers,” that is, the revolutionists (c. 35. Comp.
Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 8-10; Life, 32-34). Justus also left Tiberias when the
revolution there was just at its height, and went over to Agrippa and the Romans
(c. 65 and 70). He was therefore quite correct in his statement that Josephus
was mainly chargeable with the revolutionary movement in Tiberias, and in
affirming that Tiberias had been drawn into the revolt only under compulsion (c.
65). The real facts of the case are thus perfectly clear. Justus was a man of
precisely the same style and tendency as Josephus. Both had taken part in the
revolt, but both did so only under the pressure of circumstances. In reality
neither of them wished to have anything to do with it, and so now the one seeks
to throw the blame upon the other. The work which Josephus in his Life so
vehemently attacks cannot have been the same as the Chronicle described by
Photius. For, according to Photius, that Chronicle was “very meagre and brief,
and passed over much that was important and even necessary;” but the work
referred to by Josephus evidently entered into minute details, and is simply
characterized by Josephus as a History of the Jewish War. “For he was not
unskilful in the learning of the Greeks, and in dependence on that skill it was
that he undertook to write a history of these affairs” (Life, c. 9). “Justus,
who hath himself written a history concerning these affairs.… Justus undertook
to write about these facts and about the Jewish war” (c. 65). In this same
chapter (Life, c. 65) Josephus speaks of his astonishment at the impudence of
Justus, who claimed to be the best narrator of these occurrences; whereas he
knew nothing at first hand, either of the proceedings in Galilee, or of the
siege of Jotapata, or of the siege of Jerusalem. He therefore evidently treated
in that work of the whole history of the war. It was not published by Justus
until twenty years after it had been completed, when Vespasian, Titus, and
Agrippa II. were dead (Life, c. 65). It must therefore have been completed
during the lifetime of Agrippa, and so, again, it must be distinguished from the
Chronicle which reaches down to Agrippa’s death.—Eusebius, Jerome, and others
derived their grounds of accusation against Justus from Josephus. He is charged
(Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 10. 8; Jerome, de viris illustr. c. 14) with
having written a history of Jewish affairs in a distorted manner to suit his own
personal ends, and is declared to have been convicted by Josephus of falsehood.
The article in Suidas’ Lexicon on Ἰούστος is taken verbatim, from Sophronius,
the Greek translator of Jerome. Probably also the notice in Stephanus Byzantinus
on the name Tiberias is grounded upon Josephus. On the Chronicle of the Jewish
Kings, Photius in his Biblioth. cod. 33, remarks as follows: Ἀνεγνώσθη Ἰούστου
Τιβεριέως χρονικόν, οὗ ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως Ἰουδαίων βασιλέων τῶν ἐν
τοῖς στέμμασιν. Οὗτος ἀπὸ πόλεως τῆς ἐν Γαλιλαίᾳ Τιβεριάδος ὡρμᾶτο. Ἅρχεται δε
τῆς ἱστορίας ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως, καταλήγει δὲ ἕως τελευτῆς Ἀγρίππα τοῦ ἑβδόμου μὲν τῶν
ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας Ἡρώδου, ὑστάτου δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίαν Βασιλεῦσιν, ὃς παρέλαβε μὲν
τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, ηὐξήθη δε ἑπὶ Νέρωνος καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ,
τελευτᾷ δὲ ἔτει τερίτῳ Τραϊανοῦ, οὗ καὶ ἡ ἱστορία κατέληξεν. Ἔστι δὲ τὴν φράσιν
συντομώτατός τε καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων παρατρέχων.—From this work also
are taken the quotations in the Chronicle of Eusebius and those made by Georgius
Syncellus, which undoubtedly made their way to Eusebius and Syncellus through
the medium of Julius Africanus. In the preface to the second book of the
Chronicle, Eusebius speaks as follows: “That Moses flourished in the times of
Inachus is affirmed by such famous teachers as Clement, Africanus, Tatian from
among ourselves, and by Josephus and Justus from among the Jews, each after his
own fashion supporting the statement from primitive histories.” This passage
from the preface of Eusebius is not only expressly quoted by Syncellus, but also
made use of elsewhere in several other passages.—Eusebius further mentions
Justus in his Chronicle, ad ann. Abrah. 2113, during the reign of the Emperor
Nerva, as a well-known Jewish writer. In Syncellus again the same notice stands
at the beginning of the account of Trajan’s reign. This also must have been the
original position given to him in the Chronicle of Africanus. For undoubtedly
the statement rests upon the assumption that the Chronicle of Justus reached
down to the beginning of the reign of Trajan.—The notice in Scaliger, Thesaurus,
ἱστοριῶν συναγωγή ad Ol. ΣΙΦ, Δ: ἐνταῦθα λήγει τὸ Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως χρονικόν,
rests only upon Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33.—If, then, it is rendered certain
from what has been adduced that Julius Africanus made use of the Chronicle of
Justus, the theory is thoroughly confirmed that certain notices about Jewish
history in the Chroniclers dependent on Africanus, which are not derived from
Josephus, are to be traced back to Justus. See below, § 10, note [9] and Gelzer,
Julius Africanus, i. 246-265. Gutschmid had also previously guessed that
Africanus had made use of Justus. See Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 222. [9] Josephus,
in Antiq. xiii. 15. 4, gives a summary sketch of the extent of the Jewish
territory at the death of Alexander. Compare in addition, Tuch, Quaestiones de
Flavii Josephi libris historicis, Lips. 1859, pp. 12-19. See also for further
particulars the list of places taken by the Arabs in Antiq. xiv. 1. 4, fin.—A
similar sketch, according to a document inde pendent of Josephus, is given by
the Byzantine chronicler Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 558 sq. On the value of this
report, see Gelzer, Julius Africanus, Bd. i. (1880) pp. 256-258. Syncellus
refers first of all to Julius Africanus, but he again to an older Jewish
document, probably the work of Justus of Tiberias (see above, p. 68). He names
several cities which are omitted by Josephus, e.g. Abila, Hippos, Philoteria.
The mention of Philoteria is specially important, because the place bearing that
name is quite unknown in later times. According to Polybius, v. 70, it was in
the time of Antiochus the Great one of the most important cities on the lake of
Gennesareth (ἡ δὲ Φιλοτερία κεῖται παρʼ αὐτὴν τὴν λίμνην, εἰς ἣν ὁ καλούμενος
Ἰορδάνης ποταμὸς εἰσβάλλων κ.τ.λ.). Only once again do we meet with the name in
Stephen of Byzantium (ἔστι καὶ Κοίλης Συρίας Φιλωτέρα, ὡς Χάραξ ἐν ὀγδόῳ
χρονικῶν; on Charax, see Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. iii. 636 sqq.). Compare
also above, p. 196.—An outline map of the Jewish territory of the time of
Alexander Jannäus is given in Menke’s Bibelatlas, Sheet iv. In the biography of
Socrates in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 5. 41, we meet with the following statement:
“Justus of Tiberias tells that at his trial Plato went up to the platform and
said, O men of Athens, being the youngest of those who have gone up to the
platform, and that the judges cried out: Go down, go down.” It is extremely
improbable that so special a notice regarding details in the history of Socrates
and Plato should have had place in a brief chronicle of Jewish kings. But even a
comparison of the wording of the title as given by Photius with that given by
Diogenes Laertius, leads one to suppose that Justus had written other works
besides the Chronicle of the Jewish Kings. The title (Photius, Biblioth. cod.
33): Ἰουδαίων βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασιν, cannot mean: “History of the
crowned kings of the Jews,” although στέμμα, usually means crown. But as στέμμα
also means a genealogical table, this title is rather to be rendered: “History
of the kings of the Jews enumerated in the Tables.” But what στέμματα are meant?
The Chronicle of Julius Africanus consisted, it is well known, in great part of
lists of kings, Greek, Oriental, and Roman. Is it not likely that the older work
of Justus should have been similarly constructed? Then there would have been,
only a part of the whole work known to Photius, namely, the history of the kings
of the Jews designated in the στέμματα of Justus, while to Diogenes Laertius
there was known another στέμμα, therefore another part of the whole work.
Compare on Justus generally, Vossius, De historicis graecis, 1838.—Fabricius,
Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles, v. 61, x. 691.—Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec.
iii. 523.—Vaillant, De Historicis qui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere,
Paris 1851.—Creuzer, Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853, pp. 57-59.—Grätz, Das
Lebensende des Königs Agrippa II., des Justus von Tiberias und des Flavius
Josephus und die Agrippa-Münzen (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Jude.
1877, p. 337 ff.), gives an impossible explanation of the Photius passage.
Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, sein Verhältniss zu den Parteien, insbesondere zu
Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II., Breslau 1877. 15. Aristo of Pella On Aristo
of Pella and his literary work we have only two independent witnesses, Eusebius
and Maximus Confessor.—1. According to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iv. 6.
3, it was told in a work of Aristo of Pella, that after the conquest of Bitther
and the overthrow of Barcochba, “it was enjoined by regular legal enactments of
Hadrian upon the whole Jewish race, that they should on no pretext enter within
the region round about Jerusalem, the emperor wishing that they should not be
able, even from a distance, to look upon their native soil.” (τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἐξ
ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα γῆς πάμπαν ἐπιβαίνειν εἴργεται, νόμου δόγματι
καὶ διατάξεσιν Ἀδριανοῦ, ὡς ἂν μηδʼ ἐξ ἀπόπτου θεωροῖεν τὸ πατρῷον ἔδαφος
ἐγκελευσαμένου. Ἀρίστων ὁ Πελλαῖος ἱστορεῖ.) On this passage in Eusebius is
founded what is said in the Chronicon paschale, and by the Armenian historian,
Moses of Chorene, respecting Aristo of Pella.—2. In the Scholia of Maximus
Confessor on Dionysius the Areopagite, De mystica theologia, written about A.D.
630-650, we meet with the following notice: “I have also read the expression
‘seven heavens’ in the dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, composed by Aristo of
Pella, which Clement of Alexandria, in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, says
was written by St. Luke.” (Ἀνέγνων δὲ τοῦτο "ἑπτὰ οὐρανοὺς" καὶ ἐν τῇ
συγγεγραμμένῃ Ἀρίστωνι τῷ Πελλαίῳ διαλέξει Παπίσκου καὶ Ἰάσονος, ἣν Κλήμης ὁ
Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν ἕκτῳ βιβλίῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων τὸν ἅγιον Λουκᾶν φησιν ἀναγράψαι.)
According to Maximus Confessor, therefore, Aristo was the author of the Dialogue
between Jason and Papiscus, which is also elsewhere quoted, but always as an
anonymous work. He was already known to the heathen philosopher Celsus, as well
as to Origen and Jerome. We obtain most information from the still extant
preface to a Latin translation made by a certain Celsus, according to Harnack,
belonging probably to the fifth century after Christ, contained in some
manuscripts of the works of Cyprian. At the close of the main section, cap. 8,
he names himself Celsus. According to the statement here given concerning it,
Jason was the representative of the Christian view, Papiscus was the
representative of Judaism. But the Christian so convincingly proves to the Jew
the Messiahship of Jesus, that the latter is soon converted and baptized. Seeing
that the Dialogue, as it lay before Celsus, Origen, Jerome, and the Latin
translator, was evidently anonymous, for no one is named by them as its author,
it is very questionable whether the testimony of Maximus in favour of the
authorship of Aristo is worthy of credit. Whence should a writer of the seventh
century obtain correct information about the author of whom all earlier writers
knew nothing? The guess of Maximus, however, is by no means improbable. In
Tertullian’s work, adversus Judaeos, c. 13, at the beginning, we have the
imperial edict forbidding the Jews to enter the environs of Jerusalem, given in
terms almost literally identical with those of the passage quoted by Eusebius
from Aristo (interdictum est ne in confinio ipsius regionis demoretur quis-quam
Judaeorum.… post expugnationem Hierusalem prohibiti ingredi in terram vestram de
longinquo eam oculis tantum videre permissum est). Since Tertullian brings this
forward in an anti-Jewish controversial treatise, it is highly probable that he
had extracted the notice from a similarly anti-Jewish work. But such precisely
was the character of the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus (comp. also
Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, i. 1-2, p. 127 ff.). If, then, on the basis
of what has been adduced, it is conjectured that the notice in Eusebius is taken
from the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, we cannot ascribe to Aristo a
special history on the Hadrian war; and it is not probable that the other
statements in Eusebius about the Hadrian war are drawn from Aristo, who rather
makes only passing reference to that one edict.—As to the date of Aristo, he may
be put down somewhere about the middle of the second century. In the Chronicon
paschale, on the year A.D. 134, the remark is made: “In this year Apelles and
Aristo, whom (ὧν) Eusebius Pamphilus mentions in his Ecclesiastical History,
presents (ἐπιδίδωσιν) the draft of an apology concerning our religion to the
Emperor Hadrian.” Since the author refers expressly to Eusebius, his testimony
has no independent value. The singular ἐπιδίδωσιν makes it probable that he
wrote ὁ Πελλαῖος Ἀρίστων, out of which Ἀπελλῆς καὶ Ἀρίστων arose through
corruption of the text.—At any rate, the Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene,
derived his information from Eusebius. He indeed states that Aristo reports the
death of King Artases, a contemporary of Hadrian; but then in his history of
Barcochba he closely follows Eusebius. See Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, i. 101 ff.
Langlois, Collection des Historiens de l’Arménie, t. i. [= Müller, Fragmenta
hist. graec. v. 2] p. 391 sqq. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, i. 1-2, p.
126. The Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus was probably largely used in the
Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili christiani, published by Martène in his
Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, vol. v., Paris 1717, and again rescued from
oblivion by Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. i. div. 3, 1883, especially
pp. 115-130. On Aristo generally, compare Fabricius, Biblioth graec., ed.
Harles, vii. 156 ff.—Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, ii. 127-133.—Routh, Reliquiae
sacrae, i. 91-109.—Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, Edin. 1846, vol. i.
156.—Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, London 1877, vol. i. pp.
160, 161.—Pauly’sReal-Encyclop. i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1597.—Müller, Fragm. hist.
graec. iv. 328.—Corpus apologetarum, ed. Otto, t. ix. 1872, pp.
349-363.—Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten
Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, 1882.—Zahn, Forschungen zur
Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons, vol. iii. 1884, p. 74. 16. Papyrus
Parisiensis, n. 68 Among the Greek Papyrus texts of the Louvre at Paris we meet
with certain fragments which refer to the revolt of the Jews in Alexandria
during the time of the Roman Empire. The texts, however, are so fragmentary that
it is quite impossible to determine with any exactness the date of the revolt
referred to. Were they more complete, they would have afforded us invaluable
historical information. For they had contained, as we can make out beyond
question, among other things, one or two rescripts of the emperor addressed to
the Jews of Alexandria with reference to the outbreak, as well as a letter
addressed to the emperor by a man who had been already under sentence of death,
and now, face to face with death, “will not shrink from telling the truth.” The
fragments are published as Papyrus Paris. n. 68, by Brunet de Presle, in Notices
et extraits des Manuscrits … publiés par l’Institut de France, vol. xviii. part
2, Paris 1865, pp. 383-390. See also Atlas attached thereto, sheet xlv. 17.
Teucer Cyzicenus Suidas in his Lexicon, under the name Τεῦκρος ὁ Κυζικηνός, says
that he wrote: “On the Gold-yielding Earth; on Byzantium; on the Mithridate war,
in five books; on Tyre, in five books; on the Arabians, in five books; on Jewish
History, in six books, and various other works.” (Τεῦκρος ὁ Κυζικηνὸς, ὁ γράψας
Περὶ χρυσοφόρου γῆς, Περὶ τοῦ Βυζαντίου, Μιθριδατικῶν πράξεων βιβλία εʹ, Περὶ
Τύρου εʹ, Ἀραβικῶν εʹ, Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἱστορίαν ἐν βιβλίοις ςʹ, Ἐφήβων τῶν ἐν Κυζίκῳ
ἄσκησιν γʹ καὶ τὰ λοιπά.) Of this Teucer Cyzicenus there are only two small
fragments now extant, which discuss the etymology of the names of two places in
Epirus and Euboea. Otherwise nothing whatever is known of him. Whether he is
identical with some other writers of the name of Teucer who have been
occasionally mentioned, must continue undetermined. Comp. Müller, Fragmenta
historicorum graecorum, iv. 508. 18. Various Works Ἰουδαίων Special treatises on
the history of the Jews were also written by the Jewish Hellenists, Demetrius,
Eupolemus, Artapanus, Aristeas, Cleodemus-Malchus, and the classical Philo. But
these can scarcely come under consideration here, since they mainly, if not
exclusively, treat of the earlier periods of the history (see Div. ii. vol. iii.
pp. 200-210). The book of the pseudo-Hecateus on the Jews seems to have dealt in
more detail than those just named with the condition of the people in his own
days (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 302-306).—The five books of Philo on the
persecution of the Jews under Tiberius and Caligula would have been an important
document for the history of his times, which ought to be mentioned here, because
the work is no longer extant (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 350-354). Pagan
authors, even from very early times, made passing allusions to the Jews. A
collection of these may be found in Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, pp.
177-179, and in Josephus, Treatise, against Apion, i. 14-23. But from the
beginning of the first century before Christ special works on the Jews by
non-Jewish authors came to be written. 1. The oldest non-Jewish history of the
Jews known to us is the συσκευὴ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων of Apollonius Molon (see Div. ii.
vol. iii. pp. 251-254).—2. Not much later is the learned compilation of
Alexander Polyhistor, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, to which we are indebted for valuable
excerpts from the writings of Jewish Hellenists (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp.
197-200).—3. In the age of Hadrian lived Philo Byblius, also called Herennius
Philo, who, besides other works, wrote a treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων. In it,
according to the statement of Origen, he referred to the book of the
pseudo-Hecateus on the Jews, and in regard to it expressed the opinion that
either the book was not the work of the historian Hecateus, or that if Hecateus
were indeed the author, he must have out and out accepted the Jewish doctrine
(Origen, contra Celsum, i. 15; see the passage referred to in Div. ii. vol. iii.
p. 304). Two fragments in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangel. i. 10, are avowedly
taken from the same treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων. The contents of those fragments,
however, refer expressly to the Phoenician mythology, and the second of them is
quoted by Eusebius in another place (Praeparatio evangel. iv. 16) with the
formula, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου συγγράμματος τῆς Φίλωνος Φοινικικῆς ἱστορίας. It was
therefore generally assumed that the treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, was simply an
excursus to the large work of Philo, Φοινικικὴ ἱστορία. So, e.g., Freudenthal,
Alexander Polyhistor, p. 34. But, when we consider the contents of the Eusebian
fragments, this is not probable. It would rather seem that Eusebius, i. 10,
inadvertently ascribed the passages taken by him from the Phoenician history to
the treatise περὶ Ἰουδαίων, with which, too, he was acquainted. Comp. on Philo
generally, Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 560-576. Baudissin, in art.
“Sanchuniathon,” in Herzog, xiii. 364.—4. A treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, was also
written by a certain Damocritus. From the brief statement regarding it in
Suidas, under the name Δαμόκριτος (comp. also Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec.
iv. 377), this only seems clear, that its standpoint was one of deadly enmity to
the Jews.—5. The same may be said of the work of a certain Nicarchus, περὶ
Ἰουδαίων (Bekker, Anecdota, p. 380=Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii.
335).—6. As a writer on Jewish affairs, Alexander Polyhistor also mentions one
Theophilus (Eusebius, Praeparatio evangel. ix. 34), one Timochares, ἐν τοῖς περὶ
Ἀντιόχου (Eusebius, ix. 35), and an anonymous Συρίας σχοινομέτρησις (Eusebius,
ix. 36). But all the three had evidently spoken of Jewish matters only in
passing. Theophilus treated of Solomon’s relation to the king of Tyre; the other
two gave interesting details about the topography of Jerusalem. Comp. on all the
three: Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 209; also on Theophilus, Müller,
iv. 515 ff. 19. The Chronographers For a detailed account of the plundering of
the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, Josephus refers, in his Treatise against
Apion, ii. 7, among others to the chronographers Apollodorus and Castor. To
Castor he also refers in order to determine the date of the battle of Gaza
(Treatise against Apion, i. 22). Since it is possible that he also elsewhere
derived various chronological information for these treatises, it is most
important that we should here examine carefully the notices that we have
regarding these two. 1. Apollodorus of Athens lived about the middle of the
second century before Christ, and besides other works wrote the Χρονικά, which
treated in chronological order of the most important events in universal history
down to the time of King Attalus II. of Pergamum, in the middle of the second
century before Christ. A collection of the fragments of this historical work,
which is not to be confounded with the extant Βιβλιοθήκη under Apollodorus’
name, is to be found in Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, i. 435-439.
Compare also Müller, l.c. p. 43; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p.
1302 f. 2. Castor’s Chronicle is known to us mainly through the quotations in
the works of the Christian chroniclers Eusebius and Syncellus. The first book of
the Eusebian Chronicle, extant now only in an Armenian translation, gives us
particularly valuable extracts. What is therein contained makes it certain that
the work of Castor was carried down to the consulship of M. Valerius Messala and
M. Piso, B.C. 61; that is, down to the year in which Pompey celebrated his
Asiatic triumph, by which the subjection of Further Asia was finally settled
(nostrae regionis res praeclaraque gesta cessarunt). Since the author concludes
at that particular point of time, his work cannot have been written much later
than the middle of the first century before Christ. It consisted, according to
Eusebius, of six books.—We meet with many individuals bearing the name of Castor
during the time of Caesar and Cicero. But it is doubtful whether the
chronographer is to be identified with any of these, and so nothing can with
certainty be determined as to the circumstances of his life. The fragments are
collected by Müller in the Appendix to the edition of Herodotus, Paris 1844,
Appendix, pp. 153-181.—Eusebius mentions the work in the list of his authorities
in the following terms: “The six books of Castor, in which he collects materials
for history from the ninth to the one hundred and eighty-first Olympiad.”—The
termination of the work is precisely stated in passages expressly quoted by
Eusebius. “We set down in order the consuls, beginning with Lucius Junius Brutus
and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and ending with Marcus Valerius Messala and
Marcus Piso, who were consuls in the times of Theophemus, archon of Athens”
(Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 295).—“The archous of Athens end with
Theophemus, in whose days the famous deeds and the renown of our land were
brought utterly to an end” (Euseb. Chron. i. 183). Compare generally, Müller,
Herodotus, Paris 1844, Appendix, pp. 153-155.—Westermann in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 207 f.—Bornemann, De Castoris Diodori Siculi chronicis
fonte ac norma, Lübeck 1878.—Stiller, De Castoris libris chronicis, Berlin
1880.—Gelzer, Julius Africanus, ii. 1, 1885, pp. 63-79; on the person of Castor,
p. 70 ff.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: C.�JOSEPHUS
========================================================================

C.—JOSEPHUS Josephus, whose works form a principal authority for our history,
gives in his Life and in the History of the Wars of the Jews several important
particulars from the story of his own career. He was born at Jerusalem in the
first year of the reign of Caligula, A.D. 37-38.[10] His father was called
Matthias, and was descended from a distinguished priestly family, whose
ancestors Josephus can trace back to the times of John Hyrcanus. One of his
forefathers, called Matthias, had married a daughter of the high priest Jonathan
(= Alexander Januaeus?). See Life, 1, and Wars of the Jews, preface 1;
Antiquities, xvi. 7. 1. The young Josephus obtained a careful rabbinical
education, and even as a boy of fourteen years old had acquired so great a
reputation for his knowledge of the law, that the high priests and the chief men
of the city came to him in order to receive from him instruction in regard to
difficult points of law. Yet he was hot himself satisfied with such attainments,
but, on his attaining his sixteenth year, made a pilgrimage through the various
schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. But even this did not suffice
to quench his thirst for knowledge. He now withdrew into the wilderness, and
visited a hermit called Banus, in order to receive from him the finishing stroke
in his education. After he had spent three years with him, he returned to
Jerusalem, and in his nineteenth year openly joined the party of the Pharisees
(Life, c. 2). In his twenty-sixth year (μετʼ εἰκοστὸν καὶ ἕκτον ἐνιαυτόν), which
corresponds to A.D. 64,[11] he took a journey to Rome in order to obtain the
release of certain priests nearly related to him, who had been carried thither
as prisoners on account of some trifling matter. Having, by means of an
introduction from a Jewish actor Alityrus, secured the favour of the Empress
Poppaea, he succeeded in securing the end he had in view, whereupon he returned
to Judea laden with rich presents (Life, c. 3). Soon after his return, in A.D.
66, the war against the Romans broke out. At first Josephus kept himself clear
of all connection with the war (Life, c. 4); and this indeed was quite possible,
since the Jewish aristocracy in general entered this outbreak only under
compulsion. But the fact is that Josephus, after the first decisive battles had
taken place, attached himself to the revolution party, and indeed became one of
its leaders. He was entrusted by the directors of the movement with the most
important post of a commander-in-chief of Galilee (Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 4;
Life, c. 7). From that time onward his doings and fortunes are closely joined
with those of the Jewish people, and therefore form a component part of the
history of the Jewish war. Compare Life, c. 7-74; Wars of the Jews, ii. 20.
4-21. 10; iii. 4. 1, 6. 3-8. 9; ix. 1. 5, 6. His performances as
commander-in-chief of Galilee came to an end by his being taken prisoner by the
Romans after the fall of the fortress of Jotapata in A.D. 67 (Wars of the Jews,
iii. 8. 7-8). When he was carried before Vespasian, he prophesied to him his
future elevation to the imperial throne (Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 9; Life, c.
75). But when, two years later, in A.D. 69, Vespasian was in very deed
proclaimed emperor by the Palestinian legions, and the prophecy of Josephus was
thus fulfilled, Vespasian remembered his prisoner, and as a thank-offering
granted him his freedom (Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 7). From this time onward
Josephus, as custom required, assumed the family name of Vespasian “Flavius”
along with his own. After being proclaimed emperor, Vespasian hasted first of
all to Alexandria (Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 5), to which place Josephus
accompanied him (Life, c. 75). Thence Josephus returned to Palestine in the
retinue of Titus, to whom Vespasian had committed the continuation of this war,
and remained in the company of Titus down to the close of the war (Life, c. 75;
Treatise against Apion, i. 9). During the siege of Jerusalem he was obliged, by
order of Titus, often at the great risk of his own life, to negotiate with the
Jews for a surrender (Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 3, 6. 2, 7. 4, 9. 2-4, 13. 3; vi.
2. 1-3, 2. 5, 7. 2; Life, c. 75). Once while engaged on such an errand he was
struck by a stone, so as to be rendered unconscious (Wars of the Jews, v. 13.
3). When, after the capture of the city, Titus allowed him to take whatever he
would, he took only some sacred books, and obtained the release of many of the
prisoners who were his friends, among whom was his own brother. Three who had
been already crucified were again taken down at his request, one of whom
recovered (Life, c. 75). When his property in Jerusalem was required by the
Roman garrison, Titus gave him in place of it another in the plain (Life, c.
76). At the conclusion of the war he went with Titus to Rome, where he continued
to reside, pursuing his studies and engaged in literary work amid the unbroken
favour of the emperor. The Jewish priest was now transformed into a Greek
literary man. Vespasian assigned him a residence in what had formerly been his
own palace, bestowed on him the rights of Roman citizenship, and granted him a
yearly pension (Life, c. 76; compare Suetonius, Vespasian, 18: primus e fisco
Latinis Graccisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit). He also presented him
with a splendid estate in Judea. On the suppression of the Jewish outbreak in
Cyrene, the captive leader of the insurrection, Jonathan, gave the names of many
prominent Jews as being accomplices with him, and among these was the name of
Josephus. He said that Josephus had sent him weapons and money. But Vespasian
gave no credence to this false charge, and continued to show favour to Josephus
(Life, c. 76; Wars of the Jews, vii. 11. 1-3). Like favour was enjoyed by
Josephus under Titus, A.D. 79-81, and under Domitian, A.D. 81-96. The latter
granted him exemption from tribute in respect of his estate in Judea (Life, c.
76). Nothing is known as to his relation to the later emperors. We also know
equally little as to the precise time of his death. This much only is certain,
that he was still alive in the first decade of the second century. For the
autobiography was written after the death of Agrippa II. (Life, c. 65). But
Agrippa died in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100 (Photius, Biblioth. cod.
33).—According to a statement by Eusebius (Ecclesiast. History, iii. 9),
Josephus was honoured in Rome by the erection of a statue. [10] The first year
of Caligula’s reign extends from 16th March A.D. 37 down to 16th March A.D. 38.
Since Josephus, at the close of his Antiquities, makes his fifty-sixth year
synchronize with the thirteenth year of Domitian, which extended from 13th
September A.D. 93 to 13th September A.D. 94, he cannot have been born before
13th September A.D. 37. His birth therefore falls between 13th September A.D. 37
and 16th March A.D. 38. Compare Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen
Zeitalters, p. 98. [11] Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolisch. Zeitalters, p.
98. In regard to his family connections, Josephus gives us the following
details. During the days of John Hyrcanus his fore-father Simon the Stammerer
lived. He belonged to the first of the twenty-four orders of priests, therefore
to the order of Jehoiarib. Simon’s son was Matthias, called Ephlias, who married
a daughter of the high priest Jonathan (= Alexander Jannaeus?). Of this marriage
was born Matthias Curtus, in the first year of Hyrcanus II. The son of Matthias
Curtus was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra (?). His son
was Matthias, the father of our Josephus, born in the tenth year of Archelaus
(Life, c. 1).[12]—The parents of our Josephus were still alive in the time of
the great war. While he was commander-in-chief in Galilee, he obtained through
his father news from Jerusalem (Life, c. 41). During the siege of Jerusalem his
parents were within the beleaguered city, and were, because regarded as
untrustworthy, kept in prison by the revolutionists (the father, Wars of the
Jews, v. 13. 1; the mother, Wars, v. 13. 3; comp. also v. 9. 4 at the end). On
the capture of the city he obtained the release of his brother from a Roman
prison (Life, c. 75). This is supposed to have been his full brother Matthias,
who had been educated along with him (Life, c. 2). According to the Wars of the
Jews, v. 9. 4 at the end, his wife also was in the city during the siege. In all
probability this was his first wife, of whom there is no mention elsewhere. As
Vespasian’s prisoner of war, he had at his command married a captive Jewess from
Caesarea. But she left him during his stay with Vespasian in Alexandria. He
then, again, in Alexandria married another (Life, c. 75). By this last he had
three sons, of whom at the time of his writing his autobiography only one
survived, Hyrcanus, who was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian
(Life, c. 1 and 76). Still during Vespasian’s reign, he got divorced from this
wife and married a Jewess of noble family in Crete, who bore him two sons:
Justus, born in the seventh year of Vespasian, and Simonides, with the surname
of Agrippa, born in the ninth year of Vespasian. Both of these were alive when
Josephus wrote his life (Life, c. 1 and 76). [12] The genealogy, as given in the
received text of the Life, contains several impossibilities. If Josephus’
father, Matthias, was born in the tenth year of Archelaus, A.D. 6, then his son
Joseph could not have been born in the ninth year of Alexandra, B.C. 69. Here we
meet with either an oversight of Josephus or a corruption of the text. If we
assume that Joseph, the grandfather of our Josephus, was born somewhere about
B.C. 30, in the ninth year of Herod, then Matthias Curtus will have been born
under Hyrcanus, in his first year, and we shall have to understand this of
Hyrcanus II., who was high priest in B.C. 78. The mother of Curtus cannot then
have been the daughter of Jonathan, the first of the Maccabees, who died in B.C.
143-142, but only a daughter of Alexander Jannaeus, who died B.C. 78, and who
was also called Jonathan. Josephus has indeed said of this Jonathan his
forefather that he “was the first of the sons of Asmoneus, who was high priest,
and was the brother of Simon, the high priest also.” But we may reasonably
suspect that Josephus has erroneously added this explanatory note to the name of
the high priest Jonathan as he found it in the list of his forefathers. If
Alexander Jannaeus is meant, it will also harmonize with the statement that
Simon the Stammerer lived under John Hyrcanus. To the literary leisure of
Josephus at Rome we are indebted for those works, without which our history
could scarcely have been written. They comprise the four following:— 1. THE WARS
OF THE JEWS, Περὶ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου, as Josephus himself entitles the work
in his Life, c. 74.[13] It is divided into seven books, a distribution which, as
appears from Antiq. xiii. 10. 6, xviii. 1. 2, it owes to Josephus himself. The
proper history of the war is preceded by a very comprehensive introduction,
which occupies the whole of the first book and the half of the second. The first
book begins with the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 175-164, and reaches down
to the death of Herod, B.C. 4. The second continues the history down to the
outbreak of the war in A.D. 66, and gives an account of the first year of the
war, A.D. 66-67. The third treats of the war in Galilee in A.D. 67; the fourth
of the continued course of the war down to the complete isolation of Jerusalem;
the fifth and sixth describe the siege and overthrow of Jerusalem; the seventh
relates the events that followed the war, down to the destruction of the last
smouldering embers of the revolution.—From the preface to this work (c. 1) we
learn that it was originally written in the author’s mother tongue, therefore in
Aramaic, and only at a later period re-written by him in Greek. In order to
re-write it, he took lessons in Greek composition (Treatise against Apion, i.
9). As main authority for the story of the war proper, he relies upon his own
experience, since he had been either actively engaged in, or was at least an
eye-witness of, the events recorded. Even during the siege of Jerusalem he had
taken down notes in writing, for which he drew upon the statements of survivors
as to the state of matters within the city (Treatise against Apion, i. 9). When
the work was completed, he handed it to Vespasian and Titus, and had the
satisfaction of being assured by them, as also by King Agrippa II. and many
Romans who had taken part in the war, that he had reported the facts correctly,
and with absolute fidelity to the truth (Treatise against Apion, i. 9; Life, c.
65). Titus with his own hand wrote an order for the publication of the book
(Life, c. 65). Agrippa wrote sixty-two letters, in which he gave testimony to
the truthfulness of the narrative. During the composition of the work, Josephus
had submitted to him book by book, and had obtained favourable opinions from him
(Life, c. 65).—Since the completed work was submitted to Vespasian (Treatise
against Apion, i. 9), it must have been written during his reign, A.D. 69-79;
but not until near the close of that reign, for other works had been written on
the Jewish war before this one by Josephus (Wars of the Jews, Preface, c. 1;
Antiquities, Preface, c. 1). [13] a Similarly Antiq. xviii. 1. 2: “In the second
book of the Jewish War” (ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου). In the
manuscripts the title usually runs περὶ ἁλώσεως. This title, which certainly was
not given the book by Josephus, is first met with in Jerome, who, in his
Commentary on Isaiah, c. 64, says: “which Josephus, a writer of Jewish history,
explains in seven books, to which he gave the title, ‘Of the Jewish Captivity,’
that is, περὶ ἁλώσεως.” Compare also Epist. 22, ad Eustochium, c. 35; adv.
Jovinian. ii. 14; de viris illustribus, c. 13. 2. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS,
Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία, in twenty books, treat of the history of the Jewish people
from the earliest times down to the outbreak of the war with the Romans in A.D.
66. The division into twenty books was also the work of Josephus himself (Antiq.
conclusion). The first ten books run parallel with the biblical history, and
reach down to the end of the Babylonian captivity. The eleventh carries the
history down from Cyrus to Alexander the Great; the twelfth from Alexander the
Great, who died B.C. 323, down to the death of Judas Maccabee in B.C. 161; the
thirteenth down to the death of Alexandra in B.C. 69; the fourteenth down to the
beginning of the reign of Herod the Great in B.C. 37; the fifteenth, sixteenth,
and seventeenth treat of the reign of Herod, B.C. 37-4; the last three books
carry us on to the year 66 after Christ.—The work, according to many parenthetic
statements, was completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian, when Josephus was
in his fifty-sixth year, that is, in A.D. 93 or 94 (Antiq. xx. 11 at the close).
He had been encouraged to carry it on to the end, especially by a certain
Epaphroditus, a man whose lively interest in science and literature is
enthusiastically praised by Josephus.[14]—That the entire work was intended, in
the first instance, not for Jewish but for Greek and Roman readers, and that its
aim mainly was to afford the cultured world some idea of the much calumniated
Jewish race, must appear evident from its general form and character, and is
expressly declared even to superfluity by Josephus himself (Antiq. xvi. 6. 8).
[14] To this Epaphroditus Josephus also dedicates his Life, see c. 76, and the
Treatise against Apion, see i. 1 and ii. 41.—Two men of the name of Epaphroditus
are known to have lived at this time. The one was a freedman and secretary of
Nero, and was put to death by Domitian. (Tacitus, Annals, xv. 55; Suetonius,
Nero, 49; Domitian, 14; Dio Cassius, lxiii. 29, lxvii. 14; Suidas’ Lexicon,
under Ἐπίκτητος). The other was a grammarian, who lived in Rome from the time of
Nero down to that of Nerva, and collected a great library (Suidas’ Lexicon,
under Ἐπαφρόδιτος. Compare also Fabricius, Biblioth. graec., ed. Harles, i. 512,
582, iii. 815). Many regard the one first named as identical with the patron of
Josephus. But this is impossible, since the latter must have lived beyond the
time of Domitian. Much more likely would the grammarian have been; but even this
could be only on the supposition that he survived to the beginning of the reign
of Trajan. The name Epaphroditus was by no means rare. See the Roman sepulchral
monuments, Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. 17181-17194. As authorities, Josephus employed
for the earlier periods down to Nehemiah, about B.C. 440, almost exclusively the
canonical books of the Old Testament. As a native of Palestine, he displays in
his use of them, in many ways, his knowledge of the Hebrew language. Yet he
makes use commonly of the Greek Septuagint translation. To such an extent is
this the case, that Josephus uses those parts of the books of Ezra and Esther
which appear only in the LXX. (see Div. ii. vol. iii. 179, 182; Bloch, Die
Quellen des Fl. Josephus, pp. 69-79). His reproduction of the Jewish history is
written from the following points of view:—(1) Not infrequently modifications
are made in an apologetical interest, something offensive is omitted or smoothed
down, and the history is set forth in the form best fitted to glorify the
nation. (2) For the latter purpose Josephus had the help of the older legends,
the so-called Haggada. The influence of that literature is seen chiefly in the
history of the patriarchs and of Moses. (3) Josephus, it would seem, had not
derived this Haggadic adornment wholly from oral tradition, but in part from the
older Hellenistic reproductions of the biblical history by Demetrius, Artapanus,
and others.[15] (4) In his exposition of the law he follows the Palestinian
Halacha. For examples, see Div. ii. vol. i. 330-339. (5) In several particulars
the influence of Philo is very observable.[16] (6) He does not scruple to draw
upon extra-biblical authors in order to illustrate, fill up, and confirm the
Scripture history. This is specially the case with his treatment of the history
of primitive times, and also of that of the latest periods, where it became
largely mixed up with the history of neighbouring nations.[17] [15] On the
influence of Demetrius, see Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, pp. 46, 49, note
61, note 63. On that of Artapanas: Freudenthal, pp. 160, note, 169-171. On both:
Bloch, Quellen des Fl. Josephus, pp. 53-62. Josephus knew neither of them at
first hand, but only through the medium of Alexander Polyhistor. See Div. ii.
vol. iii. p. 197 ff. [16] See Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, pp. 278-281.
Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p. 218. On the other side: Bloch, Die Quellen
des Fl. Josephus, pp. 117-140. Drummond, Philo of Alexandria, London 1888. [17]
In the first ten books the following non-biblical writers are quoted: i. 3. 6,
Berosus, Jerome, Mnaseas, Nicolas of Damascus; i. 3. 9, Manetho, Berosus,
Mochus, Hestiaeus, Jerome, Hesiod, Hecataeus, Hellanicus, Acusilaus, Ephorus,
Nicolas; i. 4. 3, Sibylla, Hestiaeus; i. 7. 2, Berosus, Hecataeus, Nicolas; i.
15, Malchus, from Alexander Polyhistor; vii. 3. 2, Homer; vii. 5. 2, Nicolas;
viii. 5. 3, Menander, Dios; viii. 6. 2, Herodotus; viii. 10. 2-3, Herodotus;
viii. 13. 2, Menander; ix. 14. 2, Menander; x. 1. 4, Herodotus, Berosue; x. 2.
2, Berosus; x. 11. 1, Berosus, Megasthenes, Diocles, Philostratus. On the
post-biblical period he has made his inquiries and set forth his information in
an extremely unequal and disproportionate manner. In filling up the great gap
between Nehemiah and Antiochus Epiphanes, from B.C. 440 to B.C. 175, Josephus
depends almost entirely upon two legendary productions, namely, the Alexander
legends and the pseudo-Aristeas, from whom he gives a lay extract (xii. 2). For
the period B.C. 175-135 the First Book of Maccabees is the principal source,
which indeed towards the close is used in so slight a way that it becomes
doubtful whether Josephus could have had before him a complete copy of that work
(see Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 9).[18] It is supplemented by Polybius (xii. 9.
1),[19] and, for the period beyond that at which Polybius stops, B.C. 146, by
those authorities from which the history of the Asmoneans generally, down to
B.C. 135, is derived. For this period Josephus evidently was without any written
documents of Jewish origin. He therefore obtained his materials by culling from
the general historical works of the Greeks any statements that he discovered
bearing upon the history of Palestine. His chief authorities for the period B.C.
135-37 were two historians often, and indeed almost exclusively, quoted by him:
Strabo (xiii. 10. 4, 11. 3, 12. 6; xiv. 3. 1, 4. 3, 6. 4, 7. 2, 8. 3; xv. 1. 2)
and Nicolas of Damascus (xiii. 8. 4, 12. 6; xiv. 1. 3, 4. 3, 6. 4). In recent
times the idea has been indeed expressed by many, that the very fact of these
authors being so frequently quoted by Josephus shows that they were not his
chief sources, and that the citations are to be regarded as interpolations,
inserted only for the purpose of supplementing the text afforded by unnamed
leading authorities made use of by him.[20] But such a view would only lead one
into inexplicable confusion. Josephus borrows his whole material from these
authors, and then refers to particular passages of special importance, which he
quotes in order to show that they state the author in the same way that he does.
Or where the citations are really an interpolation in the given text, Josephus
follows the one and supplements it from the other. Of any deeper laid
foundation, an unnamed principal source, not the least vestige can be found. The
careful method of weighing his evidence which characterizes Strabo, and is so
conspicuous in his geography, is quite discernible in particular passages where
he is not named, as in several statements about numbers, xiii. 12. 5.[21] Then,
again, that these two base their conclusions upon earlier authorities is
self-evident. For the first half of the period under consideration, B.C. 135-85,
most probably Posidonius would prove the most reliable source (see above, pp.
49, 50). Also in passages borrowed from Strabo we find references to Timagenes
(xiii. 11. 3, 12. 5), Asinius Pollio, and Hypsikrates (xiv. 8. 3). Josephus has
scarcely made use of Livy, who is only once named (xiv. 4. 3). But the material
obtained in this way from Strabo and Nicolas was supplemented by Josephus in
respect of the internal Jewish history from narratives which, by reason of their
contents, deserve to be characterized as legends, and from the general framework
of the narrative we may see that they are plainly taken as such (xiii. 10. 3,
10. 5-6; xiv. 2. 1). These are evidently derived from oral tradition.—For the
history of Herod, it is admitted on all hands that Nicolas of Damascus is the
principal authority (comp. xii. 3. 2; xiv. 1-3; xvi. 7. 1; and above, pp.
58-63). It would seem that the short sketch given in the Wars of the Jews is
drawn exclusively from him. Also the detailed account given in the Antiquities,
books xvi. and xvii., produces the impression of having been derived from one
source. On the other hand, in book xv. seams and joinings are apparent, which
point to the employment of two sources; and indeed, in addition to Nicolas, it
is evident that Josephus made use of another authority unfavourable to Herod.
Whether Josephus had himself seen the Commentaries of King Herod, mentioned in
the Antiquities, xv. 6. 3, is at least extremely questionable (compare above, p.
56).—Full and detailed as the treatment of the history of Herod is, it is very
noticeable that the history of his immediate successor is extremely defective.
It seems almost as if Josephus had at this point been deprived of all written
sources of information. It is only when we come to the reign of Agrippa I., A.D.
41-44, that the narrative enters again more into detail. Here he would be once
more in possession of abundance of oral tradition, for he would then be informed
about the reign of Agrippa I. by his son Agrippa II. For the history of the last
decade preceding the war, he would be able to rely upon his own personal
recollections. The quite unparalleled completeness with which the events, even
those which do not relate to the Jewish history, occurring in Rome at the time
of Caligula’s death, and at the beginning of the reign of Claudius in A.D. 41,
are narrated, is very remarkable (xix. 1-4). There can be no doubt that this
portion of the history is borrowed from a special source by the hand of a
contemporary. But we are unable to arrive at any more definite conclusions from
the absence of any sure standing ground.[22] Josephus paid very particular
attention to the history of the high priests. From what he here states, we are
able to determine the uninterrupted succession of high priests from the time of
Alexander the Great down to the destruction of the temple by Titus. It might be
conjectured that for this purpose he would have had at his command, at least
from the time of Herod the Great, the original priestly documents. For great
importance was attached to the preservation of the register of the generations
of the priests, and great care taken of it (Treatise against Apion, i.
7).[23]—Finally, of great value are the State papers which Josephus frequently
embodies in his narrative (xiii. 9. 2, xiv. 8. 5, xiv. 10, xiv. 12, xvi. 6, xix.
5, xx. 1. 2). The most numerous of these are those of the time of Caesar and
Augustus, which granted to the Jews the privilege of the free observance of
their religion.[24] [18] As to whether Josephus made use of the Greek text of
the First Book of Maccabees, see Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 9, and literature given
there. On the way in which he used it, see Grimm, Exeget. Handb. zum ersten
Makkabäerb. p. 28 ff. [19] See Nussbaum, Observationes in Flavii Josephi
Antiquitates, lib. xii. 3-xiii. 14 (1876), pp. 8-28. Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl.
Josephus, pp. 96-100. Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, p. 45 ff. [20] So
Niese in Hermes, xi. 1876, p. 470 ff. Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, p, 92
ff. Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, p. 53 ff. [21] Compare also against
that view my notices of Bloch and Destinon in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung,
1879, 567 ff., and 1882, 388 ff. [22] Mommsen in Hermes, iv. 1870, pp. 322, 324,
and after him Schemann, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus in der jüdischen
Archäologie, Buch xviii.-xx. 1887, p. 52, suppose that the historical work of
Cluviua Rufus, who, according to Antiq. xix. 1. 13, was himself an eye-witness,
would be a principal source. The quotations preserved to us from this work,
however, refer only to the time of Nero and the incidents of the year 69. See
Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 314. 2. [23] Comp. Bloch, Die Quellen
des Fl. Josephus, p. 147 ff.; Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, p. 29 ff.
[24] Whether Josephus actually copied these State papers is uncertain. He makes
it appear as if he had seen them all together in the great archives of the
Capitol. “For since we have produced evident marks, that may yet be seen, of the
friendship we have had with the Romans, and demonstrated that these marks are
engraven upon columns and tables of brass in the Capitol that are still in
being, and preserved to this day, we have omitted to set them all down as
needless and disagreeable,” Antiq. xiv. 10. 26; comp. also xiv. 10. 1. This
library, after having been destroyed by fire during the conflicts of the year
A.D. 69 (Tacitus, Hist. iii. 71, 72; Suetonius, Vitellius, 15; Dio Cassius, Ixv.
17; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4), was again restored by Vespasian.
Suetonius, in the 8th chapter of his Vespasian, says: “Ipse restitutionem
Capitolii adgressus, ruderibus purgandis manus primus admovit ac suo collo
quaedam extulit; aerearumque tabularum tria milia, quae simul conflagraverant,
restituenda suscepit, undique investigatis exemplaribus: instrumentum imperii
pulcherrimum ac vetustissimum, quo continebantur paene ab exordio urbis senatus
consults, plebiscita de societate et foedere ac privilegio cuicumque concessis.”
But in that library only a small part of the documents communicated by Josephus
could ever have been, only indeed the Roman papers, probably only the decrees of
the Senate; certainly not the decrees of the cities of Asia Minor, of which
Josephus communicates a large number. Compare Mommscn, Corpus Inscript. Lat. i.
p. 112; also Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 2, 1888, pp. 1004-1021. The
documents were no doubt collected together from various places—from Rome, Asia
Minor, probably also from Palestine. Through the regular intercourse that took
place between the Jewish communities, Josephus could easily have obtained from
the several colonies of the Jews the State papers that bore upon their
interests. In the collecting of these he proceeded very carelessly. Sometimes
they are but mere fragments which Josephus communicates. Since in the speech
delivered by Nicolas of Damascus before M. Agrippa, on his arrival in Asia
Minor, in favour of the Jews residing there (Antiq. xvi. 2. 4), reference is
made to the older Roman decrees in favour of the Jews, Niese conjectures that
the documents communicated by Josephus had been previously collected by Nicolas
of Damascus, and had been borrowed by Josephus from his work (Hermes, xi. 1876,
pp. 477-483). But this is not probable, for among them there are certainly found
some documents of more recent date (xvi. 6. 2 and 7; see Niese, p. 480), and one
referring to the Jews of Cyrene, and therefore of no consequence to those of
Asia Minor (xvi. 6, 5).—On the genuineness of the documents, which is now
generally doubted, see Egger, Études historiques, Paris 1866, p. 163. 3. THE
LIFE OR AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It does not by any means present us with an actual
account of the life of Josephus, but treats almost exclusively of the part which
he played as commander-in-chief of Galilee in A.D. 66-67, and indeed only of the
measures which in that situation he took preparatory to the grand hostile
encounter with the Romans (c. 7-74). The short biographical notices of the
beginning and end of the work (c. 1-6, 75-76) form only introduction and
conclusion to this principal part of the contents. According to the remarks at
the close of the Antiquities, Josephus had then the intention of carrying on the
account of the war and “our fortunes,” the story of the Jewish people “down to
the present day.” “And if God permit me, I will briefly run over this war again,
with what befell us therein to this very day,” Antiq. xx. conclusion. In fact,
the Life is represented as an Appendix to the Antiquities. It begins with the
enclitic δέ, which attaches it to the preceding work, and concludes with the
words: “To thee, O Epaphroditus, the most excellent of men, do I dedicate all
this treatise of our Antiquities, and so for the present I here conclude the
whole.” Also the position of the Life in the manuscripts is immediately after
the Antiquities. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, iii. 10. 8 f.) quotes a
passage from the Life with the remark that the words occur “at the close of his
Antiquities;” and in all extant manuscripts, with only one exception, the Life
is joined with the Antiquities. It would, however, be a great mistake to regard
the statement at the end of the Antiquities as having reference to the Life.
Josephus there has in view the continuing of the history of the Jews down to the
present time. The Life, however, is anything but a fulfilment of such a
proposal. It was apparently called forth by the publication of another history
of the Jewish war by Justus of Tiberias (see on him, above, pp. 64-69). That
author had represented Josephus as the real organizer of the outbreak in
Galilee. This was extremely inconvenient to Josephus now that he occupied a
position of eminence in Rome. And so he now writes a counterblast, in which he
casts all the blame on Justus, and makes himself pose as the friend of the
Romans. The attempt is pitifully weak, for Josephus cannot avoid mentioning
deeds which prove the very opposite of what he desires to make out. With this
self-vindication which he had been driven to make he joined a few biographical
notices by way of introduction and conclusion, and then published the whole as
an Appendix to his Antiquities. The earlier scheme was therefore abandoned and
quite a different one substituted for it. In spite, then, of the δέ that would
attach it immediately to the other work, the Life must have been written a long
time subsequent to the Antiquities. Now the Life assumes that Agrippa II. was
already dead (c. 65). But Agrippa died, according to Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33,
in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100. If, then, the composition of the Life
must be set down as at least after A.D. 100, that will be in perfect harmony
with the other facts of the case, and there will be no reason to doubt the
correctness of the statement of Photius or to set it aside as unsupported,
because the Life must have been written immediately after the Antiquities.[25]
[25] The correctness of the statement has been questioned by many. Grätz seeks
to point out a confusion by making the words of Photius, “he died in the third
year of Trajan,” refer, not to Agrippa, but to Justus of Tiberias, which from
the context is quite impossible. Niese, too, without solving the difficulty,
maintains that the Life was written in the days of Domitian.—The correctness of
the reading in Photius is confirmed by the fact that Syncellus places the
beginning of the literary activity of Justus in the beginning of the reign of
Trajan, and undoubtedly for this reason that his Chronicle was carried down to
that date. But according to Photius it went down to the death of Agrippa II. The
coins also prove that Agrippa lived down to at least the year 95. Compare
generally, § 19, Appendix. 4. THE TREATISE AGAINST APION, or, On the Extreme
Antiquity of the Jewish People, in two books. This work is not solely, not even
in any part of it mainly, directed against the grammarian Apion and his
calumniating of the Jewish people, but rather generally against the venomous
attacks and the prejudices, in many instances absurd enough, from which the Jews
of those days suffered. It is a careful and well-conceived Apology for Judaism,
skilfully and ably wrought out. The numerous quotations given from authors whose
works are now lost lend it an altogether special interest. On the writers whose
statements are contested by Josephus, see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 249-262. The
title “Against Apion” is certainly not the original one. Porphyry in his De
abstinentia, iv. 11, cites the work under the title πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας; the
earliest Church Fathers (Origen, contra Celsum, i. 16, iv. 11; Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, iii. 9; Praeparatio evangel. viii. 7. 21, x. 6. 15)
refer to it under the title περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχαιότητος. Both titles are
probably equally old and equally well authenticated, for the demonstration of
the antiquity of the Jewish people is, in fact, the main point insisted upon in
the Apology. In the Codex Peirescianus of the excerpts of Constantinus
Porphyrogennetus, de virtutibus, we meet with the superscription περὶ παντὸς ἢ
κατὰ Ἑλλήνων,—a singular blending of right and wrong. The title contra Apionem
first appears in Jerome in Epist. 70 ad Magnum oratorem, c. 3; de viris illustr.
c. 13; adv. Jovinian. ii. 14. In the last-named passage he transcribes the above
quoted sentence of Porphyry, but substituted for Porphyry’s title the one that
has now become current. For the full statement of Jerome, see Div. ii. vol. ii.
p. 201.[26]—As Josephus in this work quotes from his Antiquities (i. 1 and 10),
the Treatise against Apion must have been written later than A.D. 93. It is,
like the Antiquities and the Life, dedicated to Epaphroditus (i. 1, ii. 41).
[26] Compare on the title, Bernays, Theophrastos’ Schrift über Frömmigkeit,
1866, p. 154 f. J. G. Müller, Des Fl. Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion, p. 17.
Besides these four works, many of the Church Fathers ascribe to Josephus the
so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, or the treatise περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ.
The spirit of it is certainly very similar to that of Josephus. It is written
from the standpoint of Pharisaic Judaism with a varnish of Greek philosophy. But
it may be accepted as certain that Josephus was not its author. See Div. ii.
vol. iii. pp. 244-247. The writing described by Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 48, as
bearing in the manuscripts the three different titles, Ἰωσήπου Περὶ τοῦ παντός,
Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας, is of Christian origin,
and belongs to the author of the Philosophumena, who, in c. x. 32, quotes it as
his own under the title περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας. The author of both was
probably Hippolytus, among whose works in the list on the Hippolytus statue a
treatise περὶ τοῦ παντός is also named. See Volkmar, Hippolytus und dis
römischen Zeitgenossen, 1855, pp. 2 ff., 60 ff. Besides Photius, many other
writers refer to this treatise as a work of Josephus. So, for example, John
Philoponus in De mundi creatione, iii. 16; John of Damascus, Sacra parall. Opp.
ii. 789 ff., and John Zonaras, Annal. vi. 4. A considerable fragment of this
treatise was published first by David Höschel in his edition of the Bibliotheca
of Photius in 1601, then by Le Moyne in his Varia sacra, i. 53 ff., where he
maintains the position that it was written by Hippolytus; by Ittig and Havercamp
in their editions of Josephus; in Fabricius, Hippolyti Opp. i. 220-222; in
Gallandi, Biblioth. patr. ii. 451-454, and in Migne, Patrol. gr. x. 795-802. It
has been issued in a more complete form, according to codex Baroccianus, in
Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, vol. i., and Lagarde, Hippolyti quae feruntur,
1858, pp. 68-73. A specimen of the text according to three Vatican manuscripts
is given by Pitra, Analecta sacra, ii. 1884, p. 269 f. Compare generally, Salmon
in article on Hippolytus in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography,
vol. iii. p. 100. Routh, Reliquiae sacrac, 2nd ed. ii. 157 ff. Caspari, Quellen
zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. 395 ff. At the close of the Antiquities
Josephus says that he had the intention of writing “these books concerning our
Jewish opinions about God and His essence; and about our laws,—why, according to
them, some things are permitted us to do and others are prohibited.” (κατὰ τὰς
ἡμετέρας δόξας τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐν τέσσαρσι βίβλοις περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ
καὶ περὶ τῶν νόμων, διὰ τί κατʼ αὐτοὺς τὰ μὲν ἔξεστιν ἡμῖνποιεῖν τὰ δὲ
κεκώλυται.) By this he certainly does not mean so many different works, as these
words have been understood by many, but only one work, which should treat of the
essence of God and the rational interpretation of the Mosaic law, in a way
similar to Philo’s systematic exposition of the legislation of Moses. Compare
Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 338-348. In the earlier books of the Antiquities, too, he
frequently refers to this work as one contemplated by him (Preface 4, i. 1. 1,
10. 5; iii. 5. 6, 6. 6, 8. 10; iv. 8. 4, 44). But it seems never to have been
actually written. Many of the formulae of reference used in the Antiquities are
obscure, seeming, as they do, to imply that Josephus had also written a work on
the history of the Seleucidae. He often remarks, for example, that what is
briefly related by him is narrated in more detail in another place.[27] Where
this is done by the passive formula, “as has been related elsewhere” (καθὼς καὶ
ἐν ἄλλοις δεδήλωται), the reference might quite naturally be supposed to be to
the historical works of the writers (Antiq. xi. 8. 1; xii. 10. 1; xiii. 4. 8, 8.
4, 13. 4; xiv. 6. 2, 7. 3, 11. 1). But not infrequently Josephus distinctly uses
the first person, “as we have informed the reader elsewhere” (καθὼς καὶ ἐν
ἄλλοις δεδηλώκαμεν, Antiq. vii. 15. 3; xii. 5. 2; xiii. 2. 1, 2, 4, 4. 6, 5. 11,
10. 1, 10. 4, 12. 6, 13. 5). Of these citations four may be explained as
references to other portions of the works of Josephus known to us. Antiq. vii.
15. 3 may refer to Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 5; Antiq. xiii. 10. 1 may refer to c.
7. 1 of the same book; Antiq. xiii. 10. 4 may refer to Wars, vii. 10; and Antiq.
xiii. 3 and xiii. 13. 5 may refer to Antiq. iii. 10. 4. But so far as the rest
are concerned, no such parallels can be thought of. All of them refer to the
history of the Seleucid dynasty from Antiochus Epiphancs down to the end of the
second century before Christ (Antiq. xii. 5. 2; xiii. 2. 1, 2. 4, 4. 6, 5. 11,
12. 6). Seeing, then, that nothing is known of a history of the Seleucids
written by Josephus, Destinon in his Quellen des Josephus, pp. 21-29, ventures
to guess that all these formulae of reference may have been already in the
sources used by Josephus, and that he simply transcribed them without change to
his own pages. Such procedure would indeed be somewhat extraordinary, but the
conjecture is not to be thrown aside without further examination. This at least
can be adduced in its favour, that occasionally similar formulae of reference
are met with in the Antiquities and to the parallel passages in the Wars of the
Jews, although both works were produced independently of one another from common
sources. Compare Antiq. xiv. 7. 3 at the beginning, with Wars of the Jews, i. 8.
8; and Antiq. xiv. 7. 3 at the end, with Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 9. On the other
hand, in some of the passages in question, the writer, immediately after or
before speaking in the first person, is certainly Josephus himself (so in xii 5.
2 and xiii. 12. 6). These doubtful formulae, too, are precisely the same in form
as those which unquestionably proceed from Josephus (xiii. 10. 4, 13. 5). It is
therefore scarcely possible to do more than pass a verdict of non liquet. [27]
The most thorough examination of these passages will be found in Deetinon, Die
Quellen des Fl. Josephus, pp. 21-23. On the character of Josephus and his
credibility as a historian, the most widely divergent opinions have been
entertained. In early times and during the Middle Ages he was, as a rule, very
highly prized; Jerome, for example, styling him the “Greek Livy.”[28] Modern
criticism has run to the precisely opposite extreme of depreciation. It will
probably be found that the truth lies midway between these extremes. No one will
now be inclined to undertake the vindication of this character. Vanity and
self-sufficiency are the main elements in his composition. And even had he not
been the base and dishonourable betrayer of his native country that he at a
later period in his Life declared himself to be, he at least carried out the
transference of his allegiance to the Romans and his attachment to the imperial
family of Flavius with more dexterity and equanimity than was becoming in an
Israelite who pretended to mourn over the destruction of his people. As a
writer, too, he has his great weaknesses. But to be quite fair, one must admit
that his principal weakness as a writer is not to his discredit as a man. He
writes with the purpose of glorifying his own nation. With such a design he
invests the earlier history of the Jews with a halo of romance. His description
of their later history, too, is dominated by the same intention. The Pharisees
and Sadducees are philosophical schools which concern themselves with the
problems of freedom and immortality. The Messianic hope, which, on account of
the political claims which became attached to it, had proved the most powerful
incentive to rebellion against Rome, is passed over in absolute silence, for it
is his wish not to represent the people as enemies of the Romans. The war
against Rome was not engaged upon by the will of the people, but they were only
driven into it by some fanatics. In all these directions the historical
statement of Josephus presents us with a distorted picture. In other respects,
his several works are of very varied and unequal importance. The Wars of the
Jews is unquestionably much more carefully compiled than the Antiquities. It
gives an account, going into the minutest details of events, the credibility of
which we have no reason to doubt. The long speeches which Josephus puts into the
mouth of his heroes are, of course, free rhetorical productions, and we must not
take his numbers too exactly. But these faults are shared by Josephus with many
ancient historians, and they do not affect the credibility of the works in other
respects. Only what he says about the circumstances of his being taken prisoner
at Jotapata, in Wars of the Jews, iii. 8, must be excepted from this favourable
judgment.—The case is considerably different as regards the Antiquities. That
work was evidently much more carelessly prepared than the history of the Wars of
the Jews. This is specially true about the last books, of which it has been
remarked that when writing them the author must have been utterly wearied. And
not only is the work carelessly done, but also the sources are often used with
great freedom and the utmost arbitrariness, at least where we are in a position
to criticize them. This is not calculated to produce much confidence in regard
to the use of those sources that we can no longer verify. Yet here, too, we meet
with occasional evidence of his having subjected his sources to critical
examination (Antiq. xiv. 1. 3, xvi. 7. 1, xix. 1. 10, 1. 14). As might be
expected, the value of the work in its various sections varies according to the
sources that had been used. By far the most faulty production is undoubtedly the
Life,—an attempt made with singular blindness to turn facts upside down, by
proving that while he had organized the rebellion in Galilee, he had always
maintained his allegiance to the Romans. [28] Epist. 22 ad Eustochium, c. 35:
Josephus, Graecus Livius. In the Christian Church from the earliest times
Josephus was diligently read, since his works afforded a suitable and convenient
summary of the history of the Jewish people. The testimonia veterum regarding
Josephus are gathered together in Havercamp’s edition in the Prolegomena to the
first volume. In the West, Josephus became known mainly through a Latin
translation of his complete works, with the exception of the Life, and by a free
paraphrase of the Wars of the Jews. On the history of the origin of these texts
we have statements from the following witnesses:—1. Jerome, Epist. 71 ad
Lucinium, c. 5, says: “The rumour that has reached you that the books of
Josephus and of St. Papias and St. Polycarp have been translated by me is false,
for I have had neither the leisure nor the strength to render these writings
with the same elegance into another tongue.”—From this it follows not only that
Jerome had made no translation of Josephus, but also that in his time the works
of Josephus, or at least some parts of them, were still untranslated, otherwise
the need of such a performance would not have been felt.—2. Cassiodorius, De
institutione div. lit. c. 17, says: “As Josephus, almost a second Livy, is
widely known by his books on the Antiquities of the Jews, whom Jerome, writing
to Lucinus Baetieus, declares that he had not been able to translate on account
of the size of his voluminous work. Yet one of our own friends has translated
the work into Latin in twenty-two books,” i.e. twenty books of Antiquities and
the two books against Apion, “who also wrote other seven books on the captivity
of the Jews with wonderful brilliancy, the translation of which some ascribe to
Jerome, others to Ambrose, others to Rufinus; and its being ascribed to such men
sufficiently proves the excellency of its style.”—From this it may be assumed as
certain that the extant Latin translation of the Antiquities and the Treatise
against Apion were made at the suggestion of Cassiodorius, that is to say, in
the sixth century after Christ. But there seems no ground whatever for
attributing this translation, as has commonly been done after the example of St.
Bernard, to a certain Epiphanitis, whose name was probably suggested by the fact
that Cassiodorius, two sentences farther on, ascribed to him the reproduction of
the historia tripartita.—It is uncertain whether the remarks of Cassiodorius in
reference to the Bellum Judaicum refer to the Latin translation which is
generally ascribed to Rufinus, or to the free Latin paraphrastic rendering which
in the various editions bears the name of Hegesippus. The designation of the
work as a translation might apply to either production. For even the free
rendering has been spoken of as a translation (compare the superscription in
cod. Ambrosianus: Ambrosius epi de grego transtulit in latinum). But what
Cassiodorius says about its style favours the reference to the work of
Hegesippus. For although Rufinus also wrote in good Latin, the expression
dictionis eximiae merita could only be correctly applied to the work of
Hegesippus written in the Sallustian style. If the latter be intended, then
these two results would follow from the words of Cassiodorius: 1. That this work
was anonymous, for Cassiodorius knew only of conjectures as to its author. 2.
That the literal translation was not yet in existence in the time of
Cassiodorius; for had it been so he would not have been silent regarding it, and
have mentioned only the free rendering, since he distinctly states that care had
already been taken to translate the Wars of the Jews into Latin. Before this
question can be decided with certainty, it would be necessary to inquire whether
the older Latin writers down to the ninth century, from which the oldest
manuscripts of Rufinus are dated, make use of the Wars of the Jews in the form
of the so-called Rufinus or in that of the so-called Hegesippus translation.
That the literal translation was the work of Rufinus is in any case highly
improbable, since in the catalogue of Rufinus’ translations by Gennadius, De
viris illustr., no translation of Josephus is mentioned. The free Latin
rendering of the Wars of the Jews in the various editions bears the name of
Egesippus or Hegesippus. This is certainly only a corruption of Josephus: in
Greek, Ἰώσηπος, Ἰώσηππος, Ἰώσιππος; in Latin, Josepus, Joseppus, Josippus. The
name “Egesippus” is not found in the manuscripts of Josephus earlier than the
ninth century. In the earliest references the work is quoted simply under the
name of Josephus; as, for example, in Eucherius in the fifth century, and now in
Widukind, the historian of the Saxons, in the tenth century. Also in the oldest
manuscripts, an Ambrosianus of the seventh and eighth centuries and a Cassellan
of the eighth and ninth centuries, only Joseppus Josephus is named in the
inscriptions on the columns as the author. In addition, at an early date the
names of Ambrosius and Hegesippus were given. In the somewhat more recent part
of the cod. Ambrosianus, eighth and ninth centuries, the inscription of the
first book runs: “Josippi,” corrected by a later hand into “Egesippi” “liber
primus explicit.” Incipit secundus. Ambrosius epi de grego transtulit in
latinum. A codex Bernens of the ninth century names Hegesippus, a Palat.-Vatican
of the ninth and tenth centuries names Ambrose; yet more modern manuscripts
sometimes the one and sometimes the other. An interesting passage is brought
forward by Traube in the Rhein. Museum, xxxix. 1884, p. 477, in a letter of the
Spaniard Alvarus of the ninth century, in which he says to an opponent: scito
quia nihil tibi ex Egesippi posui verbis, sed ex Josippi vestri doctoris, where
he refers to a passage in the work ascribed to our Hegesippus! He knew the work
therefore only under the name of Josephus, but his opponent had known it under
the name of Hegesippus.—In this state of matters the idea of an Ambrosian
authorship need not be seriously entertained. It is a mere conjecture, which has
been suggested simply from the circumstance that Ambrose, as well as Jerome and
Rufinus, acted a leading part in transmitting Greek theological literature to
the West. The work certainly had its origin in the days of the great bishop of
Milan, the second half of the fourth century, but was produced most probably not
by him, as the thorough investigations of Vogel in his De Hegesippo, 1881, tend
to show.—The text of Josephus is there treated with great freedom,—in many
places abbreviated, in many places expanded. The seven books of Josephus are
compressed into five.—The first edition appeared in Paris 1510. The work has
been often since reprinted. The best edition is: Hegesippus qui dicitur sive
Egesippus de bello Judaico ope codicis Cassellani recognitus, ed. Weber, opus
morte Weberi interruptum absolvit Caesar, Marburg 1864.—Compare generally:
Gronovii Observatorum in scriptoribus ecclesiasticis Monobiblos, 1651, capp. 1,
6, 11, 16, 21, 24.—Oudin, De script. eccl. ii. 1722, col. 1026-1031.—Fabricius,
Biblioth. lat. mediae et infimae aetatis iii. 1735, pp. 582-584.—Teuffel,
History of Roman Literature, § 433. 5-6.—Mayor, Bibliographical Clue to Latin
Literature, 1875, p. 179.—Vogel, De Hegesippo qui dicitur Josephi interprete,
Erlangen 1881. Also: Ὀμοιότητες Sallustianae (in Acta, seminarii philolog.
Erlangensis, i. 1878).—Also in Zeitschrift für die oesterreich Gymnas. 1883, pp.
241-249.—Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii. 1,
1887, pp. 194-200.—Rönsch. Die lexikalischen Eigenthümlichkeiten der Latinität
des sogen. Hegesippus (Romanische Forschungen, Bd. i. 1883, pp. 256-321).—Also:
Ein frühes Citat aus dem lat. Hegesippus (Zeitschrift für Wissensch. Theol.
1883, pp. 239-241).—Traube, Zum latein. Josephus (Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxxix.
1884, p. 477 f.). The Latin translation of the works of Josephus was first
printed by John Schüssler in Augsburg in 1470. From that time down to the
appearance of the first Greek edition, the number of printed editions of the
Latin rendering was very great; the last with which I am acquainted was issued
in 1617. The Latin translations which after that date for the most part
accompanied the Greek original, are modern productions; only the edition of
Bernard, which which never carried to completion, gives the old Latin version.
The best edition of the old Latin version is that of Basel 1524. The later ones
are in various places corrected after the Greek text. More particulars about the
character of this translation and its editions are given in the prolegomena of
Ittig, Havercamp, and Niese, and in Fürst, Biblioth. Jud. ii. 118 ff.—A
manuscript of the Latin translation of the Antiquities vi.-x. (with blanks), of
importance owing to its age, the sixth and seventh centuries, and its material,
papyrus, has been found in the Ambrosiana in Milan. On it see Muratori,
Antiquitates Italicae, iii. 919 ff.; Reifferscheid, Sitzungsberichte der Wiener
Akademie, philos.-hist. Kl., Bd. lxvii. 1871, pp. 510-512. Niese, Josephi opp.
i. p. xxviii. A Syriac translation of the sixth book of the Wars of the Jews is
contained in the great Peschito manuscript of the Ambrosiana in Milan, and is
there given as the Fifth Book of Maccabees. It has been published in a complete
form, with notes by Ceriani, in the Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti,
2 vols., Milan 1876-1883.—Compare Kottek, Das sechste Buch des Bellum Jadaicum,
nach der von Ceriani photolithographisch edirten Peschitta-Handschrift übersetzt
und kritisch bearbeitet, Berlin 1886. The view there maintained is that this
Syriae translation was made, not from the Greek, but from the Aramaic original
of Josephus. See the opposite view upheld in the Lit. Centralbl. 1886, pp.
881-884. On the free Hebrew rendering of Josephus known under the name of
Josippon or Joseph son of Gorion, see below in the account of the rabbinical
literature. On the manuscripts of the Greek text the Prolegomena of the earlier
editions gave very insufficient information. The manuscript material was first
examined in a thorough manner by Niese. But the Prolegomena that have up to this
time been published with the first volume of his edition, 1887, only undertake
to deal with the manuscripts of the first ten books of the Antiquities. The
following sketch of the most important manuscripts of the complete works has
been most kindly handed over to me by Niese for publication at this place
(compare also on his researches: Edersheim in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of
Christian Biography, vol. iii. 1882, p. 450 ff.):— “The several works of
Josephus were issued separately. The Antiquities also fell again into two
divisions, each of which, in respect of its transmission, has a history of its
own. “The numerous manuscripts of the Wars of the Jews fall into two principal
classes. The most important representatives of the first are the Parisinus gr.
1425, the Ambrosianus D. super. 50, both from the eleventh century, and
Marcianus 383, from the twelfth century. The second class has three different
types. As representative of the first type may be mentioned the Vatican 148, the
Palatino-Vatican 284, and the Lipsiensis. To the second type belongs the
Laurent, plut. 69, cod. 19; and to the third, the Urbinas n. 84. All these
manuscripts, the most perfect specimens of the several kinds, belong to the
eleventh century, only the Palatino-Vatican to the twelfth. Of the two classes
the first named is the better. Besides the Greek text there is also the old
Latin version commonly ascribed to Rufinus, which is at least a pre-Cassiodorian
translation, belonging exclusively to neither of these two classes, but
attaching itself in many passages to the superior class. Also the still older
free Latin rendering of Ambrose, the so-called Hegesippus version, comes under
consideration for the purposes of criticism and history of the text. “The
manuscripts of books i.-x. of the Antiquities also fall into two classes: the
first and better, extant in two specimens, the Parisin. 1421 and the Bodleianus
miscell. gr. 186; and the second, which embraces all the other manuscripts, of
which we may mention the Marcianus gr. 381, Vindobon. hist. gr. 2, Parisin.
1419, and Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 20. “Less directly marked are the distinctions
of classes in the second division of the Antiquities, books xi.-xx., together
with the Life. The oldest and best of the manuscripts is the Palatino-Vatican n.
14, of the tenth century, in which indeed the last three books, xviii.-xx., are
wanting, while the Life is still preserved. Next to it come the Ambrosianus F.
128 sup., of the eleventh century, the Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 10, of the
fifteenth century, the Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 20, and the Leidensis F. 13. The
last two named have only books xi.-xv. In these manuscripts the documentary
sources in book xiv. 10 are perfectly preserved. The rest, among which the
Vatican 147 may be specially mentioned, want these either wholly or in part.
“For the history of the transmission of the Antiquities, an Epitome, extant in
several manuscripts, and made use of by Zonaras, is of importance. It may have
been drawn up somewhere in the ninth or tenth century. For the first edition it
follows the inferior class of texts, and for the second it assumes a middle
position.—The Antiquities, too, were translated into Latin on the suggestion of
Cassiodorius. The text lying at the basis of this translation was for the first
division a representative of the inferior class; but in the second division it
rests sometimes upon this manuscript, sometimes upon that. The Life is to be
found neither in the Epitome nor in the translation. “Finally, of the Books
against Apion, there is only one Greek manuscript that comes into consideration,
the Laurentianus plut. 69, cod. 22, of the eleventh century. Besides this, the
Cassiodorian Latin translation, which appears in a fragmentary form in all
printed copies, is of very great critical value. Of special value, too, are the
quotations of Eusebius, which restore to us several isolated passages of this
important work.” EDITIONS AND LITERATURE The first edition of the Greek text of
the works of Josephus were published by Frobenius and Episcopius at Basel in
1544, under the direction of Arnold Peraxylus Arlen.—It was followed by the
Genevan editions of 1611 and 1634.—At Leipzig, in 1691, the title falsely
bearing the name Coloniae, appeared the edition of Ittig with learned
Prolegomena.—An edition by Bernard, Antiquitatum Jud. libri quatuor priores et
pars magna quinti, De bello Jud. liber primus et pars secundi, Oxoniae 1700,
which made use of a new collection of manuscripts, and was accompanied by a rich
exegetical apparatus, was never completed.—Hudson was the first to issue an
improved text of the whole works according to the manuscripts, 2 vols, fol.,
Oxonii 1720.—Havercamp issued a repertory of everything that had previously been
discovered, and also new collections, but not an improved text, in 2 vols, fol.,
Amsterdam, Leyden, Utrecht, 1726. The editions of Oberthür, in 3 vols., Lips.
1782-1785, and Richter, 6 vols., Lips. 1826-1827, follow closely that of
Havercamp.—Dindorf in his edition, 2 vols., Paris 1845-1847, here and there
amended the text from materials supplied by Havercamp.—Bekker in his edition, in
6 vols., Lips. 1855-1856, followed Dindorf.—In none of these editions, not even
in those of Hudson and Havercamp, is the manuscript apparatus presented with
anything like completeness. None of the editors above named since Havercamp gave
themselves any concern with the manuscripts. Only for the Bellum Judaicum
Cardwell issued a separate edition of a creditable kind, for which he had
examined at least a portion of the better manuscripts: Flavii Josephi De bello
Judaico libri septem, ed. Cardwell, 2 vols., Oxonii 1837.—A comprehensive
collection of all the better manuscripts was first undertaken quite recently by
Niese. Of his critical edition, which gives a thorough reconstruction of the
text of Josephus on the basis of the manuscripts, two volumes have up to this
time appeared, containing the first ten books of the Antiquities: Flavii Josephi
opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit Bened. Niese, vols. i. ii., Berol.
1887, 1885. He has also issued a smaller edition of the text only, without the
critical apparatus: Flavii Josephi opera recognovit B. Niese, vols. i. ii.,
Berol. 1888. The Life appeared in a separate edition by Henke, Brunswick
1786.—Compare generally on the editions: Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec., ed.
Harles, v. 31 ff. Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, ii. 117 f. Grraesse, Trésor de
livres rares et précieux, iii. 1862, pp. 480-484. On Textual Criticism: Ernesti,
Observations philologicocriticae in Aristophanis nubes et Flav. Josephi antiqu.
Jud., Lips. 1795.—Holwerda, Emendationum Flavianarum specimen, Gorinchemi 1847.
Also: Observationes criticae in Flavii Josephi Antiquitatum Judaicarum librum
XVIII. (Mnemosyne, 1853, pp. 111-141).—Bekker, Varianten zum Josephus, in
Monatsberichte der Berlin. Akad. 1860, pp. 224-230.—Westermann, Excerptorum ex
bibliothecae Paulinae Lipsiensis libris manu scriptis pars altera, Lips.
1866.—Wollenberg, Recensentur LXXVII. loci ex Flavii Josephi scriptis excerpti
qui ex conlectaneis Constantini Augusti Porphyrogenetae περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας
in codice Peiresciano extant, Berlin 1871.—Dindorf, Ueber Josephos und dessen
Sprache (Neue Jahrbb. für Philol. und Pädag. Bd. 99, 1869, pp. 821-847).—Naber,
Observationes critieae in Flavium Josephum, in Mnemosyne, xiii. 1885, pp.
263-284, 352-399. Translations. On the older translations, see what has been
said above. More recent Latin translations are given in the editions of Hudson,
Havercamp, Oberthür, and Dindorf.—An English translation of the whole works of
Josephus was made by Whiston, Professor of Mathematics in the University of
Cambridge, and published by him in 1737. Though by no means invariably correct
in its rendering, nor in any sense a critical work, its serviceableness and
general popularity are shown by the numerous editions through which it has
passed. An admirable translation of the Wars of the Jews has been made by
Traill, The Jewish War of Flavius Josephus, a new translation by R. Traill,
edited by Isaac Taylor, London 1862. Before the publication of the Greek
editions a German translation from the Latin was made by Caspar Hedio,
Strassburg 1531; then revised by the same after the Greek text, Strassburg 1561.
On other German translations of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, see
Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec., ed. Harles, v. 31, 38, 48; Fürst, Biblioth.
Judaica, ii. 121-123. There need here only be mentioned the translations of the
whole works by Ott, Zürich 1736; Cotta, Tübingen 1736; Demme, Josephus’ Werke,
übers, von Cotta und Gfroerer; das Ganze von neuem nach dem Griechischen
bearbeitet, etc., durch C. R. Demme, 7th ed., Philadelphia 1868-1869. The
translation of the Antiquities by Martin, 2 vols., Cologne 1852-1853, 2nd ed. by
Kaulen, 1883; of the 11th and 12th books of the Antiquities by Horschetzky,
Prague 1826; of the 13th book of the Antiquities by the same translator in 1843;
of the Jewish War by Friese, 2 vols., Altona 1804-1805; by Gfroerer, 2 vols.,
Stuttgart 1836; and by Paret, 6 vols., Stuttgart 1855. Translations of the Life
by Eckhardt, Leipzig 1782; by Friese, Altona 1806; by M. J. in the Library of
Greek and Roman writers on Judaism and the Jews, vol. ii., Leipzig 1867. Of the
Treatise against Apion by Frankel in the Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch.
des Judenthums, 1851-1852, with some abbreviation; by Paret, Stuttgart 1856; and
by M. J. in Library of Greek and Roman writers on Judaism and the Jews, vol. ii.
1867. On other translations into English, French, Italian, etc., see Fabricius,
Bibliotheca Graec., ed. Harles, v. 30 ff.; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii.
123-127. General Literature on Josephus (the earlier literature given in
Fabricius: Bibliotheca Graec., ed. Harles, v. 49-56; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica,
ii. 127-132).—Vossius, De historicis Graecis (ed. 1, 1624), ii. 8, ed.
Westermann, 1838, pp. 238-243.—Havercamp’s edition, ii. 2, p. 57 ff.—Ceillier,
Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, i., Paris 1729, pp.
552-580.—Cave, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria, i., Oxonii 1740,
pp. 32-36.—Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2, 1784, pp. 209-236.—Oberthür in
Fabricius, Bibliotheca graeca, ed. Harles, t. v. 1796, pp. 1-64—Jost, Geschichte
der Israeliten, ii. 1821, Anhang, pp. 55-73.—Schöll, Geschichte der griech.
Literatur, ii. 1830, pp. 383-389.—Lewitz, Quaestionum Flavianarum specimen,
Regiom. Pr. 1835. By the same, De Flavii Josephi fide atque auctoritate,
Königsberg 1857.—Hoëvell, Flavii Josephi vita; quatenus per vitae opportunities
ad conscribendam historiam atque antiquitatem Hebraicam idoneus fuit? etc.,
Traj. ad Rh. 1835.—Chasles, De l’autorité historique de Flavius Josèphe, Paris
1841.—Egger, Examen critique des historiens anciens de la vie et du règne
d’Auguste, Paris 1844, pp. 189-209.—Bähr, art. “Josephus” in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissensch. ii. 1846, pp. 242-244.—Creuzer,
Josephus und seine griechischen und hellenistischen Führer (Theol. Stud. und
Krit. 1853, pp. 45-86).—Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften A. T.’s, 1881, §
15.—Paret, art. “Josephus” in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. Bd. vii. 1857, pp.
24-29.—Farrar, article “Josephus” in Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical
Literature.—On relation of St. Peter to Josephus: Farrar in Expositor, second
series, vol. iii. p. 403 ff.; E. A. Abbott in Expositor for January 1882;
Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, London 1885, pp. 638-649.—Edersheim,
article on “Josephus” in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, iii.
441-460.—Terwogt, Het leven van den joodschen geschiedschrijver Flavius
Josephus, Utrecht 1863.—Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 ed., iv.
56-74. Also: Ueber den jüdischen Geschichtschreiber und Staatsmann Flav.
Josephus (Sybel’s Histor. Zeitschr. Bd. xii. 1864, pp. 285-314).—Ewald, History
of Israel, vol. vii. 492 ff., viii. 68-75.—Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, sein
Verhältniss zu den Parteien insbesondere zu Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II.,
Breslau 1877. On the theological and philosophical standpoint of Josephus:
Bretschneider, Capita theologiae Judaeorum dogmaticae e Flavii Josephi scriptis
collecta, Viteb. 1812.—Gfroerer, Philo, ii. pp. 356-367.—Dähne, Jüd.-alex.
Religionsphilosophie, ii. 240-245.—Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen
Lehrbegriffe, i. 1852, pp. 410-412.—Gerlach. Die Weissagungen des A. T.’s in den
Schriften des Fl. Josephus, 1863, pp. 6-19.—Poznanski, Ueber die
religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus, Breslau
1887.—Lewinsky, Beiträge zur Kenntniss der religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen
des Flavius Josephus, Breslau 1887.—Drummond, Philo-Judaeus: or the
Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion, 2 vols., London
1888. On the Old Testament Canon that lay before Josephus (especially in regard
to the Treatise against Apion, i. 8), compare the Introductions to the Old
Testament of Hävernick, Keil, vol. ii. pp. 138-140; De Wette, Bleek, ii.
307-309.—Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Edin. 1881,
pp. 149 f., 408.—Ewald, History of Israel, viii. 337 ff., 346, 361.—Dillmann
(Jahrbb. für deutsche Theologie, 1858).—Strack, art. “Kanon des Alten Testam.,”
in Herzog, 2 Aufl. Bd. vii. 1880.—Treuenfels in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des
Orients, x. 1849, xi. 1850.—Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 478-480.
On the use of the original Hebrew text and the Septuagint: Carpzov, Critica
sacra, Lips. 1748, pp. 945-954.—Gesenius, Geschichte der hebr. Sprache und
Schrift, 1815, pp. 80-82.—Spittler, De usu versionis Alexandrinae apud Josephum,
Gottiag. 1779.—Scharfenberg, De Josephi et versionis Alexandrinae consensu,
Lips. 1780.—Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 8-22.—Siegfried,
Die hebräischen Worterklärungen des Josephus (in Stade’s Zeitschrift für die
alttestam. Wissensch. 1883, pp. 32-35).—A list of the Hebrew etymologies of
Josephus is also given in Vallarsi’s edition of Jerome, iii. 745-752. On the
treatment of the biblical history of Josephus: Edersheim in article “Josephus”
in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, iii. pp. 454-457.—Zunz,
Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 120.—Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung
des A. T.’s mit dem Neuen, 1831, pp. 464-514.—Burger, Essai sur l’usage que Fl.
Josèphe a fait des livres canoniques de l’ A. T., Strasburg 1836.—Gerlach. Die.
Weissagungen des A. T. in den Schriften des Fl. Josephus, 1863.—Duschak,
Josephus Flavius und die Tradition, Wien 1864.—Plaut, Flavius Josephus und die
Bibel, Berlin 1867.—Tachauer, Das Verhältniss des Fl. Josephus zur Bibel und zur
Tradition, Erlangen 1871.—Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, 1879, pp.
23-53.—Ranke, Weltgeschichte, iii. 2, pp. 12-41,1883.—Olitzki, Flavius Josephus
und die Halacha, 1 Thl. 1885.—Grünbaum, Die Priestergesetze bei Flavius
Josephus, 1887. On the chronology of Josephus, especially for the earlier
periods: Brinch. Chronologiae et historiae Fl. Josephi examen Hafniae 1701 (also
in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2, 287-304).—Spanheim in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii.
2, 407 f.—Carpzov, Critica sacrae, pp. 954-957.—Junker, Ueber die Chronologie
des Flavius Josephus, Conitz 1848.—The Journal of Sacred Literature, vol. v.
1850, pp. 60-81.—Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, vol. vii.
1858, pp. 178-181. Ewald, History of Israel, ii. p. 371.—Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs
und Babel’s, 1857, pp. 105-109, 347-360.—Kuenen, De statmboom van den
masoretischen tekst des O. Testaments (Verdagm en Mededeelingen der koninkl.
Akademie van Wetensehappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Tweede reeks, deel iii. 1873,
pp. 289-339; on Josephus, p. 321 ff.).—Destinon, Die Chronologie des Josephus,
Kiel 1880. On the sources of the second half of the Antiquities: Nussbaum,
Observationes in Flavii Josephi Antiquitates, lib. xii. 3-xiii. 14. Dissertat.
inaugur. 1875.—Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archaeologie,
Leipzig 1879.—Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd.
Archaeologie, Buch xii.-xvii.=Jüd. Krieg, Buch i., Kiel 1882.—Schemann, Die
Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der jüdischen Archaeologie, Buch
xviii.-xx.=Polemos ii., cap. vii.-xiv., 3 Dissert. 1887. On the communicated
State Papers, especially of times of Caesar and Augustus: Gronovius, Decreta
Romana et Asiatica pro Judaeis, etc., Lugd. Bat. 1712.—Krebs, Decreta Romanorum
pro Judaeis facta e Josepho collecta et commentario illustrata, Lips.
1768.—Egger, Examen critique des historiens anciens de la vie et du règne
d’Auguste, 1844, pp. 193-200. By the same: Études historiques sur les traités
publics, 1866, p. 163 ff.—Bonnetty, Annales de philosophie chrétienne, ix., 5
série.—Mendelssohn, Senati consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi
Antiquitatibus (Acta Societatis philol., Lips. ed. Ritschelius, v. 1875, pp.
87-288).—Niese, Bemerkungen über die Urkunden bei Josephus Archaeologie, B.
xiii. xiv. xvi., in Hermes, xi. 1876, pp. 466-488.—See reply to Niese by
Mendelssohn, Rhein. Museum, Neue Folge, Bd. xxxii. 1877, pp. 249-258.—Wicseler,
Einige Bemerkungen zu den römischen Urkunden bei Josephus Ant. 12. 10, 14. 8,
14. 10, in Theol. Stud. und Kritiken, 1877, pp. 281-298.—Rosenthal, Die Erlässe
Cäsars und die Senatsconsulte im Josephus Alterth. xiv. 10, in Monatsschrift für
Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1879, pp. 176-183, 216-228, 300-322. For
the literature on the so-called witness to Christ in Antiquities, xviii. 3. 3,
which, as a rule, also deals with Josephus more generally, see below at § 17. On
the geographical views of Josephus: Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine,
vol. i. pp. 408-415, and elsewhere throughout the work.—Raumer, Palästina, 4th
ed. 1860, pp. 466-471.—Berggren, Flavius Josephus der Führer und Irreführer der
Pilger im alten und neuen Jerusalem, Leipzig 1854. Arnold, Die Bibel, Josephus
und Jerusalem; Sammlung und Beleuchtung aller Stellen der Bibel und des
Josephus, welche auf die Topographie Jerusalem’s Bezug nehmen, 2 Abth., Halle
1865-1866.—For the explanation and criticism of the geographical statements:
Boettger, Topographisch-historisches Lexicon zu den Schriften des Flavius
Josephus, Leipzig 1879. For the illustration of the Treatise against Apion:
Cruice, De Flavii Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem afferendis fide et
auctoritate, Paris 1844.—Creuzer, Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853, p. 64
ff.—Kellner, De fragmentis Manethonianis guae apud Josephum contra Apionem, i.
14 et i. 26 sunt, Marburgi 1859.—Zipser, Des Flavius Josephus Werk, “Ueber das
hohe Alter des jüdischen Volkes gegen Apion,” nach hebräischen Originalquellen
erläutert, Vienna 1871.—J. G. Müller, Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den
Apion, Text und Erklärung, Basel 1877.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: D.�GREEK AND ROMAN WRITERS
========================================================================

D.—GREEK AND ROMAN WRITERS We are not required here to take into consideration
all the Greek and Roman writers who may have made any sort of contribution to
our history, but only those who have contributed something of considerable and
permanent value. The Greek and Roman historians whose works are still preserved,
afford us only a few notices in regard to the special history of the Jewish
people. Of much greater importance are the hints respecting the general
characteristics of Judaism which we gather from contemporary authors, especially
from satirists like Horace and Juvenal. But of yet higher value are the
statements made by those historians who give special consideration to the
history of Syria during the reign of the Seleucidae and the Roman period. For
the history of Palestine during our period is most intimately linked with the
general history of Syria. The historians who treat of the history of that
country are therefore to be ranked among the authorities for our history. The
most important of these are the following:[29]— [29] Modern editions of the
original texts of the authors here named are issued in the collections of Didot
in Paris and of Teubner in Leipzig.—Bibliographical lists of editions and
literature regarding each are given by Engelmann, Bibliotheca scriptorum
classicorum, 8th ed. by Preuss, 2 vols. 1880-1882.—A good estimate of these
writers will be found under their several names in Nicolai, Griechische
Literaturgeschichte, 3 vols. 1873-1878, and Teuffel, History of Roman
Literature, 2 vols. London. 1. Greek Writers 1. POLYBIUS of Megalopolis in
Arcadia. He was one of the thousand distinguished Achaeans who in B.C. 167,
under suspicion of being ill-affected toward Rome, were transported to Rome, and
were detained there, or at least in Italy, for seventeen years. During his long
residence in Rome, the conviction gained possession of him that there was a
divine reason and need-be for the sovereignty of the Romans. He gave expression
to this idea in his great historical work, which in forty books described the
gradual upbuilding of the Roman Empire and universal supremacy from B.C. 220 to
B.C. 146. Of these only the first five books are preserved in a complete form;
of the rest we have only fragments, more or less extensive, contained for the
most part in the collection of excerpts by Constantinus Porphyrogennetus. For
the purposes of our history, only the best fifteen books, xxvi.-xl., come into
consideration. In book xxvi. c. 10, Polybius enters first upon the history of
Antiochus Epiphanes. 2. DIODORUS. This historian was born at Agyrium in Sicily,
hence called Siculus, and lived during the reigns of Caesar and Augustus. He
wrote a large universal history of all times and peoples, which he entitled
βιβλιοθήκη. It consisted of forty books, covered a period of eleven hundred
years, and reached down to the conquest of Gaul and Britain by Caesar. Of this
work there still remain books i.-v., giving the early history of Egypt and
Ethiopia, of the Assyrians and the other peoples of the East, as well as the
Greeks; books xi.-xx., from the beginning of the second Persian war, B.C. 480,
down to the history of the successors of Alexander the Great, B.C. 302; of the
other books we have only fragments, for the most part preserved in the
collection of excerpts by Constantinus Porphyrogennetus. Some of these fragments
have been brought to light only in recent publications by Mai, Müller, and
Feder.—For our purpose only the fragment from book xxix. 32, given in Müller,
Fragmenta histor. graecor. ii., comes into consideration, where for the first
time mention is made of Antiochus Epiphanes. 3. STRABO of Amasia in Pontus lived
from about B.C. 60 to A.D. 20; but we cannot precisely determine the date either
of his birth or of his death. Of his works we possess only the Γεωγραφικά, in
seventeen books, written toward the end of his life, well known as a principal
source of information in regard to ancient geography. Among the numerous
historical notices interspersed in this great work, we meet with many which are
of importance for the history of Syria. In his description of Palestine, xvi. 2.
25-46, Strabo has used, besides other authorities, one which treated of the
state of affairs during the ante-Pompeian age, for he speaks of Gaza, which was
destroyed by Alexander Jannaeus, as μένουσα ἔρημος (xvi. 2. 30), without
mentioning that it had been rebuilt by Gabinius; see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 70.
Also, according to the authority used by him, the forcible Judaizing of Joppa
and Gazara (Gadara) are fresh in the memory (xvi. 2. 28-29). These statements
were perhaps derived from Posidonius, from whom Strabo here frequently quotes.
4. PLUTARCH was born about A.D. 50 at Chaeronea in Boeotia. Trajan bestowed on
him consular rank, and Hadrian appointed him Procurator of Greece. We also know
that in his native city he filled the office of Archon, and repeatedly presided
at the festival of the Pythian Apollo. He died about A.D. 120.—Of his works we
have to do with the Biographies, βίοι παράλληλοι, of distinguished men of Greece
and Rome, of whom generally two, the one a Greek, the other a Roman, are placed
alongside of one another. Somewhere about fifty of these are preserved, among
which those of Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, Brutus, and Antony are of special
interest in connection with our history. 5. APPIAN. Of Appian’s life very little
is known. He says of himself at the conclusion of his historical work:[30] “I am
Appian of Alexandria, who attained to the highest position of honour in my own
land, and as a jurist conducted processes at Rome before the justiciary courts
of the emperor, until the members of court deemed me fit to be made their
procurator.” From various passages in his works, it appears that he lived under
Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius. The composition of his historical work
falls in the time of Antoninus Pius, about A.D. 150. It treats of the history of
Rome, in twenty-four books. Instead of the synchronistic method, Appian chose to
follow rather the ethnographic, “because he wished to give the history of events
in each separate country in an unbroken narrative down to the time of its union
with Rome. Thus he gives also the history of Rome in a series of special
histories of the various lands and people that had been combined with the Roman
Empire, describing in detail the history of each from the period of its first
contact with Rome down to the time of its absorption into the empire, and then
sketching in a brief style the incidents of more recent times” (Bähr in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop.). Of the twenty-four books, the following are extant:—Of books
i.-v. and ix., only fragments, but in a complete form; book vi. Ἰβηρική (scil.
ἱστορία), vii. Ἀννιβαϊκή, viii. Λιβυκὴ καὶ Καρχηδονική, xi. Συριακὴ καὶ Παρθική
(of which the part on the Parthian history is lost), xii. Μιθριδάτειος,
xiii.-xvii. Ἐμφύλια (that is, the Civil War), xxiii. Δακική or Ἰλλυρική. The
extant five books on the Civil War, xiii.-xvii., are usually cited as Appian.
Civ. i. ii. iii. iv. v.; the other books being named according to their contents
as Libyca (or Punica), Syriaca, etc. [30] Ἀππιανὸς Ἀλεξανδρεύς, ἐς τὰ πρῶτα ἥκων
ἐν τῇ πατρίδι, καὶ δίκαις ἐν Ῥώμῃ συναγορεύσας ἱπὶ τῶν βασιλέων, μέχρι με σφῶν
ἐπιτροπεύειν ἠξίωσαν. 6. DIO CASSIUS, or, more correctly, Cassius Dio, was born
at Nicaea in Bithynia about A.D. 155. He spent the period of his public life in
Rome, and occupied successively the positions of aedile, quaestor, praetor, and,
about A.D. 221, Consul. He administered the province of Africa as Proconsul. In
A.D. 229 he retired from official life. We have no information at all regarding
his later days or about the date of his death.—His great work on Roman history
was most probably composed about A.D. 211-222, but it was continued by him down
to A.D. 229. It consisted of eighty books, and comprised the whole Roman history
from the arrival of Aeneas at Latium down to the year 229 after Christ. The
following portions are still preserved:—Of the first thirty-four books only
short fragments; more considerable pieces of books xxxv. and xxxvi.; books
xxxvii.-liv. inclusive are complete, treating of the wars of Lucullus and Pompey
with Mithridates, down to the death of Agrippa in B.C. 12; of books lv.-lx.
inclusive, we have considerable portions; but of the rest, books lxi.-lxxx., we
have only an epitome made by Xiphilinus in the eleventh century; while for the
first thirty-four books we have not even this. 2. Latin Writers 1. CICERO was
born on 3rd January B.C. 106, at Arpinum, and died on 7th December B.C. 43, a
victim of the proscriptions of Antony and Octavian. Cicero’s Orations and
Epistles are generally recognised as a main source of information on the history
of his times, and especially on the history of Syria during the years B.C.
57-43. 2. LIVY was born at Patavium (Padua) in B.C. 59, and died in the same
place A.D. 17. His great historical work treated of the history of Rome from the
founding of the city down to the death of Drusus, in 142 books. Of these, only
thirty-five have been preserved, namely, the first, third, fourth decade, and
the first half of the fifth. For the purpose of our history only the first half
of the fifth decade comes into consideration. It comprises books xli.-xlv.,
dealing with the period B.C. 178-167. The summary of contents of the books that
are lost, relating to more recent times, is still of some value to us. 3.
MONUMENTUM ANCYRANUM. Augustus at his death left behind him, besides other
writings, a review of the most important incidents in his reign, recorded on
tablets of brass, and intended to be set up before his Mausoleum (Suetonius,
Aug. 101: indicem rerum a se gestarum, quem vellet incidi in aeneis tabulus,
quae ante Mausoleum statuerentur). This review has come down to us almost
complete in consequence of its having been engraved, according to the Latin
text, and in a Greek translation, on the marble walls of the temple of Augustus
at Ancyra in Galatia. What is there wanting in the Latin text is so far supplied
by the fragments of the Greek translation that only unimportant blanks remain.
Another copy of the Greek text is found in a temple at Apollonia in Pisidia,
whereof also extracts are still preserved.—This comprehensive documentary
memorial is, together with the histories of Dio Cassius and Suetonius, our chief
authority for the reign of Augustus.—The most recent and most correct editions
are: 1. Perrot, Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, etc.,
1862-1872, pl. 25-29; 2. Corpus Inscript. Lat. iii. 1873, pp. 769-799, 1054,
1064; 3. Bergk, Augusti rerum a se gestarum indicem, ed. 1873; 4. Mommsen, Res
gestae divi Augusti, ex monumentis Ancyrano et Apolloniensi iterum edidit;
accedunt tabulae undecim, Berol. 1883, with a thoroughly comprehensive and
informing commentary. 4. TACITUS was born about A.D. 55, and was praetor in A.D.
88, and Consul in A.D. 98. The date of his death is unknown. He seems to have
been still alive at the beginning of the reign of Hadrian, and may therefore
have died somewhere about A.D. 120.—Of his historical works, the Annals, which
in sixteen or eighteen books—their exact number is not certainly known—treated
of the times of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, that is, of the period
from A.D. 14 to A.D. 68, are admittedly the most important original authority
for the history of these times, and so, too, for the history of Syria. They are
arranged annalistically, so that they afford a sure determination of the
chronology. A great piece is wanting in the middle. There are extant: books
i-iv. complete, v. and vi. partly, and xi.-xvi. defective at the beginning and
the end. The portions preserved embrace the period of Tiberius, the second half
of the reign of Claudius and that of Nero, with the exception of its close.—Of
his other great work, the History, which consisted of twelve or fourteen books,
dealing with the reigns of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and
Domitian, that is, from A.D. 68 to A.D. 96, only a fragment remains, books
i.-iv. and a part of book v., treating of A.D. 68-70. Of special interest for us
is Book v. 1-13, where Tacitus, by means of a few graphic strokes, gives a
sketch of the history of the Jewish people down to the war with Titus. 5.
SUETONIUS. In regard to his life-course, we know that his youth synchronizes
with the reign of Domitian, A.D. 81-96; that he had the rank of tribune
conferred upon him during the reign of Trajan, A.D. 98-117; and that under
Hadrian, A.D. 117-138, he was made magister epistolarum, but afterwards received
his dismissal from that emperor. Among his writings only the Vitae XII.
Imperatorum come into consideration in connection with our history. The twelve
Imperatores are: Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba,
Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. 6. TROGUS POMPEIUS (JUSTINUS)
wrote under Augustus a universal history from Ninus down to his own times, in
forty-four books, with special reference to the history of Macedonia and the
Diadochen dynasty, full of material, carefully compiled and resting on good
Greek authorities.—The work itself is lost. Only the lists of contents or
prologi of the forty-four books are preserved, and an epitome which a certain
Justinus, probably in the age of the Antonines, drew up. Even this short epitome
is itself so full of material, that it forms for us an important source of
information regarding the Seleucid period.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: E.�THE RABBINICAL LITERATURE
========================================================================

E.—THE RABBINICAL LITERATURE Compare specially: Zunz, Die gottesdienstliclien
Vorträge der Juden, 1832.—For the bibliography: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, 4
vols. 1715-1733.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, 3 vols. 1849-1863.—Steinschneider,
Catalogue librorum hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Berol.
1852-1860.—Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British
Museum, London 1867.—Strack, Bibliographischer Abriss der neuhebr. Litteratur,
in Lehrb. der neuhebr. Sprache und Litt., by Siegfried and Strack, 1884, p. 93
ff. By “Rabbinical Literature” we understand that literature which has grown up
out of the professional labours of the Rabbis or scribes. These labours
consisted, not indeed exclusively, but mainly, in learned discussions and
criticism of the Scriptures. Of such productions we have two different classes.
On the one hand, some have discussed the law hypercritically in the jurist
style; on the other hand, some have expanded and developed the sacred history
and religious and ethical views by means of learned combinations. The
productions of the first sort constitute the Halacha, or the traditional law;
the productions of the second kind form the Haggada, or the legends, embracing
religious and moral contents. For further information about both, see § 25, III.
The Halacha and Haggada were transmitted for the first hundred years by oral
tradition only. In the Halacha strict adherence to literal accuracy in the
transmission was insisted upon; whereas in the Haggada, greater freedom was
given to subjective opinion and imagination. The final fixing of both in
numerous and comprehensive literary works makes up what we style the Rabbinical
Literature. The origin of this literature dates almost without exception from
the earliest years of the period immediately after that treated in our history.
Only the Haggadic treatment of Genesis, which is known under the name of the
Book of Jubilees, belongs to our period; as do also the earliest, but no longer
extant, contributions to the Halacha. But almost the whole of the rabbinical
literature that has been preserved reaches no farther back than the last decade
of the second century after Christ. It is nevertheless an invaluable source for
the times of Christ, for the fountain of the there fixed traditions is to be
sought away back, not merely in the times of Christ, but in yet earlier periods.
The Halacha has been written down partly in close connection with the Scripture
text, therefore in the form of commentaries upon Scripture, partly in systematic
order, grouping the materials under various headings according to the subjects
dealt with. The works belonging to the latter class very soon obtained the
pre-eminence. They embrace—1. The Mishna; 2. The Tosephta; 3. The Jerusalem
Talmud; 4. The Babylonian Talmud. They may be comprehended under the general
designation of Talmudical Literature. In all of them Haggada is mixed up with
Halacha; this blending being most conspicuous in the Babylonian Talmud, and
least discernible in the Mishna. The Haggada makes its appearance mainly in the
form of commentaries on the Scripture text. The Halachic, as well as the
Haggadic commentaries, may be comprehended under the general name of Midrashim.
The traditional conception of the Scripture text is given expression to in the
Aramaic translations or the Targums. They too, therefore, are to be mentioned
here, although in the form in which they have come down to us they are probably
to be dated about one hundred years after the time of Christ. Finally, as the
residuum of historical tradition, we must refer to still other historical works
which make reference to the period of which we treat. I. The Talmudical
Literature 1. The Mishna The word מִשְׁנָה(stat. construct. מִשְׁנַת, varied
from מִשְׁנֶה, stat. construct. מִשְׁנֵה) has generally been rendered by the
Church Fathers by δευτέρωσις.[31] This is correct, inasmuch as the verb שָׁנָה,
according to its root significance, means δευτεροῦν, to repeat.[32] But in later
usage “to repeat” came to be equivalent to “the teaching or learning of the oral
law,” traditiones docere or discere. For the mode of imparting such instruction
was by the teacher dictating the matter again and again to the pupils, or even
by the pupils themselves being made to repeat it over and over again.[33] Hence
מִשְׁנָה, which properly means “repetition,” came to be regarded as signifying
the doctrine of the law, and even the doctrine of the oral law as distinguished
from the written Thora.[34] [31] A rich collection of patristic passages is
given by Hody, De bibliorum textibus originalibus, etc. 1705, pp. 238-240.—I
select the following:—Jerome, Epist. 121 ad Algasiam, quaest. x.: “I would fail
to tell of the multitude of the traditions of the Pharisees which are now called
δευτερώσεις, and which are silly fables. For indeed the size of my book forbids;
and so many are vile, that I would blush to quote them.”—The same in Epist. 18
ad Damasum, c. 20: “But lest we should seem to omit any of those which the Jews
call δευτερώσεις, in which they treat of all kinds of knowledge,” etc.—In his
Comm. on Isa. viii.: “Shammai, therefore, and Hillel, of whom the former is a
quibbling, and the latter a profane interpreter of traditions and δευτερώσεις,
make void the precepts of their own law.”—In Comm. on Isa. lix.: “despising the
law of God, and following traditions of men, which they call δευτερώσεις.”—In
his Comm. on Ezek. xxxvi.: “For we expect the heavenly Jerusalem gemmed and
golden, not according to Jewish fables, which they call δευτερώσεις.”—In. Comm.
on Hos. iii.: “Loving traditions of men and dreams of δευτερώσεις.”—In his Comm.
on Matt. xxii. 23: Pharisaei traditionum et observationum, quas illi δευτερώσεις
vocant, justitiam praeferebant.—For passages from Epiphanius, see under, note
24.—In the Constitutiones Apostol. i. 6, ii. 5, vi. 22, the ritual part of the
Mosaic law is called δευτέρωσις, in contradistinction to the true νόμος, or
moral law. [32] So in the biblical Hebrew. Compare also Sanhedrin xi. 2, meaning
to do something over again. [33] שנה, to teach, e.g. Taanith iv. 4; כך היה ר׳
יהושע שונה, “thus was R. Joshua wont to teach.” Compare Jerome, Epist. 121 ad
Algasiam, quaest. x.: “When on certain days they expound their traditions to
their disciples, they are wont to say οἱ σοφοὶ δευτερώσιν, that is, the wise
teach traditions.” In the sense of “to learn,” e.g. Aboth iii. 7: “Whoever goes
on the way and repeats (ושונה) and interrupts his repetitions (ומפסיק משנתו),
and says, How beautiful is this tree, how beautiful is this field, Scripture
regards him as one who has forfeited his life.”—Aboth ii. 4: “Say not, When I
have time I will learn (אשנה): for perhaps thou wilt have no time.” [34]
Sometimes, as in the passage Aboth iii. 7, quoted in the previous note, משנה may
be translated “repetition;” sometimes by “instruction,” as in Aboth iii. 8:
“Whoever forgets a part of his lesson on the law (דבר אחד ממשנתו), is regarded
by Scripture as,” etc. But, as a rule, it simply means the traditional doctrine
of the law, especially in distinction from the written text, מקרא, Kidduschin i.
10; Aboth v. 21. In cases where later scholars teach differently from earlier
ones, the earlier doctrine is called מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, Kethuboth v. 3; Nasir
vi. 1; Gittin v. 6; Sanhedrin iii. 4; Edujoth vii. 2. The Mishna is
distinguished from the Halacha by presenting the legal tradition as the subject
of instruction rather than as a judicial code. The teachers of the δευτερώσεις
were called δευτερωταί, Euseb. Praep. evangel. xi. 5. 3, xii. 1. 4.—Jerome on
Isaiah 3:10, and on Habakkuk 2 : Audivi Liddae quendam de Hebraeis, qui sapiens
apud illos et δευτερωτής vocabatur, narrantem hujusmodi fabulam. The work
specially designated by the name Mishna is the oldest codification of the
traditional Jewish law that has come down to us. The material is here arranged
according to its contents, distributed into six groups (סְרָרִים), containing
altogether sixty tracts (מַסִּכְתּוֹת, sing. מַסֶּכֶת). In our printed editions,
by subdivision their number is increased to sixty-three.[35] Each tract, again,
is divided into chapters (פְּרָקִים); each chapter into paragraphs
(מִשְׁנִיוֹת). The chapter division is very old; but the position and numbering
of paragraphs is modern, and in the printed editions vary very considerably from
those of the manuscripts.—The language of the Mishna is Hebrew; its contents, as
we might expect, almost purely Halachic. Only two tracts, Aboth and Middoth, are
Haggadic; and besides, Haggadic elements, to a small extent, are found in the
conclusion of the tracts, or in the explanation of particular Halachas.[36] [35]
According to the original ordinance preserved, for example, in the cod. de Rossi
138, Baba kamma, Baba mezia, and Baba bathra form together only one tract, and
also the Sanhedrin and Makkoth only one. Compare also Strack in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclop. 2 Aufl. xviii. 300 f. [36] Compare Zunz, Die gottesdienstl.
Vorträge der Juden, p. 86 ff. A general sketch of the Haggadas in the Mishna is
given in Pinner’s translation in German of the tract Berachoth, Introduction.
The names and contents of the sixty-three tracts are as follows:[37]— [37] A
more detailed list of contents is given by Pressel in Herzog, 1st ed. xv.
620-639, and also by Strack in Herzog, 2nd ed. xviii. 305-328.—The list of
contents given above is mainly derived from “the explanatory list” given in
Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1870), pp. 113-118. First
Seder, ס׳ זְרָעִים 1. Berachoth, בְּרָכוֹת, on formulae of blessings and
prayers. 2. Pea, פֵּאָה, on the corners of fields which in harvest must be left
unreaped for the poor; and generally on the right of the poor in the produce of
the soil, according to Leviticus 19:9-10; Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22.
3. Demai, דְּמָאִי, on the treatment of the fruit, especially about anything
where it is doubtful whether it ought to be tithed or not. 4. Kilajim,
כִּלְאַיִם, on the illegal mixing of what is heterogeneous in the animal and
vegetable kingdoms, and in clothing, according to Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy
22:9-11. 5. Shebiith, שְׁבִיעִית, on the Sabbatical year. 6. Terumoth,
תְּרוּמוֹת, on the dues of the priests. 7. Maaseroth, מַעֲשֵׂרוֹת, on the tithes
of the Levites. 8. Maaser sheni, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, on secondary tithes, which are
taken after the payment of the first tithes, and must, according to Deuteronomy
14:22 ff., be paid at Jerusalem. 9. Challa, חַלָּה, on the dough offerings, a
1-24th of the baking for home use, and 1-48th of the baking for sale, which,
according to Numbers 15:17 ff., is to be given to the priests. 10. Orla,
עָרְלָה, on the prohibition against using the fruits of newly-planted trees
during the first three years, according to Leviticus 19:23-25. 11. Bikkurim,
בִּכּוּרִים, on the presenting of the firstlings of the produce of the ground.
Second Seder, ס׳ מוֹעֵד 1. Shabbath, שַׁבָּת, on the Sabbath festival. 2.
Erubin, עֵרוּבִין, on the binding together of separate localities for the
purpose of freer movement on the Sabbath. 3. Pesachim, פְּסָחִים, on the
Passover festival. 4. Shekalim, שְׁקָלִים, on the half-shekel tax, Exodus 30:11
ff.; Matthew 17:24. 5. Yoma, יוֹמָא, on the “day,” that is, the great day of
atonement. 6. Sukka, סֻכָּה, on the Feast of Tabernacles. 7. Beza, בֵּיצָה, or
Yom tob, יוֹם טוֹב, whether one may eat an egg laid on a feast day, and
generally on the observance of feast and Sabbath days. 8. Rosh Hashana, ראֹשׁ
הַשָּׁנָה, on the New Year festival. 9. Taanith, תַּעֲנִית, on the days of
fasting and mourning. 10. Megilla, מְגִלָּה, on the reading of the “roll,” that
is, of the book of Esther, and generally on the Feast of Purim. 11. Moed katan,
מוֹעֵד קָטָן, on the feast days intervening between the first and last feast
days of the great festivals. 12. Chagiga, חֲגִיגָה, on the duty of appearing at
Jerusalem to offer at the three great festivals. Third Seder, ס׳ נָשִׁים 1.
Jebamoth, יְבָמוֹת, on levirate marriage with the brother-in-law, according to
Deuteronomy 25:5-10. 2. Kethuboth, כְּחוּבוֹת, on marriage contracts. 3.
Nedarim, נְדָרִים, on vows, especially with reference to their validity in the
case of women, according to Leviticus 27. and Numbers 30. 4. Nasir, נָזִיר, on
the Nazarite vow, according to Num. 6. and 30. 5. Sota, סוֹטָה, on proceeding
against one suspected of adultery, according to Numbers 5:11-31. 6. Gittin,
נִּטִּין, on writings of divorcement (נֵּט), and what gives legal claim to the
obtaining of a divorce. 7. Kiddushin, קִרּוּשִׁין, on betrothal. Fourth Seder,
ס׳ נְזִיקִין 1. Baba Kamma, בָּבָא קַמָּא, “the first gate,” the first division
of the threefold treatise on injuries, treating of the legal damages due for
various kinds of injuries done by one to another. 2. Baba mezia, בָּבָא
מְצִיעָא, “the middle gate,” treats of complaints and claims, especially between
masters and slaves, employers and employed, borrowers and lenders. 3. Baba
bathra, בָּבָא בתְרָא “the last gate,” on the municipal regulations most
influential upon the development of social life. 4. Sanhedrin, סַנְהֶדְרִין, on
the Sanhedrim and the criminal law. 5. Makkoth, מַכּוֹת, on punishment by
flogging. 6. Shebuoth, שְׁבוּעוֹת, on oaths and offences against sanctity. 7.
Edujoth, עֵדֻיּוֹת, “witnesses,” contains controverted propositions from all
departments; the traditional validity is “witnessed to” by celebrated
authorities.[38] [38] The name of this tract, according to Levy, Neuhebraisch.
Wörterbuch, iii. 620, ought to be given as Ediyoth; and Strack in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 319, has been induced to accede to this demand. But
the solitary example on which Levy relies, namely, malkiyoth, is not in point,
since even in that instance the correct rendering would be malkuyoth. So also
for chanuth we have manuscript authority in its plural form of chanuyoth, e.g.
cod. de Rossi 138 has in Aboda sara i. 4 and Tohoroth vi. 3, חנויות. 8. Aboda
sara, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, on idolatry and generally on heathenism. 9. Aboth, אָבוֹת,
or Pirke Aboth, פִּרְקֵי אָבוֹת, a collection of sentences from the most famous
scribes, dating from somewhere about B.C. 200 to A.D. 200.[39] [39] No tract of
the Mishna has been so often printed and translated as this. Some of the more
recent editions are mentioned in Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 30. In addition, compare
Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna, by Raphall and de Sola, giving translations
of Berachoth, Kilajim, Shebiith, Erubin, Pesachim, Yoma, Sukka, Yom Tob, Rosh
Hashana, etc., London 1845. 10. Horayoth, הוֹרָיוֹת, decisions on unintentional
offences caused by erroneous decisions of the Sanhedrim, and on unintentional
offences of the high priests and princes. Fifth Seder, ס׳ קָדָשִׁים 1. Sebachim,
זְבָחִים, on sacrifices. 2. Menachoth, מְנָחוֹת, on meat-offerings. 3. Chullin,
חוּלִּין, on the right method of slaying animals not to be offered, and on the
eating thereof. 4. Bechoroth, בְּכוֹרוֹת, on the sanctifying of the first-born
among men and cattle. 5. Arachin, עֲרָכִין, “treasures,” treating, according to
Leviticus 27., of the redemption of persons and things which had been devoted to
the service of the sanctuary, or had so devoted themselves. 6. Temura,
תְּמוּרָה, on the exchanging of things devoted to God, Leviticus 27:10. 7.
Kerithoth, בְּרִיתוֹת, on the penalty of extermination, or rather what those
have to do who have unintentionally broken a command which involves the penalty
of utter destruction. 8. Meila, מְעִילָה, on the embezzlement of things devoted
to God, Numbers 5:6-8. 9. Tamid, תָּמִיד, of daily morning and evening
sacrifices, and generally of the daily temple service. 10. Middoth, מִדּוֹת, of
the size and arrangements of the temple. 11. Kinnim, קִנִּים, of the offerings
of doves by the poor, according to Leviticus 5:1-10; Leviticus 12:8. Sixth
Seder, ס׳ טָהֳרוֹת 1. Kelim, כֵּלִים, on household furniture and its purifying.
2. Ohaloth, אֹהָלוֹת, on the defilement of tents and houses, specially by the
dead, according to Numbers 19. 3. Negaim, נְגָעִים, on leprosy. 4. Para, פָּרָה,
on the red heifer, that is, on atonement for pollution contracted from the dead,
according to Numbers 19. 5. Tohoroth, טָהֳרוֹת, of the lesser kinds of
defilements. 6. Mikwaoth, מִקְוָאוֹה, of the water fitted for bathing and
washing. 7. Nidda, נִדָּה, of the defilement peculiar to the female sex. 8.
Machshirin, מַכְשִׁירִין, properly “making fit,” treating of the liquids which,
falling upon fruits, render or do not render them impure, according to Leviticus
11:34; Leviticus 11:38. 9. Sabim, זָבִים, on the running of ulcers and bloody
issues. 10. Tebul yom, טְבוּל יוֹם, treats of the defilement which is removed by
bathing, but requires isolation until the going down of the sun. 11. Yadayim,
יָדַיִם, on the pollution and the cleansing, washing of the hands. 12. Ukzin,
עוּקְצִין, on the defilement of fruits through their stalks and rinds or husks.
Tolerably sure results in regard to the age and origin of this work may also be
gained from certain indications given iu the text itself. In innumerable
instances, where the opinions of scholars on particular points of law are
divergent, not only is the view of the majority given, but the views of the
dissenting scholar or scholars, with the distinct mention of the names. In this
way somewhere about 150 authorities are quoted in the Mishna; the most, indeed,
only very seldom, but some almost through all the tracts. The most frequently
cited authorities are the following:[40]— [40] Since the editions vacillate here
and there as to the name, I may say that the numbers given by me are taken from
the so-called Jost edition of the Mishna, Berlin 1832-1834. First Generation,
from about A.D. 70 to A.D. 100 Rabban[41] Jochanan ben Sakkai, 23 times.—R.
Zadoc or Zadduc.[42]—R. Chananya, president of the priests, סגן הכהנים, 12
times.—R. Elieser ben Jacob.[43] [41] On the title Rabban, see Div. ii. vol. i.
p. 315. The simple letter R signifies Rabbi. [42] The name Rabbi Zadoc, or
properly Zadduc, occurs sixteen times. But probably an older and a younger
scholar have the same name. [43] The name R. Elieser ben Jacob occurs forty
times. Probably here also two bearers of the same name are to be distinguished.
Second Generation, from about A.D. 100 to A.D. 130 A. Older Group: Rabban
Gamaliel II., 84 times.—R. Josbua [ben Chananya],[44] times.—R. Elieser [ben
Hyrcanos], 324 times.—R. Eleasar ben Asarya, 38 times.—R. Dosa ben Archinos, 19
times.—R. Eleasar, son of R. Zadduc.[45] [44] Those patronymics which are, as a
rule, not given in the Mishna, are enclosed above in brackets. [45] With
reference to this name, the same may be said as about R. Zadduc. B. Younger
Group: R. Ishmael, 71 times.—R. Akiba [ben Joseph], 278 times.—R. Tarphon, 51
times.—K. Jochanan ben Nuri, 38 times.—R. Simon ben Asai, or simply Ben Asai, in
the one form 4, in the other 21 times.—R. Jochanan ben Beroka, 11 times.—R. Jose
the Galilean, 26 times.—R. Simon ben Nannos, or simply Ben Nannos, in each of
these forms 5 times.—Abba Saul, 20 times.—R. Judah ben Bethera, 16 times. Third
Generation, from about A.D. 130 to A.D. 160 R. Judah [ben Ilai, or more
correctly Elai], 609 times.—R. Jose [ben Chalephta], 335 times.—R. Meir, 331
times.—R. Simon [ben Jochai], 325 times.—Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel II., 103
times.—R. Nehemiah, 19 times.—R. Chananya ben Antigonos, 13 times. Fourth
Generation, from about AD. 160 to A.D. 200 Rabbi [i.e. R. Juda ha-Nasi or
ha-kadosh], 37 times.—R. Jose, son of R. Judah [ben Elai], 14 times. The
chronology which has been here adopted, while in its leading outlines perfectly
certain, cannot be vouched for in every individual case. The fact that the men
enumerated in the same generation were really contemporary with one another, is
evidenced by the circumstance of their being more or less frequently referred to
in the Mishna as disputing with one another. Thus, for example, we find Rabban
Gamaliel II., R. Joshua, R. Elieser, and R. Akiba frequently engaged together in
conversation and discussion, and that, indeed, with such indications as show
that R. Akiba was a younger contemporary of the three previously named.[46] So,
too, we often find disputing with one another, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Meir, and
R. Simon. And in a similar way in respect to other scholars mentioned here, it
can be determined with more or less certainty to which of the four generations
each belonged.—But further, also, the succession of the generations can be
ascertained by similar statements in the Mishna. R. Joshua and R. Elieser were
pupils of Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai;[47] also, R. Akiba is so described.[48]
The men of the third generation, too, are linked on with the men of the second
by personal relationships, etc.[49]—Finally, we are furnished with various
outstanding points for the sure determination of an absolutely correct
chronology. Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai is said to have made various arrangements
“after the temple had been destroyed;”[50] he was therefore alive immediately
after that event. With this also agrees the statement that Akiba, who was about
a generation younger, was a contemporary of Barcochba and a martyr during the
war of Hadrian. In a like manner we may deal with the rest.[51] [46] For the
documents, see Div. ii. vol i. pp. 351-379, § 25, notes 199 and 207. [47] Aboth
ii. 8. Compare Edujoth viii. 7. Yadayim iv. 3 at the end. [48] Sota v. 2. [49]
R. Jose passes a judgment in presence of R. Akiba (Terumoth iv. 13).—R. Judah
was still a hearer of R. Tarphon (Nedarim vi. 6).—R. Simon takes part in a
disputation with R. Akiba (Machschirin vi. 8).—R. Jose, Judah, and Simon tell
about the views of R. Elieser and R. Joshua (Kerithoth iv. 2, 3). [50] Sukka
iii. 12. Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4. Menachoth x. 5. [51] Documentary evidence for
all the above statements is much too voluminous to be given here. In single
cases where the Mishna gives no decision, the sources that follow, Tosephta and
Talmud, are drawn upon. On the men of the first and second generations more
particulars are to be found in Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 366-379. On the third and
fourth generations, compare literature given in Div. ii. vol. i. p. 351,
especially the articles in Hamburger’s Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud,
pt. ii.; also Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 346-350.—I may
mention that I have intentionally characterized the two groups of the second
generation, not as two generations, because they are more closely connected with
one another than either is with the first or with the third generation. Our
statistics, then, have thus proved that the Mishna must have been collected and
edited toward the end of the second century after Christ, for in a later
composition it might be expected that more recent authorities would have been
employed. In fact, the composition of the work has been ascribed to E. Judah
ha-Nasi, or ha-kadosh, called also simply Rabbi, who lived at the end of the
second century after Christ.[52] But our statistics teach us something more even
than this. It is clear that a couple of thousand of statements about the views
of particular scholars could not have been transmitted by oral traditions. If in
a work issued toward the end of the second century, by various scholars of
earlier generations, even a couple of hundred particular decisions were
communicated (by R. Judah ben Elai over six hundred!), there must have been
written sources at their command. But the result of our statistics makes it
probable that the final redaction had been preceded by two earlier summaries of
written documents, one from the age of the second generation, and one from the
time of the third generation. Certain phenomena in the text of the Mishna itself
favour this theory,[53] as well as some rather obscure and doubtful
traditions.[54] The opinion, still firmly maintained by many Jewish scholars,
that written documents are not to be found before the time of Judah ha-Nasi,
indeed not even in his days, is based upon the assumed prohibition of a written
record of the Halacha, of which, however, the age and range of application are
extremely uncertain.[55]—At any rate this much is beyond dispute, that in the
Mishna the Jewish law is codified in that form which it retained in the schools
of Palestine from the end of the first to the end of the second century after
Christ. [52] Compare on him: Bodek, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus als Zeitgenosse
und Freund des Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi; also under title: Römische Kaiser in
jüdischen Quellen, Thl. i. 1868.—Gelbhaus, Rabin Jehuda Hanassi und die
Redaction des Mischna, Vienna 1880. Compare here: Strack, Theolog.
Literaturzeitung, 1881, 52 ff.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und
Talmud, Abth. ii. pp. 440-450 (art. Jehuda der Fürst).—Some more literature in
Strack, Herzog, xviii. 349.—On the period and the date of the death of R. Judah
ha-Nasi, long discussions have been carried on between Rapoport and Jost. See
Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 48, and the complete report in Bodek, pp. 11-64;
also Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Secten, ii. 118 ff.—Rapoport takes
A.D. 192 as the year of his death; Jost, A.D. 219-220. The grounds for either
are not very certain, but Rapoport’s view seems more probable, though his
statements about a friendly intercourse between Marcus Aurelius and Judah are
very problematical. [53] Kelim, fin. “R. Jose said: Happy thou Kelim (אשריך
כלים), to begin with pollution and end with poverty.” It then appears that a
redaction of the tract Kelim appeared in the times of R. Jose [ben
Chalephta].—On various stages in the fixing of the tradition, whether oral or
written, light is shed by such passages as treat of the meaning of propositions
laid down by older scholars, e.g. Ohaloth ii. 3; Tohoroth ix. 3. [54]
Epiphanius, Haer. 33. 9: Αἱ γὰρ παραδόσεις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων δευτερώσεις παρὰ τοῖς
Ἰουδαίοις λέγονται. Εἰσὶ δὲ αὗται τέσσαρες· μία μὲν ἡ εἰς ὄνομα Μωυσέως
φερομένη· δευτέρα δὲ ἡ τοῦ καλουμένου Ῥαββὶ Ἀκιβά· τρίτη Ἀδδὰ ἤτοι Ἰούδα·
τετάρτη τῶν υἱῶν Ἀσαμωναίου. In almost the same language Epiphanius expresses
himself in another passage, Haer. 15: Δευτερώσεις δὲ παρʼ αὐτοῖς τέσσαρες ἦσαν·
μία μὲν εἰς ὄνομα Μωυσέως τοῦ προφήτου, δευτέρα δὲ εἰς τὸν διδάσκαλον αὐτῶν
Ἀκίβαν οὕτω καλούμενον ἢ Βαρακίβαν· ἄλλη δὲ εἰς τὸν Ἀνδὰν ἢ Ἄνναν τὸν καὶ
Ἰούδαν· ἑτέρα δὲ εἰς τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἀσαμωναίου. Quite a wrong statement is made in a
third passage, Haer. 42: μάθε … πότε δὲ ἡ παράδοσις αὐτοῖς γέγονε τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ εὑρήσεις ὅτι τοῦ μὲν Δαβὶδ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ Βαβυῶνος ἐπάνοδον, τοῦ
δὲ Ἀκιβᾶ καὶ πρὸ τῶν Βαβυλωνικῶν αἰχμαλωσιῶν, γεγένηται, τῶν δὲ υἱῶν Ἀσσαμωναίου
ἐν χρόνοις Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ἀντιόχου.—By the “Deuteroses of Moses,” is meant
Deuteronomy; by the “Mishna of the Asmoneans,” most likely the ordinances of
John Hyrcanus, who set aside the Pharisaic statutes, and so created a new system
of law. A code of this Asmonean law is, it would seem, referred to in Megillath
Taanith, § 10. Compare Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 103.—Mention is
also made of a series of Halachoth by R. Akiba in Tosephta Sabim i., while by
“the Mishna of Akiba” in Sanhedrin iii. 4, only his oral doctrine is to be
understood. Compare on Akiba’s work as a redactor: Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen
Vorträge der Juden, p. 46; Jost, Geschichte der Judenthums, ii. 112; Gräz,
Geschichte der Juden, iv. 430 f. [55] For more detailed information, see Strack
in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 331-337. According to Grätz, even in the fourth
century the Mishna had not yet been committed to writing.—Frankel especially, in
modern times, has insisted upon the assumption of written Mishna collections
before that of R Judah ha-Nasi. In his Hodegetica in Mischnam, 1859, he assigns
a Mishna to R. Akiba and one to R. Meir. Compare further: Lewy, Ueber einige
Fragmente aus der Mischna des Abba Saul, Berlin 1876.—Derenbourg, Histoire de la
Palestine, pp. 399-401.—Hoffmann, Di erste Mischna und die Controversen der
Tannaim (Jahresbericht des Rabbiner-Seminares in Berlin, 1882).—Lerner, Die
ältesten Mischna-Compositionem (Mag. für die Wissensch. des Judenth. xiii.
1886).—Derenbourg sums up his opinion as follows (Revue des études juives, vi.
41): “It is well known that from the time of the destruction of the second
temple down to the commencement of the third century of the Christian era, there
have been different redactions of the Mishna. The first complete redaction seems
to have been undertaken by R. Akiba before the war of Hadrian. Upon the
reopening of the schools under the first Antonine, R. Meir resumed the same
work, and then R. Judah the patriarch, descended from the famous family of
Hillel, composed the code which has served as a basis for all subsequent
rabbinical studies.” 2. Tosephta The Mishna of R. Judah ha-Nasi has generally
received canonical rank, and has served as the basis for the further development
of the law Another collection that has come down to us, the so-called Tosephta,
תּוֹסֶפְתֶּא, additamentum,[56] has not attained such a rank. The material here
gathered together belongs essentially to the age of the Tannaites (הַנָּאִים in
Aramaic, meaning δευτερωταί, the scholars of the age of the Mishna). The
arrangement is quite the same as that of the Mishna. Of the sixty-three tracts
of the Mishna, only Aboth, Tamid, Middoth, and Kinnim are wanting in the
Tosephta. The other fifty-nine tracts, not merely fifty-two, as Zunz in his
Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge affirms, have their exact parallels in the Tosephta.
The two are therefore closely related. The precise nature of their relationship
has not yet indeed been made sufficiently clear. But there are at least two
points which may be stated with absolute certainty:—1. That the Tosephta is laid
out in accordance with the plan of the Mishna, and professes to be an expansion
of it, as the name itself implies; and 2. That the redactors had at their
command in carrying out their scheme sources which are older than our Mishna.
Hence, on the one hand, in the Tosephta we have authorities cited which belong
to the post-Mishna times; while, on the other hand, the Tosephta has not
unfrequently retained the original and complete literal quotation where the
Mishna has given only an abbreviated text.[57] The Haggada bulk much more
largely in the Tosephta than in the Mishna. [56] Not to be confounded with the
Tosaphoth, the explanations of the Babylonian Talmud from the French rabbinical
schools of the Middle Ages. See on these Tosaphists: Zunz, Zur Geschichte und
Literatur, 1845, p. 29 ff. [57] From this Zuckermandel has wrongly concluded
that the Tosephta preserved to us contains the original parts of the Palestinian
Mishna which formed the text of the Jerusalem Gemara, while our Mishna has
sprung up in the Babylonian Amora school as a new codex, partly abridged, partly
amended, from the Tosephta. A complete separate edition of the Tosephta was
issued for the first time quite recently by Zuckermandel, Tosephta nach den
Erfurter und Wiener Handschriften mit Parallelstellen und Varianten, Pasewalk
1880. Supplement containing summary, register, and glossary, Treves
1882-1883.—On the Erfurt manuscript: Zuckermandel, Die Erfurter Handschrift der
Tossefta, Berlin 1876; and Lagarde, Symmicta, i. 1877, pp. 153-155.—Previous to
this, leaving out of account separate editions of special portions, the Tosephta
had appeared only in the editions of the Alfasi. On these and on the separate
editions of portions, see Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 34-36, 173;
Steinschneider, Catalogus librorum hebr. in biblioth. Bodleiana, col. 647 sq.,
1087 sqq.; Alter Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the
British Museum, pp. 365 f., 757. A great part of the Tosephta, consisting of
some thirty-one tracts, is translated into Latin in Ugolini Thesaurus
antiquitatum sacrarum: in vol. xvii. Schabbath, Erubin, and Pesachim; in vol.
xviii. the other nine tracts of the second Seder; in vol. xix. the following
eight tracts of the fifth Seder: Sebachim, Menachoth, Chullin, Bechoroth,
Temura, Meila, Kerithoth, Arachin; in vol. xx. the whole of the eleven tracts of
the first Seder. On the Tosephta generally, compare: Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 50 f., 87 f.—Dünner, Die
Theorien über Wesen und Ursprung der Tosephta kritisch dargestellt, Amsterdam
1874.—Zuckermandel, Verhältniss der Tosifta zur Mischna und der jerusalemischen
Gemara zur babylonischen (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissensch. des
Judenthums, 1874-1875). By the same, Tosifta-Variantem (Monatsschrift,
1880-1881).—Schwarz, Die Tosifta des Tractates Sabbath in ihrem Verhältnisse zur
Mischna kritisch untersucht, Carlsruhe 1879. By the same, Die Tosifta des
Tractates Erubin in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Mischna kritisch untersucht,
Carlsruhe 1882.—Hoffmann, Mischna und Tosefta (Magazin für die Wissenschaft des
Judenthums, ix. 1882, pp. 153-163).—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und
Talmud, ii. 1225-1227, art. “Tosephta.”—Brüll, Begriff und Ursprung der Tosefta
(Jubelschrift zum neunzigsten Geburtstag des Dr. L. Zunz, Berlin 1884, pp.
92-110).—Pick, Die Tosefta-Citate und der hebräische Text (Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentl. Wissensch. 1886, pp. 23-29).—Strack in Herzog,
Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. p. 298 f. 3. The Jerusalem Talmud On the basis of the
Mishna the juristic discussion was carried on with unwearied energy and zeal in
the schools of Palestine, especially in that of Tiberias, during the third and
fourth centuries. By means of the codification of the new material that was in
this way gathered together, there sprang up in the fourth century after Christ
the so-called Jerusalem, or more correctly, Palestinian, Talmud.[58] In it the
text of the Mishna is taken statement after statement in regular succession, and
is explained by a casuistical system of distinctions that becomes ever more and
more subtle and over-refined. For the purpose of explanation not only are the
opinions of the “Amoreans,” the scholars of the post-Mishna age, drawn upon, but
very frequently dogmatic utterances of the Mishna age. Such propositions as are
borrowed from earlier times which have not been incorporated in the Mishna, are
called Baraytha, בָּרָֽיְתָא “extranea,” scil. traditio. They are quoted in the
Talmud in Hebrew, whereas for the rest the language of the Talmud is
Aramaic.—The date of the composition of the Palestinian Talmud may be determined
from the fact that, although indeed the Emperors Diocletian and Julian are
mentioned, no Jewish authorities are referred to who can be assigned to a later
period than the middle of the fourth century.[59]—Besides the Halacha, which
forms its principal contents, we also meet in it with rich Haggadic
material.[60]—Whether the Palestinian Talmud ever went over the whole range of
the Mishna is still a disputed point. Only its first four Seders, together with
the tract Nidda, have been preserved to us, and the tracts Eduyoth and Aboth are
wanting.[61] [58] תַּלְמוּד means teaching, doctrine; e.g. Sota v. 4-5, vi. 3.
תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, Pea i. 1; Kethuboth v. 6; Kerithoth vi. 9.—The two component
parts of the Talmud, the Mishna text lying at its basis and the explanatory
discussion, are distinguished as “Mishna” and “Gemara.” But this use of the
words is unknown in Jewish antiquity. In the Talmud itself the so-called Gemara
is always “Talmud.” See Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 299. [59]
See especially Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 52 f. The passages
referring to Diocletian are also given in Lightfoot, Centuria chorogr. Matthaeo
praemissa, c. 81 (Opp. ii. 28). [60] The Haggadic passages are collected in the
work Jephê marʾeh (יִפֵה מַרְאֶה) of Samuel Japhe in the sixteenth century. See
here: Wolf, Biblioth. hebr. i. 1104, iii. 1109, iv. 995. Fürst, Biblioth.
Judaica, ii. 9, 96. Steinschneider, Catalog., col. 2427. Zedner, Catalogue of
British Museum, p. 750 f. Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 364 f.—A
German translation of Haggadic passages is given by Wünsche, Der jerusalemische
Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen zum ersten Male in’s Deutsche
übertragen, Zürich 1880. [61] For traces of the existence of other portions, see
Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 54 Strack in Herzog,
Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 337 f. 4. The Babylonian Talmud The Mishna is said to
have been brought to Babylon by Abba Areka, usually called Rab, a scholar of R.
Judah.[62] In the schools of that place, too, it came to be used as the basis
for continuous juristic discussion. The boundless accumulation of material here
also led gradually to its codification. This was in all probability undertaken
in the fifth century after Christ, but was not brought to a conclusion before
the sixth century.—In the Babylonian Talmud as well as in the Palestinian, the
statements of older scholars were frequently given in the Hebrew language. The
Talmud itself was written in the Aramaic dialect of Babylon.—The Haggada is here
represented still more literally than in the Palestinian Talmud.[63]—The
Babylonian Talmud, too, is incomplete. There are wanting: The whole of the first
Seder with the exception of Berachoth; Shekalim out of the second; Eduyoth and
Aboth from the fourth; Middoth and Kinnim and the half of Tamid from the fifth;
and the whole of the sixth with the exception of Nidda. See Zunz, p. 54. It
therefore embraces only 36½ tracts, while in the Palestinian Talmud 39 tracts
are dealt with. Nevertheless, the Babylonian Talmud is at least four times the
size of the Palestinian, has been much more diligently studied in Europe since
the Middle Ages, and stands in much higher repute than the other.[64] [62] For
an account of this scholar, see Mühlfelder, Rabh ein Lebensbild zur Geschichte
des Talmud, Leipzig 1871. [63] See Zunz, p. 94.—The Haggada from the Babylonian
Talmud is collected together in the work En Jacob (עֵין יַעֲקוֹב) or En Israel
(עֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל) of Jacob Chabib, belonging to the fifteenth century. On this
compare Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. i. 590 f., iii. 456 f., iv. 866 f. Zunz, p. 94.
Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, i. 151 f. Steinschneider, Catalog. col. 1196 ff.
Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in British Museum, p. 746. Strack in Herzog,
Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 364 f.—A German translation of the Haggada in the
Babylonian Talmud is given by Wünsche, Der babylonische Talmud in seinen
haggadischen Bestandtheilen wortgetreu übersetzt und durch Noten erläutert, 3
parts, published in 1886, 1887, 1888. [64] In reference to the mode of reference
here adopted, it may be observed that the tracts of the Mishna are quoted
according to chapters and Mishnas; those of the Palestinian Talmud either in the
same way or according to the page number in the editions of Cracow; those of the
Babylonian Talmud according to the page numbers, which are identical in all the
editions. For example, M. Berachoth iv. 3, or simply Berachoth iv. 3, means
therefore the Mishna; jer. Berachoth iv. 3 refers to the Palestinian Talmud;
bab. Berachoth 28b, or simply Berachoth 28b, indicates the Babylonian Talmud.
The literature of the Mishna and both Talmuds, their editions, translations, and
commentaries, are carefully enumerated by Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica, ii. pp.
700-724, 882-913; iv. 321-327, 437-445.—Winer, Handbuch der theolog. Literatur,
i. pp. 523-525.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 40-49, 94-97, confines himself
to the Mishna and Palestinian Talmud.—Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew
Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford 1886, nos.
393-407.—Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts preserved in the
University Library, Cambridge, vol. ii. pp. 1-12.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew
Books in the Library of the British Museum, 1867, pp. 545-555, 739-751.—Raph.
Rabbinovicz has written in Hebrew a critical review of all the complete and
separate editions of the Babylonian Talmud since A.D. 1484, Munich 1877.—Strack
in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie) xviii. 342 ff., 357-368.—We specify only the
following:— EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF THE MISHNA Mishna sive totius
Hebraeorum juris, rituum, antiquitatum ac legum oralium systema cum
clarissimorum Rabbinorum Maimonidis et Bartenoras commentariis integris, etc.
Latinitate donavit ac notis illustravit Guil. Surenhusius. 6 vols. fol.
Amsterdam 1698-1703. The Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests, edited
from the unique manuscript preserved in the University Library of Cambridge,
Add. 470, 1, by W. H. Lowe. Cambridge 1883. An exact reproduction of a valuable
Cambridge manuscript, which, however, is not “unique,” since there is certainly
another of the same kind, the cod. de Rossi 138, at Parma, representing the same
text in perhaps even a better form. Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna.
Translated by D. A. de Sola and M. J. Raphall. London 1843. ששה סדרי משנה וכו׳.
6 vols. Berlin 1832-1834. Issued by authority of the Society of Friends of the
Thora and Science at Berlin, under the direction of J. M. Jost. The printed text
with a German translation in Hebrew writing and a short Hebrew commentary.
Mischnajoth, Die sechs Ordnungen der Mischna. Hebrew printed text, German
translation and exposition, by A. Sammter. Part I. giving the First Seder.
Berlin 1887. If this edition be carried out to completion in accordance with the
promise of its first part, it will be most worthy of recommendation for the use
of the Christian theologian. The German translation follows closely that of
Jost, but it is printed in German letters. Editions of the Hebrew texts, with
short Hebrew commentaries, have in all times been issued in large numbers. Of
the more recent editions, we may name those of Sittenfeld in Berlin 1863, of
Cohn in Berlin 1876. EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD The
editio princeps was issued by Bomberg in Venice in folio, without mention of the
year; but this was, according to Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica, iv. 439, either
A.D. 1523 or A.D. 1524. Besides this other three complete editions have
appeared: at Cracow A.D. 1609, at Krotoschin A.D. 1866, and at Shitomir in 4
vols. fol. A.D. 1860-1867.—Several other editions have been projected, but were
stopped after the appearance of one or more parts. See Strack in Herzog,
Real-Encyclop. xviii. 343. A Latin translation of a great part of the
Palestinian Talmud, extending to nineteen tracts, appeared in Ugolini Thesaurus
antiquitatum sacrar., namely, in vol. xvii. Pesachim; in vol. xviii. Shekalim,
Joma, Sukka, Rosh hashana, Taanith, Megilla, Chagiga, Beza, Moed Katan; in vol.
xx. Maaseroth, Challa, Orla, Bikkurim; in vol. xxv. Sanhedrin, Makkoth; in vol.
xxx. Kiddushin, Sota, Kethuboth. An English rendering of the French translation
of Moses Schwab has been undertaken. The first volume, containing the tract
Berachoth according to the Jerusalem Talmud, was issued in the end of 1885. The
French translation began to appear at Paris in 1871; and up to this time ten
volumes have been issued, containing thirty-three tracts. WÜNSCHE, Der
jerusalemische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen in’s Deutsche
übertragen, Zürich 1880, gives only the Haggadic passages. SCHILLER-SZINESSY,
Occasional Notices of Hebrew Manuscripts; No. 1. Description of the Leyden
Manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud. Cambridge 1878. EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD The editio princeps was published by Bomberg at Venice
in 12 vols. folio, A.D. 1520 ff. With this edition all subsequent issues agree
exactly in the numbering of pages. Among later editions there is none that can
be regarded as satisfactory on critical grounds. The prejudices of Christian
editors led unhappily to the perverse corruption of the text. On this point, see
Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, p. 1099.
On the other hand, the persecutions to which the Jews were subjected occasioned
such bitterness of feeling on their part that they forbade, under severest
penalties, the printing in the Mishna or Gemara anything that had reference to
Jesus of Nazareth. See circular to this effect printed by Leslie in his Short
and Easy Method with the Jews. London 1812. The Fragment of the Talmud Babli
Pesachim of the Ninth or Tenth Century, in the University Library, Cambridge,
edited with notes and an autograph facsimile, by W. H. Lowe. Cambridge 1879. IN
UGOLINI’S Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrar., three tracts of the Babylonian Talmud
are translated into Latin; in vol. xix. Sebachim and Menachoth; and in vol. xxv.
Sanhedrin. Several single tracts have been translated into German: Berachoth, by
Pinner, Berlin 1842; Aboda Sara or Idolatry, by F. Chr. Ewald, Nürnberg 1856;
Baba Mezia, by Sammter, Berlin 1876; Taanith, by Straschun, Halle 1883; Megilla
with Tosafat transl. into German, by Rawicz, Frankf. 1883; Rosch ha-Schanah, by
Rawicz, Frankf. 1886; Rabbinowicz, Legislation civile du Talmud, 5 vols. Paris
1877-1880, discusses passages on civil law from the various tracts of the
Talmud. WÜNSCHE, Der babylonische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen
wortgetreu übersetzt, etc., 2 vols. 1886-1888, gives only the Haggadic passages.
FOR CRITICISM OF THE TEXT RABBINOVICZ, Variae lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud
Babylonicum quum ex aliis libris antiquissimis et scriptis et impressis tum e
codice Monacensi praestantissimo collectae annotationibus instructae, written in
Hebrew, not yet completed. Vols. i.-xv. Munich 1867-1886. LEBRECHT,
Handschriften und erste Gesammtausgaben des Babylonischen Talmud, No. 1, Berlin
1862, deals only with the manuscripts. HELPS IN REGARD TO THE LANGUAGE BUXTORF,
Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum. Basel 1640.—A reprint of this work
has been issued by B. Fischer. Leipzig 1874. LEVY, Neuhebräisches und
Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, vol. i. 1876, ז-א;
vol. ii. 1879, ל-ח; vol. iii. 1883, ע-מ; vol. iv. still incomplete.—Also:
Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des
rabbinischen Schriftthums. 2 vols. 1867-1868. JASTROW, A Dictionary of the
Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yérushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Vol. i.
London 1886. Containing 96 pp. quarto, and reaching down to אספריסא. HARTMANN,
Thesauri linguae Hebraicae e Mischna augendi particula, i. ii. iii. Rostock
1825-1826. A diligent collection of the non-biblical linguistic materials of the
Mishna. GEIGER, Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mischna. Breslau 1845. DUKES, Die
Sprache der Mischna, lexikographisch und grammatisch betrachtet. Esslingen 1846.
WEISS, משפט לשין המשנה, Studien über die Sprache der Mischna, in Hebrew. Vienna
1867. LUZZATTO, Grammatik der biblisch-chaldäischen Sprache und des Idioms des
Talmud Bibli. From the Italian by Krüger. Breslau 1873. STRACK and SIEGFRIED,
Lehrbuch der neuhebräischen Sprache und Literatur Carlsruhe 1884. GENERAL
LITERATURE ON THE MISHNA The most complete and comprehensive treatises on the
origin and character of the Mishna, are the three following works written in the
Hebrew language:— FRANKEL, דרכי המשנה, Hodegetica in Mischnam librosque cum ea
conjunctos Tosefta, Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri. P. I. Introductio in Mischnam. Lips.
1859.—Also: חוספות ומפתח לספר דרכי המשנה, Additamenta et index ad librum
Hodegetica in Mischnam. Lips. 1867. BRÜLL, מבוא המשנה, Einleitung in die
Mischnah, enthaltend das Leben und die Lehrmethode der Gesetzeslehrer von Ezra
bis zum Abschlusse der Mischnah. Frankfort 1876.—A second volume has been
published under the title, Einleitung in die Mischnah, ii.; Plan und System der
Mischnah. Frankfort 1884. WEISS, דור דור ודורשיו, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen
Tradition. Vol. i. From the earliest Times down to the Destruction of the Second
Temple, Vienna 1871; vol. ii. From the Destruction of the Second Temple down to
the close of the Mishna, 1876; vol. iii. From the close of the Mishna down to
the completion of the Babylonian Talmud, 1883; vol. iv. From the close of the
Talmud down to the end of the first five thousand years according to Jewish
reckoning, 1887. SCHILLER-SZINESSY, article “Mishnah” in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, vol. xvi. 1883, pp. 502-508. TAYLOR, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,
comprising Pirke Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with critical
and illustrative notes. Cambridge 1877. ROBINSON, The Evangelists in the Mishna;
or, Illustrations of the Four Gospels drawn from Jewish Traditions. London 1859.
BENNETT, The Mishna as illustrating the Gospel. Cambridge 1884. JOST, Geschichte
der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Makkabäer, iv. 103 ff.—Also: Geschichte des
Judenthums und seiner Secten, ii. 114-126. ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge
der Juden, 1832, pp. 45 f., 86 f., 106 f. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden (2 Aufl.),
iv. 210-240, 419-422, 430 f., 479-485, 494 f.—Also: Beiträge zur Wort- und
Sacherklärung der Mischna (Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenthums, 1871).—Also: Die Mischna in mündlicher Ueberlieferung erhalten
(Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 35-41). DÜNNER, Veranlassung, Zweck und Entwickelung der
halachischen und halachischen exegetischen Sammlungen während der
Tannaim-Periode, in Umrisse dargestellt (Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch.
des Judenthums, 1871).—Also: R. Juda ha-Nasi’s Antheil an unserer Mischnah
(Monatsschr. 1872, pp. 161-178, 218-235).—Also: Der Einfluss anderer Tannaiten
auf B. Jehuda Hanassi’s Halachah-Feststellung (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 321 ff.,
361 ff.). HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. 1883,
pp. 789-798 (art. “Mischna”). On the scholars quoted and referred to in the
Mishna, the “doctores Misnici,” see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 351-379 (§ 25, IV.).
GEIGER, Einiges über Plan und Anordnung der Mischna (Geiger’s Wissenschaftl.
Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, Bd. ii. 1836, pp. 474-492). COHN,
Aufeinanderfolge der Mischnaordnungen (Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für
Wissensch. und Leben, Bd. iv. 1866, pp. 126-140). LANDSBERG, Plan und System in
der Aufeinanderfolge der einzelnen Mischna’s (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 208-215).
DERENBOURG, Les sections et les traités de la Mischnah (Revue des études juives,
t. iii. 1881, pp. 205-210). On the various series of tracts in some of the
principal manuscripts and editions, see the tabulated list by Strack in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclop. 2 Aufl. xviii. 302-304. DÜNNER, Einiges über Ursprung und
Bedeutung des Tractates Edajoth (Monatssch. 1871, pp. 33-42, 59-77). JELLINEK,
Die Composition der Pirke Aboth (Füret’s Literaturblatt des Orients, 1849, nos.
31, 34, 35). FRANKEL, Zum Tractact Aboth (Monatsschr. 1858, pp. 419-430). BRÜLL,
Entstehung und ursprünglicher Inhalt des Tractates Abot (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch.
und Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 1-17). A complete list of the Old Testament
passages, quoted in the Mishna, is given by Pinner, Tract. Berachoth, Einl. fol.
21b. ON THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD Arguments against the generally accepted opinion
that the Jerusalem Talmud had been revised from the Babylonian Talmud, are given
in Fürst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1843, nos. 48-51. FRANKEL, מבוא הירושלמי,
in Hebrew, with the Latin title: Introductio in Talmud Hierosolymitanum. Breslau
1870.—Also: Einiges über die gegenseitigen des Beziehungen des jerusalemischen
und babylonischen Talmuds (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums,
1851-1852, pp. 36-40, 70-80). GEIGER, Die jerusalemische Gemara im
Gesammtorganismus der talmud. Lit. (Jüd. Zeitschr. 1870, pp. 278-306).—Also: Der
Jerusalem. Talmud im Lichte Geiger’scher Hypothesen (Monatsschr. 1871, pp.
120-137). WIESNER, Gibe’th Jeruschalaïm. A study on the nature, sources, origin,
conclusion, and on the author of the Jerusalem Talmud, edited with critical
notes by Smolensky. Vienna 1872. ON THE TWO TALMUDS GENERALLY WOLF, Bibliotheca
Hebraea, ii. 657-993, iv. 320-456. WAEHNER, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, de
Israeliticae gentis origine fatis, etc., vol. i. pp. 231-584. Göttingen 1742.
BARCLAY, The Talmud, London 1878; containing selected treatises from the Mishna
and Gemara, with commentary. LIGHTFOOT, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, on
Gospels, Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, in Opera Omnia. Francker 1699, vol.
ii. pp. 243-742, 783-928. OORT, The Talmud and the New Testament, reprinted from
the Modern Review. London 1883. DEUTSCH, The Talmud, in Literary Remains. London
1874. DAVIDSON, article “Talmud” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature,
vol. iii. Edinburgh 1862. PICK, article “Talmud” in M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclop. of Bibl. Theol. and Eccl. Literature, New York 1881, pp. 166-187.
STRACK, article “Thalmud” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 297-369; a
particularly careful and complete statement of rich and voluminous literature.
JOST, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Makkabäer, Bd. iv. 1824, pp.
222 f., 323-328, nebst dem Excurs “Ueber den Talmud als historische Quelle,” im
Anhang, pp. 264-294. ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, pp. 51-55, 94. PINNER,
Compendium des hierosolym. und babyl. Talmud. Berl. 1832.—Also: Einl. in den
Talmud, vor seiner Ausgabe und Uebersetz. des Tractates Berachoth.—Also the
first twelve sheets of the same, containing Maimonides’ Preface to Seder Seraim
(German and Hebrew). FÜRST, Die literarischen Vorlagen des Talmuds (Literaturbl.
des Orients, 1850, n. 1 ff.).—Also: Kultur- und Literaturgesch. der Juden in
Asien. 1 Thl. 1849. FRANKEL, Ueber die Lapidarstyl der talm. Historik
(Monatsschr. 1851-1852, pp. 203-220, 403-421).—Also: Beiträge zur Einl. in den
Talmud (Monatsschr. 1861, pp. 186-194, 205-212, 258-272). GRÄTZ, Die talmudische
Chronologie (Monatsschr. 1851-1852, pp. 509-521).—Also: Zur Chron. der talm.
Zeit (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 433-453, 481-496).—Also: Gesch. der Juden, iv. 384,
408-412. PRESSEL, art. “Thalmud” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl., Bd.
xv. 1862, pp. 615-664. JOST, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 202-212. BEDARRIDE,
Étude sur le Talmud (142, p. 8). Montpellier 1869. AUERBACH, Das jüdische
Obligationsrecht, Bd. i. 1870.—Gives in the very full introduction, especially
pp. 62-114, a history of the development of the Talmud. BRÜLL, Die
Entstehungsgeschichte des babylonischen Talmuds als Schriftwerkes (Jahrbb. für
jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, ii. 1876, pp. 1-123). DERENBOURG, art. “Talmud” in
Lichtenberger’s Encyclopédie des sciences religieuses, t. xii. pp. 1009-1038.
HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. (1883) art “Talmud,
Talmudlehrer, Talmudschulen” (pp. 1155-1164), and various articles on individual
teachers. WEISS, Zur Geschichte der jüd. Tradition, iii. 1883 BLOCH, Einblicke
in die Geschickte der Entstehung der talmudischen Literatur, Vienna 1884 (see
also: Brüll’s Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 101-106). In
the editions of the Babylonian Talmud, in vol. ix., at the close of the fourth
Seder, we meet with several pieces which do not belong to the codex, but in part
at least reach back to the Talmudic age:— (a) The Aboth derabbi Nathan, an
expansion of the Pirke Aboth, with many stories about the life of the Sage and
other Haggadic legends. Its present form was given it first in post-Talmudic
times. A recension of this tract, diverging from the usually printed text, has
been edited by Taussig, ניה שלום, Neweh Shalom; 1st part, containing Aboth di R.
Nathan, is a recension differing from the printed text, Seder Tannaim w’Amoraim
and Varianten or Pirke Aboth, from manuscripts in the Royal Library at Munich,
edited and annotated, Munich 1872.—Both recensions are given by Schechter, Aboth
de Rabbi Nathan, hujus libri recensiones duas collatis variis apud bibliothecas
et publicas et privatas codicibus edidit, Vienna 1887.—A Latin translation of
the common text is given in Tractatus de patribus: Rabbi Nathane auctore, in
linguam Latinum translatus opera Francisci Taileri, London 1654.—Compare
generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 855-857.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen
Vorträge, p. 108 f.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. p. 19 f.—Zedner, Catalogue
of British Museum, p. 748. (b) The so-called small tracts: on these compare
Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 237 ff.; Zedner, Catalogue, p. 748 f.;
Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 328. 1. Sopherim, on the writing of the
roll of the law, and the various exercises of the Synagogue. Belonging to
post-Talmudic times. Separate edition: Masechet Soferim. Der talmudische Tractat
der Schreiber, nach Handschriften herausgegeben und commentirt von Joel Müller,
Leipzig 1878. Compare generally: Zedner, Catalogue, p. 749; Zunz, Die
gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p. 96 f.; Hamburger, Real-Enc. Supplem. p. 104. 2. Ebel
rabbathi, or euphemistically Semachoth, not Simchoth, on the treatment of
corpses, and on the customs observed in reference to the dead. It is quoted in
the Talmud. Zunz, p. 90. Brüll, however, contests the idea that the tract cited
in the Talmud is identical with the one that has come down to us. See Hamburger,
Supplement, pp. 51-53. 3. Kalla, on marital intercourse and on chastity in
general. According to Zunz, p. 89 f., it is probably older than the Jerusalem
Talmud. 4. Derek erez rabba, on social duties, Zunz, p. 110 f.; Hamburger,
Supplement, p. 50 f. 5. Derek erez suta, Precepts for Scholars, Zunz, pp.
110-112; Hamburger, Supplement, p. 50 f. Separate edition: Der talmudische
Tractat Derech Erez Sutta nach Hand-schriften und seltenen Ausgaben mit
Parallelstellen und Varianten, kritisch bearbeitet, übersetzt und erläutert von
Abr. Tawrogi, Königsberg 1885. 6. Perek schalom, on peace-making, Zunz, pp.
110-112. Seven similar small tracts have been recently published by Raphael
Kirchheim, under the title שבע מסכתות קטנות ירושלמיות, Septem libri Talmudici
parvi Hierosolymitani, Frankfort 1851. These are the following:—1. Massecheth
Sepher Thora; 2. M. Mesusa; 3. M. Tephillin; 4. M. Zizith; 5. M. Abadim; 6. M.
Kuthim; 7. M. Gerim.—The sixth tract was published separately, with a
commentary, under the title: כרמי שמרון, Introductio in librum Talm. de
Samaritanis, Frankfort 1851.—On the tract Gerim, which was earlier recognised,
see Zunz, p. 90. It is of later date than the Talmud.—On all the seven, see
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie, Supplementalband, p. 95, article “Kleine
Tractate;” Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. p. 328 f. II. The
Midrashim In the Mishna and the two Talmuds the Jewish law, the Halacha, is
codified in systematic order. Another class of rabbinical literary works
attaches itself closely to the Scripture text, commenting upon it step by step.
These commentaries or Midrashim, מִדְרָשִׁים, are partly of Halachic, partly of
Haggadic contents. In the older ones, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre, the Halacha
predominates; the more recent ones, Rabboth and those following it, are almost
exclusively Haggadic. The former, in respect of age and contents, stand in very
close relation to the Mishna; the latter belong to a later period, and are not
the product of juristic discussion, but the residuum of practical lectures
delivered in the synagogue. The following three works therefore form a group by
themselves:— 1. Mechilta, מכילתא, on a portion of Exodus. 2. Siphra, ספרא, on
Leviticus. 3. Siphre or Siphri, ספרי, on Numbers and Deuteronomy. All the three
were frequently made use of in the Talmud; Siphra and Siphre being also
expressly quoted (Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, 46, 48; on Mechilta, see
Geiger’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 125). In their original form they date back to the
second century after Christ, but were revised and altered in later times. The
Mechilta is ascribed to R. Ishmael (see on him, Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 373, 374).
This opinion, however, is based simply on the fact that in Mechilta, as well as
in Siphre, sayings of R. Ishmael and those of his school are very frequently
quoted. The theory of Geiger is extremely problematical, that the original form
of the Mechilta and Siphre represented an older Halachic tendency, which had
already disappeared from the Mishna, Siphra, and Tosephta.—The Haggada is only
feebly represented in Siphra, more strongly in Mechilta, and in Siphre “there
are considerable passages almost exclusively Haggadic, which comprise at least
three-seventh parts of the whole work” (Zunz, Die gott. Vorträge, p. 84 f.).—The
language of these, as well as of the other Midrashim, is Hebrew. On the older
editions of these three Midrashim, see Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1349-1352,
1387-1389; iv. 1025, 1030 f.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 76 f., iii. 125,
126.—Steinschneider, Catalogue librorum Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Berol.
1852-1860, col. 597 sq., 627 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the
Library of the British Museum, 1867, pp. 515 f., 699 f.—More recent editions are
the following:— מכילתא. Mechilta. Der älteste halachische und hagadische
Commentar zum zweiten Buch Moses. Krit. bearbeitet von J. H. Weiss, Vienna 1865.
ספר מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל על ספר שמות וכו׳, Mechilta de Rabbi Ishmael, the oldest
Halachic and Haggadic Midrash on Exodus. Edited after the oldest printed
editions, with critical note, explanations, indices, and introduction by M.
Friedmann, Vienna 1870 (reviewed in Monatsschr. 1870, pp. 278-284). ספרא דבי רב
הוא ספר תורת כהנים וכו׳, with commentary (“Hatora vehamitva”), Bucharest 1860.
ספרא דבי רב הוא ספר תורת כהנים וכו׳, also under the title: Sifra, Barajtha zum
Leviticus, mit dem Commentar des Abraham ben David, etc., ed. by Weiss, Vienna
1862. ספרי. Sifré debé Rab, der älteste halachische und hagadische Midrasch zu
Numeri und Deuteronomium, ed. by Friedmann, Vienna 1864. A Latin translation of
the Mechilta is given in Ugolini Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrum, vol. xiv. Also a
Latin translation of Siphra in the same volume, and of Siphre in vol. xv. On the
three above-named Midrashim generally, compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii.
1349 sqq., 1387 sqq.; iii. 1202, 1209; iv. 1025, 1030 sq.—Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 46-48, 84 f.—Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam,
p. 307 sqq.—Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 393-395.—Joel, Notizen zum
Buche Daniel. Etwas über die Bücher Sifra und Sifre, Breslau 1873.—Weber, System
der altsynag. palästinischen Theologie, 1880, p. xix. f.—Strack, art. “Midrash”
in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, p. 752 f.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie
für Bibel und Talmud, ii. pp. 721-724, 1166 ff., articles Mechilta and Talmud.
Schriften.—Schiller-Szinessy, article “Mishnah” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
vol. xvi. 1883, p. 507 f.—Hoffmann, Bemerkungen zur Kritik der Mischna (Magazin
für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, xi. 1884, pp. 17-30). On Mechilta and
Siphre: Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 434-450.—Also: Jüd.
Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben, 1866, pp. 96-126, and for 1871, pp.
8-30.—Pick, Text-Varianten aus Mechilta und Sifre (Zeitschr. für die alttest.
Wissensch. 1886, pp. 101-121). On Mechilta: Frankel, Monatsschrift für Gesch.
und Wissensch. des Jude. 1853, pp. 388-398; 1854, pp. 149-158, 191-196. On
Siphra: Frankel, Monatsschrift, 1854, pp. 387-392, 453-461. Geiger, Jüd.
Zeitschr. xi. 1875, pp. 50-60. Besides Siphre, there is yet another Midrash, on
Numbers, the so-called second or small Siphre, Siphre suta, סיפרי זוטא, which is
known only from repeated quotations given from it in Yalkut and other Midrashic
works. It seems also to have belonged to the Tannaite period. See in regard to
it: Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 48; Brüll, Der kleine Sifre, in
the Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage des Prof. Dr. H. Grätz, Breslau
1887, pp. 179-193. The following Midrashim contain almost nothing but Haggada:—
4. Rabboth, רבות, or Midrash Rabboth, מדרש רבות. This is made up of a collection
of Midrashim on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth (the Song, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), which took their rise in very different
times, but were subsequently gathered together as one whole under the above
name. (a) Bereshith Rabba, on Genesis. According to Zunz, it was compiled in
Palestine during the sixth century. The last five chapters on Genesis 47:28, and
what follows, hence from the opening words of the passage וַיְחִי, called also
Vaiechi rabba, are certainly of later date; according to Zunz, p. 255 f., of the
eleventh or twelfth century. Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 174-179, 254-256.
Lerner, Anlage des Bereschith rabba und seine Quellen, in Mag. für die Wiss. des
Jud. book vii. 1880, and book viii. 1881. Wünsche, Der Midrash Bereschit Rabba,
in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881. (b) Shemoth Rabba, on Exodus, owes its
origin to the same pen as Vaiechi rabba, and so belongs to the eleventh or
twelfth century. Zunz, pp. 256-258. Wünsche, Der Midrash Shemoth Rabba, in’s
Deutsche, übertragen, Leipzig 1882. (c) Vayyikra Rabba, on Leviticus, was
compiled, according to Zunz, in Palestine, somewhere about the middle of the
seventh century. Zunz, pp. 181-184. Wünsche, Der Midrash Wajikra Rabba, in’s
Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1884. (d) Bamidbar Rabba, on Numbers, written,
according to Zunz, by two different authors, both of whom made use of Pesikta,
Tanchuma, Pesikta Rabbathi, and the works of still later Rabbis. Zunz places the
second author in the twelfth century. Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 258-262.
Wünsche, Der Midrash Bemidbar Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1885. (e)
Debarim Rabba, on Deuteronomy, compiled, according to Zunz, about A.D. 900.
Zunz, pp. 251-253. Wünsche, Der Midrash Debarim Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen,
Leipzig 1882. (f) Shir Hashirim Rabba, on the Song, also called Agadath Chasith,
from the words with which it opens. It belongs to the later Midrashim, but is
“presumably older than the Pesikta Rabbathi.” Zunz, p. 263 ff. Chodowski,
Observationes criticae in Midrash Shir Hashirim secundum cod. Monac. 50 Orient,
Halle 1877. Wünsche, Der Midrash Shir ha-Schirim, in’s Deutsche übertragen,
Leipzig 1880. (g) Midrash Ruth, somewhere about the same date as the preceding.
Zunz, p. 265. Wünsche, Der Midrash Ruth Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig
1883. (h) Midrash Echa, on Lamentations, also called Echa Rabbathi. It was
compiled, according to Zunz, in Palestine, in the second half of the seventh
century. Zunz, pp. 179-181. J. Abrahams, The Sources of the Midrash Echah
Rabbah, Leipzig Dissertation, 1881. Wünsche, Der Midrash Echa, Rabbati, in’s
Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881. (i) Midrash Koheleth, or Koheleth Rabba,
belonging to somewhere about the same time as the Midrashim on the Song and on
Ruth. Zunz, p. 265 f. Wünsche, Der Midrash Koheleth, in’s Deutsche übertragen,
Leipzig 1880. (k) Midrash Esther, or Hagadath Megilla, makes use of, according
to Zunz, p. 151, Josippon, written about A.D. 940, and first quoted in the
thirteenth century. Zunz, p. 264 f. Wünsche, Der Midrash zum Buche Esther, in’s
Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881.—Originally, according to Jellinek and Buber,
closely connected with this Midrash, is the “Midrash Abba Gorion,” edited by
Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, i. 1853, pp. 1-18; and by Buber, Sammlung agadischer
Commentare zum Buche Esther, Wilna 1886. Compare also Brüll, Jahrbb. für jüd.
Gesch. und Literatur, viii. 1887, pp. 148-154, who expresses himself opposed to
Jellinek and Buber’s view. On the entire Rabboth and its editions, compare
generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1423-1427, iii. 1215, iv. 1032,
1058.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Bibliothecum Bodleian., col.
589-594.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum,
pp. 539-542.—Strack, art. “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, pp.
753-755.—Schiller-Szinessy, art. “Midrash” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.
xvi. 1883, p. 285 f.—Theodor, Die Midraschim zum Pentateuch und der dreijährige
palästinensische Cyclus (Monat. 1885, 1886, 1887), seeks to show that the
chapter division rests on the three years’ Palestinian cycle.—Hamburger,
Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, pp. 107-111, art.
“Midrash Rabba.”—Editions with Hebrew commentaries are numerous in recent times.
For example, that of Warsaw 1874, of Wilna 1878. 5. Pesikta, פסיקתא. The Pesikta
does not treat of a whole biblical book, but of the biblical lessons for the
feast days and the more important Sabbaths of the entire year, taking up
sometimes the readings of the day from the Pentateuch and sometimes those from
the prophets (Zunz, p. 190). Since the work is frequently quoted from in the
later literature, Zunz made the attempt to reconstruct the text without having a
copy of the work within reach, and succeeded in producing what in all essential
points agrees with the original. The complete text was first edited by Buber in
A.D. 1868.—Owing to its manifold resemblances to Bereshith Rabba, Vayyikra
Rabba, and Echa Rabbathi, Zunz, p. 195, considered that the text of the Pesikta
must be regarded as dependent on these, and hence set down the time of its
composition at A.D. 700. So also Geiger, Weiss, and Hamburger. On the contrary,
Buber, Berliner, and Theodor regard the Pesikta as older than those
Midrashim.—It must have originally begun with the reading for the New Year
(Zunz, p. 191; Geiger, Zeitschrift for 1869, p. 191); whereas in the manuscripts
which Buber follows it begins with the Feast of Dedication. Edition: פסיקתא,
Pesikta. Die älteste Hagada, redigirt in Palästina von Rab Kahana. Herausgegeben
nach einer in Zefath vorgefundenen und in Aegypten copirten Handschrift durch
den Verein Mekize Nirdamim. Mit kritischen Bemerkungen, Verbesserungen und
Vergleichungen der Lesearten anderer drei Handschriften in Oxford, Parma und
Fez, nebst einer ausführlichen Einleitung von Salomon Buber, Lyk 1868. German
translation: Wünsche, Pesikta des Rab Kahana, nach der Buber’schen Textausgabe
in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1885. Compare generally: Zunz, pp.
185-226.—Carmoly, Pesikta (Monatsschrift, 1854, pp. 59-65).—Grätz, Geschichte
der Juden, iv. 495 ff.—Weber, System der altsynagog. paläst. Theol. p.
xxii.—Strack, article “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, p. 755
f.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, p. 117
ff., art. “Pesikta.” Besides this Pesikta de Rab Kahana, or Pesikta simply,
there are other two works which bear that name:— (a) Pesikta Rabbathi, which,
like the older Pesikta, treats of the biblical readings for certain feast days
and Sabbaths of the Jewish year. The date of its origin is the second half of
the ninth century. Zunz, p. 244. (b) Pesikta Sutarta, a Midrash on the
Pentateuch and the five Megilloth, by R. Tobia ben Elieser of Mainz, in the
beginning of the twelfth century. It was quite a mistake to give to this book
the name of Pesikta, for it has nothing at all in common with the other two
books that bear this name. Compare Zunz, pp. 293-295. A Latin translation is
given in Ugolini’s Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, vols. xv. and xvi. On these
two works and their editions see: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 391, 720 f., iv.
1031.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 160, iii. 427.—Steinschneider, Catalog.
libr. Hebr. in Biblioth. Bodl., col. 631 sq., 2674 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of
Hebrew Books in Library of British Museum, pp. 633, 758.—Strack in Herzog,
Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 756. Hamburger, Real-Encyclop., Supplement, pp. 119-122,
art. “Pesikta.” A “New Pesikta,” which is closely related to the Pesikta
Rabbathi, but shorter and more popular in style than it, has been edited by
Jellinek in his Bet ha-Midrash, vol. vi. 1877, pp. 36-70. 6. Pirke derabbi
Elieser, פרקי דר׳ אליעזר, or Baraytha derabbi Elieser, ברייתא דר׳ אליעזר. A
Haggadic work, in fifty-four chapters, which follows in all essential respects
the course of the pentateuchal history. It goes into specially minute details
about the creation and the first man, and then again it lingers over the story
of the patriarchs and the Mosaic age.—It was written at the earliest not before
the eighth century (Zunz, p. 277). Compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 173
sq., iii. 110, iv. 1032.—Zunz, pp. 271-277.—Sachs, Bemerkungen über das
gegenseitige Verhältniss der Beraita des Samuel und der Pirke de R. Eliesar
(Monatsschr. 1851-1852, pp. 277-282).—Strack and Hamburger are referred to in
the last note. Pinner gives an outline of its contents in the introduction to
his translation of the tract Berachoth (1842).—A list of editions, etc., is
given by Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 232.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 633
sq.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 221.—A Latin translation is given by Vorstius,
Capitula R. Elieser ex Hebraeo in Latinum translata, Lugd. Bat. 1644.—Proof that
the Barajtha derabbi Elieser is different from the Barajtha R. Samuel is given
by Zunz in Steinschneider’s Hebr. Bibliographie, vol. v. 1862, p. 15 f. 7.
Tanchuma, תנחומא, or Yelamdenu, ילמדנו. A Midrash on the Pentateuch. Zunz fixes
the date of its composition in the first half of the ninth century, and assumes
that it had its origin in Europe, perhaps in Greece or in the south of Italy. It
obtained the name Yelamdenu from its frequent use of the formula: “It is taught
us by our Master”—Yelamdenu rabbenu.—Zunz has proved, pp. 226-229, that both of
these designations, Yelamdenu and Tanchuma, were originally applied to one and
the same Midrash. But the author of Yalkut had before him two different
recensions, which he distinguished as Yelamdenu and Tanchuma (Zunz, p. 229 f.).
And the common printed text is also distinguished from both of these as a
comparatively recent abbreviation of Tanchuma; so that we have in all no less
than three recensions of the text of this Midrash. Buber edited the original
text of Tanchuma in 1885. Up to this time, however, we have no complete text of
Yelamdenu. In opposition to Buber’s opinion, that the original Tanchuma is older
than Bereshith Rabba, Pesikta, or the Babylonian Talmud, Neubauer has written in
the Revue des études juives, xiii. 225 sq., and Brüll in the Jahrbb. für jüd.
Geschichte und Literatur, viii. 121 ff. Tanchuma, however, is undoubtedly the
oldest Haggadic Midrash on the whole Pentateuch (Zunz, p. 233). On the common
printed text and its editions: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 1159 sq., iii. 1166
sq., iv. 1035.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. 409.—Steinschneider, Catalogus,
col. 596 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 543.—Recent editions have been issued at
Stettin 1864, at Warsaw 1875. Midrasch Tanchuma. Ein agadischer Commentar zum
Pentateuch von Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba. Zum ersten Male nach Handschriften
aus den Bibliotheken zu Oxford, Rom, Parma und München herausgegeben etc. von
Salomon Buber, 3 vols., Wilna 1885. Fragments from Yelamdenu and Tanchuma are
given in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, vol. vi. 1877, pp. 79-105. Fragments of
Yelamdenu in Neubauer, Le midrasch Tanchuma et extraits du Yélamdénu et de
petits midraschim (Revue des études juives, xiii. 1886, pp. 224-238; xiv. 1887,
pp. 92-113). For a general information reference may be made to the following:
Zunz, pp. 226-238.—Weber, System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie,
xxiv. f.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 757 f.—Theodor, Buberʾs
Tanchuma (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 35-42, 422-431).—Die Midraschim, zum Pentateuch
und der dreijährige palästinensische Cyclus (Monatsschr. 1885, 1886,
1887).—Bacher, Zu Buber’s Tanchuma-Ausgabe (Monatsschr. 1885, pp.
551-554).—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband,
p. 154 f., art. “Tanchuma.”—Brüll, Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. 1887, pp. 121-144. 8.
Yalkut Shimoni, ילקוט שמעוני (from לקט, to collect). This is an immense
Midrashic compilation on the whole Hebrew Bible, in which, after the style of
the patristic Catenae, explanations of each separate passage are put down in
order, collected from the older works. According to Zunz, p. 299 f., the work
was composed in the first half of the thirteenth century.—A certain Rabbi Simeon
Haddarshan is named as the compiler, whose native place or residence is said to
have been Frankfurt-on-the-Main. Zunz supposes that he was Simeon Kara, who, in
the beginning of the thirteenth century, lived in South Germany. Compare: Wolf,
Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 1129 sq., iii. 1138.—Zunz, pp. 295-303.—Rapoport in
Kerem Chemed (written in Hebrew), vii. 4 ff.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii.
327 sq.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 2600-2604.—Zedner, Catalogue, p.
702.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 738.—Recent edition, Warsaw
1876-1877. III. Targums The Targums or Aramaic translations of the Old Testament
also belong to the Rabbinical Literature, inasmuch as expression is given in
them likewise to the traditional understanding of the Scripture text. This is
especially true of those which are not strictly literal, but rather free
paraphrastic renderings of the original.—We mention here only the Targums on the
Pentateuch and on the Prophets, for the Targums on the Sacred Writings or
Kethubim can scarcely come under consideration by us owing to their late origin.
1. ONKELOS ON THE PENTATEUCH. The few notices about the person of Onkelos that
are to be found in the Talmud describe him sometimes as a scholar and friend of
the elder Gamaliel, according to which he must have lived about the middle of
the first century after Christ, sometimes as a contemporary of R. Elieser and R.
Joshua, according to which he must have lived in the first half of the second
century. They agree only in this one particular, that he was a proselyte.[65]
The Chaldaic translation of the Pentateuch which has been ascribed to him is
distinguished from all other Targums by its almost painful literalness.[66] Only
in a few, and those mostly poetic, passages (Genesis 49; Numbers 24; Deuteronomy
32-33), does it incline towards the Haggada by fanciful exposition.[67] In other
places departures from the text have been occasioned simply by a desire to avoid
anthropomorphisms and expressions or modes of representation that seemed to be
unworthy of God.[68] The dialect of Onkelos is, according to Geiger[69] and
Frankel,[70] the East Aramaic or Babylonian. Nöldeke in his earlier writings[71]
described it as “a somewhat later development of the Palestinian Aramaic already
represented in some of the books of the Old Testament;” but latterly he has
adopted the more definite view, that Onkelos is a Palestinian production
re-edited in Babylon, “in general conformed in respect of language to the Old
Palestinian dialect, but in respect of particular phrases very decidedly
coloured by the dialect of Babylon.”[72] At a very early period Onkelos secured
a great reputation. The Babylonian Talmud and the Midrashim frequently quote
passages from it.[73] And in later times, indeed, it had an entire Masora
devoted to itself.[74] It has been often printed, e.g. in the rabbinical Bibles
of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in the London Polyglott. Berliner has issued a
critical edition.[75] [65] See De Wette, Introduction to the Old Testament,
Boston 1843, § 58. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, p. 4. [66] Nöldeke, Die
alttestamentl. Literatur, p. 257 f. [67] Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p.
62. Specimens of translation in Volck, art. “Thargumim” in Herzog,
Real-Encyclopaedie, xv. 366-369. Hävernick, Introduction to the Old Testament,
Edin. 1852, p. 332. [68] Volck in Herzog, p. 369.—Langen, Das Judenthum in
Palästina, pp. 209 ff., 268 ff.—Maybaum, Die Anthropomorphien und
Anthropopathien bei Onkelos, etc. Breslau 1870.—Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschr. 1871, pp.
96-102. [69] Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 93. [70] Zu dem Targum der
Propheten, p. 5 f. [71] Die alttestamentl. Literatur, p. 257. [72] Lit.
Centralbl. 1877, p. 305. [73] See the passages in Zunz, Die gottesdienstl.
Vorträge, p. 63 f. [74] Compare Bleek, Introduction to the Old Testament, § 350,
London 1869, vol. ii. p. 440 f.—Berliner, Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos.
Leipzig 1877. [75] Targum Onkelos. Herausgegeben und erläutert von A. Berliner,
vol. i. text; vol. ii. notes, introduction, and index. Berlin 1884. Specimens of
the text with Babylonian system of points are given in Merx, Chrestomathia
targumica, 1888. 2. JONATHAN ON THE PROPHETS. Jonathan ben Uzziel is said to
have been a scholar of Hillel, and must therefore have lived during the first
decades of the Christian era.[76] The Targum ascribed to him embraces all the
Prophets, Nebiim, that is, the historical books and the prophets properly so
called. It is distinguished from the Targum of Onkelos by its decidedly more
paraphrastic character. “Even in the case of the historical books Jonathan often
acts the part of an expositor; in the case of the prophetical books again, such
a style of exposition is uninterruptedly pursued as makes it really a Haggadic
work.”[77] In respect of dialect, what was said above of Onkelos is equally
applicable here. Jonathan also soon attained a high reputation, and is very
frequently quoted in the Talmud and Midrashim.[78] Like Onkelos, it has been
often printed; e.g. in the rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in the
London Polyglott. Lagarde issued a small critical edition on the basis of a
codex Reuchlinianus.[79] [76] See the passages in De Wette, Introduction to the
Old Testament, § 58. Volck, p. 369. [77] Zunz, pp. 62, 63. On the character of
the translation and paraphrase of Jonathan, see Bleek, Introduction, vol. ii.
pp. 441, 442. Keil, Introduction, vol. ii. p. 260. Hävernick, Introduction to
the Old Testament, Edin. 1852, p. 533. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, pp.
13-40. [78] See the passages in Zunz, p. 63. [79] Prophetae Chaldaice. Paulus de
Lagarde e fide codicis Reuchliniani edidit. Lips. 1872.—Specimens of the text
with Babylonian pointing in Merx, Chrestomathia targumica, 1888. According to
the traditional views which we have thus reported, the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan were written somewhere about the middle of the first century after
Christ. Zunz and many recent scholars still are inclined to set them down to
that period. But this opinion has been ably contested, especially by Geiger. A
series of circumstances strongly supports the idea that both works must have
been wrought up in Babylon, where a rabbinical school had been first established
during the third century after Christ. Geiger therefore assumes that both
Targums were composed, or rather revised and edited, in Babylon not before the
fourth century.[80] Frankel agrees with him in all essential points, only
putting Onkelos a little earlier, as belonging to the third century.[81] This
latter opinion might be supported by the fact that Onkelos seems to have been
made use of by Jonathan.[82] The idea that the Targum on the Prophets was edited
in the fourth century is also confirmed by tradition, for the Babylonian Talmud
quotes it as the “Targum of R. Joseph,” a Babylonian teacher of the fourth
century.[83] But as to Onkelos, nothing whatever is known of his existence save
that he composed the Targum that is named after him. For the notice which the
Babylonian Talmud (Megilla 3a) gives of Onkelos and his Chaldaean translation of
the Pentateuch, is to be found in the parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud
attached to the name of Aquila and his Greek translation (Jer. Megilla i. 9).
And the latter is undoubtedly the original form of the statement. Elsewhere,
too, the names אונקלוס and עקיִלס are interchanged.[84] It seems therefore that
in Babylon the old and correct statement about a translation of the Pentateuch
by the proselyte Aquila was erroneously attached to the anonymous Chaldaean
Targum, and that the name Onkelos therefore is merely a corruption of the name
Aquila.[85] But even if the two Targums were first issued during the third and
fourth centuries, it cannot be doubted that they are based upon earlier works,
and only form the conclusion of a process that had been going on for several
centuries. Even the Mishna speaks of Chaldee translations of the Bible.[86] The
New Testament is sometimes found in its rendering of Old Testament passages in
striking agreement with the Targums (e.g. in Ephesians 4:8),—a clear proof that
the latter in respect of their materials reached back to the Apostolic age. Also
express mention is made of a Targum on Job in the period preceding the overthrow
of the temple.[87] Fragments even from the time of John Hyrcanus are preserved
in our Targums.[88] From all this it is evident that in our Targums materials
are made use of which had been gradually amassed during many generations, and
that the works which we now possess were preceded by earlier written treatises.
The linguistic character of the Targums, as Nöldeke has quite correctly
maintained, testifies to the history of their origin. For in spite of their
being revised and issued in Babylon, the Palestinian character of their language
is unquestionable. [80] Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, 1857, p.
164. [81] Zu dem Targum der Propheten, pp. 8-11. [82] Zunz, p. 63. De Wette, §
58. [83] Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, p. 10. [84] De Wette,
Introduction to the Old Testament, § 58. [85] Bleek, Introduction to the Old
Testament, vol. ii. p. 441. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iii. 61-64.
Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. 98. [86] Yadayim iv. 5. [87] Zunz, Die
gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p. 61 f. [88] Nöldeke, Die alttestamentl. Literatur, p.
256. 3. PSEUDO-JONATHAN AND JERUSALMI ON THE PENTATEUCH. Besides Onkelos, there
are other two Targums on the Pentateuch, one of which contains the whole of the
Pentateuch, while the other comprises only separate verses, and gives often only
renderings of isolated words. The former is ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel; the
latter is designated by the editors “Targum Jerusalmi.” That the former cannot
have been written by the author of the Targum on the Prophets has long been
generally admitted. But Zunz[89] has also shown that Pseudo-Jonathan and
Jerusalmi are only two different recensions of one and the same Targum; that
both are quoted by older authorities (Aruch and Elia) under the name “Targum
Jerusalmi;” and that even the recension now existing only as a fragment had been
before the older authors in its complete form. The last statement may be
questioned. Geiger thinks that the fragmentary Targum was from the beginning
only “a collection of detached glosses,” not probably on the Pseudo-Jonathan but
on the primary recension.[90] According to Seligsohn and Volck, the Jerusalmi
was “not a fragment of what had originally been a complete paraphrase, but a
Haggadic supplement and a collection of marginal glosses and various readings on
Onkelos; but Pseudo-Jonathan, on this basis and, upon the whole, with the same
tendency, composed a later redaction of the Jerusalmi.”[91] Bacher regards the
fragmentary Targum as a collection of portions from the oldest Palestinian
Targum. On the basis of the latter arose on the one side Onkelos, on the other
side Pseudo-Jonathan, who already made use of Onkelos.[92] At any rate,
Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalmi are most intimately related to one another, and
might best be designated as Jerusalmi I. and II. The attributing to Jonathan of
the more complete issue is probably due to an erroneous interpretation of the
abbreviation תי, which means תַּרְנּוּם יְרוּשַׁלְמִי.[93] This Jerusalem Targum
transmitted in its twofold recension is related to the Targum of Onkelos as “a
midrash for the simple explanation of words. Onkelos is only sometimes an
expositor; the Jerusalemite is only sometimes a translator” (Zunz, p. 72). “His
language is a Palestinian dialect of the Aramaic; hence we must pitch upon Syria
or Palestine as its author’s native country; and this assumption is confirmed by
the oldest examples we have of the way in which the work was referred
to—תַּרְנּוּם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל”[94] (Zunz, p. 73). As to the date,
Pseudo-Jonathan, seeing that in his work there occur the names of a wife and
daughter of Mohammed, cannot have composed it before the seventh or eighth
century.[95] But besides those later portions it contains, like the other
Targums, and perhaps even to a greater extent than these, fragments from a very
early period, so that it may justly be styled “a thesaurus of views from various
centuries.”[96]—Both recensions have often been printed, as, e.g., in the London
Polyglott. [89] Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, pp. 66-72. [90] Geiger,
Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 455. [91] Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie,
xv. 372. [92] Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenland. Gesellsch. 1874, p. 60. [93]
Zunz, p. 71. [94] Zunz, p. 66. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 166. [95] Zunz, pp. 75-77.
Geiger, p. 165. Nöldeke, Die alttestamentliche Literatur, p. 259. [96] Nöldeke,
Die alttestamentliche Literatur, p. 259. For the literature on the Targums and
their editions, see: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1189 sqq.—Le Long,
Bibliotheca sacra, ed. Masch, Part ii. vol. i. 1781, pp. 23-49.—Fürst,
Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 105-107, iii. 48.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr.
in Bibliothec. Bodlei. col. 165-174.—Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 1884, ii.
175-200.—Volck in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xv. 1885, pp. 375-377. ON THE
TARGUMS GENERALLY HÄVERNICK, A General Historico-Critical Introduction to the
Old Testament, translated by Dr. Lindsay Alexander, Edin. 1852, pp. 328-330.
ETHERIDGE, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch;
with the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum: from the Chaldee. 2 vols. London
1862-1865. DEUTSCH, article “Ancient Versions” in Smith’s Dictionary of the
Bible, American edition, vol. iv. pp. 3395-3424. DAVIDSON, article “Targum” in
Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Ginsburg: Articles in the same
Cyclopaedia on “Onkelos” and “Jonathan.” DE WETTE, Introduction to the Old
Testament, § 58, and corresponding parts of the Introductions of Keil and Bleek.
Targums on Ruth and Jonah, literally translated by O. T. Crane. New York 1888.
ZUNZ, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 61-83. WEBER, System
der altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie, 1880, pp. xi.-xix. HELVICUS, De
chaldaicis bibliorum paraphrasibus. Giessen 1612. CARPZOV, Critica sacra V. T.
1728, pp. 430-481. According to Winer, Grammatik des bibl. und targum.
Chaldaismus, what more recent works give about the Targums is largely taken from
these treatises of Helvicus and Carpzov. WOLF, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. ii.
1135-1191, iv. 730-734. EICHHORN, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Bd. ii. (4
Aufl. 1823) pp. 1-123. GFROERER, Das Jahrhundert des Heils (1838), i. 36-59.
FÜRST, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1840, Nos. 44-47. FRANKEL, Einiges zu den
Targumim (Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums, 1846, pp.
110-120). HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, Bd. iii. (1857) pp. 61 ff.,
551 ff. GEIGER, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (1857), pp. 162-167.
VOLCK, art. “Thargumim” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. xv. (1862) pp.
672-683; 2 Aufl. xv. (1885) pp. 365-377. LANGEN, Das Judenthums in Palästina
(1866), pp. 70-72, 209-218, 268 ff., 418 ff. NÖLDEKE, Die alttestamentliche
Literatur (1868), pp. 255-262. BÖHL, Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit
Jesu (1873), pp. 140-168. SIEGFRIED, Philo von Alexandria (1875), p. 281 ff.
HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud. MERX, Bemerkungen über die
Vocalisation der Targume (Abhandlungen und Vorträge des fünften internationalen
Orientalisten-Congresses zu Berlin 1881, ii. 1: Abhandlungen und Vorträge der
semitischen und afrikanischen Section, Berlin 1882, pp. 142-225).—Also: Johannes
Buxtorf’s des Vaters Targumcommentar Babylonia (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl.
Theologie, 1887, pp. 280-299, 462-471; 1888, pp. 41-48). ON ONKELOS WINER, De
Onkeloso ejusque paraphrasi chaldaica, Lips. 1820. MAYBAUM, Die Anthropomorphien
und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und den spätern Targumim mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Ausdrücke Memra, Jekara und Schechintha. Breslau 1870.
SINGER, Onkelos und das Verhältniss seines Targums zur Halacha. Berlin 1881.
BERLINER, Targum Onkelos, herausgegeben und erläutert, vol. ii., Notes,
Introduction, etc. Berlin 1884. LUZZATTO, אוהב גר Philoxenus sive de Onkelosi
chaldaica Pentateuchi versione (written in Hebrew). Vienna 1830. RÖDIGER, art.
“Onkelos” in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgem. Encyklop. Section iii. Bd. iii. (1832)
p. 468 f. LEVY, Ueber Onkelos und seine Uebersetzung des Pentateuch (in Geiger’s
Wissen. Zeitschr. für jüd. Theol. v. 1844, pp. 175-198; continued in Fürst’s
Literaturblatt des Orients, 1845, pp. 337 ff., 354 ff.). ANGER, De Onkelo
Chaldaico quem ferunt Pentateuchi paraphraste et quid ei rationis intercedat cum
Akila Graeco Veteris Testamenti interprets. 2 Partt. Lips. 1846. PRESSEL, art.
“Onkelos” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. x. (1858) p. 613 f.
SCHRÖNFELDER, Onkelos und Peschittho. Studien über das Alter des Onkelos’schen
Targums. München 1869. GEIGER, Das nach Onkelos benannte babylonische Thargum
zum Pentateuch (Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1871, pp. 85-104).
NEUBÜRGER, Onkelos und die Stoa (Monatsschr. 1875, pp. 566-568; 1874, p. 48).
BACHER, Das gegenseitige Verhältniss der pentateuchischen Targumim (Zeitschr.
der DMG. 1874, pp. 59-71). ON JONATHAN ON THE PROPHETS KLOSTERMANN, Anzeige von
Lagarde’s Ausgabe, in den Stud. und Krit. 1873, pp. 731-767. FRANKEL, Zu dem
Targum der Propheten. Breslau 1872. BACHER, Kritische Untersuchungen zum
Prophetentargum, in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. xxviii.
1874, pp. 1-72. CORNILL, Das Targum zu den Propheten, in Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentl. Wissenschaft, 1887, pp. 177-202. KLEIN, Bemerkungen zu Bacher’s
“Kritischen Untersuchungen” (Zeitschr. der DMG. xxix. 1875, pp.
157-161).—Bacher, Gegenbemerkungen (in same, p. 319 f.). ON JONATHAN AND
JERUSALMI ON THE PENTATEUCH WINER, De Jonathanis in Pentateuchum paraphrasi
chaldaica. Erlangen 1823. PETERMANN, De duabus Pentateuchi paraphrasibus
chaldaicis. P. I. De indole paraphraseos quae Jonathanis esse dicitur. Berol.
1829. BÄR, Geist des Jeruschalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan), in Monatsschr. f. G. u. W.
des Jude. 1851-1852, pp. 235-242. SELIGSOHN, De duabus Hierosolymitanis
Pentateuchi paraphrasibus. Breslau 1858. SELIGSOHN UND TRAUB, Ueber den Geist
der Uebersetzung des Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch und die Abfassung des in
den Editionen dieser Uebersetzung beigedruckten Targum Jeruschalmi (Monatsschr.
1857, pp. 96-114, 138-149). GEIGER, Das jerusalemische Thargum zum Pentateuch,
in Urschrift, etc., pp. 451-480. GRONEMANN, Die Jonathan’sche
Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Halacha. Leipzig 1879.
LAGARDE, Eine vergessene Handschrift des sogenannten Fragmententargums
(Nachricht. von der kön. Gesells. d. Wissensch. zu Gött. 1888, pp. 1-3). IV.
Historical Works Besides the Talmud, Midrashim, and Targums, there are also the
following treatises, which ought to be classed among the works belonging to the
circle of rabbinical works, inasmuch as they stand related in one way or another
to our history. Only the first named, however, can be regarded as of any
particular historical value. 1. Megillath Taanith, properly the “Book of the
Fasts,” a list of those days on which, owing to some association or another, any
joyous event (especially during the period of the Maccabees) could not be
celebrated. The observance of such days is already presupposed in Jdt_8:6.[97]
Our list is quoted even in the Mishna, Taanith ii. 8, and seems to have been
compiled in the first century after Christ. The text is Aramaic; the much later
commentary is in Hebrew.—The little tract, which in earlier times was not very
highly esteemed, has been found of great historical importance, and much use has
been made of it, especially by Derenbourg and Grätz. [97] Jdt_8:6 : ἐνήστευεν
πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς χηρεύσεως αὐτῆς χωρὶς προσαββάτων καὶ σαββάτων καὶ
προνουμηνιῶν καὶ νουμηνιῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ χαρμοσυνῶν οἴκου Ἰσραήλ. Edition with
Latin translation: Meyer, Tractatus de temporibus sacris et festis diebus
Hebraeorum, etc. Accedit מנלת volumen de jejunio, Amstelaedami 1724.—Derenbourg
in his Histoire de la Palestine (1867), pp. 439-446, gives the Aramaic text with
a French translation.—Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 68 f.,
384 f., ii. 1325 ff., iii. 1195 ff.,iv. 1024.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 9,
under Abraham ha-Lewi.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Biblioth.
Bodlei. col. 582.—Zedner, Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 517.—Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 127, 128.—Ewald, History of Israel,
vol. v. p. 381, vol. viii. p. 280 sq.—Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iii. pp. 597-615
(n. 1), and 685 ff. (n. 1).—Wellhausen, Phar. u. Saduc. pp. 56-63.—Schmilg,
Ueber Entstehung und historischen Werth des Siegeskalenders “Megillath Taanith,”
Leipz. 1874.—Joel Müller, Der Text der Fastenrolle (Monatsschr. 1875, pp. 43-48,
139-144).—Brann, Entstehung und Werth der Megillat Taanit (Monatsschr. 1876, pp.
375 ff., 410 ff., 445 ff.).—Cassel, Kritisches Sendschreiben über die
Probebibel; II. Messianische Stellen des Alten Testaments. Angehängt sind
Anmerkungen über Megillath Taanith, Berlin 1885.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie
für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, pp. 104-107, art. “Megillath Taanith.”
2. Seder olam, also called Seder olam rabba, an exposition of the biblical
history from Adam down to the time of Alexander the Great, with some notices
also of later times.—It is quoted in the Talmud, and is ascribed to R. Jose ben
Chalephta, who lived about the years 130-160 after Christ. This supposition,
however, rests simply on the fact that R. Jose is quoted nine times as an
authority. Much more modern, composed at the earliest in the eighth century, is
the Seder olam sutta, a genealogical work, which treats first of all of biblical
times, and then seeks to give an unbroken list of the princes during the
Babylonian exile. An edition of both, with a Latin translation: Chronicon
Hebraeorum majus et minus, latine vertit et commentar. perpet. illustravit J.
Meyer. Accedit ejusdem dissertat. 3, Amstelaedami 1699.—Compare generally: Wolf,
Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 492-499, iv. 1029 sq.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii.
107 sq.—Steinschneider, Catalogus Bodlei. col. 1433-1437.—Zedner, Catalogue of
the British Museum, p. 689 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden,
pp. 85, 135-139.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. i. pp. 200, 209, vol. viii. p.
49.—Fürst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1846, pp. 547-552.—Grätz, Geschichte der
Juden, iv. 200.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplement.
p. 132 f. 3. Megillath Antiochus, a short legendary history of the persecutions
of Antiochus Epiphanes and the conquests of the Asmoneans. It belongs to the
post-Talmudic age, and is historically worthless. The original Aramaic text was
first printed in the present century. Numerous older editions give a Hebrew
translation, which in its manuscript form is still extant. On the manuscripts of
the Aramaic and Hebrew texts, see especially: Curtiss, The Name Maccabee,
Leipzig 1876, p. 36 sqq. In addition, consult: Merx, Chrestomathia targumica
1888, p. xvi., which calls attention to two manuscripts of the British Museum
(Oriental Manuscripts, 2377, 2212) as giving the Aramaic text with the
Babylonian pointing.—Bartolocci in his Bibliotheca rabbinica, i. 388 sqq., gives
the Hebrew text with a Latin translation. The Latin translation alone is copied
by Fabricius in his Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1165 sqq.—A modern edition
of the Hebrew text: Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, i. (1853) pp. 142-146.—The
Aramaic text was first edited by Filipowski in 1851: The Choice of Pearls … to
which is added the Book of Antiochus, published for the first time in Aramaic,
Hebrew, and English, by H. Filipowski, London 1851. Also more recently by
Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrash, vi. (1877) pp. 4-8. Compare generally: Wolf,
Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 204 sq., iii. 130.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii.
317.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr. Bodlei. col. 206 sq.—Zedner,
Catalogue of British Museum, p. 51.—Zunz, p. 134.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol.
v. p. 287 sq. 4. Josippon or Joseph ben Gorion. Under this name there exists,
written in Hebrew, a history of the Jewish people from Adam down to the
destruction of the temple by Titus. The author wishes to pass himself off for
the ancient Josephus, but calls himself erroneously Joseph son of Gorion, and
not infrequently departs so widely from the rôle which he had assumed as even
expressly to quote from the true Josephus (Zunz, p. 150). The latter is, indeed,
abundantly made use of, but in a very free and eclectic manner, while much
purely legendary material is introduced from other sources. It would seem that
this author had before him, not the Greek text, but a Latin translation of
Josephus, and for the Bellum Judaicum, indeed, only the paraphrastic and loose
rendering of the so-called Hegesippus. According to Zunz, pp 150-152, the work
originated in Italy during the first half of the tenth century after Christ.
Among the numerous editions, the following deserve to be mentioned: Josephus
Gorionides s. Josephus Hebraicus juxta venetam edit. latine versus et cum
exemplari Constantinop. collatus atque notis illustratus a J. F. Breithaupto,
Gothae 1707, in Hebrew and Latin. The same with a new title, Gothae et Lips.
1710.—A Hebrew-Latin edition had been already issued at a much earlier date by
Sebastian Münster, Josephus Hebraicus diu desideratissimus opera Seb. Münsteri,
Basil 1541; but it was disfigured by many arbitrary abbreviations.—A Latin
translation of the whole text was given by Gagnier, Josippon sive Josephi ben
Gorionis historiae Judaicae libri sex, ex hebraeo latine vertit, etc., Oxon.
1706. Compare generally on the work and its editions: Oudin, De script. eccles.
ii. col. 1032-1062.—Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 508-523, iii. 387-389.—Meusel,
Bibliotheca histor. i. 2 (1784), pp. 236-239.—Fabricius, Bibliotheca graec., ed.
Harles, v. 56-59.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 111-114.—Steinschneider,
Catalogus libr. hebr. Biblioth. Bodlei. col. 1547-1552.—Zedner, Catalogue of the
British Museum, p. 344 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vörtrage der Juden, pp.
146-154.—Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie, Leipsic 1836, pp.
37-40.—Külb, art. “Josephus Gorionides” in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclop.
Sec. ii. Bd. 23 (1844), p. 184.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: FIRST DIVISION
========================================================================

FIRST DIVISION POLITICAL HISTORY OF PALESTINE FROM B.C. 175 TO A.D. 135


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: FIRST PERIOD
========================================================================

FIRST PERIOD FROM ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES DOWN TO THE CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM BY
POMPEY


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: THE RISE OF THE MACCABEES AND THE PERIOD OF FREEDOM, B.C. 175-63
========================================================================

THE RISE OF THE MACCABEES AND THE PERIOD OF FREEDOM, B.C. 175-63 INASMUCH as the
history of Israel during this period is very much mixed up with the history of
Syria, we propose to give first of all—


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF SYRIA DURING THE LAST CENTURY OF THE SELEUCID DYNASTY, B....
========================================================================

A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF SYRIA DURING THE LAST CENTURY OF THE SELEUCID
DYNASTY, B.C. 175-63 SOURCES Eusebii Chronicorum libri duo, ed. Schoene, vol.
ii. Berol. 1866, vol. i. 1875; especially an extract given there from
Porphyry.—Also the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus, ed. Halm, 1866, contains some
statements of importance. See Bernays, Ueber die Chronik des Sulp. Severus,
1861, pp. 61-63.—Scattered notices will also be found in Polybius, Diodorus,
Livy, and Justin. Appian gives a good summary sketch.—The Book of Daniel, chap.
11, and the commentary on it by Jerome (Opp. Vallarsi, v. 701-724), come into
consideration only for Antiochus Epiphanes.—The two books of Maccabees,
especially the first. Josephus, in books xii. and xiii. of his Antiquities,
enlarges upon the story, and adds, especially for the history of the Seleucidae,
many important historical statements derived from other writers.—And, finally,
of the utmost importance are the numerous dated coins. For the literature of
this subject, see above, § 2. D. Special attention should be called to Eckhel,
Mionnet, de Saulcy, and the Catalogue of the British Museum by Gardner.
LITERATURE CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici. The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece
and Rome, vol. iii., from the CXXIVth Olympiad to the death of Augustus. Oxford
1830. 2nd edition, 1851, pp. 310-350. EWALD, History of Israel, vol. v.
Supremacy of the Seleucidae; the Maccabees; the sons of John Hyrcanus, pp.
286-394. STANLEY, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. Third series.
2nd edition. London 1877. Lect. xlviii.-xlix. pp. 285-396. NIEBUHR, Vorträge
über alte Geschichte, iii. (1851). Also: Historischer Gewinn aus der armenischen
Uebersetzung der Chronik des Eusebiut in Klein, Schr. i. 179-304. FOY-VAILLANT,
Seleucidarum imperium sive Historia regum Syriae ad fidem numismatum
accommodata. Paris 1681. FLATHE, Geschichte Macedoniens und der Reiche, welche
von macedonischen Königen beherrscht wurden. Bd. ii. (1834). The most complete
modern history of the Hellenistic Kingdoms. FROELICH, Annales compendiarii regum
et rerum Syriae numis veteribus illustrati. Viennae 1744, editio altera 1750.
STARK, Gaza und die philistäische Küste. 1852. A good summary of the sources is
given by Clinton.—For the determining of the general chronological framework the
chief sources are: 1. The Extract from Porphyry in the Chronicle of Eusebius; 2.
Separate statements in the First Book of Maccabees. The Seleucid era, according
to which the dates in this book are reckoned, begins probably, not in autumn,
but rather in spring of B.C. 312 (see above, § 3. A.). 3. The coins, whose dates
have been lucidly collected and arranged by de Saulcy, Mémoire sur les monnaies
datées des Séleucides, Paris 1871. Porphyry, the well-known Neo-Platonic
philosopher of the third century after Christ, wrote a chronological world in
which he made careful use of the best sources. From, it Eusebius in his
Chronicle makes extracts with reference to the history of the Ptolemies (Eusebii
Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 159 sq.), and with reference to the Macedonian kings
(Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 229 sq.). But undoubtedly from, this same
source, although Porphyry is not there named, is derived the whole similar
paragraph on the history of the Seleucidae (Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i.
247-264). The text of the Chronicle of Eusebius with this passage complete is
now extant only in an Armenian translation, first edited by Aucher, Eusebii
Chron. vol. i. (1818), translated anew for Schoene’s edition into Latin by
Petermann. Fragments of the Greek text are met with in a Parisian manuscript,
from which they were published even by Scaliger in the Appendix to his Thesaurus
temporum, 1606, and more recently by Cramer, Anccdota Graeca e codd.
manuscriptis Bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis, vol. ii. (1839) p. 115 sqq. Müller
in his Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 706-717, gives among the fragments
of Porphyry, the Armenian and Greek text, together with a historical commentary.
In this passage Porphyry fixes the chronology of the Seleucidae according to the
Olympiad era, and indeed in such a way that he takes into account only whole
years; hence the year in which a change of kings occurs is reckoned to the one
who preceded a full year, while the reign of his successor is made to begin with
the following year. Thus, for example, although he makes the reign of Antiochus
Epiphanes begin with Olympiad 151. 3, it actually began in Olympiad 151. 2. It
is further to be remarked that, in dealing with the frequent appearances of
pretenders to the throne, he dates the reign of the successful pretender from
the year in which his opponent was overthrown. From what sources Porphyry has
derived his information may be learned from the following statement of Jerome,
although its immediate reference is not to Porphyry’s Chronicle, but to his book
on Daniel: Ad intelligendas autem extremas partes Danielis multiplex Graecorum
historia necessaria est: Sutorii videlicet Callinici, Diodori, Hieronymi,
Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii Theonis et Andronici cognomento Alipii, quos et
Porphyrius esse sequutum se dicit; Josephi quoque et eorum quos ponit Josephus,
praecipueque nostri Livii et Pompeii Trogi atque Justini, qui omnem extraemae
visionis narrant historiam (Hieronymus, Praefatio in Danielem, Opp. ed.
Vallarsi, v. 621 sq.). But valuable as the work of Porphyry is, so carefully
culled from the best original documents, we ought also to guard against any
over-estimation of its worth. His statements about Olympiads are evidently
“deductions from calculations of the years of the several reigns” (Gutschmid,
Geschichte Iran’s und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, p. 77, Anm.), and thus do not
possess the weight of immediate traditional testimony. ANTIOCHUS IV. EPIPHANES,
B.C. 175-164 He was the son of Antiochus III. the Great, and brother of Seleucus
IV. Philopator, who reigned B.C. 187-175. During the reign of his brother
Seleucus he lived as a hostage at Rome. Seleucus procured for him liberty to
return to his native land by sending as hostage to Rome his own son Demetrius;
but before Antiochus reached home Seleucus had been murdered by Heliodorus.
Antiochus then usurped the throne to which by right his nephew Demetrius ought
to have succeeded (Appian. Syr. 45).—Antiochus died after a reign of eleven
years, in B.C. 164, while engaged in a campaign against the Parthians. That his
reign lasted for eleven years is stated by Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene,
i. 253, 263 sq.), Jerome (ad Danielem, 11. 21 sq.), and Sulpicius Severus
(Chron. ii. 22). The date of the beginning of his reign is set down by Porphyry
as Olympiad 151. 3, and so actually Olym. 151. 2, which is equivalent to B.C.
175-174. This statement is borne out by the fact that the coins also begin with
the year 138 of the Seleucid era, which corresponds to 175-174 before Christ.
The First Book of Maccabees, on the other hand (chap. 1:10), places the
beginning of the reign in the Seleucid year 137, that is, in B.C. 176-175, which
can be reconciled with the statement of Porphyry only by supposing that the
Seleucid year was reckoned from autumn to autumn, so that Olympiad 151. 2 would
begin in the summer of B.C. 175. But if we assume that the First Book of
Maccabees counts the year from spring to spring, we shall have to admit the
existence of a slight discrepancy.—The death of Antiochus occurred, according to
Porphyry, in Olympiad 154. 1, that is, in B.C. 164-163; according to the First
Book of Maccabees (6:16), in the Seleucid year 149, which also answers to B.C.
164-163. The chronology of the Egyptian campaigns of Antiochus, which is of
importance also in Jewish history, is still matter of controversy. But according
to non-Jewish sources, it is highly probable that they belonged to the period
between B.C. 170 and B.C. 168. This is further supported by the fact that the
First Book of Maccabees (1:20) makes mention for the first time of an Egyptian
campaign in the Seleucid year 143, corresponding to B.C. 170-169, and indeed
states precisely that autumn of B.C. 170 was the date of the return from it.
Only the Second Book of Maccabees (5:1) disagrees with this by reckoning that
campaign the second. But the unreliableness of this document would make the
assumption of an earlier campaign in B.C. 171 unjustifiable apart from other
evidence. Compare generally on this question: Droysen, De Lagidarum regno, 1831,
pp. 56-69, which I have not been able to consult; Jo. Christ. Conr. Hofmann, De
bellis ab Antiocho Epiphane adversus Ptolemaeos gestis, Erlangae 1835; Hitzig,
Das Buch Daniel, pp. 202-208; Stark, Gaza und die philistäische Küste, pp.
430-434; Grimm. Das erste Buch der Maccabäer, p. 15 f.; Joh. Friedr. Hoffmann,
Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, 1873, pp. 36-58; Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, ii. 2
(1876), pp. 436-443. On Antiochus generally, besides the works mentioned above,
compare: Ewald, History of Israel, v. 293-306; Stanley, History of the Jewish
Church, third series, 1877, pp. 288-302. See also the article in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissenschaft, and the articles by Wieseler
in Herzog, vol. i. pp. 458-463, and by Reuss in Schenkel, Bibellexikon. For
further notice, see § 4. ANTIOCHUS V. EUPATOR, B.C. 164-162 This monarch was the
son of Epiphanes. According to Porphyry he began to reign in his twelfth year,
but according to Appian. Syr. 46 and 66, when he was only nine years old. From
the statement of Porphyry it would seem as if he had been for a year and a half
co-regent with his father; but the text is probably corrupt (Euseb. Chron., ed.
Schoene, i. 253). During his short reign of only one and a half or two years he
was simply a tool in the hand of his field-marshal and guardian Lysias, and was
along with him, by the order of his cousin Demetrius, assassinated in B.C. 162.
The statements as to the length of this reign vacillate between a year and a
half and two years; the former period is given by Porphyry in the Summarium
(Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 263 sq.), and the latter by Josephus in the
Antiquities, xii. 10. 1 (Euseb. Chron. ii. 126 sq., ad ann. Abrah. 1852). The
beginning and end are determined by the chronology of his predecessor and his
successor.—Compare generally: Reuss in Schenkel and Wieseler in Herzog. Also
Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography. DEMETRIUS I. SOTER, B.C.
162-150 Demetrius was the son of Seleucus Philopator. He had been sent by him as
hostage to Rome, but fled from thence, and assumed the reins of government in
B.C. 162, after having had his cousin Antiochus Eupator assassinated. In B.C.
153, Alexander Balas took up arms against him as a pretender to the throne. He
claimed to be a son of Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore the legitimate heir of
the Syrian throne. Demetrius fell in battle against him in B.C. 150. The flight
of Demetrius from Rome and the consequences resulting from it are very vividly
sketched by Polybius, who, as a friend of Demetrius, was personally engaged in
the incidents which he narrates (Polybius, xxxi. 12, 19-22). Both Polybius (iii.
5) and Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 255, 263 sq.) ascribe to
Demetrius a reign of twelve years, while Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 2. 4) allows him
only eleven years. Porphyry sets down the commencement of the reign at Olympiad
154. 4, that is really Olym. 154. 3, corresponding to B.C. 162-161; and the
First Book of Maccabees (7:1) makes it 151 of the Seleucid era, which also
answers to B.C. 162-161. The dated coins extend from 150 to 162 of the Seleucid
era, or from B.C. 163-162 to B.C. 151-150. If the number of the year be rightly
read as 150, the beginning of the reign must be set down before autumn of B.C.
162, which is reconcilable with the statement in First Maccabees on the
supposition that its years are to be understood as spring years.—On the date of
the insurrection of Alexander Balas, see below. The common text of Porphyry
gives Olympiad 157. 4 as the date of the death of Demetrius. Since this would
give him a reign of thirteen years, it is most probably to be read Olympiad 157.
3, corresponding to B.C. 150-149. According to 1Ma_10:50; 1Ma_10:57, the death
of Demetrius occurred not later than 162 of the Seleucid era, or B.C.
151-150.—Compare on Demetrius generally, the articles in Herzog and Schenkel.
ALEXANDER BALAS, B.C. 150-145 When Alexander had wrenched the government from
Demetrius, the son of Demetrius, who also himself bore the name of Demetrius,
rose up against him. With this Demetrius II., Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt
entered into alliance. Alexander was besieged in Antioch by the Egyptian king,
fled to Arabia, and was there treacherously murdered in B.C. 145. On the fifth
day after that bloody deed, the head of Alexander was brought to Ptolemy
(Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 8). The coins of Alexander bear dates from 160 to 168
of the Seleucid era, that is, from B.C. 153-152 to B.C. 145-144. The First Book
of Maccabees (10:1) describes his revolt against Demetrius as having taken place
in the Seleucid year 160, or B.C. 153-152; and indeed B.C. 153 must be fixed
upon, since it occurred before the Feast of Tabernacles of the year referred to
(1Ma_10:21).—His reign proper is reckoned by Porphyry and Josephus (Antiq. xiii.
4. 8) at five years. The common text of Porphyry puts down the beginning of it
in Olympiad 157. 3, and the end in Olympiad 158. 4. Since this, according to
Porphyry’s style of reckoning, would give six years, probably we should read
instead of 157. 3, 157. 4, that is really 157. 3, corresponding to B.C.
150-149.—The death of Alexander is placed by the First Book of Maccabees (11:19)
in the Seleucid year 167, or B.C. 146-145. Porphyry’s date is Olympiad 158. 4,
which corresponds to B.C. 145-144.—Compare on Alexander, the articles in Pauly,
Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel. DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR, B.C. 145-138 ANTIOCHUS VI.,
B.C. 145-(?). TRYPHO, (?)-138 One of the generals of Alexander, Diodotus, named
Trypho, disputed the succession with Demetrius in favour of the youthful son of
Alexander, Antiochus VI. Meanwhile Trypho himself aspired to the throne, had his
ward Antiochus murdered, and made himself king. Soon after this, according to
other accounts even previously, Demetrius undertook a campaign against the
Parthians, in the course of which he was taken prisoner by the Parthians in B.C.
138. But Trypho was defeated by Antiochus VII. Sidetes, the brother of
Demetrius, at Dora, then shut up in Apamea, and compelled to end his life by his
own hand (Strabo, p. 668; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 2; Appian. Syr. 68). The
revolt of Demetrius against Alexander Balas took place, according to 1Ma_10:67,
in the Seleucid year 165, or B.C. 148-147, while his reign began in 167 of the
Seleucid era, B.C. 146-145 (1Ma_11:19). The dates of the coins extend from 167
to 174 Seleucid era, or from B.C. 146-145 to B.C. 139-138.—There are coins of
Antiochus VI. from 167 to 170 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 146-145 to B.C.
143-142. Coins of Trypho bear the number of the years III. (de Saulcy, p. 42,
Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 82 sq.) and IV. (Gardner, Catalogue of
Greek Coins, p. 69). Josephus assigns to the reign of Antiochus VI. a period of
four years, and to Trypho a period of three years (Antiq. xiii. 7. 1-2).
According to this estimate, the reign of Antiochus would date B.C. 145-141; that
of Trypho, B.C. 141-138. This is in agreement with the statement of Porphyry,
who gives to Demetrius, before his imprisonment, only a three years’ reign
(Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 257, 263 sq.), from Olympiad 160. 1, which is
really Olym. 159. 4, or B.C. 141-140, to Olympiad 160. 3, or B.C. 138-137.
Porphyry evidently reckons the reign of Demetrius as beginning with the
displacement by conquest or murder of Antiochus VI. In thorough accord with
this, too, is the chronology of the First Book of Maccabees, 13:31, 41, which
unhesitatingly assigns the murder of Antiochus by Trypho to the Seleucid year
170, or B.C. 143-142. Finally, it is no serious discrepancy when, in 1Ma_14:1,
the Parthian campaign of Demetrius is dated from the Seleucid year 172, or B.C.
141-140; while Porphyry, on the other hand, assigns it to Olympiad 160. 2, or
B.C. 139-138. In direct contradiction, however, to the foregoing, stands the
statement made by many writers (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11, 7. 1; Appian. Syr.
67, 68; Justin. xxxvi. 1), that Antiochus was not murdered by Trypho before the
time of the Parthian campaign of Demetrius, and indeed not till after Demetrius
had been taken prisoner. This, however, is in opposition not only to the
chronology of the First Book of Maccabees, but also to the circumstance that
then there is not left a three or four years’ reign for Trypho, which yet,
according to Josephus and the coins, must be admitted. Then Trypho’s death
occurs almost contemporaneously with the seizure of Demetrius by the Parthians
in B.C. 138. See in next paragraph under Antiochus Sidetes. It therefore seems
to me hazardous to assume, with many modern critics, that the last-named
authorities should have the precedence over 1 Macc.—Compare on this question,
and on Antiochus VI. and Trypho generally: Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione, 1793, pp. 269-274. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 331. Müller,
Fragmenta hist. Graec. t. ii. p. xx. Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis
philol. Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 43-49. Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, 1888,
pp. 51-53. Also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel. ANTIOCHUS
VII. SIDETES, B.C. 138-128 So long as Demetrius was the prisoner of the
Parthians, Antiochus VII. held undisturbed sway in Syria.—In B.C. 129 he
undertook a campaign against the Parthians, and in it he met his death in B.C.
128. During the war the Parthian king released Demetrius from his imprisonment,
in order that he might seize for himself the government of Syria, and so compel
Antiochus to return home. On the surname Sidetes, compare Porphyry (Euseb.
Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 255): in Sida urbe educatus, quapropter Sidetes utique
vocabatur. The city Side lies in Pamphylia.—The revolt of Antiochus VII. against
Trypho occurred, according to 1Ma_15:10, in the year 174 Seleucid, or B.C.
139-138. Porphyry reckons his reign from Olympiad 160. 4, that is really
Olympiad 160. 3, or B.C. 138-137. The coins begin with the Seleucid year 174, or
B.C. 139-138, and reach down to Seleucid year 184, or B.C. 129-128 (de Saulcy,
pp. 44-46).—The beginning of the Parthian campaign cannot, according to Livy,
Epit. 59, be placed earlier than B.C. 129, immediately after the consul M.
Peperna, whose consulship was in B.C. 130, and immediately before the consul C.
Sempronius, whose consulship was in B.C. 129. Porphyry assigns the death of
Antiochus, after a nine years’ reign, to Olympiad 162. 4, or B.C. 129-128.
According to Justin, xxxviii. 10, it occurred in the winter; according to
Diodorus, xxxiv. 15 sq., in spring, therefore in the beginning of B.C. 128. In
fact, the coins of Alexander Zabinas (see next paragraph) begin with the
Seleucid year 184, or B.C. 129-128.—With these matters of fact in view, some
coins of Antiochus, purporting to belong to the Seleucid year 185 and 186, the
latter corresponding to B.C. 127-126, have occasioned great difficulties to the
historians. Some have disputed the authenticity of their date (so Tôchon
d’Annecy, Dissertation sur l’époque de la mort d’Antiochus VII. Evergètes
Sidétès, roi de Syrie, sur deux médailles antiques de ce prince, et sur un
passage du IIe livre des Macchabées, Paris 1815, pp. 61-65); others have assumed
that even after the death of Antiochus, coins were issued with his name (so
Niebuhr, Kleine Schriften, i. 251 f.). The most probable explanation is that the
date has only been falsely read (see Nussbaum, Observationes, p. 51).—Compare
generally: Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, t. v.
1875, pp. 265-280. Nussbaum, Observationes in Flavii Josephi Antiquitates, 1875,
pp. 49-54. Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, Tüb. 1888, pp. 75-77, who places the
death of Antiochus in B.C. 129. Also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and
Schenkel. DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR, a Second Time, B.C. 128-125 OR 124 (?)
ALEXANDER ZABINAS, B.C. 128-122 (?) After a ten years’ imprisonment among the
Parthians, as Porphyry relates in Eusebius, Demetrius II. once again became king
of Syria. There was soon raised up against him, through the intrigues of Ptolemy
Physkon, an anti-king in the person of Alexander Zabinas, who claimed to be a
son of Alexander Balas. Demetrius was besieged by him in Damascus, obliged to
fly, and murdered as he attempted to land at Tyre. Coins of Demetrius are in
existence which pretend to belong to the period from 180 to 187 of the Seleucid
era, or from B.C. 133-132 to B.C. 126-125 (de Saulcy, pp. 51, 52). If the
reading is in every case correct, it might be supposed that even during the
Parthian imprisonment of Demetrius, coins were issued with his name printed on
them (so de Saulcy, p. 55). But the reading is not by any means certain in every
instance (Nussbaum, Observationes, p. 52 sq.). There are some which certainly
are marked 183-187 of the Seleucid era (Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 76
sq.; Bunbury, Num. Chronicle, 1883, p. 100 sq.).—Porphyry assigns to Demetrius
after his imprisonment a reign of four years. The common text gives as its
beginning Olympiad 162. 2, for which we ought certainly to read Olympiad 163. 2,
that is really Olympiad 163. 1, or B.C. 128-127; and as the year of his death,
Olympiad 164. 1, corresponding to B.C. 124-123. With this it is impossible to
reconcile the fact that there exists coins of Antiochus VIII. Grypos, and of
Cleopatra, professing to belong to the Seleucid year 187, or B.C. 126-125. Yet
here again it may be questioned whether this is the correct reading.—Compare on
Demetrius also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.—For Alexander
Zabinas, Porphyry gives no direct dates. His coins range over the period from
184 to 190 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 129-128 to B.C. 123-122 (de Saulcy,
p. 57; Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, pp. 81-84; Bunbury, Num. Chronicle,
1883, p. 103 sq.). SELEUCUS V., B.C. 125 OR 124 (?) Seleucus V. succeeded his
father Demetrius on the throne; but soon after beginning his reign he was
murdered at the instigation of his own mother. ANTIOCHUS VIII. GRYPOS, B.C. 125
OR 124-113 Antiochus VIII. was the brother of Seleucus. He had still to do
battle with the anti-king Alexander Zabinas, but conquered him in the third year
of his reign; according to Porphyry, in B.C. 122-121. He then caused Alexander
to be executed, as Justin reports, xxxix. 2 (compare also Diodorus, xxxiv. 28).
According to Porphyry, Alexander put an end to his own life by poison. After a
reign of eleven years, in B.C. 113, Antiochus VIII. Grypos was driven from the
throne by Antiochus IX. Kyrikenos, who was his cousin on the father’s side, his
brother on the mother’s side. Antiochus Grypos then withdrew to Aspendos. The
relationship between the two is as follows:—Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy
Philometor of Egypt, who had been already the wife of Alexander Balas
(1Ma_10:58), had separated herself from him and married Demetrius II. Nicator
(1Ma_11:12). From this marriage sprang Seleucus V. and Antiochus VIII. Grypos.
But while Demetrius was detained among the Parthians, Cleopatra married his
brother, Antiochus VII. Sidetes (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 1). From this
marriage sprang Antiochus IX. Kyrikenos (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1; Appian.
Syr. 68). Porphyry in Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene, i. 260, says: τῷ ὁμομητρίῳ
ἀδελφῷ Ἀντιόχῳ καὶ ἀνεψιῷ τὰ ἐκ πατρός.—Compare generally on the genealogy of
the Seleucidae the table at the end of vol. ii. of this work. The period of the
reign of Antiochus VIII., down to his expulsion by Antiochus IX., is reckoned by
Porphyry at eleven years, from Olympiad 164. 2, that is really Olympiad 164. 1,
down to Olympiad 166. 4, or from B.C. 124-123 down to B.C. 113-112.—On the coins
Antiochus VIII. appears sometimes as co-regent with his mother Cleopatra,
sometimes alone. The coins of the former kind profess to belong to the period
between 187 and 192 of the Seleucid era, or between B.C. 126-125 and B.C.
121-120 (de Saulcy, p. 61 sq.). For an account of the discrepancy between this
date and that of Porphyry, see above under Demetrius II. and Alexander Zabinas.
The proper coins of Antiochus VIII. begin with the Seleucid year 190,
corresponding to B.C. 123-122 (de Saulcy, p. 65 sq.). ANTIOCHUS IX. CYZICENOS,
B.C. 113-95 ANTIOCHUS VIII. GRYPOS, B.C. 111-96 For two years Cyzicenos now
ruled as sole monarch. But in B.C. 111, Grypos returned and wrested the greater
part of Syria from his cousin. Only Coele-Syria remained in the possession of
Cyzicenos. Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 260, says: κρατεῖ μὲν
αὐτὸς τῆς Συρίας, ὁ δὲ Κυζικηνὸς τῆς Κοίλης. Thus was the kingdom broken up; and
the two cousins and brothers engaged in a conflict with one another. Antiochus
Grypos died fifteen years after his return, in B.C. 96, according to Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 13. 4, by the hand of an assassin. His rights and claims were
heired by his son Seleucus VI. He took up arms forthwith against Antiochus
Cyzicenos, and laid siege to him in Antioch. In order to avoid imprisonment
during the battle in B.C. 95, Antiochus put an end to his own life (Porphyry in
Eusebius, Chron. i. 260). To Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, Porphyry assigns a reign
of eighteen years, extending from Olympiad 167. 1, that is really Olympiad 166.
4, down to Olympiad 171. 1, or from B.C. 113-112 down to B.C. 96-95. The coins,
indeed, begin as early as 196 of the Seleucid era, or B.C. 117-116 (de Saulcy,
p. 72 sq.). If both are correct, it must be assumed that Porphyry, with his date
B.C. 113, does not mean the time of the revolt of Cyzicenos, but the time of his
decided victory over Grypos. The return of Antiochus VIII. Grypos is set down by
Porphyry in Olympiad 167. 2, or B.C. 111-110, and a reign of fifteen years is
given him, extending down to Olympiad 170. 4, or B.C. 97-96. Josephus ascribes
to Antiochus Grypos altogether a reign of twenty-five years, from B.C. 125-124
down to B.C. 96 (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4). During the next twelve years,
from B.C. 95 to B.C. 83, there now followed an almost unbroken series of
conflicts between the five sons of Antiochus Grypos, namely, Seleucus VI.,
Antiochus XI., Philip, Demetrius III. Eucärus, and Antiochus XII. on the one
hand, and the son of Antiochus Cyzicenos, Antiochus X. Eusebes, on the other
(Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4, 14. 3, 15. 1; Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron., ed.
Schoene, i. 259-262; Appian. Syr. 69; and Clinton, pp. 340-342). The result of
these contendings was that Tigranes, king of Armenia, took possession for
himself of the kingdom of Syria. His reign over Syria lasted for fourteen years,
from B.C. 83 to B.C. 69. The details, according to Josephus, who is here the
most complete in his descriptions, are as follows:—Antiochus X. Eusebes, in
order to revenge his father, made war against Seleucus VI., conquered him, and
drove him into Cilicia, where he was put to death by the citizens of Mopsuestia
on account of his oppressions. Then his brother, Antiochus XI., next took up the
conflict against Antiochus Eusebes, but was defeated, and lost his life in the
battle. The third brother, Philip, now appeared upon the scene, and entered the
lists against Antiochus Eusebes, according to Porphyry, in Olympiad 171. 3, or
B.C. 94-93, and succeeded in making himself master of at least a part of Syria,
while the fourth brother, Demetrius Eucärus, had seized upon another portion,
with Damascus as its capital. Then Antiochus Eusebes, according to Josephus,
lost his life in a battle with the Parthians. The two brothers, Philip and
Demetrius, now reigned for a long time, each over his own part of Syria. But by
and by Demetrius declared war against Philip, besieged him in Beröa, east of
Antioch, but was himself taken prisoner, and died in confinement. There were now
left only Philip and the youngest brother, Antiochus XII., who continued to
fight with one another. But Antiochus fell in a battle against the Arab chief
Aretas, who thereupon took possession of Coele-Syria. At last the whole of Syria
fell into the hands of Tigranes. According to Appian. Syr. 48, 69, Antiochus X.
Eusebes was still alive and reigning when Tigranes seized upon Syria; and
indeed, according to Justin, xl. 2, and Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron. i. 262, he
was still living when Pompey made an end of the Syrian empire. The latter
statement, however, has evidently resulted from a confusion between Antiochus X.
Eusebes and Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus, who are both clearly enough distinguished
by Appian. But the former is in every respect more probable, since Appian seems
here to have used reliable sources. It may then be assumed that Antiochus
Eusebes had possession of the greater, Philip and Aretas of the smaller part of
Syria, when Tigranes made himself master of the kingdom. For the chronology of
the years B.C. 95-83, the coins afford some important clues (Gardner, Catalogue
of Greek Coins, p. 95 sqq.). Yet we have not materials for determining all the
details. There are dated coins of Philip from the Seleucid year 221 down to 229,
or from B.C. 92-91 down to B.C. 84-83 (de Saulcy, p. 78); of Demetrius there are
some from the Seleucid year 217 down to 224, or from B.C. 96-95 down to B.C.
89-88 (Gardner, Catalogue, p. 101; Eckhel, iii. 245); of Antiochus XII. there is
one belonging to the Seleucid year 227, or B.C. 86-85 (Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies
grecques, 1883, p. 437). Very puzzling are the coins of Philip which were
printed in Antioch, and bear the figures 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 30, purporting to
indicate the numbers of the years (de Saulcy, p. 79). If the dates are correctly
read, and refer to the years of Philip’s reign, it must be assumed that Philip
had been able to maintain his position in Antioch even during the domination of
Tigranes. In fact, Porphyry also assumes that Philip lived down to the time of
Pompey (Euseb. Chron. i. 262). But according to Diodorus, Fragm. 34 (in Müller,
Fragm. hist. graec. t. ii. p. 24 sq.), this Philip, who made his appearance at
the time of Pompey as a claimant, was a son of our Philip, and so grandson of
Antiochus Grypos (see also Müller). We seem therefore to have no alternative but
to assume that those numbers signify, not the years of Philip’s reign, but the
years of an era that began somewhere about B.C. 113. This much is known
regarding the period of Tigranes: that according to Appian. Syr. 48, 70, and
Justin. xl. 1-2 (according to the correct reading), he reigned over Syria
fourteen years. The end of his reign, however,—that is, his defeat by
Lucullus,—occurred, as is well known from the Roman history, in B.C. 69. After
the defeat of Tigranes by Lucullus, Syria did not all at once fall into the
possession of the Romans. Lucullus assigned it to a son of Antiochus Eusebes,
who reigned from B.C. 69 to B.C. 65 under the title of Antiochus XIII.
Asiaticus. It was Pompey who, on his victorious march through Asia, first made a
complete end of the Seleucid dynasty, in B.C. 65 (Appian. Syr. 49, 70; Justin,
xl. 2; Clinton, pp. 344-348). Syria now became a Roman province (Plutarch,
Pompeius, 39). Pompey first of all, in B.C. 65, sent his legates from Armenia to
Syria, and in B.C. 64 he went himself; but the definite arrangements of Syrian
affairs were first settled in B.C. 63-62 (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 345
sq.; Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 215 ff.). In B.C. 65 or 64, probably the
disturbances broke out of which Diodorus, Fragm. 34 (in Müller, Fragm. hist.
graec. t. ii. p. 24 sq.), gives an account. Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus sought to
maintain his possession of the throne by the aid of Sampsigeram of Emesa. At the
same time a struggle was made for a like purpose by Philip, son of King Philip,
and grandson of Antiochus Grypos, who sought to support his claims by the
assistance of the Arab prince Azizus. But Antiochus was taken prisoner by
Sampsigeram, and afterwards put to death, and Philip was able to escape the
snares of Azizus only by flight. By means of this report of Diodorus of the end
of Antiochus Asiaticus, we see how utterly groundless was the statement of older
scholars, that Antiochus Asiaticus obtained possession of the small kingdom of
Commagene, and became the founder of the dynasty of Commagene (see in
opposition, Clinton, pp. 346-348). But it is quite true that the dynasty of
Commagene had a connection by affinity with the Seleucidae. Consult upon this
matter the inscriptions, Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 362; Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii.
n. 552; Corp. Inscr. Atticarum, t. iii. 1, n. 557; and especially Le Bas and
Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. 2, n. 136d, from Ephesus. The latter tells of
a βασιλέα Ἀντίοχον Θεὸν Δίκαιον Ἐπιφανῆ Φιλορωμαῖον καὶ Φιλέλληνα, τὸν ἐγ
βασιλέως Μιθραδάτου Καλλινίκου καὶ βασιλίσσης Λαοδίκης Θεᾶς Φιλαδέλφου τῆς ἐγ
βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου Ἐπιφανοῦς Φιλομήτορος Καλλινίκου. This same Antiochus, with
the same genealogy, appears also in an inscription communicated by Puchstein
(Puchstein, Bericht über eine Reise in Kurdistan, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner
Akademie, 1883, p. 49 ff.). The Antiochus to whom both inscriptions refer was
undoubtedly a king of Commagene; the other Antiochus, the father of Laodice, was
evidently a Seleucid, according to Waddington, Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus;
according to Mommsen, Antiochus VIII. Grypos. The latter conjecture is certainly
correct, for Antiochus VIII. Grypos is designated on coins Ἐπιφανής, is called
by Porphyry and Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 2, Φιλομήτωρ, and the cognomen
Καλλίνικος, which Mommsen was not then able to authenticate, has also been since
confirmed by an inscription from Delos (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique,
t. viii. 1884, p. 105 sq.). His daughter Laodice is clearly identical with the
Laodice mentioned by Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4 (Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s,
1888, p. 80, Anm.). Compare generally: Mommsen, Die Dynastie von Commagene
(Mittheilungen des deutschen archäologischen Institutes in Athen, Bd. i. 1876,
pp. 27-39). Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 398
ff.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: � 4. RELIGIOUS DESTITUTION AND REVIVAL, B.C. 175-165
========================================================================

§ 4. RELIGIOUS DESTITUTION AND REVIVAL, B.C. 175-165 SOURCES 1 Maccabees 1-4 2
Maccabees 4-11. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5-7. Epitome of it in Zonaras, Annal. iv.
19-20. The Book of Daniel, chap. 11:21-45, and Jerome’s Commentary (Opp., ed.
Vallarsi, v. 711-724). Some facts collected from Megillath Taanith in
Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 59-63. LITERATURE The works already
mentioned in p. 170 on Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe,
Stark, etc. Treatises and Commentaries on the Books of the Maccabees, by Wace,
Birrell (Apocrypha, with introd. notes, etc., New York 1880), Wernsdorff,
Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, etc. Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. 286-306.
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 Aufl.), iv. 219-261. Hitzig,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 367-395. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. ii.
2, pp. 268-352. Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments, §
451-460. Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissensch. i. 1 (2 Aufl.),
art “Antiochus IV.” Rossmann, Die makkabäische Erhebung. Vortag. Jena 1860.
Hoffmann (John Fried.), Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, König von Syrien. Leipzig 1873.
Wiederholt, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes nach der Weissagung, Dan. xi. 21, xii. 3,
und der Geschichte (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1874, pp. 567-631). Menke’s
Bibelatlas, Bl. IV. Specialkarten über “Judäa und Phönicien zur Zeit des
Antiochus Epiphanes.” Since the conquests of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the
Jewish people had lost their political independence. The northern kingdom of the
ten tribes had been overthrown by the Assyrians, the southern kingdom of Judah
by the Chaldeans. The sovereignty had passed from the Chaldeans to the Persians,
and from the Persians, after a supremacy of two centuries, to Alexander the
Great.[98] In the wild commotions of the Diadochean period, Palestine formed a
main object of strife between Ptolemy Lagus and his opponents, and was therefore
sometimes under one, sometimes under another master. With short intervals it
continued throughout the third century under the sway of the Ptolemies. But in
the beginning of the second century, Antiochus the Great succeeded in
permanently securing possession of Phoenicia and Palestine. In place of the
Ptolemies, the Seleucidae now became the suzerains of the Jewish people.[99]
[98] According to Josephus, Antiq. xi. 8. 4-5, Alexander is said to have made a
sacrifice in Jerusalem. The story in its details perhaps is unhistorical. The
thing is not, however, in itself impossible. Compare generally: Flathe,
Geschichte Macedonicus, i. 310 ff. Henrichsen, Das Verhältniss der Juden zu
Alexander dem Grossen (Studien und Kritiken, 1871, pp. 458-480). Blümmer,
Alexander der Grosse in Jerusalem, Festschr. Büdingen 1872. Reuss, Geschichte
der heil. Schriften A. T.’s, § 426.—Also the later Jewish legends have much to
say about Alexander. See Vogelstein, Beiträge zur Alexandersage (Monatsschr. für
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, Bd. xv. 1866, pp. 121-134, 161-178).
Donath, Die Alexandersage in Talmud und Midrasch mit Bücksicht auf Josephus
Flavius, Pseudo-Callisthenes und die mohammedanische Alexandersage, Fulda 1873
(Rostocker Dissert.). Hamburger, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii.
art. “Alexander der Grosse.” Lévi, La légende d’Alexandre dans le Talmud (Revue
des études juives, t. ii. 1881, pp. 293-300). Lévi, Les traductions hebraïques
de l’histoire légendaire d’Alexandre (Revue des études juives, t. iii. 1881, pp.
238-275). Lévi, La légende d’Alexandre dans le Talmud et le Midrasch (Revue des
études juives, t. vii. 1883, pp. 78-93). Lévi, Le voyage d’Alexandre au Paradis
(Revue des études juives, t. xii. 1886, p. 117 sq.). ס׳ תולדות אלכסנדר, Hebrew
Text with Introduction by Lévi, Paris, Durlacher, 1887 (see Revue des études
juives, t. xiv. 1887, p. 299 sq.). [99] See further particulars in the
above-named works on Syrian history. Stark has clearly proved (Gaza, pp. 403
ff., 423 ff.) that after the battle of Panias, in B.C. 198, Phoenicia and
Palestine continued permanently under the dominion of the Seleucidae. Even in
the beginning of the Persian domination the Jews had resolved to organize
themselves anew as a religious and political community. But the form in which
the Jewish commonwealth was restored after the exile was essentially different
from that which prevailed before. It was from this time forward a government of
priests. As they were preeminently religious interests that had given the
impulse to the reconstruction, so also the form of the new commonwealth was more
that of a religious than of a political association. The priests had in it a
predominating influence, at least from the time of Ezra. Indeed, a priest stood
at the head of the political organization. For the so-called high priest was not
by any means simply the supreme director of worship, but was at the same time
also the supreme head of the State, in so far as civil authority was not
exercised by the great king and his officers. The rank of high priest was held
for life, and was hereditary.[100] Alongside of him, probably even during the
Persian period, and in any case from the beginning of the Greek domination,
stood a council of elders, the γερουσία, with the high priest at its head as its
executive organ. How far administration and legislation lay in the hands of this
native board, and how far these were exercised by the Persian and Greek
suzerains, cannot now be determined with any certainty. Under the Greek
suzerains the political independence of the Jewish people could not be less, but
probably greater, than it had been before (compare generally, § 23. 3). [100]
See the list of high priests from Joshua, the contemporary of Zerubbabel, down
to Jaddua, in Nehemiah 12:10-11. Jaddua was a contemporary of Alexander the
Great. (Josephus, Antiq. xi. 7. 2, 8. 7). The successors of Jaddua, according to
Josephus, were:— Onias I., son of Jaddua (Antiq. xi. 8. 7), or, according to
1Ma_12:7; 1Ma_8:20, a contemporary of King Areus of Sparta, B.C. 309-265. Simon
I. the Just, son of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 2. 4. Compare Div. ii. vol. i.
355). Eleasar, brother of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 2. 4), according to the
book of Aristeas, a contemporary of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, B.C. 283-247.
Manasseh, uncle of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 4. 1). Onias II., son of Simon the
Just (Antiq. xii. 4. 1-2), of the age of Ptolemy III. Euergetes, B.C. 247-222.
Simon II., son of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 4. 10). Compare Sir_1:1 ff.;
3Ma_2:1. Onias III., son of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 4. 10), of the time of
Seleucus IV. and Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 175, and hence referred to in the
early history of the Maccabean struggle; 2 Maccabees 3-4; Josephus, Antiq. xii.
5. 1. The high priest Hezekiah, spoken of by the Pseudo-Hecataeus (quoted in
Josephus, contra Apion. i. 22) as the contemporary of Ptolemy Lagus, is not
reckoned by Josephus in the list given in his history.—The Christian chroniclers
(Eusebius, Demonstr. evang., ed. Gaisford, viii. 2. 62-72; Eusebius, Chron., ed.
Schoene, ii. 114-124; Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 302-339, 356 sq., 390
sq.; Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 484, 512, 525; Χρονογραφεῖον σύντομον in
Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i. Append. col. 95; and others) have devoted
special attention to these Jewish high priests, and have thus, in so far as
their chronistic requirements went, fixed precisely the period of each. But it
now appears from their statements that they had at their command no other
authority than Josephus. Their conclusions are therefore purely arbitrary, and
every attempt to determine the chronology accurately with their aid is
necessarily doomed to failure. This applies specially to the endeavour of
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israels, ii. 368 ff., who makes use even of the
Pseudo-Philonic “Breviarium temporum,” on which compare Fabricius, Bibliotheca
graec., ed. Harles, iv. 743, and the article on Annius of Viterbo, by Fabricius,
Biblioth. graec. 1 Augs. xiv. 211-219, and Wachler in Ersch and Gruber’e Allgem.
Encyclop. Section I. Bd. iv. pp. 183-185.—A thoroughgoing examination of the
lists of high priests in the Byzantine Chroniclers is made by Gelzer, Julius
Africanus, Bd. ii. 1885, pp. 170-176. The extent of the Jewish commonwealth,
which still possessed a relatively considerable measure of independence, was
probably limited to Judea proper, that is, the province lying south of Samaria,
which in its range corresponded nearly with the kingdom of Judah of earlier
days. All the coast cities were excluded from it, for these were mainly occupied
by a heathen population, and formed independent communities by themselves (see §
23. 1). How far those Gentile districts extended inland may be seen from this,
that even Ekron and Gazara did not belong to Judea. Ekron was first united with
the Jewish domain and Judaized in the time of Jonathan (1Ma_10:88-89), Gazara
first in the time of Simon (1Ma_13:43-48). On the situation of these towns, see
below under § 6 and 7. Also the whole of the land east of the Jordan was
excluded from the Jewish territory. We find there partly Hellenistic communities
(see § 23. 1), partly independent tribes, under native rulers.[101] In the
country west of the Jordan, towards the end of the third and the beginning of
the second century, “Judea” and “Samaria” formed each a separately administered
province alongside of “Coele-Syria” and “Phoenicia.”[102] Galilee was not
reckoned as a distinct province, and so it belonged to one of the four above
named, but scarcely to Judea, toward which it did not conveniently lie. Now the
Pseudo-Hecataeus, indeed, expressly affirms that Alexander the Great gave to the
Jews Samaria as a district free from tribute.[103] But even if this statement
were more credible than it is, it could not by any means apply to the period of
the Seleucid rule, since even under the Maccabean high priest Jonathan it is
related as a proof of the special favour of King Demetrius II., that he took
three νομοί from Samaria and united them with Judea, and made over this whole
district to the Jews free of tribute.[104] Ordinarily, therefore, the territory
of the Jewish high priest embraced only Judea. And that, too, Judea in the
narrower sense, without Galilee, for this is evidently the meaning of the
passages quoted from the First Book of Maccabees.[105] [101] One such who may be
cited as an example was that Timothy, ἡγούμενος of the Ammonites, against whom
Judas Maccabees fought (1Ma_5:8; 1Ma_5:11; 1Ma_5:34; 1Ma_5:37; 1Ma_5:40). For it
is extremely improbable, from what we are told in 1Ma_9:35-42 of the
independence of the tribes living there, that he was a general set over the
Ammorites by the King of Syria.—Also Aretas, the τύραννος of the Nabateans
(2Ma_5:8), belonged to that same class. [102] This is made quite evident from
the two thoroughly harmonizing accounts given in Josephus, Antiq. xii. 4. 1 and
xii. 4. 4. [103] Pseudo-Hecataeus in Josephus, contra Apionem, ii. 4: τὴν
Σαμαρεῖτιν χὡραν προσέθηκεν ἔχειν αὐτοῖς ἀφορολόγητον. [104] Macc. 11:34:
ἑστάκαμεν οὖν αὐτοῖς τά τε ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ τοὺς τρεῖς νομοὺς Ἀφαίρεμα καὶ
Λύδδα καὶ Ῥαμαθέμ· προσετέθησαν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος. Compare 11:28.
This present was promised before, but not bestowed (1Ma_10:30; 1Ma_10:38); it
was confirmed by Antiochus VI. (1Ma_11:57). [105] “Judea” when mentioned
alongside of “Samaria” can only mean Judea in the narrower sense, that is, the
southern province. This also is in accordance with the linguistic usage of the
First Book of Maccabees, in which, so far as I see, always Judea proper is meant
by γῆ Ἰούδα or Ἰουδαία (so e.g. 1Ma_12:46-52). The linguistic usage prevailing
in Josephus, in the New Testament, and in the Mishna, which distinguishes “
Judea,” “Samaria,” and “Galilee” as three separate districts (see § 22. 1), was
thus already firmly maintained in the Maccabean age. But if we admit that in the
quoted passages (1Ma_10:30; 1Ma_10:38; 1Ma_11:28; 1Ma_11:34) Judea in the
narrower sense is meant, then this result follows, that not only before the
beginning of the Maccabean rising, but also even under the Maccabean high
priests Jonathan and Simon, the province of Galilee did not belong to the
territory of the Jewish high priest. For it is always only Judea that is spoken
of in the three νομοί of Samaria attached thereto. It is only in 1Ma_10:30 that
three νομοί of “Samaria and Galilee” are said to have been united with Judea.
But, on the one hand, that scheme was never fully carried out; and so even here,
in accordance with the exact parallels in other passages, only the three νομοί
in the south of Samaria can be meant. There has therefore been either an
interpretation of Γαλιλαίας, or “Samaria and Galilee” are taken together to mean
the province of Samaria. Most probably it was first through the conquests of
John Hyrcanus and his successors that Samaria and Scythopolis, as also Galilee,
were united politically with the Jewish domain. The spread of the Jewish
population was by no means limited to the bounds of Judea in the political
sense. Even the circumstance that during the Maccabean age stress was laid upon
the union with Judea of the three southern districts of Samaria (1Ma_11:34;
Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim), leads to the conjecture that the population
within those districts was mainly Jewish,—in other words, that they had not with
the schismatical Samaritans offered sacrifices on Mount Gerizim, but in
Jerusalem, and that they had maintained religious fellowship with the Jews
there.[106] But also in the province of Galilee, and even in Gilead, in the
country east of the Jordan, at the beginning of the second century, a
considerable number of Jews must have resided, who maintained religious
intercourse with Jerusalem; for it was one of the first acts of the Maccabee
brothers, after the restoration of the Jewish worship, to bring help to their
brethren in the faith in Galilee and Gilead who had been oppressed by the
heathen : Simon went to Galilee, Judas to Gilead (1Ma_5:9-54). The manner in
which they afforded this help shows us, however, on the other hand, that then
the general mass of the population of those districts was no longer Jewish. For
neither Simon nor Judas took the provinces as such under Jewish protection. But
after Simon had defeated the heathen in Galilee, he led all the Jews away out of
Galilee and Arbatta (properly עֲרָבוֹת, the lower districts of the Jordan),
together with their wives and children and all their possessions, into Judea, in
order that there he might keep them in safety (1Ma_5:23).[107] In precisely the
same way Judas dealt with those Jews that lived in Gilead, after he had
overthrown the heathen there (1Ma_5:45-54). It therefore seems quite evident
that the Jews in Galilee and Gilead formed then a “dispersion” among the
heathen; and the first Maccabees made no sort of attempt to Judaize those
provinces, but, on the contrary, withdrew from them their Jewish population. It
was John Hyrcanus, or one of his successors (probably not before Aristobulus
I.), who first introduced that policy. [106] Observe how in 1Ma_11:34, “doing
sacrifice at Jerusalem” is brought forward as a characteristic of the position
of those who are free from tribute. [107] a On the meaning of 1Ma_5:23, Keil
remarks in his Commentary: “In τοὺς ἐν Γαλ. κ. ἐν Ἀοβ. it is not implied that he
transferred all the faithful Jews of those districts to Judea, for he does not
use πάντας. Josephus, in Antiq. xii. 8. 2, has therefore applied the words only
to the Jews kept prisoners by the heathens; but for this he has no authority in
the phrase employed. Probably only those are meant who through fear of new
attacks from the heathen wished to settle in Judea, and had made this wish known
to Simon.” This may be so far correct, but no one would be compelled to settle
there. But undoubtedly all are meant who were really zealous adherents of the
Jewish faith. This is proved by the full parallel report of the proceedings of
Judas in Gilead (1Ma_5:45-54); the omission of the word πάντας in 1Ma_5:23
naturally makes no difference. Compare J. D. Michaelis, Deutsche Uebersetzung
des ersten Buchs der Maccabäer, p. 108: “As I understand the verse, its meaning
is: Simon took all the Jews dwelling in Galilee with him into Judea; because
after his withdrawal they would have been exposed to new dangers and
persecutions from the heathen. So also did the Syrian interpreter understand
it.” Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch, p. 83: “The verse makes no other impression
than this, that Judas took with him into Judea the Jews true to the law whom he
found in Galilee and round the Jordan, in order that they might not be exposed
to new troubles on his departure.” The internal development of Judaism from the
time of Ezra to that of the Maccabees, or even down to the compilation of the
Talmud, can be sketched only in very general outlines. The starting-point,
indeed, is known to us in fuller detail—the priestly law introduced by Ezra in
the fifth century before Christ; and then, again, the culmination: the
codification of the Jewish law in the Mishna in the second century after Christ.
Between these two points lies a period of six centuries. What stage of
development had Judaism reached at the outbreak of the Maccabean revolution ? We
can only say, it was already on the way to those results which are set before us
in the Mishna; and the Maccabean age was simply the period of the greatest
crisis through which it was called to pass during that whole era. The attempt
was made to overthrow the foundations of its earlier development, to convert the
Jewish people to heathenism. The result was that the foundations laid before by
Ezra were now strengthened, and the theoretical elaboration of the law and its
practical applications were prosecuted with glowing enthusiasm. The law which
Ezra had introduced was essentially a ceremonial law. The religion of Israel is
there reduced to strictly legalized forms, in order that it may be made more
secure against the influences of heathenism. In the form of a law given by God
Himself, the Jew was told what he had to do as a faithful servant of Jehovah,
what festivals he should celebrate, what sacrifices he should offer, what
tribute he should pay to the priests who conduct the services, and generally
what religious ceremonies he should perform. Precision in the observance of all
these prescribed rites was to be made henceforth the gauge and measure of piety.
And in order to make this precision as exact as possible, it was necessary that
an authentic interpretation be supplied. A special order under the name of
“Scribes” devoted themselves to the study of the law as a profession, and
engaged upon a subtle and refining exposition of it. But the pious considered it
to be their chief business to fulfil with zeal and conscientiousness the law as
thus expounded. That very considerable progress in this direction had been made
even in the second century before Christ, is distinctly proved by the history of
the Maccabean revolution. There was a religious party which interpreted the
Sabbath command so strictly, that they would rather surrender without a struggle
than infringe upon the observance of the Sabbath by wielding the sword
(1Ma_2:32-38). It also belonged to the ideal of piety, which even the author of
the book of Daniel had already set before the eyes of his comrades in the faith
as an essential condition, that they should not defile themselves with the
eating of the food of the heathen (Daniel 1). But alongside of this legalistic
tendency there were operating in Palestine, from the time of Alexander the
Great, influences of an altogether different kind, which proved the more
decidedly and dangerously hostile to the interests of the law and its promoters
the longer they existed. These were the Hellenizing tendencies. It had been the
fond dream of Alexander to found a universal empire, which would be held
together not merely by the unity of the government, but also by the unity of
language, customs, and civilisation. All the Oriental races were to be saturated
with Hellenic culture, and to be bound together into one great whole by means of
this intellectual. force. He therefore took care that always Greek colonists
should directly follow in the steps of his army. New cities were founded,
inhabited only by Greeks, and also in the old cities Greek colonists were
settled. Thus over one half of Asia a network of Greek culture was stretched,
which had as its object the reducing under its influence of the whole
surrounding regions. The successors of Alexander continued his work; and it is a
striking testimony to the power of Greek culture, that it fulfilled in large
measure the mission which Alexander had assigned it. All Western Asia, in fact,
if not among the wide masses of the population, yet certainly among the higher
ranks of society, became thoroughly Hellenized. Even in Palestine about the
beginning of the second century this movement was in full progress. It cannot
indeed be proved that all those cities, which we have come to reckon during the
Roman period as Hellenistic cities (see § 22. 2 and § 23. 1), had been already
Hellenized in the beginning of the Maccabean period. But this may safely be
assumed in regard to the majority of them. Many had Hellenic institutions
introduced by Alexander the Great himself, others by his successors, and
everywhere Greek influence and Greek ideas were promoted.[108] Even in the
pre-Hellenic age, Gaza, as its coins prove, had lively commercial intercourse
with Greece; from the time of its conquest by Alexander it was a Macedonian
arsenal and residence for troops; and Josephus describes it as a πόλις
Ἑλληνίς.[109] Anthedon by its very name betrays its Greek origin. In Ashkelon
coins of Alexander the Great were stamped.[110] Ashdod on its coins, which date
from the age of the Diadochae or even earlier, makes use indeed of the Hebrew
language, but writes the letters in Greek characters (ΙΡ ΑΣΔΩΔ ΑΣΙΝΑ). Joppa is
the old site of the myth of Perseus and Andromeda, and was in the age of the
Diadochae a Macedonian garrison town. Apollonia is manifestly a foundation of
the Greek times. Straton’s Tower has indeed a Greek name, but was really founded
at an earlier date by the Sidonians. On the other hand, Dora was possibly even
in the fifth century before Christ put under tribute by the Athenians. In Acre,
afterwards Ptolemais, as early as the times of Isaeus and Demosthenes, there was
a Greek trading colony. The coins impressed there with the name of Alexander
were already very numerous, and in the age of the Diadochae it was an important
garrison town. The real Hellenizing and refounding of it as Ptolemais was
probably the work of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus.—Along with these coast towns we
must also include a number of inland cities. We know certainly of Samaria that
it was colonized by Alexander. Scythopolis is met with bearing this Greek name
as early as the third century; and even earlier we have Paneion, the grotto at
the source of the Jordan, as the sanctuary of Pan. Along with Scythopolis,
Polybius (v. 70) makes mention of an important city not otherwise known,
Philoteria on the Lake of Gennesaret, in the time of Antiochus the Great, B.C.
218, which, like the similarly named city in Upper Egypt, had its name probably
from a sister of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus.[111]—Of the cities of the countries
east of the Jordan, Hippus and Gadara were distinctly reckoned πόλεις
Ἑλληνίδες.[112] Pella and Dium are denominated Macedonian cities, and were
founded perhaps by Alexander the Great, and at latest during the Diadochean age.
The derivation of the name Gerasa from the γέροντες, the veterans of Alexander
the Great, is probably nothing more than an etymological fancy. This, however,
is certain, that the old capital of the Ammonites was Hellenized by Ptolemy II.
Philadelphus under the name of Philadelphia. And finally, the Second Book of
Maccabees speaks generally of πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες within the boundaries of Judea
(2Ma_6:8). [108] See the proofs given in § 22. 2 and § 23. 1. On the cities
founded by Alexander the Great and his successors, see: Droysen, Geschichte des
Hellenismus, 2 Aufl. Thl. iii. 2, pp. 202 ff., 302 ff. Stark, Gaza und die
philistäische Küste, 447-459. [109] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. For
the rest, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 66 ff. [110] The proof for this and many of
the following statements is given in § 23. 1. [111] On the Philotera of Upper
Egypt (that name is so written), see Strabo, p. 769. Our Philoteria in Palestine
had this name conferred upon it at a later date, and is identical with some town
known formerly under another designation. A trace of its existence is still to
be found in the days of Alexander Jannäus. See § 10 towards the conclusion.
[112] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. Within the encircling network of
Hellenistic cities the small province of Judea kept itself clear of the
influence of Greek customs and ways. There, too, Hellenism encroached more and
more. The indispensable requirements of daily life obliged the Jews to make use
of the universal language of the Greeks. How otherwise would commercial
intercourse with foreign lands have been possible? But with the language came
also the manners and customs, and indeed the whole culture of Greece. In the
beginning of the second century the progress of Hellenism in Palestine must have
already become quite observable. For only thus can we explain how a section of
the people, including the upper classes and the educated, readily gave their
consent to the Hellenizing projects of Antiochus Epiphanes, and even went beyond
him in carrying them out.[113]—Had this process been allowed to go on in its
natural and peaceful course, then the Judaism of Palestine would probably have
in time assumed a form in which it would be scarcely recognisable,—a form even
more syncretistic than that of Philo. For it belonged to the very essence of
Hellenism that it should dominate and colour the modes of religious worship, and
at least clothe them in Grecian garments. We find it so in Syria as well as in
Egypt. Nor would it have happened otherwise in Judea, if matters there had been
permitted to take a smooth course. But the more perfect that legalistic Judaism
had become on the one hand, and the more thoroughly developed the central
principle of Hellenism had grown upon the other, the more decided and
irreconcilable did the opposition between the two appear. Within the circle of
the Jewish people itself there now arose two antagonistic parties: the party
friendly to the Greeks and the party of “the pious” (חֲסִידִים, Ἀσιδαῖοι,
1Ma_2:42; 1Ma_7:13), who held stoutly by the strict ideal of the scribes. But
the whole preliminary history of the Maccabean revolution makes it evident that
already the adherents of the former party were in the majority. Everything
seemed conspiring to present before Hellenism an open door. It appeared as if
nothing else was now left for “the pious” but to form themselves into a sect.
But just then a powerful reaction set in, brought about by the attempt of an
unintelligent despot, Antiochus Epiphanes, prematurely and with rude violence to
force upon them Hellenic institutions. The Jewish worship was to be completely
abolished, purely Greek rites were to be introduced, all Jewish ceremonies were
all at once to be forbidden. It was just the extreme and radical character of
this attempt that saved Judaism. For now not only the strict party of Chasidim,
but the whole mass of the people, was roused to do battle for the old faith. And
the further development of events led to the complete expulsion of Hellenism
from Jewish soil, at least in matters of religion. So far as our information
reaches, this is the only example of an Oriental religion completely
emancipating itself from the influence of Hellenism. [113] On the spread of
Greek culture in Palestine in the times of the Maccabees, and that even among
men well disposed towards Judaism, compare: Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor
(1875), pp. 127-129. Freudenthal calls attention particularly to the following
points. 1. The Book of Aristeas takes for granted that the Palestinian scholars,
who had been summoned to Alexandria for the translation of the Pentateuch, were
skilled in Greek. 2. The grandson of Jesus Sirach, who translated his proverbs
into Greek, was a native of Palestine. The Greek translator of the book of
Esther was also a Palestinian, according to the representation of the book in
the Septuagint.—But further, it seems quite certain that the Jewish Hellenist
Eupolemus, of whose works fragments are still extant (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp.
203-206), is to be identified with that Eupolemus of Palestine whom Judas
Maccabeus sent as leader of a Jewish embassy to Rome (1Ma_8:17; 2Ma_4:11).
Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the Great, had succeeded his brother
Seleucus IV. in the government of Syria, after that king had been murdered by
his minister Heliodorus, and held possession of the throne from B.C. 175 till
B.C. 164.[114] He was by nature a genuine despot, eccentric and undependable,
sometimes extravagantly liberal, and fraternizing with the common people in an
affected manner; at other times cruel and tyrannical, as he showed himself in
his treatment of Judea. The picture drawn of him by Polybius describes him under
the more pleasing aspect. This is the sketch he gives:[115]— [114] With
reference to the particular circumstances under which Antiochus IV. came to the
throne, see Appian. Syr. 45; Johannes Antioch. in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec.
iv. 558. [115] Polyb. xxvi. 10: Ὡς ἀποδιδράσκων ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ἐνίοτε τοὺς
θεράποντας, οὗ τύχοι τῆς πόλεως ἀλύων ἐφαίνετο δεύτερος καὶ τρίτος. Μάλιστα δὲ
πρὸς τοῖς ἀργυροκοπείοις εὑρίσκετο καὶ χρυσοχοείοις, εὑρητιλογῶν καὶ φιλοτεχνῶν
πρὸς τοὺς τορευτὰς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τεχνίτας. Ἔπειτα καὶ μετὰ δημοτῶν ἀνθρώπων
συγκαταβαίνων ὡμίλει ᾧ τύχοι, καὶ μετὰ τῶν παρεπιδημούντων ξένων συνέπινε τῶν
εὐτελεστάτων. Ὅτε δὲ τῶν νεωτέρων αἴσθοιτο τινας συνευωχουμένους ὅπου δήποτε,
οὐδεμίαν ἔμφασιν ποιήσας παρῆν ἐπικωμάζων μετὰ κερατίου καὶ συμφωνίας, ὥστε τοὺς
πολλοὺς διὰ τὸ παράδοξον ἀνισταμένους φεύγειν. Πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τὴν βασιλικὴν
ἀποθέμενος ἐσθῆτα τήβενναν ἀναλαβὼν περιῄει κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἀρχαιρεσιάζων, καὶ
τοὺς μὲν δεξιούμενος, τοὺς δὲ καὶ περιπτύσσων παρεκάλει φέρειν αὐτῷ τὴν ψῆφον,
ποτὲ μὲν ὡς ἀγορανόμος γένηται, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ ὡς δήμαρχος. Τυχὼν δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ
καθίσας ἐπὶ τὸν ἐλεφάντινον δίφρον κατὰ τὸ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἔθος, διήκουε τῶν κατὰ
τὴν ἀγορὰν γιγνομένων συναλλαγμάτων καὶ διέκρινε μετὰ πολλῆς σπουδῆς καὶ
προθυμίας. Ἐξ ὧν εἰς ἀπορίαν ἦγε τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὰφελῆ
τινὰ αὐτὸν εἶναι ὑπελάμβανον, οἱ δὲ μαινόμενον. Καὶ γὰρ περὶ τὰς δωρεὰς ἦν
παραπλήσιος· ἐδίδου γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ἀστραγάλους δορκαδείους, τοῖς δὲ
φοινικοβαλάνους, ἄλλοις δὲ χρυσίον. Καὶ ἐξ ἀπαντήσεως δέ τισιν ἐντυγχάνων, οὓς
μὴ ἑοοάκει ποτέ, ἐδίδου δωρεὰς ἀπροσδοκήτους. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς πρὸς τὰς πόλεις θυοίαις
καὶ ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς τιμαῖς πάντας ὑπερέβαλε τοὺς βεβασιλευκότας. Τοῦτο δʼ
ἄν τις τεκμήραιτο ἔκ τε τοῦ παρʼ Ἀθηναιοις Ὀλυμπιείου καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἐν Δήλῳ
βωμὸν ἀνδοιάντων. Ἐλοῦτο δὲ κἀν τοῖς δημοσίοις βαλανείοις, ὅτε δημοτῶν ἦ τὰ
βαλανεῖα πεπληρωμένα, κεραμίων εἰσφερομένων αὐτῷ μύρων τῶν πολυτελεστάτων. Ὅτε
καί τινος εἰπόντος, Μακάριοί ἐστε ὑμεῖς οἱ βασιλεῖς καὶ οἱ τοιούτοις χρώμενοι
καὶ ὀδωδότες ἡδύ, καὶ μηδὲν τὸν ἄνθρωπον προσειπών, ὅπου ἐκεῖνος τῇ ἑξῆς ἐλοῦτο,
ἐπεισελθὼν ἐποίησεν αὐτοῦ καταχυθῆναι τῆς κεφαλῆς μέγιστον κεράμιον
πολυτελεστάτου μύρου, τῆς στακτῆς καλουμένης, ὡς πάντας ἀναστάντας κυλίεσθαι
λουμένους τῷ μύρῳ, καὶ διὰ τὴν γλισχρότητα καταπίπτοντας γέλωτα παρέχειν,
καθάπερ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν βασιλέα. “Sometimes he would slip away from the palace and
would appear at one time here, at another time there, in the city, sauntering
along in company with one or two. Very often he was to be found in the workshops
of the silversmiths and goldsmiths, where he would chat away with the moulders
and other workmen, and seek to impress them with his love of art. Then he would
condescend to familiar intercourse with any sort of people he chanced to come
across, and would carouse with the meanest strangers who might happen to be
present. But when he learned that young folks anywhere were to have a drinking
bout, he would appear among them unexpectedly with horn and bagpipe, so that
most, through sudden fright, would rush precipitately away. Often, too, he laid
aside his royal robes, and, dressed in a toga, would go to the forum as a
suppliant for an office. He would then seize some by the hand, others he would
embrace, and entreat them to give him their vote, sometimes for the office of
aedile, sometimes for that of tribune of the people. If he succeeded in
obtaining the office, and was seated according to Roman custom in the ivory
chair of state, he would take into consideration the cases that were to be
adjudicated upon in the forum, and give his decisions with much earnestness and
conscientiousness. Rational people, therefore, were at a loss what to think
about him. Some regarded him as a simple and homely man, others looked upon him
as crazed. He acted in a similar manner in the bestowal of his gifts. To some he
gave bone dice, to others dates, to others gold. But if perchance he should meet
any one whom he had never seen before, he would give him unexpected presents.
But in the sacrifices which he had offered up in cities, and in the honours
which he gave to the gods, he went beyond all other kings. As a proof of this we
may point to the Temple of Zeus at Athens, and the images around the altar at
Delos. He was wont also to bathe in the public baths, when they were quite full
of their habitual visitors, where vessels of the most costly perfumes would be
brought to him. When somebody once said to him: ‘Happy art thou, O king, since
thou hast such perfumes and givest forth such fragrance;’ he went on the
following day, without having said anything to the man, to the place where he
bathed, and showered upon his head the contents of a large vase of that most
precious ointment called stacte; whereupon all made a rush forward in order to
wash themselves with the ointment But on account of the slipperiness of the
pavement many fell, amid shouts of laughter, the king himself joining in the
mirth.”—Thus far Polybius. Diodorus and Livy give similar accounts. They give
special prominence to his love of pomp and his munificence. Brilliant
spectacles, magnificent buildings, kingly presents, these were the sort of
things in which he delighted.[116] But in everything he was inclined to rush to
extravagant extremes, so that Polybius already styled him ἐπιμανής rather than
ἐπιφανής.[117] [116] Compare generally, Polybius, xxviii. 18. 3, xxix. 9. 13,
xxxi. 3 f.—Diodorus, xxix. 32, xxxi. 16 (ed. Müller).—Livy, xli. 30.—Ptolemy
VII. in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 186.—Heliodorus in Müller, Fragm. hist.
graec. iv. 425. [117] Athenaeus, lib. x. p. 439 (in the editions of Polybius,
xxvi. 10): Πολύβιος ὲν τῇ ἕκτῃ καὶ εἰκοστῇ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν καλεῖ αὐτὸν Ἐπιμανῆ καὶ
οὐκ Επιφανῆ διὰ τὰς πράξεις. Such being the character of the man, we need not
trouble ourselves seeking to discover any very deep motives for his proceedings
against Judea. Tacitus has, upon the whole, given a fair estimate of them when
he said: Antiochus strove to overthrow the superstition of the Jews and to
introduce among them Greek customs, but was prevented by the war with the
Parthians “from improving the condition of this most detestable race.”[118] His
endeavour was to advance everywhere the lustre of Greek culture. In Judea a
section of the people declared in favour of his plans. He was naturally prepared
to give that party his support, and to make over to it the government of Judea.
But when the Jewish people organized an opposition to these schemes, this roused
the capricious humour of the despot. He first of all chastised the refractory
people by plundering the rich treasures of their temple, which must have been
very enticing to the king, now sorely in need of money. Then, as the opposition
still continued, he proceeded to radical and sweeping measures. The Jewish
worship was completely suspended, all Jewish ceremonies were strictly forbidden,
and with rude violence a thoroughgoing Hellenizing process was attempted. [118]
Tacitus, Historia, v. 8: rex Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum
dare adnisus, quominus taeterrimam gentem in melius mutaret, Parthorum bello
prohibitus est. At the head of the party in Judea attached to the old faith at
the time when Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne, stood the high priest of
that day, Onias III. The leader of the party friendly to the Greeks was his own
brother Jesus, or, as he is better known under his Greek name, Jason.[119] In
Jerusalem the inclination in favour of Greek customs was already so strong that
the friends of the Greeks could venture upon the attempt to seize the government
for themselves, and to carry out their plans by force. Jason promised the king a
great sum of money,—whether as a gift bestowed once and for all, or as a regular
tribute, is not very clear,—if he would transfer to him the high-priesthood,
permit him to erect a gymnasium and an ephebeion, and finally allow “the
inhabitants of Jerusalem to be enrolled as Antiocheans,” τοὺς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις
Ἀντιοχεῖς ἀναγράψαι, that is, grant them the title and privileges of citizens of
Antioch.[120] Antiochus was quite ready to concede all this. Onias was driven
out, and Jason was installed as high priest.[121] The Hellenizing process was
now carried on with energy. There is indeed no mention of any attack having been
made upon the Jewish religion. But in every other direction he put down “the
institutions that were according to the law, and brought up new customs against
the law” (2Ma_4:11). A gymnasium was erected below the castle; the young men of
Jerusalem exercised themselves in the gymnastic arts of the Greeks. The very
priests forsook their service at the altar and took part in the games of the
palaestra. The contempt for Jewish customs went so far that many sought
artificially to remove the traces of their circumcision.[122] With a
latitudinarianism of a genuinely Hellenistic type, Jason sent a contribution to
the sacrificial festival of Hercules at the games celebrated every fourth year
at Tyre. This, however, was so offensive to the Jews entrusted with the carrying
of it, that they entreated that the money should be applied to building
ships.[123] [119] That Jason was originally called Jesus. is mentioned by
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1. [120] On the meaning of this formula, see
commentaries by Grimm and Keil on 2Ma_4:9. Compare also the history of
Ptolemais, § 23 (Div. ii. vol. i. p. 90 f.). [121] 2Ma_4:7-10.—Josephus tells
the story differently. For while, according to 2 Maccabees, Onias had been
deposed and subsequently, even after Jason had himself lost the high-priesthood,
murdered (2Ma_4:33-34), Josephus simply says that after the death of Onias his
brother Jesus obtained the rank of high priest (Antiq. xii. 5. 1: ἀποθανόντος
Ὀνἱου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην Ἀντίοχος δίδωσιν).
But the narrative of Josephus is evidently given in a summary manner and
inexactly; and the representation of 2 Maccabees is confirmed by Daniel 9:26;
Daniel 11:22, since these passages probably refer to Onias III. [122] See
generally, 2Ma_4:11-17; 1Ma_1:11-15; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1. Removing the
traces of circumcision (1Ma_1:15, ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς ἀκροβυστίας) was done with a
view to escape the reproach of the heathen in the baths and in the exercise
grounds. It seems, according to various reports, to have become still more
common in later times. See especially, Paulus on 1 Corinthians 7:18. Epiphanius,
De mensuris et ponderibus, § 16. Jerome (adv. Jovinian. i. 21, Opp. ed.
Vallarsi, ii. 270; comm. in Jes. lii. 1=Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iv. 601 sq.) is wrong
in declaring the operation impossible. Compare generally, Buxtorf, Lex. Chald.
col. 1274 sqq., under the word מָשׁוּךְ. Lossius, De epispasmo Judaico (also in
Ugolini Thes. t. xxii.). Groddek, De Judaeis praeputium attrahentibus (in
Schoettgen, Horae hebr. i. 1159-1177, and in Ugolini Thes. xxii.). Lightfoot,
Horae hebr. on 1 Corinthians 7:18 (Opp. ii. 899). Wolf, Curae phil. in Nov.
Test. on 1 Corinthians 7:18. Wetstein, Nov. Test. on 1 Corinthians 7:18.
Fabricius, Biblioth. graec., ed. Harles, iii. 695, on Symmachus. Lübkert, Der
jüdische ἐπισπασμός (Studien und Kritiken, 1835, pp. 657-664). Winer,
Realwörterbuch, art. Beschneidung, at the end. Grimm. Commentary on 1Ma_1:15.
Steiner in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, i. 410. [123] 2Ma_4:18-20. For three years,
from B.C. 174 to B.C. 171, Jason administered his office after this fashion.
Then he fell, through the machinations of a rival, who continued his work in a
manner still more contemptible. Menelaus, by promising still larger gifts of
money, was able to bring about Jason’s overthrow, and to secure the transference
to himself of the high priest’s office.[124] He roused against himself the
bitter animosity of the people by appropriating the treasures of the temple. He
also was the instigator of the murder of the former high priest Onias III., who
had sought the asylum of the sanctuary at Daphne, from which, however, he was
decoyed and treacherously murdered.[125] [124] 2Ma_4:23-27. According to
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1, consult also xv. 3. 1, xix. 6. 2, Menelaus was
Jason’s brother. But this is in contradiction to the Second Book of Maccabees,
which seems generally at this point to be pretty accurately informed. [125] See
generally, 2Ma_4:27-50. Meanwhile Jason had not abandoned his claims to the
high-priesthood. In B.C. 170, when Antiochus was engaged upon his expedition
against Egypt, he succeeded by a sudden stroke in making himself master of
Jerusalem, and forcing his rival to betake himself for protection to the castle.
This success of Jason was, according to the representation of the Second Book of
Maccabees, the occasion that led to the king’s direct interference against
Jerusalem. Antiochus looked upon the proceeding as a slight to his majesty, and
resolved to chastise the rebellious city.[126] [126] 2Ma_5:1-11. When, toward
the end of B.C. 170, he had returned from Egypt,[127] he marched against
Jerusalem in person with his army, and there gave direction for a terrible
massacre, and plundered the enormous treasures of the Jewish temple, in which he
is said to have received assistance from Menelaus himself. All the valuable
articles, among them the three great golden pieces of furniture in the inner
court of the temple, the altar of incense, the seven-branched candlestick, and
the table of shewbread (on these see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 281 f.), he carried
away with him to Antioch.[128] [127] According to 1Ma_1:20, supported by
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 3, this expedition was made in the Seleucid year 143,
or B.C. 170-169. [128] 1Ma_1:20-24; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 3; 2Ma_5:11-21.—For
the fact of the plundering of the temple, Josephus in Contra Apionem, ii. 7,
refers to the statements of Polybius, Strabo, Nicolaus Damascenus, Timagenes,
Castor, Apollodorus. The cup of sorrow and humiliation for the believing
Israelites, however, had not yet been completely drained, and the worst was yet
to come. Two years later, in B.C. 168, Antiochus undertook another expedition
against Egypt. But this time the Romans took the field against him. The Roman
general, Popilius Laenas, had sent him a decree of senate, in which he was
required, if he were to avoid being regarded as an enemy of Rome, to abandon
once for all his schemes against Egypt; and when Antiochus answered that he
wished time to consider the matter, Popilius gave him that well-known brief
ultimatum, describing a circle round about him with his staff and addressing him
with a determined “ἐνταῦθα βουλεύου.” Antiochus was thus compelled, whether he
would or not, to yield to the demands of the Romans.[129] The result of this
blasting of his plans with regard to Egypt was that Antiochus directed his
energies immediately to a war of extermination against the Jewish religion.[130]
Since nothing more could be done in Egypt, he would carry out all the more
determinedly his schemes in Judea. He sent a chief collector of the tribute to
Judea (his name is not given in 1Ma_1:29, but in 2Ma_5:24 he is called
Apollonius), with orders to Hellenize Jerusalem thoroughly.[131] The Jewish
population which would not yield was treated with great barbarity; the men were
killed, and the women and children sold into slavery. Whoever was able escaped
from the city. In place of the Jewish population thus destroyed, strangers were
brought in as colonists. Jerusalem was to be henceforth a Greek city.[132] In
order that such measures might have enduring effect, the walls of the city were
thrown down; but the old city of David was fortified anew and made into a
powerful stronghold, in which a Syrian garrison was placed. This garrison
remained in possession of the citadel during all the subsequent struggles of the
Maccabees, and maintained the supremacy of the Syrian kings amid all changes.
Simon was the first, twenty-six years after this, in B.C. 142-141, to gain
possession of the citadel, and so to vindicate the independence of the
Jews.[133] [129] Polybius, xxix. 11. Diodorus, xxxi. 2 (ed. Müller). Livy, xlv.
12 Appian, Syriaca, c. 66. Justin, xxxiv. 3. Compare Daniel 11:29 f. [130] This
connection between the failure of the Egyptian campaign and the persecutions in
Palestine is pointed out in Daniel 11:30 f. [131] The sending of this
Apollonius, if we compare 1Ma_1:20; 1Ma_1:54 with 1Ma_1:29, occurred in the
Seleucid year 145, or B.C. 168-167. [132] 1Ma_1:29-40; 2Ma_5:23-26; Josephus,
Antiq. xii. 5. 4.—It is evident from 1Ma_1:38 compared with 1Ma_1:30-32 and
2Ma_5:24, that what was chiefly aimed at was the exterminating of the Jewish
population and the repeopling of the city with Greek or Grecianized inhabitants.
It was therefore quite the same procedure which the Jews themselves carried out
at a later period in Joppa and Gazara (1Ma_13:11; 1Ma_13:43-48). On the
consequences of these measures, see 1Ma_2:18; 1Ma_3:35; 1Ma_3:45. [133] The
ἀκρόπολις of Jerusalem had been already frequently referred to during the
previous years (2Ma_4:12; 2Ma_4:27; 2Ma_5:5). But it was now newly strengthened,
1Ma_1:33-36; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 4, while the walls of the city were thrown
down, 1Ma_1:31. On the taking of this citadel by Simon, see 1Ma_13:49-52; during
the period intervening it is often referred to (1Ma_2:31; 1Ma_3:45; 1Ma_4:2;
1Ma_4:41; 1Ma_6:18-21; 1Ma_6:26; 1Ma_6:32; 1Ma_9:52-53; 1Ma_10:6-9; 1Ma_10:32;
1Ma_11:20 f., 41, 12:36, 13:21).—The situation of this citadel is one of the
most debateable questions in the topography of Jerusalem. But it seems to me an
incontestable result of modern investigations, that it lay on the southern slope
of the eastern hill, therefore to the south of the temple rock. Then the
supposition that it had been built in place of the city of David would be out of
the question (1Ma_1:33; 1Ma_2:31; 1Ma_7:32; 1Ma_14:36). But the city of David,
according to Nehemiah 3:15, lay evidently in the neighbourhood of Siloah,
therefore south of the temple, and indeed not on the great western hill on which
at this day the main part of the city lies, but on a separate eminence of the
rising ground to the east, that is, on the temple rock. For Zion, on which the
city of David lay (2 Samuel 5:7; 1 Kings 8:1), is not, as later Christian
tradition represents it, the west hill, but that same rising ground on which the
temple lay, therefore the east hill. This is confirmed by the usual phraseology
of 1 Maccabees, where “Zion” and “the temple rock” are used as identical terms
(1Ma_4:37-60; 1Ma_5:54; 1Ma_6:48-62; 1Ma_7:33). The evidence afforded by these
statements would long ago have been recognised, were it not that this was
contrary to the geographical distribution of those days. For at present there is
no rising ground visible to the south of the temple site which could have been
suitable for a citadel. But that in earlier times it was otherwise has been
demonstrated by the excavations of Guthe, according to which “a tolerably deep
but not completely traced depression, which runs from north-west to south-east,
turns round the southern spur of the temple rock, so that a fortress on the
ridge of this spur would have a natural protection on all sides” (see Furrer’s
Review of Guthe’s Excavations at Jerusalem, in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung,
1884, p. 278).—The theory here set forth in regard to the situation of the
citadel is opposed by Olshausen, Zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem, Kiel 1833,
p. 6 ff. Caspari, Zion und die Akra der Syrer, in Theol. Stud. und Krit., and
“Chronol. and Geograph. Introduction to Life of Christ,” Edin. 1876, p. 271.
Menke, Bibelatlas (1868), Blatt V. Riess, Tüb. Theolog. Quartalschr. 1870, pp.
181-215, and Biblische Geographie, 1872, pp. 95-97. Klaiber, Zeitschr. des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Bd. iii. 1880, pp. 189-213; iv. 1881, pp. 18-56;
xi. 1888, pp. 1-37. Spiess, Das Jerusalem des Josephus, 1881, pp. 32-42. Guthe,
Zeitschrift des DPV. Bd. v. 1882, pp. 313-332. Mühlau, art. “Zion” in Riehm’s
Wörterbuch. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 267 f. Birch, Palestine
Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1877 ff. Then directly opposed to this
theory: Gatt, Tüb. Theolog. Quartalschr. 1884, pp. 34-84. For other literature
see above, p. 19, and Arnold, art. “Zion” in 1st ed. of Herzog, xviii. 620-622;
and Jerusalem, by Schults in the 2nd edition, vi. 575. Köhler, Lehrbuch der
biblische Geschichte, ii. l, 274. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 1881, p. 177 ff.
Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. p. 318 ff. Milman, History of Christianity,
vol. i. p. 318. The destruction of the Jewish population of Jerusalem was only a
means towards the chief end after which Antiochus was striving. Throughout the
whole land the Jewish religion was to be rooted out, and the worship of the
Greek gods introduced. The observance of all Jewish rites, especially of the
Sabbath and circumcision, was forbidden on the pain of death; the Jewish mode of
worship was abolished. In all the cities of Judea sacrifices were to be offered
to the heathen deities. Officers were sent into all the districts, charged with
the duty of seeing that the commands of the king were strictly obeyed. Wherever
any one showed reluctance, obedience was enforced with violence. Once a month a
rigorous search was instituted: if a copy of the book of the law were found in
the possession of any one, or if any one had had his child circumcised, he was
put to death. In Jerusalem, on the 15th Chislen of the Seleucid year 145, that
is, in December B.C. 168, at the great altar of burnt-offering a pagan altar was
built, and on 25th Chisleu, for the first time, a sacrifice was offered upon it
(1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_1:59; this is “the abomination that maketh desolate,” שִׁקּוּץ
מְשֹׁמֵם or שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם, LXX.: βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, of which the book of
Daniel speaks, Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11). This sacrifice, according to the
account given in the Second Book of Maccabees, was rendered to the Olympic Zeus,
to whom the temple of Jerusalem has been dedicated. The Jews were also compelled
to keep the Dionysiac festival, crowned with ivy, marching in procession as
devotees of Bacchus.[134] [134] See generally: 1Ma_1:41-64; 2Ma_6:1-11.
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 4; Daniel 7:25; Daniel 8:11 f., 9:27, 11:31ff.,
12:11.—The month Chislen of the Seleucid year 145 (1Ma_1:54) is not, as has been
usually assumed, December B.C. 167, but December B.C. 168. The Second Book of
Maccabees relates wonderful stories of the bright martyr courage with which a
certain section of the people firmly adhered to the ancient faith. With
considerable rhetorical extravagance it tells how an old man ninety years of
age, called Eleasar, was tortured; and then also seven brothers, one after
another, suffered before the eyes of their mother, who at last herself likewise
met a martyr’s death.[135] The question of the accuracy of these details must be
left undecided. The fact is that a large circle of the people, notwithstanding
all the violent measures of the persecutors, remained true to the faith and
customs of their fathers. For their encouragement an unknown author, under the
name of Daniel, published a hortatory and consolatory treatise, in which he set
before his fellow-believers, for stimulus and incitement, stories culled from
the history of earlier times, and with confident assurance of faith represents
the speedy overthrow of the heathen rule, and the downfall of the worldly
oppressors of the people of God (Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 44 ff.). The effect of
such a work we can easily conceive must have been very great. [135] 2Ma_6:18 to
2Ma_7:42. This story forms the theme of the Fourth Book of Maccabees, see Div.
ii. vol. iii. pp. 244-248, and has also been treated in the later Jewish
literature; see Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 124. On the
use made of it in Christian ascetical literature, see Div. ii vol. iii. p. 214.
The passive resistance thus shown was soon succeeded by open revolt,—viewed from
a human point of view, a foolhardy enterprise; for how could the small nation of
the Jews secure any permanent advantage over the forces of the king? But
religious enthusiasm waits not to ask about possibilities of success. The
excitement broke forth into revolution in the town of Modein, at the call of a
priest of the order of Joarib, named Mattathias, and his five sons, John, Simon,
Judas, Eleasar, and Jonathan.[136] When the king’s officer had entered that
place, in order to insist upon the presentation of the heathen sacrifice,
Mattathias refused to obey the command. “Though all the nations,” said he, “that
are under the king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the
religion of their fathers, and give consent to his commandments, yet will I and
my sons and my brothers walk in the covenant of our fathers. God forbid that we
should forsake the law and the ordinances.” When he saw a Jew preparing to offer
sacrifice, he rushed forward and slew him upon the altar. He also killed the
king’s commissioner, and levelled the altar to the ground.[137] [136] 1Ma_2:1-5.
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 1.—The name of the place is given in the First Book of
Maccabees, according to the best reading, as Μωδεΐν (so Fritzsche, 1Ma_2:1;
1Ma_2:15; 1Ma_2:23; 1Ma_2:70; 1Ma_13:25; 1Ma_13:30; only in 9:19, Μωδεεΐμ); in
Josephus, ed. Bekker, Antiq. xii. 6. 1, 11. 2, xiii. 6. 5, it is Μωδεεὶ; in Wars
of the Jews, i. 1. 3, it is Μωδεείν. In the Mishna, Pesachim ix. 2 and Chagiga
iii. 5, the reading vacillates between מודיעים and מודיעית, while indeed the
latter form has in both cases a preponderating authority. It may, however, have
arisen out of a misunderstanding occasioned by an emendation. In both passages
מן המודיעים is rendered “from Modiim,” a distance from Jerusalem is represented
as giving release from the discharge of certain legal obligations. It was
therefore assumed that מודיעים was to be taken as an adjective, and the form was
changed accordingly. A man from Modiim is called in Aboth iii. 11, המודעי.
Eusebius writes Μηδεείμ; Jerome, Modeim. In regard to its variations of form, it
may be compared with Sepphoris (צפורין, צפירים, צפירי, see Div. ii. vol. i. p.
136). The plural is formed sometimes in the Aramaic, sometimes in the Hebrew
manner, sometimes in a quite independent and peculiar style.—For determining its
situation the following are decisive:—(1) The fact that the beautiful mausoleum
built there for his parents and four brothers could be seen from the sea
(1Ma_13:27-30); (2) The statement of Eusebius, to whose time the place was still
known, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 281: Μηδεείμ, κώμη πλησίον Διοσπύλεως, ὅθεν
ἧσαν οἱ Μακκαβαῖοι, ὧν καὶ τὰ μνήματα εἰς ἔτι νῦν δείκνυται. So, too, Jerome,
Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 140: Modeim, vicus juxta Diospolim, unde fuerunt
Maccabaei, quorum hodieque ibidem sepulcra monstrantur. It must therefore have
been situated in the neighbourhood of Lydda (Diospolis), and on a higher site,
therefore up toward the mountains. The conjecture, therefore, that it was to be
identified with the Sôba of the present day, two and a half hours’ journey west
of Jerusalem, according to the monkish tradition, cannot be entertained for a
moment (Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 896 ff.). It may rather now be
regarded as certain that the modern village el-Medîjeh, east of Lydda, at the
entrance into the mountain region, marks the spot of the ancient Modein. This
was suggested first of all by the Franciscan, Emmanuel Forner (in le Monde,
1866, quoted by Guérin); then by Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, 1868, p. 99.
Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibel-lexicon, iv. 233. Sandreczki in Ausland, 1871, Nr.
36. Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Samarie, ii. 55-64, 395, 404-413,
415-426; Galilee, i. 46-57. Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch des bibl.
Altertums, p. 1009 f. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, ii. 297, 341-352; and the great English Map, Sheet xiv. [137]
1Ma_2:15-26. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 2. He then fled along with his sons into
the mountains. But soon a terrible disaster proved to him that mere flight meant
nothing less than utter destruction. Multitudes of like-minded men had now
withdrawn into hiding-places in the desert. There they were sought after by a
detachment of the Syrian garrison of Jerusalem, and an attack was made upon them
on a Sabbath day; and since they declined to offer any resistance because of the
Sabbath, they were remorselessly hewn down to the last man, along with their
wives and children.[138] To the vigorous, strong-minded Mattathias such a
martyrdom seemed a poor way of contributing to the cause of God. He and those
about him resolved to proceed to action, and, in case of necessity, not even to
scruple engaging in battle upon the Sabbath day. And now the “Pious,” Ἀσιδαῖοι,
הֲסִידִים, attached themselves to him; that is, those who proved faithful in
their observance of the law, who had hitherto showed their resolution simply in
endurance.[139] Mattathias then gathered together all the men fit for battle,
who were ready to fight for their faith, passed with them up and down through
the country, overturned the altars, slew the apostate Jews, circumcised
uncircumcised children, and gave encouragement to all to engage in open
hostility to the heathen persecutors.[140] [138] 1Ma_2:27-38. Josephus, Antiq.
xii. 6. 2. [139] The reading συναγωγὴ Ἀσιδαίων, 1Ma_2:42, has been rightly
received by Fritzsche into the text. That the Asidaeans were not identical with
the circle of Mattathias has been specially emphasized by Wellhausen in his
Pharisäer und Sadducäer, pp. 78-86. They did indeed make common cause with the
Maccabees, but afterwards they again separated from them (1Ma_7:13). Compare
also Lucius, Der Essenismus, 1881, p. 91 f.; and Div. ii. of this work, vol. ii.
p. 26 ff. The correct view of Wellhausen is adopted by Montet in his Essai sur
les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien, 1883, pp. 139-142, 161 ff.,
especially 177-188.—The word חֲסִידִים frequently occurs in the Old Testament
(e.g. Psalms 30:5; Psalms 31:24; Psalms 37:28), and means simply the “pious;”
but it is used to designate specially those who are peculiarly distinguished for
their piety or rigid observance of the law. So also in the Mishna, Berachoth v.
1; Sukka v. 4; Chagiga ii. 7; Sota iii. 4, ix. 15. It is therefore essentially
the same circle which subsequently received the party name of Pharisees.—Of the
literature we may here mention: Drusius, De Hasidaeis, quorum mentio in libris
Machabaeorum, libellus, 1603. Serarius, Trihaeresion, 1604. Scaliger, Elenchus
Trihaeresii Serarii, 1605 (all three together in: Triglandius, Trium scriptorum
illustrium de tribus Judaeorum sectis syntagma, 2 Bde., Delphis 1703. Compare
the account of the controversy about Daniel in his article “Pharisäer” in Ersch
and Gruber’s Encyclop. sec. iii. Bd. xxii. p. 18). Carpzov, Apparatus
historico-criticus, pp. 165-172. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Bd.
iii. pp. 357 ff., 384, 395 f. Hamburger, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud,
Abth. ii. p. 132 ff., art. “Chassid.” [140] 1Ma_2:39-48. Josephus, Antiq. xii.
6. 2. The work thus begun he was not to be permitted long to carry on. Soon
after the beginning of the revolt, in B.C. 167-166, in the Seleucid year 146
(1Ma_2:70), Mattathias died, after exhorting his sons to continue the work, and
recommending Simon as a man of counsel, and Judas as best qualified to act as
leader in battle. Amid great lamentations he was buried at Modein.[141] [141]
1Ma_2:49-70. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 3-4. And thus now Judas came to the front
as head of the movement. His surname, ὁ Μακκαβαῖος, from which the whole party
has received the name of Maccabees, was probably intended to designate him as
the vigorous, sharp-beating warrior, from מַקָּבָה, “the hammer.”[142] “In his
acts he was like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp roaring for his prey.” Thus the
First Book of Maccabees (3:4) characterizes him a hero of chivalry, bold and
powerful, not waiting to ask about the possibility of success, but
enthusiastically sacrificing his goods and his blood in a noble cause.[143] The
triumphs which he achieved could indeed, in presence of such a terrible array of
hostile forces, only be temporary. The cause which he represented must certainly
have been lost if it had to depend only on the sword. [142] On the various
interpretations of the name, see Conrad Iken, De Juda Maccabaeo (in Symbolae
literariae, t. i. pars 1, Bremae 1744, pp. 170-194); Winer, RWB. i. 631 f., art.
“Judas;” Grimm, Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. ix. f. The derivation which
prevailed in earlier times, especially during the seventeenth century, from the
initial letters of the words בָּאֵלִם יְהוָה מִי כָמֹכָה (Exodus 15:11), would
have deserved serious examination if the word had first of all been used as the
secret watchword of the party, as ἰχθύς was among the early Christians. But it
was in the first instance the surname of Judas (ὁ Μακκαβαῖος). In modern times
it has been usually explained as meaning מַקָּבָה, “hammer.” Against this
derivation Curtiss in his work, The Name Machabee, Leipzig 1876 (compare
Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1876, 436 f.; Herzog, Real-Encyclop. 2nd ed. i. 505
f.). He writes מַכְבִּי, and explains it, after Isaiah 43:17, as “the
extinguisher,” that is, the exterminator of his enemies. This is, to say the
least of it, extremely problematical. The conclusions drawn by Curtiss from the
orthography are doubtful, since we no longer know the original Hebrew form. All
the more modern texts, the rabbinical, which write sometimes מכבי, sometimes
מקבי, as well as the Latin texts, are derived from the Greek text of the First
Book of Maccabees, which gives ὁ Μακκαβαῖος. Also Jerome’s form of the word
Machabaeus, does not prove that he had known a Hebrew form מכבי, since he
undoubtedly adopted the Latin orthography then prevalent. But the Greek
Μακκαβαῖος corresponds to the Hebrew מקבי, rather than to מכבי, although even
the latter is not impossible. On the other hand, the conjecture of Curtiss is
worthy of consideration, that מַקָּבָה in the Old Testament (1 Kings 6:7; Isaiah
44:12; Jeremiah 10:4; also Judges 4:21) does not mean the great battle-axe or
smith’s hammer, which elsewhere is called מַפֵּץ or מֵפִיץ or פַּטִּישׁ, but the
small workman’s hammer. But should this consideration be regarded as decisive?
[143] Compare generally the characteristics given in 1Ma_3:1-9. In its earliest
stage the movement had a course of singularly good fortune. In one battle after
another Judas won brilliant victories, which resulted in the restoring of the
Jewish worship on Zion. A Syrian battalion, under Apollonius, probably the same
of whom mention has already been made at page 206, was cut down by Judas, and
Apollonius himself was slain. The sword which he took from him as spoil was the
one which Judas from this time forth always himself used in battle.[144] Also a
second Syrian army, which Seron, “the prince of the army of Syria,” whom Judas
went forth to meet, was completely routed by him at Beth-horon, north-west of
Jerusalem.[145] [144] 1Ma_3:10-12. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 1. [145]
1Ma_3:13-26. Josephus, l.c.—Βαιθωρῶν, in the Old Testament בֵּית חֹרוֹן;
according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 233, sixteen miles
west-north-west of Jerusalem, and so identical with the present Beit-ur. See
Robinson, Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 59-63. Raumer, Palästina, p. 180.
Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Judée, i. 338-344. Henderson, Palestine, p.
137. The king found it necessary to take vigorous measures in order to suppress
the revolt in Judea. While he himself, in B.C. 166-165 (1Ma_3:37 gives the
Seleucid year 147), went forth upon an expedition against the Parthians,[146] he
sent Lysias back to Syria as imperial chancellor and guardian of the minor
Antiochus V., and gave him orders to fit out a large army against Judea to quell
the rebellion there.[147] Lysias sent three generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and
Gorgias, with a large body of troops against Judea. The defeat of the Jews
seemed so certain, that foreign merchants accompanied the Syrians in order to
purchase as slaves the expected Jewish captives.[148] [146] 1Ma_3:31. Tacitus,
Historia, v. 8. [147] 1Ma_3:27-37. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 2. [148]
1Ma_3:38-41. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 3. 2Ma_8:8-11. According to the Second
Book of Maccabees, Ptolemy was the governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, who
transferred the military operations to Nicanor and Gorgias. Meantime, however,
Judas, and those adhering to him, had not been inactive. Now that Jerusalem had
been wrested from the heathens, Judas collected his fighting men in Mizpah, the
ancient stronghold of Israel in the times of the Judges, not far from
Jerusalem.[149] It no longer consisted merely of a small group of enthusiasts,
but was a regular Jewish army, which he had there organized according to
military rules; he “ordained captains over the people, even captains over
thousands, and over hundreds, and over fifties, and over tens.” By prayer and
fasting he prepared himself for the unequal struggle. In the province of Emmaus,
west of Jerusalem, at the entrance into the hill country, the armies encountered
one another.[150] [149] Μασσηφά, 1Ma_3:46, is the ancient מִצְפָּה, which in the
times of the Judges was the religious and political capital of Israel (Judges
20, 21; 1 Samuel 7:5 ff; 1 Samuel 10:17 ff.). According to 1Ma_3:46, it lay
κατέναντι Ιερουσαλήμ, therefore not far from Jerusalem. Its situation cannot
with any certainty be more exactly determined. See generally, Robinson,
Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. 143, 144 Raumer, Palästina, p. 213. Smend in
Riehm’s Handwörterbuch des bibl. Alterthums, p. 1003 f. Guérin, Judée, i.
395-402. [150] 1Ma_3:42-60. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 3.—Ἐμμαούμ (1Ma_3:40;
1Ma_3:57), in the Roman times the capital of a toparchy, exists down to the
present day under the name of Amwâs. The New Testament Emmaus is probably a
different place lying near Jerusalem. Compare generally, Div. ii. vol. i. p.
159, and the literature quoted in the note on that page. While the main body of
the Syrian army remained in camp at Emmaus, Gorgias endeavoured with a strong
detachment to engage the Jewish army. When Judas heard of this he circumvented
him, and got between him and the main body lying at Emmaus. His brave words of
encouragement aroused such enthusiasm among the Jews, that the Syrian troops
were completely overpowered. When the detachment under Gorgias returned, they
found the camp already in flames, and the Jews quite prepared to join with them
in battle. Without venturing on such a conflict, they at once fled into the
Philistine territory. This victory of the Jews, in B.C. 166-165, was
complete.[151] [151] 1Ma_4:1-25. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 4; 2Ma_8:12 ff.—The
chronology is made out by means of a combination of 1Ma_3:37, which gives the
Seleucid year 147, with 1Ma_4:28, ἐν τῷ ἐχομένῳ ἐνιαυτῷ, or, what is the same,
ἐν τῷ ἐρχομένῳ ἐνιαυτῷ, meaning “in the following year,” and chap. 4:52, which
gives the Seleucid year 148. The incidents in question therefore occurred in the
year of the Seleucid era 147, or B.C. 166-165; but whether in B.C. 166 or in
B.C. 165 cannot be determined.—As the enemy’s general, the First Book of
Maccabees names only Gorgias, the Second Book of Maccabees names only Nicanor.
Both are probably correct, inasmuch as the former led the army in the field, and
the latter was commander-in-chief of the whole army. In the following year, B.C.
165-164, and indeed, as further details show, in autumn of B.C. 165, Lysias
himself led a new and still more powerful army against Judea. He did not make
his attack directly from the north, but came against Judea from the south by the
way of Idumea (1Ma_4:29). He must therefore have fetched a compass round about
Judea; it may have begun, as Hitzig conjectures, p. 393, on the east, round
about the Dead Sea, or, what is more probable, on the west, since he had marched
along the Philistine coast and round about the hilly region. At Bethzur, south
of Jerusalem, on the road to Hebron,[152] the contending forces met. Although
the Syrian army greatly exceeded in numbers, Judas this time again won so
complete a victory that Lysias found himself obliged to return to Antioch in
order to collect new forces.[153] [152] Βαιθσούρα (ἡ and τά), 1Ma_4:29;
1Ma_4:61; 1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_6:26; 1Ma_6:31; 1Ma_6:49-50; 1Ma_9:52; 1Ma_10:14;
1Ma_11:65; 1Ma_14:7; 1Ma_14:33; in the בֵּית צוּר frequently referred to in the
Old Testament; according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 235 sq., 20
miles south of Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron (καὶ ἔτι νῦν κώμη Βηθσωρὼ
καλεῖται ἐλθόντων ἀπὸ Αἰλίας εἰς Χεβρὼν ἐν εἴκοσι σημείοις), which is confirmed
by the situation of the Beit-Sur of the present day, in the neighbourhood of
Hulhul (the distance is really somewhat less). See Robinson, Later Biblical
Researches in Palestine, 430-462. Raumer, Palästina, p. 181 f. Guérin, Judée,
iii. 288-295; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener,
iii. 311 eq., 324 sq.; also Sheet xxi. of the great English Chart. [153]
1Ma_4:26-35. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 5. 2Ma_11:1-15. On the agreement of the
statement in First and Second Maccabees, see Grimm on both passages. After these
two brilliant and decisive successes, Judas again took possession of Jerusalem,
and directed his attention to the restoration of the services of divine worship.
The citadel of Jerusalem was indeed still held by Syrian troops, but Judas kept
them continually in check by his people, so that the works of the temple could
not be destroyed by them. Thus protected, the work was proceeded with.
Everything impure was carried out from the temple. The altar of burnt-offering,
which had been polluted by heathen sacrifices, was wholly taken down and a new
one built in its place.[154] The sacred garments and furniture were replaced by
new ones; and when everything was ready, the temple was consecrated anew by the
celebration of a great feast. This took place, according to 1Ma_4:52, on 25th
Chisleu, in the Seleucid year 148, or December B.C. 165, or precisely the same
day on which three years before, for the first time, the altar had been
desecrated by the offering up of heathen sacrifices.[155] The festivities lasted
for eight days, and it was resolved that every year the memory of those events
should be revived by the repetition of the festival observance.[156] [154] The
stones of the heathen altar of sacrifice, or rather of several such altars, were
carried out to “an unclean place,” therefore completely outside of the temple
precincts (1Ma_4:43). The stones of the earlier Jewish altar of burnt-offerings,
on the other hand, were laid on the temple mount, on a suitable place, “until
there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them” (1Ma_4:46).
According to Mishna, Middoth i. 6, the stones of the Jewish altar were laid down
in a chamber within the bounds of the inner court, but no longer on “holy”
ground. With 1Ma_4:43; 1Ma_4:46, Derenbourg, pp. 60, 61, combined two obscure
passages in Megillath Taanith (§ 17 and 20), according to which the stones of
the Jewish altar were removed on 23rd Marcheschwan, that is, November, those of
the heathen altar somewhat later, on the 3rd Chisleu, or December. The
exposition of the two passages, however, is still very uncertain. [155] The date
25th Chisleu as the day of the consecration of the temple is obtained from
Megillath Taanith, § 23. Compare Derenbourg, p. 62. [156] Compare generally:
1Ma_4:36-59. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 6-7. 2Ma_10:1-8.—To this date belongs the
Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, τὰ έγκαίνια of John 10:22. Compare
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 7: καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου μέχοι δεῦρο τὴν ἑορτὴν ἄγομεν
καλοῦντες αὐτὴν φῶτα, because during this festival it was the custom to burn
lights (compare Baba kamma vi. 6, and Maimonides). According to 2Ma_10:6, it was
celebrated after the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles, and is therefore
actually called in 2Ma_1:9, “The Feast of Tabernacles of the month Chisleu.” The
Egyptian Jews were invited to take part in its celebration by two letters
preserved in the beginning of the Second Book of Maccabees. For the literature
with reference to this see Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 215. It was called in Hebrew
הְנֻכָּה, Megillath Taanith, § 23, and was observed for a period of eight days;
Bikkurim i. 6; Rosh Hashana i. 3; Taanith ii. 10; Megilla iii. 4, 6; Moed katan
iii. 9; Baba kamma vi. 6. A complete description of the festival in
post-Talmudie times is given by Maimonides, Hilchoth Megilla wa-Chanukha, c.
iii.-iv., in the third volume of his great work, Jad-ha-chasaka or Mischne Tora,
St. Petersburg 1850-1852, Bd. ii. pp. 532-542; also in Schulchan-Arukh, §
670-685. Bodenschatz, Kirchliche Verfassung der heutigen Juden, ii. 248-251.
Schröder, Satzungen und Gebräuche des talmudisch-rabbinischen Judenthums, 1851,
pp. 159-163.—At the synagogue services at the Chanuka festival, Numbers 7. was
read (Megilla iii. 6); the festival psalm was Psalms 30. (Tract Soferim xviii.
2; Müller, Masechet Soferim 251). Hence the superscription of Psalms 30. is
שיר־הנכת הבית.—Compare generally the article “Kirchweihfest” in Winer, RWB.;
Schenkel’s Bibellex. by Dillmann; Riehm’s Handwörterbuch; also Oehler, article
“Feste der Juden” in Herzog’s Encyclopaedia, and the commentaries on 1Ma_4:59
(Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace) and on John 10:22 (Lightfoot, Horae
Hebr.; Wetstein, Nov. Test.; Wolf, Curas phil. etc.). The reconsecration of the
temple forms the first era in the history of the Maccabean revolt. Hitherto the
struggles of the heroes of the faith had been invariably crowned with success.
Judas had led his followers on from one victory to another. The future must now
prove whether their power was elastic enough, and their enthusiasm enduring
enough, to keep permanent possession of what had thus in so rapid a course been
won.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: � 5. THE TIMES OF JUDAS MACCABAEUS, B.C. 165-161
========================================================================

§ 5. THE TIMES OF JUDAS MACCABAEUS, B.C. 165-161 SOURCES 1 Macc. 5-9, 22; 2
Maccabees 12-15. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8-11. A summary of this is given in
Zonaras, Annal. iv. 20-22. Megillath Taanith, § 30, in Derenbourg, Histoire, p.
63. The coins ascribed to Judas by de Saulcy, Recherches, p. 84 sq., belong
rather in all probability to Aristobulus I.; see § 9. LITERATURE The works on
Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc. The
treatises and commentaries on the Books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis,
Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc. EWALD, History of Israel, vol. v. 306-323.
HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 272-296. HITZIG, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, ii. 395-421. GRÄTZ, Geschichte des Juden, Bd. ii. 2, pp. 352-376.
CONDER, Judas Maccabaeus and the Jewish War of Independence. London 1879.
STANLEY, Jewish Church, 1877, vol. iii. pp. 285-343. Articles, of Judas
Maccabaeus, in Winer, RWB., and in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon. During the next year
and a half after the reconsecration of the temple down to the summer of B.C.
163, Judas remained master of Judea. The central government of Syria took no
concern in the movements there, for its attention was wholly taken up elsewhere.
Hence Judas was able unhindered to arrange for the strengthening of his
position. The temple mount was furnished with stony fortifications. On the
southern frontier of Judea, Beth-zur, which constituted the key to Judea, was
strongly fortified and garrisoned with Jewish troops.[157] And also throughout
all the border districts military raids were made, partly in order to protect
the Jews dwelling there, partly for the establishment of their own dominion. The
Edomites, the Bajanites (a tribe otherwise unknown), and the Ammonites, all of
whom had shown themselves hostile, were sharply chastised one after
another.[158] [157] Macc. 4:60, 61. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 7.—Beth-zur is in
the subsequent history often referred to as an important post. See the passages
quoted in note 54 under the previous section. [158] Macc. 5:1-8. Josephus,
Antiq. xii. 8. 1.—The Edomite district Akrabattine, 1Ma_5:3, has its name from
the high ridge Akrabbim, Numbers 34:4, Joshua 15:3, Judges 1:36, and is not to
be confounded with this well-known toparchy of Akrabattene, lying in the north
of Judea. See Div. ii. vol. i. p. 158. Complaints soon came from Gilead, east of
the Jordan, and from Galilee, of persecutions which the Jews dwelling there had
been subjected to on the part of the heathens. It was resolved that help should
be sent to both. Simon went to Galilee with three thousand men, Judas to Gilead
with eight thousand men.[159] In neither case was there any idea of making a
permanent conquest of the territory in question. But after Simon had won many
battles against the heathen in Galilee, he gathered together the Jewish
residents, with their women, children, and goods, and led them amid great
rejoicing to Judea, where they would be kept secure.[160] Judas acted in a
similar manner in Gilead. In a series of successful engagements, especially in
the north of the country east of the Jordan, he subdued the native tribes, whose
leader was one Timotheus, then gathered together all the Israelites in Gilead,
great and small, women and children, with all their possessions, and led them
carefully, after he had been compelled to fight a passage for himself by Ephron,
a town of the east Jordan country otherwise unknown, through Bethsean or
Scythopolis to Judea.[161] [159] Macc. 5:9-20. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 1-2.
[160] Macc. 5:21-23. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 2. For an explanation of 1Ma_5:23,
compare above, page 192. [161] Macc. 5:24-54. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 3-5.
Compare 2Ma_12:10-31. For the geography, compare also Grätz, Geschichte der
Juden, ii. 2, pp. 453-459. Ephron is, as Grätz rightly remarks, certainly
identical with the Γεφροῦς or Γεφροῦν conquered by Antiochus the Great
(Polybius, v. 70. 12). During the period when Simon and Judas were absent from
Judea, the direction of affairs there had been assigned to certain men called
Joseph and Asariah. These two, in direct opposition to the orders of Judas,
undertook a military expedition against Jamnia, but were driven back with
considerable loss by Gorgias, who since his defeat had remained at Emmaus in
Philistine territory. The First Book of Maccabees does not fail, in recording
this incident, to call attention to the fact that it was by the hand of the
family of the Maccabees that salvation was to be wrought for Israel.[162] [162]
Macc. 5:18, 19, 55-62. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 6. On Jamnia, see Div. ii. vol.
i. p. 78 f. But Judas carried his military expedition farther a-field. He went
out again against the Edomites, besieged and destroyed Hebron; then passed
through Marissa (for thus we are to read in place of Samaria in 1Ma_5:66) into
the land of the Philistines, overthrew Ashdod, cast down the altars there and
the idols, and returned back to Judea with rich spoil.[163] The object now quite
evidently was no longer the protection of the Jewish faith, but the
strengthening and extending of the Jewish power. [163] Macc. 5:63-68. Instead of
Σαμάρειαν, 1Ma_5:66, we have in Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 6, Μάρισσαν, as also in
the Latin text of the codex Sangermanensis. Compare also 2Ma_12:35. Marissa, in
the Old Testament מָרֵשָׁה, is a very well known town in the south of Judea,
then under Edomite rule (Antiq. xiii. 9. 1), and lying, according to Eusebius,
Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 279, in the neighbourhood of Eleutheropolis, that
is, just between Hebron and Ashdod. The reading given by Josephus is thus
undoubtedly the correct one, and it was early adopted, as e.g. by Grotius,
Reland and Michaelis. Grimm, indeed, thinks that no motive can be found for
mentioning a mere march through by Marissa. But, as Keil has correctly remarked,
the march through is recorded for the reason that there a number of priests in a
rash and ill-considered battle met their death (v. 67). On Ashdod, see Div. ii.
vol. i. p. 76 f. Meanwhile a change had taken place in the affairs of Syria.
Antiochus Epiphanes, in his undertakings in the eastern parts of the empire, had
been no less unfortunate than his generals had been in Judea. He had advanced
into the province of Elymais, but after making an unsuccessful attempt to
appropriate the rich treasures of the temple of Artemis there, he had been
compelled to retire back upon Babylon, and on the way, in the Persian town of
Tabä, he died in B.C. 164, or, according to 1Ma_6:16, in the Seleucid year 149,
that is, B.C. 164-163.[164] Before his end he appointed one of his generals,
Philip, to be imperial chancellor, and tutor to his son Antiochus V. Eupator
during his minority. But instead of him Lysias secured possession of the person
of the young king, and obtained absolute sovereign power in the empire.[165]
[164] Macc. 6:1-16. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 1. Polybius, xxxi. 11. Porphyry in
Jerome on Daniel 11:44-45 (Hieronym. Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 722).—Instead of
Artemis, as given by Polybius, Appian. Syriaca, c. 66, names Aphrodite. Compare
in regard to the chronology, above, p. 172.—The stories of the Second Book of
Maccabees are purely legendary (1:13-16 and 9.). Grätz in the Monatsschr. für
Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1883, pp. 241-254, makes a venturous
attempt to drag in the statements of Daniel 11:45 in order to determine the
place where Antiochus died. [165] Macc. 6:14-17. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 2. The
revolted Jews might not perhaps have been interfered with for a long time had
not pressing appeals been made to Antioch directly from Judea. Judas now laid
siege in B.C. 163-162, the Seleucid year 150 (1Ma_6:20), to the Syrian garrison
in the citadel of Jerusalem. Some of the garrison, notwithstanding the siege,
escaped, and in company with representatives of the Greek party among the Jews,
betook themselves to the king in order to urge upon him the necessity of his
interfering. The representatives of the Greek party, in particular, complained
of how much they had to suffer from their hostile fellow-countrymen, so that
many of them had been slain and had their possessions taken from them.[166]
[166] 1Ma_6:18-27. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 3. It was this that first again
roused those in Antioch to take active measures. Lysias himself, in company with
the youthful king, went forth at the head of a powerful army and marched against
Judea. He once more made his attack from the south, and began with the siege of
Beth-zur. Judas was obliged to raise the siege of the citadel of Jerusalem, and
to go forth to meet the king. At Beth-Zachariah, between Jerusalem and Beth-zur,
the armies met.[167] It soon appeared that over against the vigorous onslaught
of the Syrian troops the Jews with all their valour could not secure any
decisive or lasting victory. They went forth boldly to the conflict. Judas’s own
brother Eleasar distinguished himself above all the rest. He thought that he had
discovered the elephant on which the young king was seated; he crept forward,
stabbed the elephant from below, and was crushed under the weight of the falling
animal. His self-immolation and all the efforts of the Jews, however, were in
vain. The Jewish army was beaten, and that so completely, that the king’s army
soon appeared before the walls of Jerusalem, and laid siege to Zion, the temple
mount.[168] [167] Βαιθζαχαρία (1Ma_6:32), according to Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9.
4, seventy stadia north of Beth-zur, is in the present day called Beit-Sàkaria.
See Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, pp. 276-277. Raumer,
Palästina, p. 181; Guérin, Judée, iii. 316-319. The Survey of Western Palestine,
Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 35 sq., 108; and the great English Map,
Sheet xvii. Ritter, in his Geography of Palestine and Sinai, wrongly identifies
Beth-Zachariah with edh-Dhoheriyeh, in which case it would have lain to the
south-west of Hebron. [168] 1Ma_6:28-48. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 3-5; Wars of
the Jews, i. 1. 5. 2Ma_13:1-17. The defeat is only very shyly hinted at in the
First Book of Maccabees 6:47; while in the Second Book of Maccabees it is
actually transformed into a victory! See with reference to this, Grimm, Exeget.
Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 103, zu 2 Makk. p. 191 f. Beth-zur also was obliged to
yield and to receive a Syrian garrison. Those besieged in Zion, however, soon
began to suffer from want of the means of life, since owing to the Sabbatical
year no provision had been made beforehand.[169] The utter discomfiture of the
Jews now seemed imminent, when suddenly Lysias, on account of events occurring
in Syria, found himself compelled to treat with the Jews for peace under
favourable conditions. That same Philip whom Antiochus Epiphanes had nominated
as imperial chancellor and tutor of his son Antiochus V. during his minority,
had marched against Antioch in the hope of securing the power to himself. In
order to have a free hand against him, Lysias granted to the Jews that which had
hitherto been the occasion of the war, the liberty freely to celebrate their own
religious ceremonies. It was henceforth to be permitted them to “observe their
own institutions as formerly.” On this condition those besieged in Zion
capitulated; its strongholds were reduced, contrary to the promise sworn to by
the king. The subjugation of the Jews was accomplished, but only after that had
been granted to them on account of which the Syrian government had declared war
against them five years before.[170] [169] 1Ma_6:49-54. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9.
5. 2Ma_13:18-22. The mentioning of the Sabbatical year (1Ma_6:49 : ὅτι σάββατον
ἦν τῇ γῇ; 6:53: διὰ τὸ ἕβδομον ἔτος εἶναι) shows us that the events occurred in
B.C. 163. For the Seleucid year 150 (in which they are placed by 1Ma_6:20
compared with 7:1) runs, according to the mode of reckoning followed in the
First Book of Maccabees, from spring of B.C. 163 to spring of B.C. 162. The
Sabbatical year, however, always begins in autumn (Mishna, Rosh hashana i. 1).
Since, then, they were already in want of victuals, they must have been in the
second half of the Sabbatical year, after the fields during winter and spring
had been left unsown. This, therefore, brings us to the summer of B.C. 163.
[170] 1Ma_6:55-62. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 6-7. 2Ma_13:23-26. The understanding
with the Jews at which Lysias and Antiochus V. in their own interests had
arrived, was not interfered with by any of the following kings. None of them
resorted again to the foolish attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes forcibly to
introduce pagan culture and ceremonies among the Jews. The Jewish worship, which
had been restored by Judas Maccabaeus amid all the changeful circumstances of
the age, continued to be observed in essentially the same way. This deserves to
be specially noted in order that a correct estimate may be formed of the
conflicts which followed. The end aimed at in the struggle was now different
from that previously before them. It had to do no longer with the preservation
of religion, but, just as we have already seen in the preliminary history of the
Maccabean revolt, with the question whether the friends of the Greeks or the
national party within the Jewish nation itself should have the supremacy. It was
essentially a Jewish internecine war, in which the Syrian superiors took part
only in so far as they supported and put at the head of the provincial
government sometimes the one, sometimes the other, of these two Jewish parties.
To a certain extent, indeed, religious interests did come into consideration.
For the Greek party were inclined to go farther in the way of favouring Greek
institutions, while their nationalist opponents seemed more attached to the
religion of Israel. But the fundamental points were no longer in dispute.[171]
[171] Compare Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 84: “The year 162 marks
the proper end of the religious war of the Jews. Thereafter the occasion of the
conflict was not religion, but government.” In consequence of the events of the
previous year, the party in Judea friendly to the Greeks were driven out of the
government, and were indeed for the most part persecuted. Judas stood
practically at the head of the Jewish people.[172] It may be readily supposed
that the opposition party did not quietly submit to this arrangement, but made
vigorous efforts on their part to obtain again the governing power. But they
succeeded in their efforts only after a change had occurred in the occupancy of
the throne. Antiochus V. and Lysias had, indeed, after a short struggle overcome
that Philip who had contended with them for the supremacy.[173] But they
themselves were soon driven out by a new pretender to the crown. Demetrius I.,
afterwards distinguished by the cognomen Soter, the son of Seleucus IV.
Philopator, therefore nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes and cousin of Antiochus
Eupator, who had previously lived as a hostage at Rome, and had vainly entreated
from the Roman senate permission to return home, succeeded in secretly making
his escape, and landed at Tripolis on the Phoenician coast.[174] He was able
soon to gather around him a considerable number of followers;[175] indeed the
very bodyguard of King Antiochus deserted him and his guardian Lysias, and
joined Demetrius. By the orders of Demetrius both were murdered, and he himself
proclaimed king in B.C. 162.[176] The Roman senate was at first in consternation
over the flight of Demetrius, but by and by Demetrius managed on his part to
induce the Romans to recognise him as king.[177] [172] We get no information
from the First Book of Maccabees as to the person who administered the office of
the high priest after the restoration of the Jewish worship. Nominally Menelaus
was still high priest. He is said to have been put to death by Antiochus V.
Eupator when he made definite concessions to the Jews, and the reason assigned
for that was that Menelaus by his evil counsels was indirectly responsible for
the rebellion of the Jews (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7; compare 2Ma_13:3-8). But
Menelaus was naturally unable in presence of Judas, who was in possession of the
actual power, to exercise the functions of the high priest’s office. Perhaps,
indeed, Onias IV., son of Onias III., may have officiated. But, according to
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1, he was not of age at the time of his father’s death,
and went immediately down into Egypt, and so after the execution of Menelaus the
office was given, not to him, but to Alcimus (Antiq. xii. 9. 7). [173] 1Ma_6:63.
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7. [174] Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 254
(=Syncell. ed. Dindorf, i. 550 sq.). 2Ma_14:1. [175] Justin, xxxiv. 3: Delatus
in Syriam secundo favore omnium excipitur. [176] 1Ma_7:1-4. Josephus, Antiq.
xii. 10. 1. 2Ma_14:1-2, Livy, Epit. xlvi. Appian, Syriaca, c. 47. In regard to
the chronology, see above, p. 174. [177] Polybius, xxxi. 23, xxxii. 4. Soon
after Demetrius had entered upon the government, the leaders of the Hellenistic
party, with a certain Alcimus at their head, or as his Hebrew name properly
reads, Jakim,[178] made representations to the king with reference to their
oppression under the party of Judas. Judas and his brothers had meanwhile slain
the adherents of the king, or expelled them from the country. Demetrius was
naturally readily impressed by such a statement. Alcimus was appointed high
priest, and at the same time a Syrian army under the command of Bacchides was
sent to Judea, in order to instate Alcimus by force, if need be, in his
office.[179] [178] Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7: Ἄλκιμος ὁ καὶ Ἰάκειμος κληθείς.
In the sketch given by Josephus in Antiq. xx. 10, he names him simply Ἰάκιμος.
Also in the text of the First Book of Maccabees, 7:5, 12, 20, 21, 23, 25, and
9:54-57, as well as 2Ma_14:3, various manuscripts have the addition ὁ καὶ
Ἰάκιμος. [179] 1Ma_7:5-9. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 1-2. 2Ma_14:3-10.—According
to Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7, Alcimus had been already nominated as high priest
by Antiochus V. Eupator. According to 2Ma_14:3 ff., he had once even earlier
than this filled the office of high priest. The further development of affairs
is highly characteristic of the struggles of the Maccabees. The opposition to
Alcimus on the side of the strict Jewish party was by no means engaged in by all
its adherents. In consequence of quieting assurances which he gave, he was
immediately acknowledged by the representatives of the strictest section of the
scribes and the “pious” (Ἀσιδαῖοι, 1Ma_7:13), as the legitimate high priest of
the family of Aaron. Only Judas and his adherents persevered in their
opposition. They did not trust the promises of Alcimus, and considered that
their religious interests could only be secured if they got the government into
their own hands.[180] [180] 1Ma_7:10-15. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 2. The Second
Book of Maccabees, 14:6, falsely identifies the Asidaeans with the party of
Judas. See regarding this, Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 79 ff.
Results showed that they were not wrong. One of the first acts of Alcimus was to
order the execution of sixty men belonging to the party of the Asidaeans. This
struck fear and trembling into the hearts of the people, but had also the effect
of arousing more determined opposition. Bacchides now thought that his presence
in Judea was no longer necessary. Leaving behind a military force in Judea for
the protection of Alcimus, he himself returned to Syria. Then Alcimus and Judas
had practically an opportunity of measuring their strength and testing their own
resources against one another. The open war between the two parties which now
began seemed to tend more and more in favour of the Maccabees, so that Alcimus
found it necessary to go to the king and to entreat of him further support.[181]
[181] 1Ma_7:16-25. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 2-3. Demetrius sent now against
Judea another general, Nicanor, with a great army. Nicanor sought first of all
through stratagem to obtain possession of the person of Judas. But Judas got
information of this plot, and so the scheme miscarried. An engagement thus took
place at Capharsalama,[182] which resulted in the defeat of Nicanor. He then
advanced upon Jerusalem, and wreaked his vengeance on the innocent priests.
While they greeted him respectfully, he treated them with scorn and ridicule,
and threatened that if they did not deliver up to him Judas and his army, he
would on his victorious return set their temple on fire.[183] [182] The position
of this place is unknown. Expositors of the First Book of Maccabees (Michaelis,
Grimm, Keil, etc., on 1Ma_7:31) set it south of Jerusalem, “since Nicanor after
losing the battle withdrew to Jerusalem and then to Beth-Horon” (Keil). But this
argument is not convincing. Nicanor did not sustain an actual defeat at
Capharsalama, since his loss consisted only of 500 men (so 1Ma_7:32 is to be
read, instead of 5000). We may therefore represent the state of matters thus to
ourselves, that Nicanor, after he had failed to gain any decisive advantage over
Judas at Capharsalama, wished to make himself sure of the protection of
Jerusalem, where he had the garrison of the citadel to back up his efforts.
Under these circumstances nothing stands in the way of our setting Capharsalama
to the north-west of Jerusalem, and identifying it with the Carvasalim near
Ramleh, not far from Lydda, of which mention is made in the eleventh century (so
Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 46-59; Ewald, History of
Israel, v. 321). A כפר שלם is spoken of in the Talmud (Reland, Palest. p. 690;
Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 173), and by the Arabic geographer Mukaddasi,
translated by Gildemeister, Zeitschrift des DPV. vii. 170. [183] 1Ma_7:26-38.
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 4-5. Therefore he returned to the district of
Beth-Horon, north-west of Jerusalem, where he waited for reinforcements from
Syria. Judas lay encamped over against him in Adasa.[184] On 13th Adar, B.C.
161, a decisive conflict was engaged in which resulted in the utter defeat of
the Syrians. Nicanor himself fell in the tumult. When his people saw this, they
threw their weapons away, and betook themselves to hasty flight. The Jews
pursued them, surrounded them, and cut them down to the last man; so, at least,
the First Book of Maccabees affirms. The victory must certainly have been
overpowering and complete. For from this time the 13th Adar, corresponding
roughly to our March, was annually observed as a festival under the name of
“Nicanor’s Day.”[185] [184] Ἀδασά, 1Ma_7:40; 1Ma_7:45, according to Josephus,
Antiq. xii. 10. 5, thirty stades from Beth-Horon, is identical with the Ἀδασά in
the neighbourhood of Gophna which was known to Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed.
Lagarde, p. 220: καὶ ἔστι νῦν κώμη ἐγγὺς Γουφνῶν). It lay therefore north-east
of Beth-Horon. Quite distinct from it is the similarly named חֲדָשָׁה belonging
to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:37; Mishna, Erubin v. 6), which, since it was
in the district of Judah, cannot have been in the neighbourhood of Gophna, as
Eusebius erroneously assumes (see on the contrary, Jerome, Onomasticon, ed.
Lagarde, p. 93). Compare the articles “Adasa” and “Hadasa” in the dictionaries
of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm.—Many are now inclined to identify our Adasa with
the ruins of Khirbet Adasa on the great road north of Jerusalem (Guérin, Judée,
iii. 5-6; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii.
30, 105 f.; also the great English Map, Sheet xvii.). The identification seems
to me doubtful, since Khirbet Adasa is about sixty stades from Beth-Horon, and
not toward Gophna, but in southerly direction. [185] 1Ma_7:39-50. Josephus,
Antiq. xii. 10. 5. 2Ma_15:1-36. Megillath Taanith, § 30 (in Derenbourg, p.
63).—The year in which Nicanor’s defeat occurred is not directly stated in the
First Book of Maccabees, but by a comparison of 1Ma_7:1 with 9:3, it must be set
down as the Seleucid year 151, or B.C. 162-161. But the month Adar of the
Seleucid year 151 is equivalent to March B.C. 161. The consideration which in
the first edition of this work was regarded as telling against this date, that
it made the time since the accession of Demetrius too short for the occurrence
of such events, I can no longer regard as offering any serious difficulty. Judas
was thus once more master of the situation. Josephus assigns to this period the
death of Alcimus, and from this time reckons the priesthood of Judas. But the
death of Alcimus, according to the First Book of Maccabees, occurred
considerably later; and that Judas exercised generally the functions of the high
priest, is extremely improbable.[186] [186] On the death of Alcimus, see
1Ma_9:54-56. On the high-priesthood of Judas, Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 6, 11.
2. In itself it would not be inconceivable that Judas should also have usurped
the functions of the high priest. But the First Book of Maccabees says nothing
about such a proceeding. There was also a legitimate claimant present in the
person of Onias IV., who would certainly be respected as such by Judas. Josephus
himself in another place expressly says that after the death of Alcimus the
office of the high priest remained unoccupied for seven years (Antiq. xx. 10:
διεδέξατο δὲ οὐδεὶς αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ διετέλεσεν ἡ πόλις ἐνιαυτοὺς ἑπτὰ χωρὶς
ἀρχιερέως οὖσα). This statement is supported by the investigations of Wieseler
(Studien und Kritiken, 1877, pp. 293-298) and Grätz (Geschichte der Juden, ii.
2, p. 365 ff.; Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1883, pp.
1-6). There is, however, this element of truth in the statement of Josephus,
that Judas now actually stood at the head of the Jewish commonwealth. And it was
his determined plan to maintain himself, or at least his party, in that
position. But the events which had occurred taught him that this was possible
only after they had completely freed themselves from the Syrian yoke. The king
of Syria had indeed showed his inclination to secure the supremacy in Judea to
the opposition party by force of arms. The resolve was therefore made to shake
off once and for all every sort of subordination to the Syrians. In order to
accomplish this purpose, Judas applied to the Romans for help. The rulers of the
Western empire, ever since their conflicts with Antiochus the Great, between
B.C. 192 and B.C. 189, had taken the liveliest interest in matters that affected
the Syrian empire, and looked closely into everything that occurred with
watchful eyes. They repeatedly interposed their authority to decide upon the
affairs of Syria.[187] All centrifugal movements in that quarter might therefore
count upon their support. It was thus very natural that Judas should make the
attempt with the help of the Romans to secure permanently that freedom which had
been temporarily wrung from their enemy. In grand pictorial style the First Book
of Maccabees describes how Judas had heard of the deeds and might of the Romans,
and how this led him to endeavour to obtain their aid. Even the inaccuracies
which are mixed up in this story serve to set before us very strikingly the
measure of the knowledge of the Romans, which was then current in Judea. Judas
therefore sent two men of his party as ambassadors to Rome, Eupolemus son of
John, and Jason son of Eleasar, the former perhaps identical with that Eupolemus
who is known to us as a Hellenistic writer, see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 203-206.
The end which he had in view in so doing was avowedly the throwing off of the
Syrian yoke (1Ma_8:18 : τοῦ ἆραι τὸν ζυγὸν ἀπʼ αὐτῶν). The Roman senate readily
granted an audience to the Jewish embassy, and a treaty of friendship was made
of which the principal provisions were that the Jews should give help to the
Romans and the Romans to the Jews in times of war (συμμαχία), but not on
precisely equal terms, and in every case just as circumstances required
(1Ma_8:25; 1Ma_8:27 : ὡς ἂν ὁ καιρὸς ὑπογραφῇ). It therefore practically
depended on the pleasure of the Romans how far they should consider themselves
bound by the agreement.[188] [187] Thus Antiochus Epiphanes was obliged to
abandon Egypt by Popilius Laenas. After the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the
Roman senate forced from Antiochus Eupator and his regent-guardian Lysias a
considerable reduction of the standing army of Syria (Polybius, xxxi. 12;
Appian. Syriaca, c. 46). [188] 1 Maccabees 8. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 10. 6.—A
similar treaty of friendship between Rome and Astypalaea, of date B.C. 105, is
known from an inscription, Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2485 (also in Hicks, Manual of
Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford 1882, pp. 347-349).—For an explanation and
criticism of 1 Maccabees 8, besides the commentaries of Michaelis, Grimm, Keil,
Bissel, Wace, compare: Grimm, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1874, pp.
231-238, with communications from Mommsen and Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta
societatis philologae Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 91-100. About the same time as
this treaty was concluded the Romans issued a missive to Demetrius, wherein they
ordered him to desist from every sort of hostile proceeding against the Jews,
who were the allies of the Romans.[189] Their interposition of authority came
too late. Demetrius proceeded so rashly and energetically, that the overthrow of
Judea had been already completed before there was any possibility of
interference on the part of the Romans.[190] Immediately after he had received
news of the death and defeat of Nicanor, he sent a great army under Bacchides to
Judea, which appeared in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem as early as the first
month of the Seleucid year 152, that is, in April B.C. 161 (1Ma_9:3), only about
two months after the fall of Nicanor.[191] Bacchides encamped beside Berea,
Judas beside Elasa (written also Eleasa and Alasa).[192] The superiority of the
Syrians was so evident, that even in the ranks of Judas there no longer remained
any hope of victory. His followers deserted in large numbers. With a few
faithful men Judas ventured with the wild courage of despair on the hopeless
conflict. The result was just what had been clearly foreseen: the troops of
Judas were hewn down, and he himself fell in the battle. To his brothers
Jonathan and Simon were granted the sad privilege of burying him in the grave of
his father at Modein.[193] [189] 1Ma_8:31-32. [190] From the general drift of
the First Book of Maccabees, it may be assumed that Judas had first arranged the
embassy after the victory over Nicanor. On this supposition he cannot have lived
to see the return of his ambassadors, for his death occurred only two months
after Nicanor’s defeat. Compare Grimm, Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 131. [191]
As to the reckoning of the date, compare above, page 39.—Since Nicanor fell on
the 13th Adar, the last month of the Jewish year (1Ma_7:43; 1Ma_7:49), while
Bacchides appeared before Jerusalem “in the first month” of the Seleucid year
152 (1Ma_9:3), a period of one and a half months, which is quite enough, is
allowed for the equipment of the Syrian army. “But yet even should forty-five
days seem to any one too little, I could even then come to his help with other
thirty or thirty-one days. The year must have been an intercalary year, that is,
it must have had the month Veadar intercalated” (Michaelis, Anm. zu 1 Makk.
9:3). [192] Both places are unknown. Also the remark in 1Ma_9:15 : ἕως Ἀζώτου
ὄρους, scarcely gives sufficient ground for determining its locality, since the
statement is very suspicious, and is owing perhaps to a translator’s mistake.
(Michaelis guesses that in Hebrew it stood אשדות ההר, “down at the foot of the
mountain;” Josephus reads μέχρις Ἀζᾶ ὄρους.) [193] 1Ma_9:1-21. Josephus, Antiq.
xii. 11. 1-2. With the overthrow of Judas it was finally and definitely proved
that it was a vain endeavour on the part of the Jewish nationalists to measure
swords with the mighty forces of Syria. Brilliant as the earlier achievements of
Judas had been, he was largely indebted to the recklessness and self-confidence
of his opponents. Continuous military success was not to be thought of if only
the Syrian authorities seriously roused themselves to the conflict. The
following age cannot show even one conspicuous victory of the kind by which
Judas had won renown. What the Maccabean party finally reached, it won through
voluntary concessions of claimants of the Syrian throne contending with one
another, and generally in consequence of internal dissensions in the Syrian
empire.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: � 6. THE TIMES OF JONATHAN, B.C. 161-143
========================================================================

§ 6. THE TIMES OF JONATHAN, B.C. 161-143 SOURCES 1Ma_9:23 to 1Ma_10:30.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1-6. A summary of the history in Zonaras, Annal. iv.
22-24. The coins ascribed to Jonathan by de Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 85-93,
belong to Alexander Jannäus, see § 10. LITERATURE The works on Syrian history by
Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc. The Treatises and
Commentaries on the Books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil,
Bissel, Wace, etc. EWALD, History of Israel, v. 324-333. HERZFELD, Geschichte
des Volkes Israel, ii. 296-320. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl.,
under title: Geschichte der Judäer von dem Tode Juda Makkabi’s, etc., 1888, pp.
1-23. HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 421-450. Articles “Jonathan” in
Winer’s RWB., and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon. THE power of the Jewish national
party was quite annihilated by the defeat and death of Judas. The party friendly
to the Greeks, with the high priest Alcimus at their head, was able now
unhindered to carry on the government committed to it by the king. Wherever any
opposition was offered, it was at once vigorously suppressed. The friends of
Judas were sought out and brought to Bacchides, who “took vengeance on them.”
The “unrighteous” and the “ungodly,” as the opponents of the Maccabees are
designated in the First Book of Maccabees, had now the rule in Judea.[194] [194]
Macc. 9:23-27. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 1. But the friends of Judas were by no
means disposed to abandon all sort of resistance. They elected Jonathan, the
brother of Judas, as their leader, “in order that he might direct the
conflict.”[195] No regular or serious undertakings indeed were at first to be
thought of. They required first of all gradually to gather together their forces
and wait a favourable opportunity. The earliest incidents of this period which
we have, represent the doings of Jonathan more in the light of the raiding of a
freebooter than the acts of a religious party. When their personal property was
no longer secure in Judea, they sent it under the guardianship of John, a
brother of Jonathan, over into the country of the friendly Nabathaeans. While so
engaged, John, along with his baggage, was attacked by a robber tribe of the
sons of Ambri, near Medeba, in the country east of the Jordan, and slain. In
order to avenge his death, Jonathan and Simon crossed the Jordan and fell upon
the sons of Ambri when these were engaged in great festivities in connection
with a wedding celebration. Many were slain, and the rest fled into the
mountains. On their return Jonathan and his followers were met at the Jordan by
Bacchides and a Syrian army, and were in great jeopardy, but saved themselves by
swimming across the Jordan.[196] [195] Macc. 9:28-31. Josephus, l.c. [196] Macc.
9:32-49. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 2-4.—The fight with Bacchides took place on
the eastern bank of the Jordan. For the account in 1Ma_9:43-49 goes back again,
after the intercalated story of 1Ma_9:35-42, upon the statement of 1Ma_9:34
(Βακχίδης … ἦλθεν … πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου). If, then, Jonathan and his adherents
saved themselves by swimming over the river, they must have reached the western
bank, and so remained in the wilderness of Judea (compare 9:33). Hitzig is
therefore in error (ii. 422 f.), who represents the case as if Jonathan had been
driven by Bacchides into the country beyond the Jordan; compare Keil,
Commentary, p. 160. Bacchides now took measures to secure that the subjection of
Judea under the Syrian rule should be more decided than hitherto. He fortified
the cities of Jericho, Emmaus, Beth-Horon, Bethel, Thamnatha, Pharathon, Tephon,
and occupied them with Syrian garrisons. He likewise gave orders that the
fortifications of Beth-zur, Gazara, and the citadel of Jerusalem should be
strengthened. Finally, he took the sons of distinguished Jews as hostages, and
put them in ward in the citadel of Jerusalem.[197] [197] Macc. 9:50-53.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 3.—The most of the towns here named are otherwise
unknown. On Emmaus, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 159; on Beth-Horon, see above, page
214.—Bethel is the well-known ancient centre of Israelitish worship, according
to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 209, twelve Roman miles north of
Jerusalem.—Thamnatha is in Hebrew תִּמְנָתָה or תִּמְנָה, the name of these
places in Southern Palestine, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 158. The best known is
תִּמְנַת־סֵרַח, where the tomb of Joshua was. According to the received text of
1Ma_9:50, Thamnatha-Pharathon is to be taken as the name of one place. But
probably Josephus, the Syriac, and the Vet. Lat. are right when they read καί
between the two words. Pharathon is in Hebrew פִּרְעָתוֹן, a town in the tribe
of Ephraim, Judges 12:13; Judges 12:15, perhaps the modern Ferata, southwest of
Nablous (Robinson, Later Bibl. Researches, p. 65 sq.; Guérin, Samaria, ii. 179
f.). But this Pharathon, as well as Thimnath-Serach, belonged to Samaria,
according to 1Ma_11:34. It is therefore questionable whether other similarly
named towns in Judea may not be meant.—Τεφών or Τεφώ is usually identified with
the Hebrew תַּפּוּחַ. If this were only more certain than it is, it would still
be doubtful which of the different Old Testament towns of the name were meant
(see Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, p. 1612, art. “Tappuah;” and p. 185, art.
“Beth-Tappuah”).—On Beth-zur, see above, p. 216; on Gazara, see § 7 on the
history of Simon. About this time, in the second month of the Seleucid year 153,
that is, in May B.C. 160 (1Ma_9:54), the high priest Alcimus by his ungodly
conduct caused great offence to those who adhered strictly to the observance of
the law. He threw down the walls of the inner court, and “so destroyed the works
of the prophets.” In his death, which speedily followed, they beheld God’s
righteous judgment on such wickedness.[198] The office of the high priest does
not seem to have been again filled.[199] [198] Macc. 9:54-56. Josephus, Antiq.
xii. 10. 6 (Josephus places the death of Alcimus before the death of Judas, see
above, p. 230). The levelling of the walls, according to 1Ma_9:54, was only
partially carried out.—It is doubtful what we are to understand by the τεῖχος
τῆς αὐλῆς τῶν ἁγίων τῆς ἐσωτέρας of 1Ma_9:54. In the temple of the Herodian age
the inner court, that is, the inner court in the strict and proper sense, was
surrounded first of all by a strong wall. Then a narrow terrace ran round about
this, the so-called Chêl, from which the ascent was made by steps into the outer
court. Under the steps ran a low breastwork, the so-called Soreg, סוֹרֶג, which
marked the boundary beyond which no Gentile was allowed to penetrate. When the
First Book of Maccabees speaks of a τεῖχος, it seems unquestionable that the
actual wall of the inner court is intended. On the other hand, we find in the
Mishna the tradition, that the Soreg had been thrown down in thirteen places
(מלכי יון) by the Greek kings, and that these thirteen “breaches” (פְּרָצוֹת)
had been subsequently closed up, and that in memory of this thirteen obeisances
were ordered to be made before it (Middoth ii. 3). It was an easy step in
advance to combine this tradition with the fact mentioned above, in which case
τεῖχος would be considered an inexact translation of סוֹרֶג (so, for example,
Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. p. 10 f.; Monatsschr. für Gesch. und
Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1876, p. 395 ff.; on the other hand: Herzfeld,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 348, Anm. iii.; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 65,
note 3). But it is very questionable whether in the simple arrangements of the
pre-Herodian temple, wall and Soreg were found already existing alongside of one
another. In any case the offence consisted in the attempt made by Alcimus to
destroy the lines of demarcation between the “holy” space of the court and the
unholy outer space, and thus to admit the Gentiles freely within the court.—The
interpretation is certainly wrong which supposes that by the inner court only
the so-called court of the priests was to be understood, and so by the τεῖχος
the boundary which within the court proper marked off the space for the
Israelites (so e.g. Keil). For this boundary was no τεῖχος, but a δρύφακτος
(Antiq. xiii. 13. 5) or γείσιον (Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 6; compare, Antiq.
viii. 3. 9), and did not probably exist before the time of Alexander Jannäus
(the mode of expression in Antiq. xiii. 13. 5 is at least indistinct). The αὐλὴ
ἐσωτέρα is undoubtedly the same as is called by Josephus: ἡ ἔνδον αὐλή (Wars of
the Jews, v. 5. 6 fin.), ὁ ἐνδότερος περίβολος (Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 2), ὁ
ἐντὸς περίβολος (Antiq. xv. 11. 5), τὸ ἐνδοτέρω ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, iv. 5,
v. 3. 1 fin., vi. 1. 8), τὸ ἔνδον ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 4), τὸ εἴσω
ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 7), τὸ ἔσωθεν ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4.
1), that is, the court in the strict and proper sense, to which all Israelites
but no Gentiles were admitted; compare also Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 299-305. [199]
Josephus assumes this in Antiq. xiii. 1. 5. Soon after the death of Alcimus,
Bacchides returned to Syria, believing that the subjugation of Judea was now
complete.[200] There follows a period of seven years, B.C. 160-153, about which
the First Book of Maccabees says almost nothing. But these seven years must have
been of very great importance for the reinvigorating of the Maccabean party. For
at the close of that period it stands forward as the one party really capable of
forming a government and as actually having Judea under its control, so that the
Syrian kings in their contentions with one another are found eagerly seeking to
secure its devoted adherence. Only by one episode is light shed upon the
darkness of this era in the record of the First Book of Maccabees. Two years
after the retirement of Bacchides, that is, in B.C. 158, the dominant party of
the Jews favourable to the Greek customs made urgent representations to the
king’s government about the resuscitation of the Maccabean party. The
consequence of this was that Bacchides went again with a still larger army in
order to utterly destroy Jonathan and his adherents. But his following had
already become so strong that Bacchides could not so easily be done with them. A
portion of them entrenched themselves under Simon’s leadership in the wilderness
at Bethbasi, a place not otherwise known, and was there laid siege to by
Bacchides in vain. With another portion Jonathan went forth on a plundering
expedition into the country. When Bacchides observed how difficult the task
assigned to him was, very much against the will of the Graeco-Jewish party which
had brought him into such difficulties, he made peace with Jonathan and returned
again to Syria.[201] [200] Macc. 9:57. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 5. [201] Macc.
9:57-72. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 5-6. The Jewish parties appear now to have
made an attempt to come to terms with one another. The result of this seems to
have been that Jonathan more and more secured again to himself the leadership.
“The sword was now at rest in Israel, and Jonathan dwelt at Michmash; and he
began to judge the people, and drove out the ungodly from Israel.” With this
laconic notice the First Book of Maccabees passes over the following five
years.[202] This can only mean that Jonathan, while the official Sanhedrim of
Jerusalem was still filled by those friendly to the Greeks, established at
Michmash a sort of rival government, which gradually won the position of main
influence in the country, so that it was able even to drive out (ἀφανίζειν) the
ungodly, that is, the Hellenizing party. The Hellenistic or Greek favouring
party had no root among the people. The great mass of the Jews had still the
distinct consciousness that Hellenism, even if it should tolerate the religion
of Israel, was irreconcilable with the ideal of the scribes. So soon, then, as
pressure from above was removed, the great majority of the people gave
themselves heart and soul to the national Jewish movement. The Maccabees,
therefore, had the people soon again at their back. And this is the explanation
of the fact that during the struggles for the Syrian throne now beginning, the
claimants contended with one another in endeavouring to secure to themselves the
good-will of the Maccabees. The Syrian kings were no longer in a position to
force upon the people a Hellenistic government, but were obliged to do all in
their power to conciliate and win the favour of the Jews. But this they could
have only under the sway of the Maccabees. The concessions they made, however,
furthered at the same time those tendencies which actually brought about the
dissolution of the Syrian empire. [202] Macc. 9:73. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1.
6.—Μαχμάς is the Old Testament מִבְמָס, according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed.
Lagarde, p. 280, nine Roman miles north of Jerusalem, in the neighbourhood of
Rama, the modern Mukhmas. See Robinson, Bibl. Researches in Palestine, vol. iii.
59-63. Raumer, Pal. p. 212. Guérin, Judée, iii. 63-65. The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 12 and 149. Also the great
English Map, Sheet xvii. In the Seleucid year 160, or B.C. 153-152, and indeed,
as the sequel shows, as early as B.C. 153 (1Ma_10:1; 1Ma_10:21), Alexander
Balas, a youth of mean extraction, and merely a tool of the kings leagued
against Demetrius, made his appearance as a claimant of the throne.[203] The
despotic Demetrius was himself no favourite in the country, and so all the
greater was the danger threatening him from the forces of the confederate kings.
It was even feared that the Jews might go over to his opponent if he should be
inclined to promise to set up among them a national government. Demetrius now
sought to meet this danger by himself granting concessions to Jonathan. He gave
him full authority to summon together an army in order to support the king, and
for this purpose agreed to the liberation of the Jewish hostages who were still
detained in the citadel of Jerusalem. Jonathan then went to Jerusalem invested
with full power. The hostages were, in fact, set free, and given back to their
parents. But Jonathan now formally seized possession of Jerusalem, and fortified
the city and the temple mount. Also the Syrian garrisons of most of the
fortresses built by Bacchides were sent away. Only in Beth-zur and in the
citadel of Jerusalem did these garrisons remain.[204] [203] The details are as
follows: In Smyrna there lived a boy (μειρακίσκος Diodorus) of the name of Balas
(Justin.), who greatly resembled Antiochus Eupator, and gave himself out as a
son of Antiochus Epiphanes, but in truth was of mean origin (sortis extremae
juvenis, Justin). Attalus II., king of Pergamum, had the youth brought to him,
gave him the name Alexander, and set him up in rivalry to Demetrius as a
claimant to the Syrian throne (Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii.
praef. p. 12, n. 14; Justin. xxxv. 1). Under the direction of Heraclides,
formerly finance minister of Antiochus Epiphanes, whom Demetrius had dismissed
(Appian. Syr. 45, 47), Alexander went to Rome, and endeavoured to obtain
recognition from the Roman senate. Although the falsity of his pretensions was
quite plain, the senate took him up and promised him its support (Polybius,
xxxiii. 14, 16). Besides, Alexander was aided not only by Attalus II. of
Pergamum, but also by Ptolemy VI. Philometor of Egypt and Ariarathes V. of
Cappadocia (Justin. xxxv. 1; Strabo, xiii. 4. 2, p. 624; Appian. Syr. 67;
Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255); and the people of Syria themselves,
on account of the overbearing and tyrannical character of Demetrius, were
decidedly inclined to favour the new claimant (Diodorus and Justin.; compare
also Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 1). Thus Alexander began the war against
Demetrius, “totius ferme orientis viribus subcinctus” (Justin.).—From this
statement of the facts, for which see especially Justin., it is evident that it
is incorrect, with Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 4. 8: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Βάλας λεγόμενος),
to represent “Balas” as the cognomen of Alexander. Rather Balas was his own
proper name, and so Strabo correctly names him (xvi. 2. 8, p. 751): τὸν Βάλαν
Ἀλέξανδρον. [204] 1Ma_10:1-14. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 1. But Demetrius was
not sufficiently liberal in his concessions to Jonathan. He was immediately far
outbidden by Alexander Balas. He appointed Jonathan high priest of the Jews, and
sent him, as a badge of princely rank, the purple and the diadem. Jonathan was
not slow to grasp these new offers. At the Feast of Tabernacles of the Seleucid
year 160, in the autumn of B.C. 153, he put on the sacred vestments.[205] He had
thus all at once, even formally, become the head of the Jewish people. The Greek
party was driven out of the government in Judea, and never again regained power,
for Jonathan succeeded in maintaining his position amid all the changes of the
following year. Favoured by circumstances, he was able to attain to that which
Judas, with all his bravery, had never been able to reach. [205] 1Ma_10:15-21.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 2-3. When Demetrius heard that Jonathan had gone over
to the party of Alexander Balas, he endeavoured by yet more liberal promises to
win him back to his side. The gracious offers which he now made the Jewish
leader were indeed too good to be credited: the tribute was to be remitted, the
citadel of Jerusalem given over to the Jews, the Jewish territory to be enlarged
by the addition of three districts of Samaria, the temple to be endowed with
rich presents and privileges, the expense of building the walls of Jerusalem was
to be defrayed out of the royal treasury.[206] [206] 1Ma_10:22-45. Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 2. 3. Jonathan was prudent enough not to yield to these tempting
offers. It was quite foreseen that Demetrius would succumb to the superior
strength of his opponent. But even should he go forth conqueror, it was not to
be expected that he would fulfil such extravagantly liberal promises. Jonathan
therefore remained on the side of Alexander Balas, and never had occasion to
regret his doing so. Demetrius was conquered by Alexander and his confederates
in B.C. 150, and lost his own life in the battle. Alexander was crowned
king.[207] [207] 1Ma_10:45-60. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 4. Polybius, iii. 5.
Justin. xxxv. 1; Appian. Syr. c. 67.—The account of the death of Demetrius is
given in fullest detail by Josephus, whose story is confirmed by Justin: invicto
animo inter confertissimos fortissime dimicans cecidit. In the same year,
however, B.C. 150 (1Ma_10:57, Seleucid year 162), an opportunity was afforded
Alexander of showing marked respect to Jonathan, and loading him with honours.
Alexander had treated with King Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt for the hand of his
daughter Cleopatra. Ptolemy had promised her to him, and the two kings now met
together in Ptolemais, where Ptolemy himself gave away his daughter to
Alexander, and the marriage was celebrated with great magnificence. Alexander
also invited Jonathan to be present, and received him with marked respect. The
deputies of the Hellenistic party in Judea, who made accusations against
Jonathan, were indeed also there. But the king gave them no audience, but only
showed his favour toward Jonathan the more conspicuously. He had him clothed in
the purple and seated beside him, and appointed him στρατηγός and μεριδάρχης,
presumably for the province of Judea, and thus the political privileges already
actually exercised were now formally confirmed.[208] [208] 1Ma_10:46-50.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 1-2.—Στρατηγός and μεριδάρχης may be taken as
equivalent to military and civil governor. For further particulars, see Grimm on
1Ma_10:65. It specially deserves notice, that, in epite of Jonathan’s
appointment as στρατηγός, a Syrian governor still continued to occupy the
citadel of Jerusalem. During the next year Jonathan was exposed to no danger
from any side in maintaining the position which he had reached. The Greek party
had been thoroughly silenced. Alexander Balas was an incapable ruler, who
abandoned himself to sensual gratifications, and never thought of restricting
the concessions that had been made to the Jewish high priest.[209] The Syrian
suzerainty continued indeed to exist. But since Jonathan and his party ruled in
Judea, the aims hitherto striven after by the Maccabees were reached. Soon,
however, the revolutions about the Syrian throne brought new dangers, but at the
same time a new opportunity for the extension of political power. We see
Jonathan now as a political partisan, sometimes of one, sometimes of another
claimant of the Syrian throne, and using in a clever manner the weakness of the
Syrian empire for the purpose of obtaining advantages to the Jewish people. But
the aims of the Maccabean movement pointed higher than this. It no longer seemed
enough that the party of Jonathan ruled unopposed in internal affairs. The
troubles of the Syrian empire were made use of for the purpose of widening the
boundaries of the Jewish territory—partly by donation, partly by conquest at
their own hand, and finally with a dogged determination to accomplish the
complete emancipation of the Jewish nation from the Syrian empire. [209] On
Alexander’s character, see Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii. praef. p.
xvi. n. 19 (he speaks of a παντελὴς ἀδυναμία τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ).—Livy, Epit. 50:
In Syria, quae eo tempore stirpe generis parem regi Macedonum, inertia
socordiaque similem Prusiae regem habebat, jacente eo in ganea et lustris,
Ammonius regnabat.—Justin. xxxv. 2: Alexandrum insperatae opes et alienae
felicitatis ornamenta velut captum inter scortorum greges desidem in regia
tenebant. In B.C. 147 (1Ma_10:67, Seleucid year 165), Demetrius II., son of
Demetrius I., set himself up as rival king in opposition to the contemptible
weakling Alexander Balas. Apollonius, the governor of Coele-Syria, took his
side, while Jonathan continued faithful to Alexander. Consequently hostilities
were commenced between Apollonius and Jonathan, in which Jonathan was
victorious. He drove out a garrison of Apollonius’ from Joppa, then defeated an
army under the command of Apollonius in the neighbourhood of Ashdod, destroyed
Ashdod and the temple of Dagon in that city, and returned to Jerusalem with rich
spoils.[210] In acknowledgment of this support, Alexander Balas bestowed upon
him the city of Ekron and its territory.[211] [210] 1Ma_10:67-87. Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 4. 3-4. Josephus describes the affair so erroneously as to make
Apollonius take the side of Alexander Balas.—On Joppa and Ashdod, see Div. ii.
vol. i. pp. 79 ff., 76 ff. [211] 1Ma_10:88-89. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 4.
Josephus assigns as motive for the donation, that Alexander Balas wished to make
it appear that Apollonius, as his general, had attacked Jonathan against the
king’s will.—Ἀκκαρών is the old Philistine עֶקְרוֹן, according to Eusebius,
Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 218, between Ashdod and Jamnia, toward the east,
therefore probably identical with the modern Akir, east of Jamnia. See Robinson,
Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 189, 234. Raumer, Palästina, p. 185.
Guérin, Judée, ii. 36-44. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, ii. 408. Also the large English Map, Sheet xvi. But Jonathan was the
only one who stood by Alexander in opposition to Demetrius. The inhabitants of
Antioch, and Alexander’s own soldiers, declared in favour of Demetrius.[212]
Even his own father-in-law, Ptolemy, ranged himself on the side of Alexander’s
opponent, took Cleopatra back from Alexander, and gave her to the new candidate
for the throne as his wife.[213] Ptolemy also led a strong army against
Alexander, with which he attacked him at the river Oenoparas, on the plains of
Antioch. Alexander fled to Arabia, where his life was put an end to by the hand
of an assassin. Immediately afterward Ptolemy also died of wounds received in
the battle.[214] Thus Demetrius became king in B.C. 145 (1Ma_11:19, Seleucid
year 167. Comp. on this subject, above, page 175). [212] Justin. xxxv. 2. [213]
1Ma_11:1-13. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 5-7. Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist.
Graec. ii. p. xvi. n. 19. Livy, Epit. 52. [214] 1Ma_11:14-19. Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 4. 8. Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii. p. xvi. n. 20. Livy,
Epit. 52.—The locality of the battle is given by Strabo, xvi. 2. 8, p. 751. As
the confederate of Alexander Balas, Jonathan had occupied a hostile attitude
toward Demetrius. It would appear that he now felt himself strong enough to make
the attempt to secure by force emancipation from the Syrian empire. In a regular
manner he laid siege to the citadel of Jerusalem, in which a Syrian garrison
still lay. Here again, as so often happened in similar cases, it was the
opposition party in his own nation, the ἄνδρες παράνομοι and ἄνομοι, as they are
called in 1Ma_11:21; 1Ma_11:25, who called the attention of the Syrian king to
these revolutionary measures. In consequence of these reports, Demetrius
summoned Jonathan to Ptolemais to answer for his conduct. But Jonathan was
daring enough boldly to claim concessions from Demetrius. He allowed the siege
still to proceed, betook himself with rich presents to Ptolemais, and demanded
of Demetrius the cession to Judea of three provinces of Samaria, and immunity
from tribute for this whole district. These were some of the most essential
points in the concessions which Demetrius I. had made to Jonathan. Demetrius did
not venture to refuse these demands. He agreed to add to Judea the three
Samaritan provinces of Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim, made over this enlarged
Judea to Jonathan free from tribute, and confirmed him in all dignities which he
had previously enjoyed. Of the citadel of Jerusalem no mention whatever was then
made. Evidently these concessions were the price on account of which Jonathan
agreed to raise the siege.[215] [215] 1Ma_11:20-37. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4.
9.—Confirmation of former dignities, 1Ma_11:27. The three provinces, 11:34
(compare 10:30, 38, 11:28, 57); freedom from tribute, 11:34, 35.—Ἀφαίρεμα is in
all probability that Ephraim to which Christ withdrew shortly before the
Passover (John 11:54), according to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 9, in the
neighbourhood of Bethel; according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p.
254, twenty Roman miles north of Jerusalem (καὶ ἔστι νῦν κώμη Ἐφραεὶμ μεγίστη
περὶ τὰ βόρεια Αἰλίας ὡς ἀπὸ σημείων κʹ), and five Roman miles east of Bethel
(Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 94, et est hodie vicus Efrem in quinto
miliario Bethelis ad orientem respiciens; the parallel Greek text of Eusebius,
p. 222, is defective). Also אפרים of 2 Samuel 13:23, and עפרון of 2 Chronicles
13:19, designate probably the same place. For conjectures about its situation,
see Robinson, Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 67-72. Guérin, Judée, iii.
45-51.—On Lydda, the modern Ludd, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 159.—Ῥαμαθέμ is
certainly the wellknown city of Samuel, 1 Samuel 1:1, רָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים,
elsewhere more shortly named הָרָמָה; but its position still continues very
doubtful. According to 1 Samuel 1:1, it lay on Mount Ephraim. Eusebius places it
in the neighbourhood of Diospolis-Lydda (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 225 sq.:
Ἀρμαθὲμ Σειφά· πόλις Ἑλκανὰ καὶ Σαμουήλ· κεῖται δὲ αὕτη πλησίον Διοσπόλεως, ὅθεν
ἦν Ἰωσήφ, ἐν εὐαγγελίοις ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθίας. In Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p.
96, the passage runs: Armathem Sophim civitas Helcanae et Samuhelis in regione
Thamnitica juxta Diospolim, unde fuit Joseph, qui in evangeliis, de Arimathia
scribitur). One passage, 1Ma_11:34, vouches for the correctness of this
statement, for it says that down to the time of Jonathan the city belonged to
Samaria. It is probably to be identified with the modern Beit Rima, north-east
of Lydda, in the neighbourhood of Thamna (see Furrer in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon,
art. “Rama”). Distinct from this one is another Ramah, in the tribe of Benjamin,
which lay much nearer Jerusalem (against Graf, Studien und Kritiken, 1854, p.
858 ff., and Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. “Rama,” who identify the two
places). Compare Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1275. Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels, on 1
Samuel 9:4. Winer, RWB. art. “Rama.” Stanley, Sinai and Palestine (1881), pp.
224, 225. Ewald, History of Israel, ii. 421. Henderson, Palestine, p. 111. Such
a receding ou the part of the Syrian king before the Jewish demands ten years
previously would not have been thought of for a moment. But now the power of the
Seleucidae was broken. None of the kings of Syria was henceforth sure of his
throne. And Jonathan knew how to make use of this weakness, and skilfully to
turn it to his own advantage. The next years gave him abundant opportunities for
carrying out his policy of annexation. Demetrius had scarcely made these
concessions, when he found himself obliged to make new promises in order to
secure the support of Jonathan in circumstances of serious difficulty. A certain
Diodotus, surnamed Tiypho, of Apamea,[216] a former general of Alexander Balas,
managed to get hold of the person of the youthful son of Alexander, called
Antiochus, who had been brought up by an Arab Imalkue, and set him up as rival
king in opposition to Demetrius.[217] The situation was fraught with extreme
peril to Demetrius, since his own troops deserted, and the inhabitants of
Antioch assumed a hostile attitude. In face of these dangers, he promised to
surrender to Jonathan the citadel of Jerusalem and the other fortresses of
Judea, if Jonathan would place at his disposal auxiliary troops. Jonathan soon
sent three thousand men, who just arrived at the right moment in order to afford
powerful aid to the king in suppressing the revolt that had now broken out in
Antioch. It was admittedly by their assistance that the rising in the city was
crushed. With the thanks of the king, and with rich booty, the Jewish troops
returned to Jerusalem.[218] [216] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 1: Ἀπαμεὺς τὸ γένος.
More exactly, Strabo, xvi. 2. 10, p. 752: δηλοῖ δὲ τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην (scil. τῆς
Ἀπαμείας) ἥ τε τοῦ Τρύφωνος ἐπικληθέντος Διοδότου παραύξησις καὶ ἐπίθεσις τῇ
βασιλείᾳ τῶν Σύρων, ἐντεῦθεν ὁρμηθέντος. Ἐγεγένητο μὲν γὰρ ἐν Κασιανοῖς, φρουρίῳ
τινὶ τῆς Ἀπαμέων γῆς, τραφεὶς δʼ ἐν τῇ Ἀπαμείᾳ καὶ συσταθεὶς τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ τοῖς
περὶ αὐτόν, ἐπειδὴ νεωτερίζειν ὥρμησεν, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης ἔσχε τὰς ἀφορμὰς
καὶ τῶν περιοικίδων, Λαρίσης τε καὶ τῶν Κασιανῶν καὶ Μεγάρων καὶ Ἀπολλωνίας καὶ
ἄλλων τοιούτων, αἳ συνετέλουν εἰς τὴν Ἀπάμειαν ἅπασαι.—The fortress of Apamea,
famous on account of its strength, lay on the Orontes, south of Antioch. Compare
Strabo, xvi. 2. 8-10, pp. 751-753. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2. 1070, 1076-1086.
[217] 1Ma_11:39-40; 1Ma_11:54. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 1 and 2. Diodorus in
Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. t. ii. p. xvii. n. 21. Livy, Epit. 52.—Appian. Syr.
c. 68, erroneously calls the young king Alexander. The name of the Arab,
Εἰμαλκουαί or Ἰμαλκουέ (1Ma_11:39), in Hebrew ימלכו, which is met with on
Palmyrian inscriptions; see Nöldeke in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften (1885),
p. 74. Josephus, the Syriac, and the Latin text of the cod. Sagerm. read here
Malchus; Diodorus gives Jamblichus, which also is nothing else than ימלכו Latin
Jamblichus, Corp. Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 1233. [218] 1Ma_11:33;
1Ma_11:41-52. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 2-3. But Demetrius did not fulfil the
promise which he had made. It also soon appeared that he must yield before the
new claimant to the throne. With the help of the troops that had deserted from
Demetrius, Trypho and Antiochus made themselves masters of the capital Antioch,
and in this way secured the sway in the centre of the empire. Without delay they
sought also to win over Jonathan to their side. Antiochus confirmed him in
possession of all that Demetrius had granted him. At the same time his brother
Simon was appointed military commander for the king, from the ladder of Tyre
down to the borders of Egypt.[219] [219] 1Ma_11:53-59. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5.
3-4.—The κλίμαξ Τύρου or Τυρίων is, according to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.
10. 2, a high hill, a hundred stades north of Ptolemais. By the appointment as
στρατηγός over the district named, Simon became an officer of the king of the
highest rank, and that also outside of Judea. The position must first have been
given him in opposition to the στρατηγός of Demetrius. Compare Stark, Gaza, p.
491 f. In view of the faithlessness and weakness of Demetrius, Jonathan regarded
it as justifiable as well as useful to pass over to the side of Antiochus. He
therefore joined his party, and undertook, in connection with his brother Simon,
to reduce the provinces of the empire lying next to Judea under the rule of the
new claimant. A beginning was made in those districts over which Simon had been
appointed military commander. So Jonathan, at the head of Jewish and Syrian
troops, went out against the cities of Ascalon and Gaza. The former readily
declared its submission to Antiochus ; the latter yielded only after Jonathan
had recourse to forcible measures. He compelled the city to give hostages, and
took them with him to Jerusalem.[220] Then Jonathan proceeded to northern
Galilee, and offered battle in the valley of Hazor to the general of Demetrius,
which at first went against him, but at last resulted in a victory.[221] At the
same time Simon laid siege to the fortress of Bethzur in the south of Judea,
where still a garrison adhering to Demetrius lay. After a long siege he
compelled them to surrender the citadel, and placed in it a Jewish
garrison.[222] [220] 1Ma_11:60-62. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 5.—On Askalon and
Gaza, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 74 ff., 68 ff. It is deserving of notice that
Jonathan is here regarded as a partisan of Trypho and Antiochus. It was not
therefore intended to unite these cities with the Jewish territory, but only to
compel them to attach themselves to the party to which Jonathan belonged. [221]
1Ma_11:63-74. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 6-7.—Ἀσώρ, 1Ma_11:67, is the חָצוֹר of
Joshua 11:1; Joshua 11:10-13; Joshua 12:19; Joshua 19:36; Judges 4:2; Judges
4:17; 1 Samuel 12:9; 1 Kings 9:15; 2 Kings 15:29. According to Josephus, Antiq.
v. 5. 1 (compare Joshua 11:5), it lay in the neighbourhood of the Lake
Semechonitis or Merom (ὑπέρκειται τῆς Σεμεχωνίτιδος λίμνης), therefore in the
extreme north of Palestine. The name is probably still retained in the modern
Merj Hadîreh (valley of Hadireh), and Jebel Hadîreh (Mount Hadireh), west of the
Merom lake, in the great wady running down to the Merom lake. See Sheet iv. of
the large English Map. Robinson describes “the ruins” lying in the neighbourhood
of el-Khureibeh as marking the position of the city of Hazor. See generally,
Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, p. 365. Guérin, Galilée, ii.
363-368. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i.
204. Also Raumer, Palästina, p. 127 f., and the article Hazor or Hasor in the
dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm. Ritter is mistaken when in his
Erdkunde, xv. 1. 260-265 (Eng. transl. ii. 221-225), he places Hazor to the
north-east of the Merom lake. That it lay on the western side, a little south of
Kadish, is proved by 1Ma_11:63; 1Ma_11:67; 1Ma_11:73. [222] 1Ma_11:65-66.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 6. While taking those steps toward the establishment
of his power, Jonathan did not forget to strengthen his position still further
by diplomatic negotiations with foreign nations. He sent two ambassadors,
Numenius and Antipater, to Rome, in order to renew the covenant with the Romans
that had been concluded in the time of Judas.[223] These ambassadors were also
bearers of letters from the high priest and Jewish people to Sparta and other
places, in order to open up and secure friendly relations with them.[224] From
these documents we also learn that such relations between the Jews and foreign
peoples were not wholly without example in earlier times. In the letter to the
Spartans, Jonathan refers to the fact that King Areus of Sparta had addressed a
friendly communication to the high priest Onias.[225] [223] 1Ma_12:1-4; the
names of the ambassadors, 12:16. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 8.—Compare,
Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta Societatis philologue Lipsiensis, t. v. 1876, pp.
101-104. [224] 1Ma_12:2 : πρὸς Σπαρτιάτας καὶ τόκους ἑτέρους. The letter to the
Spartans in particular, 1Ma_12:5-23; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 8. The answer of
the Spartans, 1Ma_14:16-23. [225] 1Ma_12:7-8; 1Ma_12:19-22. Josephus, Antiq.
xii. 4. 10, xiii. 5. 8.—The name of the Spartan king seldom occurs in the
manuscripts of the First Book of Maccabees. In 1Ma_12:7 it is given as Δαρεῖος,
in 12:20 as Ὀνιάσης; but the codex Sinaiticus has the better reading ονιααρης,
that is, Ὀνίᾳ Ἄσης, for the rare name Oniares is produced simply by combination
with the previously occurring name of Onias. In both places, as both Josephus
and the Vetus Lat. agree in showing, the original form was Ἄρειος. The more
correct form is Ἀρεύς. It is thus given in Greek authors and inscriptions. See
Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, t. ii. 1, n. 352. Hicks, Manual of Greek
Historical Inscriptions, Oxford 1882, p. 286 f.; Dittenberger, Sylloge inscript.
grase. n. 163. There were two Spartan kings of this name : Areus I., who,
according to Diodorus, xx. 29, reigned for forty years, from B.C. 309 to B.C.
265; and Areus II., who reigned about B.C. 255, but died while only a child of
eight years. See Pausanias, iii. 6. 6. On the Spartan kings, see Clinton, Fasti
Hellenici, ii. 255-271, and article “Areus” in Pauly’s Real-Encycl. While Onias
II. could scarcely have been contemporary with Areus II., it has been assumed
that Areue I. was the contemporary of Onias I. The combination of Josephus is
certainly erroneous in Antiq. xii. 4. 10, which brings down the latter to the
time of Onias III. The latter therefore belongs to the period of the Diadochae,
when the Spartans, in their conflict with Antigonus and his son Demetrius
Poliorcetes, might very naturally have been supposed to entertain the idea of
making the situation difficult for their opponent by exciting agitations in the
East.—Compare generally on the relations between the Jews and the Spartans:
Wernsdorff, Commentatio historico- critica de fide historica librorum
Maccabaicorum, 1747, pp. 140-171. H. J. E. Palmer, De epistolarum, quas Spartani
atque Judaei invicem sibi misisse dicuntur, veritate, Darmst. 1828. Grimm,
Exegetischen Handbuch zum 1 Makkabäerbuch, pp. 184 ff., 210 f. The articles
“Sparta,” “Spartaner,” in the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm. The
curious fancy which led Hitzig to seek the Spartans in Asia Minor, scarcely
deserves mention. See Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenland. Gessellschaft, Bd.
ix. 1855, pp. 731-737; Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 345-349.—The fiction of
a relationship between the Jews and the Spartans, which constituted the motive
for the Spartans to write their letter (1Ma_12:6-7; 1Ma_12:21; compare 2Ma_5:9),
was not unheard of during the era of Hellenism. Freudenthal, Alexander
Polyhistor, p. 29, Anm., refers in illustration and for proof to Stephen of
Byzantium under the word Ἰουδαία.… ὡς Κλαύδιος Ἰούλιος ἀπὸ, Οὐδαίου Σπάρτων ἑνὸς
ἐκ Θήβης μετὰ Διονύσου ἐστρατευκότος. In a decree of the Pergamenes (Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 18. 22) there is also mention of a relation between the Jews and the
Pergamenes. Compare also J. G. Müller, Die Semiten in ihrem Verhältniss zu
Chamiten und Japhetiten (1872), p. 101. The conflict between Jonathan and
Demetrius meantime continued, and was so conducted by him that he not only
served the interests of Trypho and Antiochus, but also advanced his own. Soon
after the defeat which the troops of Demetrius sustained in the valley of Hazor,
Demetrius sent a new army to attack Jonathan. But this time the Jewish leader
withdrew farther to the north, into the district of Hamath, north of Lebanon. No
decisive engagement had taken place, when the Syrian army was recalled.[226]
Jonathan then turned his forces against the Arabian tribe of the Zabadeans, then
against Damascus, and then, again, he directed his course southwards. When he
had returned to Jerusalem he saw to the strengthening of the fortifications of
the city, and by the erection of a high wall cut off the Syrian garrison from
all intercourse with the city.[227] Even before Jonathan’s return Simon had
placed a Jewish garrison in Joppa. He now also fortified Adida in the “Sephela,”
that is, in the lowlands in the west of Judea.[228] [226] 1Ma_12:24-30.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 10.—On the fact recorded here and in what follows,
Derenbourg in his Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 99, 100, would refer to the
statement in Megillath Taanith, § 33: “On the 17th Adar, when the Gentiles had
risen against the little group of the scribes in the districts of Chalcis and
Zabdea, there came salvation to the house of Israel.” This combination seems to
me exceedingly venturous, although even Wellhausen in his Pharisäer und
Sadducäer, p. 58, is inclined to agree to it.—On Hamath, see the dictionaries of
Winer, Schenkel, Riehm, and Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2. 1031 ff. [227]
1Ma_12:31-37. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 10-11. [228] 1Ma_12:33-34; 1Ma_12:38.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 10.—Σεφήλα is the Hebrew שְׁפֵלָה, the lowland west of
the mountainous region of Judea. In the Mishna, Schebiith ix. 2, a distinction
is made between שפלת לוד (lowlands near Lydda) and שפלת הדרום (lowlands of the
south). So, too, Jerome in his commentary on Obadiah ver. 19 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi,
vi. 381): qui autem habitabant in Sephela id est in campestribus, Liddam et
Emmaus, Diospolim scilicet Nicopolimque, significans.… Alii vero putant eam
Sephelam id est campestrem regionem, quae circa Eleutheropolim est, repromitti
etc. Less definite is the statement in Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p.
296: Σεφηλά.…καὶ εἰς ἔτι νῦν Σεφηλὰ καλεῖται. αὕτη ἐστὶν πᾶσα ἡ περὶ τὴν
Ἐλευθερόπολιν πεδινὴ χώρα πρὸς βορρᾶν καὶ δυσμάς. In our passage the district of
Lydda is meant.—Ἀδιδά, 1Ma_12:38; 1Ma_13:13, to the חָדִיד of Ezra 2:33;
Nehemiah 7:37; Nehemiah 11:34. In the Mishna, Arachin ix. 6, חדיר is referred to
as one of the old cities which were surrounded with walls as early as the days
of Joshua. A Rabbi Jakim of Chadid is met with in Edujoth vii. 5. The common
printed text has been indeed הדד or הדר, but all the better copies have חדיד.
The Greek forms Ἄδδιδα or Ἄδιδα are given in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 4, 15. 2;
Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 1. According to the latter passage, it commanded the
main road which led from the west, therefore from Joppa to Jerusalem. The fact
that in Ezra 2:34 and Nehemiah 7:37 it is named together with Lydda and Ono, is
in agreement with this. The Aditha juxta, Diospolim quasi ad orientalem plagam
respiciens, referred to by Eusebius and Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 93,
is therefore probably to be identified with the modern Haditheh, east of Lydda.
See the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm; also Raumer, Palästina, p.
168 f. Guérin, Samarie, ii. 64-67. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by
Conder and Kitchener, ii. 297, 322. See also large English Map, Sheet xiv. All
these operations were avowedly carried on by Jonathan and Simon in the interests
of the young king Antiochus and his tutor-regent Trypho. But the latter seems to
have regarded with considerable misgivings the increase of the Jewish power. And
not without reason. For the more the power of the Jews themselves increased, the
greater became the danger of their shaking themselves free of the Syrian
dominion altogether. It may therefore be quite easily understood how Trypho, so
soon as Demetrius allowed him a free hand, turned against Jonathan. According to
the First Book of Maccabees, this came about because Trypho wished himself to
assume the crown, while Jonathan would not allow it This may indeed have been
so, only the motives by which Jonathan was actuated were not so much moral as
political.[229] [229] 1Ma_12:39-40. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 1. Trypho went
therefore with an army to Palestine, in order to reduce within moderate limits
the increasing Jewish power. At Beth-sean or Scythopolis he met Jonathan. The
interview was at first of a friendly nature, although Jonathan had with him as
large an army as that of Trypho. Trypho sought to remove the suspicions of
Jonathan by heaping upon him tokens of respect. He represented to him that a
great army was superfluous, since they did not occupy toward one another a
warlike attitude. If Jonathan should follow him with a small select company to
Ptolemais, he should give over to him that city and “the rest of the fortresses
and troops,” meaning those between the Ladder of Tyre and the borders of Egypt,
over which Simon had been appointed military commander.[230] Jonathan actually
allowed himself to be deceived by those promises. He dismissed his army, and
followed Trypho to Ptolemais with only a thousand men. But scarcely had he
reached that place when he was put in prison, and his people murderously cut
down.[231] [230] On Beth-sean or Scythopolis, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 110. On
Ptolemais, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 90. [231] 1Ma_12:41-53. Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 6. 1-3. The news of this faithless proceeding of Trypho caused great
excitement throughout Judea. It was natural that Simon, the last survivor of the
five brothers of the Maccabees, should place himself at the head of affairs. By
the decree of a popular assembly he was formally chosen leader. His first acts
were the acceleration of the works on the fortifications of Jerusalem, and
taking definite possession of Joppa. The latter place had never hitherto
belonged to the Jewish territory. But in the exercise of his own official
authority as military commander over the coast districts, Simon had placed there
a Jewish garrison. The Gentile inhabitants were now expelled from Joppa, the
city was Judaized and united with the Jewish territory.[232] [232] 1Ma_13:1-11.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 3.—On Joppa, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 79. Trypho, now
carrying Jonathan as prisoner with him, went against Judea with a great army. At
Adida, Simon obstructed his march into the interior by opposing him with his
troops. Thereupon Trypho sent ambassadors to Simon and let him know that he kept
Jonathan prisoner only for this reason, that he had failed to pay the money due
for the offices that had been conferred upon him. If the money should be paid,
and as a guarantee of future fidelity, the sons of Jonathan delivered up as
hostages, he would then set him free. But although Simon now sent all that was
demanded, Jonathan was not liberated. Trypho sought rather by going round about
the mountains, to push on to Jerusalem over Adora in Idumaea from the south.
When he was prevented from accomplishing this by a heavy snowfall, he marched
his troops on to Gilead, that is, through the country east of the Jordan, caused
Jonathan to be murdered at Bascama, and returned back to Syria.[233] [233]
1Ma_13:12-24. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 4-5. Adora is an Idumean city, which was
afterwards conquered by John Hyrcanus (Antiq. xiii. 9. 1; see below, §
8).—Bascama is otherwise unknown. According to the connection of the story, it
is to be looked for in the country east of the Jordan. Simon now actually
entered into his brother’s place as high priest of the Jews. He had the remains
of Jonathan carried from Bascama, and buried him beside his parents and three
brothers, at their native Modein. Over their common sepulchre, Simon, at a later
period, erected a magnificent monument, which could be seen from the sea.[234]
[234] 1Ma_13:25-30. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 5.—The sepulchral monument at
Modein was still existing in the time of Eusebius.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: � 7. SIMON, B.C. 142-135
========================================================================

§ 7. SIMON, B.C. 142-[235] [235] The date of Jonathan’s death is not given in
the First Book of Maccabees, which between 11:19 and 13:41 makes no mention of
any particular year. But since, according to 13:41 and 14:27, the year of
Simon’s rule is to be connected from Seleucid year 170, or B.C. 143-142,
Jonathan’s death must be placed at the end of B.C. 143 or the beginning of B.C.
142. It is given in 1Ma_13:22 as occurring in winter. With this also agrees the
statement of Josephus, that Simon reigned for eight years (Antiq. xii. 7. 4),
from B.C. 142 to B.C. 135; while the statement in Antiq. xiii. 6. 5, that
Jonathan had been high priest for four years, is erroneous. SOURCES 1Ma_13:31 to
1Ma_16:22. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6-7. A summary of it in Zonaras, Annal. iv.
24, v. 1. Some dates from Megillath Taanith; see Derenbourg, pp. 67-69. On the
Shekel coins which have been ascribed by many to Simon, see Appendix IV.
LITERATURE The works on Syrian history by Clinton, Foy-Vaillant, Frölich,
Flathe, Stark, etc. The treatises and commentaries on the books of Maccabees by
Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc. EWALD’S History of
Israel, v. 333-342. HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 320-334. GRÄTZ,
Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl., or Geschichte der Judäer von dem Tode
Juda Makkabi’s, etc., 1888, pp. 50-63. HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii.
450-459. Art. “Simon” in Winer’s RWB., and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon. STANLEY,
Jemsh Church, vol. iii. (1877) 361-368. BY the heroic deeds and successes of
Jonathan, the Maccabean party had passed out far beyond its original aims. It
had not at first intended to strive for anything more than the restoration of
the Jewish worship, and the securing of the free exercise of the Jewish
religion. But even Judas, when he had attained this end, did not rest satisfied
therewith. He and his party then wished also to gain the supremacy in the
control of home affairs. In the time of Jonathan this end was completely won. By
Jonathan’s appointment as high priest the ruling power was placed in the hands
of the Maccabean party, and the Hellenistic party was driven out. But even this
no longer seemed sufficient. Favourable circumstances—the weakness of the Syrian
empire—tempted them to strive after thorough emancipation from the Syrian
suzerainty. The last acts of Jonathan were important steps in this direction.
The significance of the reign of Simon consists in this, that it completed the
work of Jonathan, and made the Jewish people wholly independent of the Syrian
empire. In Syria, Demetrius and Trypho, as tutor-regent for the young king
Antiochus, still occupied a position of antagonism to one another. Trypho, who
had hitherto appeared only as representative of his youthful protégé, about this
time or not much later, let fall the mask, secured the assassination of
Antiochus VI., and had himself crowned king.[236] [236] Macc. 13:31, 32.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 1. Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. t. ii. p.
xix. n. 25. Livy, Epit. 55. Appian, Syr. c. 68; Justin, xxxvi. 1.—The murder was
committed by surgeons. Compare Livy: Alexandri filius, rex Syriae, decem annos
admodum habens, a Diodot, qui Tryphon cognominabatur, tutore suo, per fraudem
occisus est corruptis medicis, qui illum calculi dolore consumi ad populum
mentiti, dum secant, occiderunt.—Josephus and the non-Jewish sources place the
murder of Antiochus VI. somewhat later, after Demetrius II. had been taken
prisoner by the Parthians. The First Book of Maccabees records it in the above
connection, even before Demetrius had entered upon his Parthian campaign.
Compare on this discrepancy, above, page 176. After the last hostile proceeding
on the part of Trypho, it was clear that Simon would unhesitatingly attach
himself to Demetrius. But he did this only after he had exacted the promise that
Demetrius would recognise the freedom of the Jews. While he continued eagerly to
proceed with the building of the fortresses of Judea, he sent an embassy to
Demetrius “to secure for his country exemption from tribute.” Since Demetrius
had actually no longer any power in the south of the empire, it was in his
interest to act the part of the munificent, and to guarantee to the Jews all
that they desired. He therefore not only granted remission of all outstanding
taxes, but also perfect exemption from all paying of tribute in the future.[237]
Thus was the political independence of Judea recognised. “The yoke of the
Gentiles,” as the First Book of Maccabees expresses it, “was taken away from
Israel.” In order to give expression to this fact, they now adopted a mode of
reckoning of their own, beginning with the Seleucid year 170, or B.C. 143-142.
Documents and treatises were dated according to the year of Simon as high priest
and prince of the Jews.[238] [237] Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4
Aufl. p. 566, and Derenbourg, p. 69, refer to Megillath Taanith, § 6. According
to this authority, the 27th Ijjar, or May, was the day when the tribute was
remitted. [238] Macc. 13:33-42; compare 14:27. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 6.—In
Justin’s extract from Trogus Pompeius the freedom of the Jews is made to date
from the time of Demetrius I. He says of Antiochus VII. Sidetes (Justin, xxxvi.
1. 10): Judaeos quoque, qui in Macedonico imperio sub Demetrio patre armis se in
libertatem vindicaverant, subegit (instead of patre, Merzbacher proposes, in
Zeitschrift für Num. v. 310, to read fratre, because Demetrius II. is meant).
Also Justin, xxxvi. 3. 9: A Demetrio cum descivistent, amicitia Romanorum petita
primi omnium ex orientalibus libertatem acceperunt, facile tune Romanis de
alieno largientibus. With this statement of the First Book of Maccabees we ought
to combine a fact derived from a study of numismatics. There are Jewish shekel
and half-shekel coins which, in the opinion of most numismatists, were stamped
in the time of Simon. They bore on the one side the inscription ירושלם קדשה or
ירושלים הקדושה, on the other side, according to their weight, either שקל ישראל,
Israel’s shekel, or חצי השקל, half-shekel. On the whole shekel and on the
half-shekel the number of the year was impressed, and there are specimens of
both coins with the year numbers א, ב, נ, ד (1, 2, 3, 4), and one specimen of a
whole shekel with the date ה or 5.[239] The era here used is held to be the era
of Simon referred to in the First Book of Maccabees. Now these coins, if indeed
they were stamped in the time of Simon, are not to be considered properly as
coins of Simon, but as coins of the civic commune of Jerusalem, for after the
fashion of the Hellenistic communes Jerusalem is regarded as in a position of
authority over all Judea (compare § 23, I. and II.). Also the number of the year
on the coins does not designate the year of Simon’s reign, but the year of a
civil era of Jerusalem; as also other cities of Phoenicia, such as Tyre, Sidon,
Ascalon, had begun toward the end of the second century before Christ, in token
of the freedom which they had obtained, to adopt a cycle of their own.[240] But
even were it possible that the era used upon the coins was identical with “the
years of Simon” spoken of in the First Book of Maccabees, the first year of
Simon is just the same as the first year of Jewish freedom.[241] But a
difficulty is presented by the fact that up to the present time out of the great
number of specimens of shekel coins only one piece is found bearing the mark of
the year 5; and that no higher numbers are found, whereas the era of Simon,
according to 1Ma_13:41-42; 1Ma_14:27, began in the Seleucid year 170, and Simon
did not die before the Seleucid year 177 (1Ma_16:14), so that coins of his time
might have been expected at least with the years 6 and 7. Merzbacher has
therefore assumed that the era of Simon had been made in the First Book of
Maccabees to begin two years too early. Its actual starting-point was the third
year of Simon, the Seleucid year 172, or B.C. 141-140, in which Simon was
pronounced by a popular decree hereditary high priest (1Ma_14:25-49). Then, too,
for the first time did Demetrius confer the privileges that have been mentioned
upon the Jews. But the author of the First Book of Maccabees has erroneously
used the official “first” year of Simon as interchangeable with his actual first
year.[242] The reasons for this hypothesis are set forth by Merzbacher with
acuteness and skill of combination, but on closer examination they do not prove
convincing.[243] The plain and distinct statement of the First Book of
Maccabees, that a beginning was made in the Seleucid year 170 to number the
years of Simon (13:41, 42; compare 14:27), cannot be thus set aside. Also
Merzbacher’s theory is set up simply in order to overcome the difficulty above
referred to which the year numbers on the shekel occasion. But besides this
difficulty there are still other considerations which tell against the
supposition that the shekel was issued under Simon.[244] It cannot therefore be
regarded as by any means certain, though indeed most numismatists are in favour
of the idea.[245] [239] The literature about these shekel coins is given in the
Appendix IV. [240] Tyre has an era beginning B.C. 126, Sidon one beginning B.C.
111, Ascalon one beginning B.C. 104. See on this subject the works enumerated in
Div. ii. vol. i. p. 57, especially those of Noris and Eckhel. On Ascalon, also
Div. ii. vol. i. p. 75. [241] The striking statement of the First Book of
Maccabees runs (1Ma_13:42): καὶ ἤρξατο ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ γράφειν ἐν ταῖς συγγραφαῖς
καὶ συναλλάγμασιν· Ἔτους πρώτου ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως μεγάλου καὶ στρατηγοῦ καὶ
ἡγουμένου Ἰουδαίων. [242] Merzbacher in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd.
v. 1878, pp. 292-319. He is followed by Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp.
65-67. [243] Merzbacher refers specially to the following: 1. In the popular
decree of the Seleucid year 172 it was determined among other things that all
State documents should be written in Simon’s name (1Ma_14:43 : ὅπως γράφωνται
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι συγγραφαὶ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ). If this was then resolved upon
for the first time, they could not have begun two years earlier to date
documents and treaties according to the years of Simon, as is affirmed in
1Ma_13:42 : γράφειν ἐν ταῖς συγγαφαῖς καὶ συναλλάγμασιν· Ἔτους πρώτου ἐπὶ
Σίμωνος, etc. But even if we should grant that γράφειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι precisely
means: to date according to the years of Simon, the contents of that popular
decree are by this argumentation adjudged to be false. When this has been done
nothing new is introduced, but only that which we already had is firmly
established and confirmed. 2. Merzbacher lays special stress upon the fact that
as motive for the popular decree of the Seleucid year 172, among other things,
it can be shown that King Demetrius confirmed Simon in his position as high
priest, and assigned to him distinguished honours, because he had heard that the
Romans had respectfully received the ambassadors of Simon (1Ma_14:38-40). The
charter of Demetrius thus belongs to a period later than that of Simon’s embassy
to Rome, which was sent in the Seleucid year 172 (1Ma_14:24 compared with 14:1).
Hence that charter, for the issuing of which a beginning was made in the dating
of the years of Simon, would not have been sent out in the Seleucid year 170,
but in 172, immediately before the popular decree. But thia argumentation proves
too much. At the time of the popular assembly Simon’s embassy was still on its
way to Home; perhaps it had not yet even started, for it did not return before
the Seleucid year 174 (1Ma_15:15 compared with 15:10). If, then, it had been in
consequence of its success that Demetrius granted the charter, then it must have
been issued after the popular gathering that gave forth the decree, which
naturally Merzbachcr does not assume. The statement that the charter of
Demetrius was occasioned by the success of Simon’s Roman embassy must therefore
be pronounced untenable. It is an inexact expression of the fact that
Demetrius’s treatment of the Jews was determined by their friendly relations
with the Romans, which had already existed for a long time (compare Keil,
Commentar, p. 233, Anm.). But with this admission the whole argument falls to
pieces. [244] According to 1Ma_15:6, it was Antiochus VII. Sidetes, in the
Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139-138, who first gave Simon the right of issuing
coins. On this point, however, no special weight should be laid, since it may
quite fairly be regarded as simply the confirmation of a privilege that had been
previously usurped. Of more importance is the fact that the coins of Simon’s
immediate successor, John Hyrcanus, are of quite a different style. Hence a very
thorough change in the art of minting must have taken place. [245] See details
about the minting of the shekel and its date in Appendix IV.—Besides the shekel,
copper coins with the inscription on the obverse לגאלת ציון, and on the reverse
שנת ארבע: the deliverance of Zion, year 4 are assigned by many numismatists to
the age of Simon. The support for this supposition is even less certain than
that for the shekel coining. Decidedly false, and now generally abandoned, is
the conjecture of the earlier numismatists, that the coins which bore the name
of Simon belong to Simon the Maccabee. See on these two classes of coins the
details in Appendix IV. The charter of Demetrius conferred privileges which,
indeed, Demetrius had it not in his power to give away. It was Simon’s policy
rather to emphasize and give effect to these in face of the power of Trypho,
which was more perilous to him. In order to confirm his position, Simon sought
above all to get possession of two of the fortresses that would be of chief
value to him—the city of Gazara and the citadel of Jerusalem; and in both cases
he had the good fortune to be successful. Gazara, the old Geshur, not far from
Emmans-Nicopolis in a westerly direction, at the base of the mountains, had been
up to that time a Gentile city. Possession of it was of importance to the Jews,
because it was one of the places which commanded the passes of the mountains,
and the holding of it was thus absolutely necessary in order to maintain
connection between Jerusalem and the port of Joppa, which had been already
annexed by the Jews. Simon opened against the city a skilfully directed siege,
conquered it, expelled all Gentile inhabitants from it, and settled it with “men
who observed the law.”[246] Simon’s son Jonathan was appointed governor of
Gazara.[247] [246] 1Ma_13:43-48; compare 14:34. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 6.
Strabo, p. 759: ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταξὺ καὶ ἡ Γαδαρὶς ἔστιν, ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἐξιδιάσαντο οἱ
Ἰουδαῖοι. The Gadaris here referred to by Strabo is identical with our
Gazara.—The manuscripts of the First Book of Maccabees have in our passage
(1Ma_13:43) Γάζαν. That instead of this Γάζαρα should be read, is proved, not
only by the parallel text of Josephus, but also by the text of the First Book of
Maccabees, in another passage referring to our incident (1 Macc. 13:53; 14:7,
34; 15:28, 35; 16:1; 19:21). It is the Old Testament נֶּזֶר, an important
Canaanitish town. On its situation Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 244,
remarks: καὶ νῦν καλεῖται Γάζαρα κώμη Νικοπόλεως ἀπέχουσα σημείοις δʼ ἐν
βορείοις. This statement of Eusebius has been confirmed by recent researches.
The Tell-Jezer discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in A.D. 1873, in the immediate
neighbourhood of Abu Shusheh, lies in fact four Roman miles from
Emmaus-Nicopolis, though rather in a westerly than a northerly direction.
Clermont-Ganneau found in several places in the neighbourhood, at equal
distances from Tell-Jezer, the similarly expressed inscription תחם גזר, “the
borders of Gezer,” by which it is highly probable the limits of a Sabbath day’s
journey from the town were indicated. The statements of the Old Testament and
the First Book of Maccabees agree with the assigning of this locality to the
town, 1Ma_4:15 and also 7:45, which makes it a day’s journey from Adasa, and
1Ma_14:34, τὴν Γάζαρα τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ὁρίων Ἀζώτου; for that the district of Gazara
should border upon that of Ashdod is, in consequence of the wide extension of
the district belonging to that city, extremely probable. It may therefore be
taken as certain that the situation of the ancient Gezer or Gazara is to be
fixed in accordance with these statements. Compare Clermont-Ganneau, Bulletin de
la Société de géographie, sér. vi. t. 5, Paris 1873, p. 123 sqq., which was not
accessible to me. Clermont-Ganneau, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des
inscriptions et belles-lettres de l’année, 1874, pp. 201, 213 sq. Palestine
Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1873, p. 78 sq.; 1874, pp. 56, 276 sqq.;
1875, pp. 5, 74 sqq. Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. “Geser.” The Survey
of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 417, 428-440, and the
large English Map, Sheet xvi. (right above at Abu Shusheh). Clermont-Ganneau,
Revue critique, 1881, No. 50, p. 476; and in Archives des missions
scientifiques, troisième série, t. xi. 1885, p. 243 sq. Ebers and Guthe,
Palästina, ii. 192 ff., 455. The inscriptions are given in Chwolson, Corpus
Inscr. Hebraicarum (1882), col. 58-60, 225, tab. I. n. 2 and 2a.—Older
literature on Gezer: Winer’s RWB. and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon. Grimm,
Exegetisches Handbuch on 1Ma_4:15. Raumer, Palästina, p. 191. Guérin, Judée, i.
26-29. Henderson, Palestine, 79. [247] 1Ma_13:53; 1Ma_16:1; 1Ma_16:19;
1Ma_16:21. Soon after the conquest of Gazara, Simon compelled the Syrian
garrison of the citadel of Jerusalem to capitulate through famine. The national
struggles of the Maccabees had long been directed to the attainment of this
object, for so long as the citadel was in the hands of the Syrian kings the Jews
were really their subjects. Now at last Simon succeeded in making himself master
of this stronghold. On the 23rd day of the second month of the Seleucid year
171, that is, in May B.C. 142, he entered with great pomp and ceremony into the
citadel.[248] [248] 1Ma_13:49-52; compare 14:7, 36, 37. Josephus, Antiq. xiii.
6. 6. The date 23rd Ijjar, that is, the second month, is given not only in
1Ma_13:51, but also in Megillath Taanith, § 5. Compare Grätz, Geschichte der
Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. p. 565. Derenbourg, p. 67. If the conjecture is correct
that the Seleucid era of the First Book of Maccabees begins in spring, in Nisan,
then Ijjar of the Seleucid year 171 corresponds to May B.C. 142.—With the story
of the conquest of the citadel Josephus connects, in Antiq. xiii. 6. 6 and Wars
of the Jews, v. 4. 1, the remarkable statement that not only was the citadel
destroyed, but also the whole hill on which it was built was levelled by the
uninterrupted labour of the people during three years, so that the site of the
temple should be higher than that of the citadel. Since the First Book of
Maccabees says nothing about this, but, on the contrary, says that Simon
strengthened the citadel and placed in it a Jewish garrison (1Ma_14:36-37,
compare also 15:28), the historical reliability of the statement is very
questionable. It seems to me that the thing is not in itself improbable, since
the place where the citadel stood is now in fact almost level, whereas it must
previously have had another form more suitable as a position for a citadel. The
Jews had, indeed, a strong inducement to level it in the fact that from that
point, so soon as it fell into the hands of a hostile power, the temple mount
would immediately be placed in extremest peril. This only in the narrative is
unhistorical, that Josephus makes the levelling to have taken place in the time
of Simon. This, according to 1Ma_14:36-37; 1Ma_15:28, is quite impossible.
Compare on the whole question the above cited literature; also Crome, art.
“Jerusalem” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyklop. section ii. Bd. 15 (whereas
pp. 291-295, the history of the fortress, is given in detail, and the reasons
against the story of Josephus are wrought out fully, but in part on the basis of
false premises); Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch on 1 Maccabees, pp. 22 f., 205.
Since the Syrian kings were not in a position to be able to give any attention
to proceedings in Judea, several years passed of undisturbed prosperity and
peace for the Jews. As such a period the reign of Simon is generally
characterized in the First Book of Maccabees. The securing of Joppa as a
harbour, and the conquest of Gazara, Beth-zur, and the citadel of Jerusalem, are
there represented as the chief services rendered by him.[249] Also express
mention is made of his care for the spiritual and material wellbeing of the
country, for strict administration of justice and the re-establishment of the
Jewish law. “Then did they till their ground in peace, and the earth gave her
increase, and the trees of the field their fruit. The ancient men sat all in the
streets, communing together of good things, and the young men put on glorious
and warlike apparel. He provided victuals for the cities, and set in them all
manner of munition, so that his honourable name was renowned unto the end of the
world. He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy: for every
man sat under his vine and his fig-tree, and there was none to fray them:
neither was there any left in the land to fight against them: yea, the kings
themselves were overthrown in those days. Moreover he strengthened all those of
his people that were brought low: the law he searched out; and every contemner
of the law and wicked person he took away. He beautified the sanctuary, and
multiplied the vessels of the temple.”[250] [249] 1Ma_14:4-7. Compare also the
motive for the popular decree in 1Ma_14:33-37. In these two passages are
gathered together what had already previously been told in connection with the
story of the First Book of Maccabees. Compare on Beth-zur, 1Ma_11:65 ff.; on
Joppa, xii. 33 f., xiii. 11; on Gazara and the citadel, xiii. 43-52. [250]
1Ma_14:8-15.—On the severe proceedings of Simon against the apostates, Grätz,
Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. p; 565, and Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 68 sq., refer to the
statement in Megillath Taanith, § 15. In these words of the First Book of
Maccabees expression is given to the feeling of satisfaction which the majority
of the people had in Simon’s reign. The ultimate aims of the Maccabean struggles
had been secured. The government was in the hands of the national party; the
country was emancipated from the suzerainty of the Syrians. Thus Simon now
reaped the full fruit of the common labours of the Maccabees: the formal
legitimizing on the part of the people of their family as the ruling sacerdotal
family. It had, indeed, been an act of usurpation by which the son of Mattathias
attained unto the supremacy. Up to the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt the
office of high priest had been hereditary in another family. In the course of
events that family had been driven out of its place. The Maccabean brothers had
undertaken the leadership of the national party, and the Syrian king had
transferred to them the high-priestly rank. For the maintenance of Simon’s
government it was of supreme importance that the legitimacy of his rule should
be expressly recognised by a popular decree as affecting his own person and that
of his descendants. Such an act was successfully carried out in the third year
of Simon’s reign. On the 18th Elul of the Seleucid year 172, that is, in
September B.C. 141, it was resolved in a great assembly “of the priests, and the
people, and the princes of the people, and the elders of the land,” that Simon
should be high priest and military commander and civil governor of the Jews
(ἀρχιερεύς, στρατηγός and ἐθνάρχης), and that “for ever until there should arise
a faithful prophet” (1Ma_14:41).[251] By the last phrase it was meant that this
popular decree should remain in force until an authentic communication from God
should make some other enactment. Henceforth therefore Simon’s official rank was
regarded as “for ever,” that is, hereditary. The significance of this popular
resolution lies not so much in the fact that it conveyed to him any new dignity,
but rather in this, that it legitimized and pronounced hereditary those
dignities which he already had. In this way a new high-priestly priestly and
princely dignity was founded, that of the Asmoneans.[252] The terms of the
popular decree were engraved on brazen tablets, and these were set up in the
court of the temple.[253] [251] See generally, 1Ma_14:25-49. The content of the
decree, 1Ma_14:41-46, is made dependent by a ὅτι, 14:41, on the preceding
ἠκούσθη, 14:40. That this ὅτι must be erased, has long been admitted by
expositors.—The official title of Simon was a threefold one, as is shown by the
three following passages which in all essential points agree: 1Ma_13:42 : ἐπὶ
Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως μεγάλου καὶ στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἡγουμένου Ἰουδαίων; 1Ma_14:41-42 :
τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῶν Σίμωνα ἡγούμενον καὶ ἀρχιερέα … καὶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐπʼ αὐτῶν
στρατηγόν; 1Ma_14:47 : ἀρχιερατεύειν καὶ εἶναι στρατηγὸς καὶ ἐθνάρχης τῶν
Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἱερέων. Less complete is 1Ma_15:1 : ἱερεῖ καὶ ἐθνάρχῃ τῶν Ἰουδαίων,
and 1Ma_15:2 : ἱερεῖ μεγάλῳ καὶ ἐθνάρχῃ. Also in the passage 1Ma_14:27 : ἐπὶ
Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως ἐνσαραμέλ, the enigmatical word ἐνσαραμέλ or ἐνασαραμέλ
belongs certainly to his title. It has been conjectured that σαραμέλ is שַׂר עַם
אֵל, and so equivalent to ἐθνάρχης. The εν remains unaccounted for. I venture to
guess that originally σεγεν for the Hebrew סנן stood here; for that corresponds
to the Greek στρατηγός. Compare Div. ii. vol. i. p. 258, note 131. Other
attempts at explanation are given in Winer’s RWB. art. “Saramel,” and Schenkel’s
Bibellexicon, v. 179; and by Michaelis, Grimm, and Keil in their commentaries on
1Ma_14:27, and in Derenbourg, Histoire, pp. 67, 450 sq. [252] Compare on the
significance of the popular decree, Lucius, Essenismus (1881), pp. 86-88.—The
family name of the dynasty is οἱ Ἀσαμωναίου παῖδες (Josephus, Life, i.; Antiq.
xx. 8. 11, xx. 10), τὸ Ἀσαμωναίων γένος (Antiq. xv. 11. 4), οἱ Ἀσαμωναῖοι (Wars
of the Jews, ii. 16. 3, v. 4. 1), after the ancestor of the race Ἀσαμωναῖος
(Antiq. xii. 6. 1, xiv. 16. 4, xvi. 7. 1), not mentioned in the First Book of
Maccabees. In the Mishna, Middoth i. 6, they are called בני חשמונאי or בני
חשמוני, the latter form in the Cambridge manuscript edited by Lowe. In the
Targum of Jonathan on 1 Samuel 2:4 they are בית חשמונאי. For other rabbinical
passages, see Levy, Chald. Wörterbuch und Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, under the word
חשמונאי.—Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 94, Anm., had ventured the
guess that Hasmon may have been the grandfather of Mattathias, and that in
1Ma_2:1 ben chashmon may have stood in place of τοῦ Συμεών. [253] 1Ma_14:27;
1Ma_14:48-49. The legitimizing on the part of the people was soon followed by
recognition on the part of the Romans. Just about the time when that popular
decree was issued, Simon sent an embassy, under the leadership of Numenius, to
Rome, which carried as a present a golden shield weighing a thousand minas, and
treated about the renewal of the covenant. The embassy was courteously received
by the senate, and obtained a decree of senate, which guaranteed to the Jews
unrestricted possession of their own territory. Information regarding the
contents of the decree of senate was sent to the kings of Egypt, Syria,
Pergamum, Cappadocia, and Parthia, and to many of the smaller independent states
and communes of Greece and Asia Minor; while, at the same time, they were
charged to deliver up to the Jewish high priest any evil-doers who might have
fled to them from Palestine.[254] The terms of the decree of senate is given us
probably in the Senatus consultus communicated by Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5,
which Josephus, however, assigns to the time of Hyrcanus II. The relations
presupposed in this document are precisely the same as those of 1Ma_14:24;
1Ma_15:15-24 : Jewish ambassadors, of whom one is named Numenius, carried as a
present a golden shield, with a request for the renewal of the covenant; and the
senate concluded in consequence of this to insist upon the autonomous cities and
kings respecting the integrity of the Jewish territory. The session of senate
referred to took place, according to Josephus, εἰδοῖς Δεκεμβρίαις, that is, on
the 13th December, under the presidency of the praetor Lucius Valerius. This
president may possibly be the same as “Consul Lucius,” who, according to
1Ma_15:16, sent out the circular letter to the kings and cities.[255] It is,
however, also possible that by this term is intended L. Calpurnius Piso, one of
the consuls for B.C. 139, who, according to the correct reading of Valerius Max.
i. 3. 2, has the praenomen, not of Cneius, but of Lucius.[256] In any case, the
arrival of the Jewish ambassadors at Rome must be assigned to B.C. 139, for they
returned to Palestine in the Seleucid year 174, that is, B.C. 139-138
(1Ma_15:10; 1Ma_15:15). Without doubt, therefore, the statement of Valerius
Maximus about the establishment of a Jewish propaganda at Rome in B.C. 139 has
reference to the proceedings of these ambassadors.[257] [254] Compare generally,
1Ma_14:24; 1Ma_15:15-24.—The First Book of Maccabees speaks as if the Romans had
even previously, of their own accord, addressed a letter to the Jews about the
renewal of the covenant (1Ma_14:16 ff.). This is scarcely historical.—According
to 1Ma_14:24 compared with 14:25 ff., it must be assumed that the embassy had
already gone away before the popular decree of 18th Elul of the Seleucid year
172, or September B.C. 141. This is hardly conceivable, since it did not return
before the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139-138 (1Ma_15:10; 1Ma_15:15). Perhaps
the author had by anticipation inserted the account of the starting of the
embassy before that of the popular decree, because in consequence of the
incorrect version of the popular decree (1Ma_14:40) he was led to regard it as
the result of that embassy.—It is also to be observed that the list of states to
which the Roman circular letter was addressed (1Ma_15:16; 1Ma_15:22-23)
corresponds exactly to the state of matters at that time. For all the little
separate states and communes which are named alongside of the kings of Egypt,
Syria, Pergamum, Cappadocia, and Parthia, were at that time, in fact, subject
neither to the Romans nor to any of these kings. See the proof of this in
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 333 ff., and
elsewhere; also Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1 (1887), p. 670. [255] So
Mendelssohn (in the work referred to in the next note), although he assumes that
in consequence of translation into Hebrew, and from Hebrew again into Greek, the
word “praetor” was erroneously changed into “consul.” [256] So Ritschl and
others.—The identity of the Senatus consultus in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5,
with that occasioned by Simon’s embassy, was admitted by Ewald, History of
Israel, iv. 336, and Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch on 1 Macc. p. 226 f., and
independently of them also by Mendelssohn; and in this opinion most moderns,
with the exception of Mommsen, agree. In consequence of Mendelssohn’s researches
on this question and on matters related thereto, a whole literature has sprung
up in the years 1873-1877. See Mendelssohn, De senati consulti Romanorum ab
Josepho Antiq. xiv. 8. 5 relati temporibus, Lips. 1873, incorporated in
Ritschl’s Acta societatis philologae Lipsiensis, t. v. Lips. 1875.—Ritschl, Eine
Berichtigung der republicanischen Consularfasten, a contribution to the history
of the Roman-Jewish international relations, in the Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxviii.
of 1883, pp. 586-614.—Ritschl, Nachtrag (appendix to preceding) in Rhein.
Museum, Bd. xxix. of 1874, p. 337 ff.—Grimm on 1 Maccabees 8 and 1Ma_15:16-21,
according to the researches of Mommsen and Ritschl in Zeitschrift für
wissenschaft. Theologie, 1874, pp. 231-238.—Lange in Bursian’s Jahresbericht
über die Fortschritte der classic. Alterthumswissenschaft, Bd. i. for 1873, pp.
872-876.—Mommsen, Der Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, in Hermes,
Bd. ix. 1875, pp. 281-291.—Mendelssohn and Ritschl, Nochmals der römische
Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, in Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxx. of
1875, pp. 419-435.—Keil, Comm. über die Bücher der Makkabäer, 1875, p. 239
ff.—Wieseler, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1875, p. 524 ff.—Grimm, Die neuesten
Verhandlungen über den “Consul Lucius,” 1 Makk. 15:16, in Zeitschrift für
wissenschaftl. Theol., 1876, pp. 121-132.—Wieseler, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1877,
pp. 281-290. [257] Valerius Maximus, i. 3. 2: “Idem (viz. the praetor Hispalus)
Judaeos, qui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati erant, repetere
domos suas coegit.” Compare in addition, Div. ii. vol ii. p. 233 f. Meanwhile
the government of Simon seems not to have been going on so smoothly as it had
hitherto. He became once more involved in Syrian affairs. Just about this time
Demetrius II. had been temporarily withdrawn from the scene of Syrian politics.
He had allowed himself to be entangled in a tedious war with the Parthian king
Mithridates I., which ended by Demetrius being taken prisoner by the Parthians
in B.C. 138.[258] In place of Demetrius, his father Antiochus VII. Sidetes now
took up the struggle against Trypho. Like all Syrian pretenders, who had first
of all to win their throne by conquest, Antiochus hasted to secure the aid of
the Jews by flattering promises. He had heard in Rhodes of the imprisonment of
Demetrius. Even before his landing on the Syro-Phoenician coasts, “from the
islands of the sea” he wrote a letter to Simon, in which he confirmed to him all
the privileges granted by former kings, and expressly gave him the right of
coining money.[259] Soon thereafter, in the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139-138
(1Ma_15:10), Antiochus landed in Syria, and quickly gained the victory over
Trypho. The latter was obliged to fly to Dora, the strong fortress on the
Phoenician coast, and was there besieged by Antiochus.[260] Trypho, indeed,
succeeded in effecting his escape from that place. He fled by Ptolemais[261] and
Orthosias[262] to Apamea. But there he was again besieged, and in the siege lost
his life.[263] [258] 1Ma_14:1-3. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11. Appian, Syr. c.
67. Justin, xxxvi. 1, xxxviii. 9. Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255 sq.
Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 554. On the chronology, see above, page 176.—Almost
all the sources give the name of the Parthian king as Arsaces, which, according
to Strabo, xv. 1. 36, p. 702, and Justin, xli. 5, was a name common to all the
Parthian kings. But according to Justin, xxxviii. 9, Demetrius was taken
prisoner by the predecessor of that Phraates who afterwards set him free again.
But the predecessor of Phraates was, according to Justin, xli. 6, xiii. 1,
Mithridates I. [259] 1Ma_15:1-9.—An explanation of the ἀπὸ τῶν νήσων τῆς
θαλάσσης of 1Ma_15:1 is supplied by Appian, Syr. c. 68: πυθόμενος ἐν Ῥόδῳ περὶ
τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας. [260] 1Ma_15:10-14. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 1-2.—On Dora, see
Div. ii. vol. i. p. 87. [261] Charax, in Stephen of Byzantium under the word
Δῶρος. On this see Müller, Fragmenta hist. graec. iii. 644, n. 40. [262]
1Ma_15:37.—Orthosias lies north of Tripoli, on the Phoenician coast. See Ritter,
Erdkunde, xvii. 1. 805 ff.; Winer, RWB. under word “Orthosias”; Kneucker in
Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iv. 370 f. [263] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 2.—Compare
also Appian, Syr. 68, and Strabo, xiv. 5. 2, p. 668. The latter says of Trypho:
τοῦτον μὲν οὖν Ἀντίοχος ὁ Δημητρίου κατακλείσας εἴς τι χωρίον ἠνάγκασε
διεργάσασθαι τὀ σῶμα. No sooner had Antiochus gained some advantage over Trypho
than he assumed another attitude toward the Jews. Even during the siege of Dora,
Simon sent him two thousand auxiliary troops, and besides, silver and gold and
weapons for their equipment. But Antiochus declined to accept what was offered,
repudiated all his former promises, and sent one of his confidants, Athenobius,
to Jerusalem in order to obtain from Simon the surrender of the conquered cities
of Joppa and Gazara and the citadel of Jerusalem, as well as of all places
outside of Judea that had been taken possession of by the Jews. If Simon should
be unwilling to restore them, then he was to pay for them altogether the sum of
a thousand talents, to be, as it was made to appear, once for all the sum of
acquittance. The demands were justified by the plea that for their conquests the
Jews had not been able to show any legal title. But Simon refused to yield to
these terms, and declared that he would pay only one hundred talents. With this
answer Athenobius returned to the king.[264] [264] 1Ma_15:25-36. Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 7. 2-3. Antiochus had resolved to enforce his claims by violent
measures. While he himself was still engaged in conflict with Trypho, he
appointed his general Kendebäus to conduct the campaign against Simon. Kendebäus
made Jamnia his headquarters, fortified Kedron,—a place not otherwise known,
probably in the neighbourhood of Jamnia,—and made raids upon Judea.[265] Simon
was prevented by his age from personally taking the field. He sent, therefore,
his sons Judas and John with an army against Kendebäus. Both justified the
confidence placed in them by their father. In a decisive engagement Kendebäus
was utterly defeated. When Judas was wounded, John undertook the pursuit, and
chased the enemy to Kedron and down into the territory of Asbdod. He returned as
conqueror to Jerusalem.[266] [265] 1Ma_15:38-41. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7.
3.—Κενδεβαῖος as well as Κανδυβεύς is from the town Κάνδυβα in Lycia; Stephen of
Byzantium on the word; Pliny, IIist. nat. v. 101. Benndorf and Niemann, Reisen
in Lykien und Karien, 1884, p, 133. [266] 1Ma_16:1-10. Josephus, l.c. So long as
Simon lived, the attack was not repeated on the part of Antiochus. It thus
seemed as if Simon were to be allowed to end his days in peace. But it was not
so to be. Like all his brothers, he too died a violent death. His own son-in-law
Ptolemy, who was military commander over the plain of Jericho, entertained bold
and ambitious schemes. He wished to secure to himself the supreme power, and so
plotted by what stratagem he could put Simon and his sons out of the way. When,
therefore, in the month Shebat of the Seleucid year 177, that is, in February
B.C. 135 (1Ma_16:14), Simon, on a tour of inspection through the cities of the
land, visited Ptolemy in the fortress of Dok near Jericho, Ptolemy made a great
feast, during which he had Simon and his two sons who were with him, Mattathias
and Judas, treacherously murdered.[267] [267] 1Ma_16:11-17; Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 7. 4.—Δώκ, 1Ma_16:15, is in any case identical with the Δαγών of Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 3. The name is still retained in that
of the fountain Ain ed-Duk, north of Jericho, on the border of the mountain
land, in a position very suitable as the site of a fortress. See Robinson, Bibl.
Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. 309. Bitter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 460; English
translation, vol. iii. 18, 35. Raumer, Palästina, p. 184. Mühlau in Riehm’s
Wörterbuch, art. “Doch.” Guérin, Samarie, i. 218-222. The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 173, 190, 209, and the large
English Map, Sheet xviii. Thus was the last of the sons of Mattathias gathered
unto his fathers.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: � 8. JOHN HYRCANUS I., B.C. 135-105
========================================================================

§ 8. JOHN HYRCANUS I., B.C. 135-[268] [268] On the chronology of the Asmoneans
the following statement may be made once for all. Josephus gives as the period
of the reigns of the princes from John Hyrcanus I. to Alexandra inclusive the
following dates:— John Hyrcanus, |31 years (Antiq. xiii. 10. 7). | Aristobulus,
|1 years (Antiq. xiii. 11. 3). | Alexander Jannäus, |27 years (Antiq. xiii. 15.
5). | Alexandra, |9 years (Antiq. xiii. 16. 6). | These dates are also given by
Josephus in two other places: Antiq. xx. 10, and Wars of the Jews, i. 2-5. Only
in regard to Hyrcanus do these accounts vary. In Antiq. xx. 10 he is assigned
thirty years, and in Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 8, it is given as thirty-three. The
latter is probably erroneous, and like much else in the Wars of the Jews is
corrected in the later production of the Antiquities. The discrepancy in the
Antiquities itself, however, is only apparent, for Hyrcanus reigned between
thirty and thirty-one years. The following points are well established: 1. The
death of Simon in the month Shebat of the Seleucid year 177, or in February B.C.
135 (1Ma_16:14); and 2. The beginning of the war between the brothers
Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II., immediately after the death of Alexandra,
according to Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 2, in the third year of the 177th
Olympiad, that is, in the summer B.C. 70-69, and during the consulate of Q.
Hortensius and Q. Metellus Creticus. These were consuls in B.C. 69. The
beginning of that war of the brothers, and consequently also the death of
Alexandra, occurred therefore in the first half of B.C. 69. This is confirmed by
Antiq. xiii. 16. 4, Wars of the Jews i. 5. 3, according to which Alexandra
survived the attack of Lucullus on the Armenian empire, which took placc in B.C.
69.—From the death of Simon to the death of Alexandra, B.C. 135-B.C. 69, is thus
a period of sixty-six years, while by adding the numbers given by Josephus we
obtain sixty-eight. Josephus has therefore also reckoned the current year as if
it were complete. If we take this into consideration, the two statements will be
found thoroughly to agree, and we obtain the following dates:— John Hyrcanus,
|B.C. 135-105. | Aristobulus, |B.C. 105-104. | Alexander Jannäus, |B.C. 104-78.
| Alexandra, |B.C. 78-69. | It is an error on the part of Josephus, Antiq. xiii.
8. 2, to fix the first year of John Hyrcanus in the 162nd Olympiad, that is, in
a summer during the period B.C. 132-128. SOURCES The History of John Hyrcanus,
referred to in 1Ma_16:23-24, is not extant. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8-10; Wars of
the Jews, i. 2. Zonaras, Annal. v. 1-2 (a summary from Josephus). Mishna, Maaser
scheni v. 15; Sota ix. 10. Other rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 70-82.
The most complete account of the coins is given by Madden, Coins of the Jews
(1881), pp. 74-81. LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, v. 342-384. GRÄTZ,
Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. 1888, pp. 64-117. HITZIG, Geschichte der
Volkes Israel, ii. 459-472. WERNER, Johann Hyrkan, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
Judäas im zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert. Wernigerode 1877. HAMBURGER,
Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. pp. 421-426. WELLHAUSEN, Die
Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (1874), pp. 89-95. Seeing that the high-priestly and
princely offices had been declared hereditary in the family of Simon, his third
son still surviving, John Hyrcanus, who had held the post of governor of Gazara,
was nominated his successor.[269] Against him, therefore, were first directed
the attacks of the pretender Ptolemy, who had murdered his father and his two
brothers. Immediately after the bloody deed the assassin Ptolemy sent to Gazara
in order to do away also with John. That prince, however, had meanwhile been
warned by friendly messengers, and so he had the murderers apprehended
immediately upon their arrival. Then he hasted to Jerusalem, which he was
fortunate enough to reach before Ptolemy. When the latter arrived, he found that
the city was already in the power of Hyrcanus.[270] [269] Eusebius and others
explain the surname Hyrcanus by saying that John had conquered the Hyrcanians
(Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 130 sq.; in Greek, in Syncellus, i. 548:
Ὑρκανοὺς νικήσας Ὑρκανὸς ὠνομάσθη; in Latin, in Jerome: adversum Hyrcanoe bellum
gerens Hyrcani nomen accepit; and also Sulpicius Severus, ii. 26: qui cum
adversum Hyrcanos, gentem validissimam, egregie pugnasset, Hyrcani cognomen
accepit). In favour of his explanation the fact may be adduced that John
actually did take part in the campaign of Antiochus VII. Sidetes against the
Parthians. But it falls to pieces over the fact that the name Hyrcanus had been
in use in Jewish circles long before the time of John Hyrcanus (Josephus, Antiq.
xii. 4. 6-11; 2Ma_3:11). It may conceivably be explained according to the
analogy of יַדּוּעַ הַבַּבְלִי Baba mezia vii. 7; נָחוּם הַמָּדִי, Schabbath ii.
1; Nasir v. 4; Baba bathra v. 2. The Jews were transported by Artaxerxes Ochus
to Hyrcania (see Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 223). A Jew belonging to a family settled
there, who had gone back again to Palestine, would at first be distinguished by
the personal designation ὁ Ὑρκανός. And thus the name would come to be a
distinctive designation of the family. [270] Macc. 16:19-22. Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 7. 4. Ptolemy then retired to the fortress of Dagon, identical probably
with that of Dok, near Jericho. There he was besieged by Hyrcanus; and
undoubtedly the city would soon have been conquered, and the murderer given over
to his welldeserved doom, had not Hyrcanus been restrained by affection for his
mother. She had fallen into the power of Ptolemy. And so often as Hyrcanus
threatened to storm the fortress, Ptolemy had her led out upon the walls, and
threatened to hurl her down unless Hyrcanus would abandon his project. This
caused him to hesitate in his proceedings. And so the siege was protracted,
until at length the return of the Sabbatical year necessitated its abandonment.
Ptolemy was thus set free; but nevertheless he had the mother of Hyrcanus
murdered, and then fled.[271] [271] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 1; Wars of the
Jews, i. 2. 3-4.—In regard to the Sabbatical year, see above, pp. 41-43. Thus
through Ptolemy had Hyrcanus lost both his parents and his two brothers, without
having been able to take vengeance upon him. An evil fate, however, overtook the
murderer. Antiochus VII. Sidetes had hitherto made no further attempt upon
Judea. We know not the reason of this, but it was perhaps because the home
affairs of Syria were occupying all his attention. He was, however, by no means
disposed to forget the demands which he previously made of Simon. In the first
year of John Hyrcauus, B.C. 135-134, he invaded Judea, devastated the whole
country, and finally laid siege to Hyrcanus in his capital, Jerusalem.[272] He
surrounded the whole city with a rampart and a trench. and cut off the besieged
from all egress from the city. Hyrcanus on his part sought to harass the
besiegers by sallies. In order to make the victuals last longer, he sent the
non-combatants out of the city. But Antiochus would not let them pass, and drove
them back again, so that they were obliged to roam about between the circle of
the besiegers and the city, and many of them perished of hunger. It was not till
the Feast of Tabernacles that Hyrcanus received them again into the city. For
the celebration of this feast he had begged of Antiochus an armistice for seven
days. Antiochus granted not only this, but sent also gifts for sacrifice into
the city, which they were to present in the temple. This generous act raised the
spirits of Hyrcanus, and he now hoped, by timely capitulation, to obtain
favourable terms. He sent therefore an embassy to Antiochus to treat for
conditions of peace. After protracted negotiations an understanding was at last
come to. The terms of the arrangement were that the Jews should deliver up their
arms, pay tribute for Joppa and the other towns lying outside of Judea which
they had conquered, give hostages, and besides pay 500 talents. The conditions
were indeed by no means satisfactory. Yet in the circumstances Hyrcanus was
indeed very glad even at this price to obtain the raising of the siege and the
withdrawal of the Syrian army. The walls of the city too were thrown down.[273]
[272] In regard to the date, the statements of the various sources do not agree.
According to Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 2, the invasion of Antiochus occurred
τετάρτῳ μὲν ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας αὑτοῦ, πρώτῳ δὲ τῆς Ὑρκανοῦ ἀρχῆς, ὀλυμπιάδι
ἑκατοστῇ καὶ ἑξηκοστῇ δευτέρᾳ. The fourth year of Antiochus and the first year
of Hyrcanus are both B.C. 135-134, whereas the 162nd Olympiad corresponds to
B.C. 132-128. In the latter period, in Olympiad 162, 3, or B.C. 130-129,
Porphyry puts the attack upon Jerusalem by Antiochus (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, i. 255: Judaeosque hic subegit, per obsidionem muros urbis evertebat,
atque electissimos ipsorum trucidabat anno tertio CLXII. olympiadis). A
reconciliation of these statements is possible only on the assumption that the
war had lasted for four years. At least more than one year must have been
occupied with it, since the siege of Jerusalem alone seems to have lasted over a
year. Josephus epeaks of the setting of the Pleiades as occurring at its
beginning (Antiq. xiii. 8. 2), which took placc in November (Pliny, Hist. Nat.
ii. 47. 125: post id, aequinoctium diebus fere quattuor et quadraginta
vergiliarum occasus hiemem inchoat, quod tempus in III. iduus Novembres in
incidere consuevit). And the siege had not been raised when the next Feast of
Tabernacles came round in October (compare Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii.
333).—Owing to the discrepancy of the sources, it would be exceedingly risky to
fix a particular year for the siege (Clinton, l.c., gives B.C. 134-133).—Sieges
lasting for a year were by no means uncommon in the history of that time, as in
the case of Samaria (Antiq. xiii. 10. 3), and of Gaza (Antiq. xiii. 13. 3), and
of Gadara, lasting ten months (Antiq. xiii. 13. 3). [273] Josephus, Antiq. xiii.
8. 2-3. Diodorus, xxxiv. 1, ed. Müller. Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, i. 255. Justin, xxxvi. 1: Judaeos quoque, qui in Macedonico imperio sub
Demetrio patre armis se in libertatem vindicaverant, subegit.—The words of
Josephus, καθεῖλε δὲ καὶ τὴν στεφάνην τῆς πόλεως are understood by many (e.g.
Winer, RWB. i. 65, Anm.; Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. p. 76 f.),
not of the destruction of the whole wall, but only that of the coping, in which
case the description of Josephus is divergent from that of Diodorus and
Porphyry. But such an interpretation is not necessary. At least, according to
Diodorus and Porphyry, the wall itself was thrown down. Among the later services
performed by John Hyrcanus, 1Ma_16:23 gives prominence to his rebuilding of the
walls.—Hyrcanus is said to have obtained the sum demanded by Antiochus by
extracting three thousand talents from the sepulchre of David. So says Josephus,
Antiq. vii. 15. 3, whereas in Antiq. xiii. 8. 4 he merely says that Hyrcanus
applied the money thus taken to the payment of his soldiers. Compare on the
sepulchre of David, Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 7. 1; Acts 2:29.
According to Nehemiah 3:15-16, it lay in the south of the city, not far from
Siloah. The remarkable moderation of Antiochus had perhaps other reasons than
those assigned for it by the historians. In a decree of the Roman senate, which
Josephus communicates in Antiq. xiii. 9. 2, it is assumed that a King Autiochus
had taken from the Jews in war, Joppa, Gazara, and other towns (πολεμῶν ἔλαβεν
Ἀντίοχος), on account of which a Jewish embassy had gone to Rome with the prayer
that the senate should order Antiochus to restore these towns. This Antiochus
can have been no other than Antiochus VII. Sidetes, for under no earlier
Antiochus were the Jews in possession of the towns of Joppa and Gazara, and of
the later kings there was none able to usurp any authority worth mentioning over
the Jews. Evidently Antiochus, as is indeed in itself most probable, had in that
war, before advancing to the siege of the capital, seized upon and taken from
the Jews Joppa, Gazara, and the other towns that had been conquered by them. But
then it is hardly credible that of his own accord, by a peaceful treaty, he
would have left the Jews in possession of these cities, and only have imposed on
them a tribute for the holding of them. The mild conditions are to be accounted
for rather by the interference of the Romans. The senate certainly did not at
first, in the decree referred to, formally accede to the prayer of the Jews, but
rather put off any final decision. It appears, however, that very soon
afterwards a second Jewish embassy went to Rorne, which did secure the result
desired. In a subsequent passage, Antiq. xiv. 10. 22, a decree of the Roman
senate is given by Josephus, erroneously inserted in a decree of the Pergamenes,
which evidently refers to the matters now under discussion. In consequence of an
embassy sent by Hyrcanus, a command is issued to King Antiochus that he must
restore all the cities taken by him from the Jews, and in particular that he
must withdraw the garrison from Joppa (τὴν ἐν Ἰόπῃ δὲ φρουρὰν ἐκβαλεῖν). The
king is there indeed called “Antiochus, son of Antiochus,” instead of “son of
Demetrius,” but he can scarcely be any other than Antiochus Sidetes. For if the
Jews, since the conclusion of peace with him, obtained possession again of Joppa
by the payment of tribute, it can scarcely be supposed that any of the weak
successors of Sidetes could have again placcd a garrison there. In any case, the
Jews would have had no occasion to call in the help of the Romans against such
an adversary. It may therefore be conjectured that the decree of senate in
question preceded the conclusion of peace with Antiochus Sidetes, and was
pre-eminently the means of securing for the Jews such mild and favourable
conditions.[274]—If these combinations are correct, we must assume that the war
continued for more than a year. [274] In the above the results are related which
Mendelssohn has reached in his investigations (Ritschl’s Acta societatis
philologae Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 123-158. It was previously published
separately: Mendelssohn, De senati consultis Komanorum ab Josepho Antiq. xiii.
9. 2, xiv. 10. 22, relatis commentatio, Leipzig 1874). Compare in addition the
recension by Gutschmid in the Literatur Centralblatt, 1874, No. 38, and the
criticism in the Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1876, 392 f.—Gutschniid understands by
“Antiochus, son of Antiochus,” Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, son of Antiochua VII.,
although in other respects he agrees with Mendelssohn, that the conquest of
Joppa and Gazara was accomplished by Antiochus VII. But this combination falls
through for this, besides other reasons, that in the second Senatsconsult it is
distinctly presupposed that the conqueror and he who was to restore to them what
he had taken (Antiq. xiv. 10. 22: καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ἀφείλετο αὐτῶν), was one and
the same person. Owing to the carelessness with which these documents, and
especially the names in them, have been drawn up, the appearance of a clerical
error, such as Ἀντιόχου for Δημητρίου would present very little difficulty,
indeed much less than others that have actually been found. Compare against
Gutschmid, Mendelssohn in Rhein. Museum, 1875, p. 118 f.—For proposed emendation
of the names in Antiq. xiii. 9. 2, compare also Mommsen’s Bemerkungen zum
Senatsconsult von Adramyttium, Ephemeris epigr. iv. 217. The conflicts which
took placc during those first years of Hyrcanus, gave new proofs that the small
Jewish state could maintain its freedom from Syrian suzerainty only so long as
the Syrian empire was internally weak. Before the first vigorous onslaught of
Antiochus, the freedom that had previously been won by Simon was again lost.
Hyrcanus’ dependence on Antiochus VII. also obliged him to take the field with
the Syrian monarch against the Parthians in B.C. 129. But he was not involved in
the disaster that overtook Antiochus.[275] [275] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4,
with reference to Nicolaus Damascenus. The death of Antiochus in the Parthian
campaign, in B.C. 128, was for Hyrcanus a favourable occurrence.[276] His place
upon the Syrian throne was taken by the weak Demetrius II., who had previously
been released from imprisonment by the Parthians.[277] He was immediately
involved in a civil war, which obliged him to seek to win the favour of the
Jews. [276] On the campaign and death of Antiochus, compare Justin, xxxviii. 10,
xxxix. 1; Diodorus, xxxiv. 15-17, ed. Müller; Livy, Epit. 59; Appian, Syr. 68;
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4; Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i.
255. In regard to the chronology, see above, pp. 177-178. [277] On Demetrius II.
compare Justin, xxxvi. 1: Demetrius, et ipse rerum successu corruptus, vitiis
adulescentiae in segnitiam labitur tantumque contemptum apud omnes inertiae,
quantum odium ex superbia pater habuerat, contraxit.—On the other hand, Justin,
xxxix. 1, speaks also of a superbia regis, quae conversatione Parthicae
crudelitatis intolerabilis facta, erat.—On the doings and fortunes of Demetrius
during his imprisonment, as well as his final liberation, see Justin, xxxvi. 1,
xxxviii. 9-10; Appian, Syr. 67, 68; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4; Porphyry in
Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255. Hyrcauus as soon as possible turned to
account the altered circumstances. Without troubling himself about Demetrius, he
began to seize upon considerable districts in the neighbourhood of Judea, to the
east, to the north, and to the south. First of all he marched into the laud east
of the Jordan, and conquered Medaba after a six months’ siege.[278] Then he
turned to the north, took Shechem and Mount Gerizim, subdued dued the
Samaritans, and destroyed their temple, Finally, he went south, took the Idumean
cities Adora and Marissa, and compelled the Idumeans to submit to circumcision,
and to receive the Jewish law.[279] The policy of conquest, which had been
already inaugurated by Jonathan and Simon, was carried out vigorously by
Hyrcanus. The purely worldly character of his policy, however, is shown
conspicuously in this, that first among the Jewish princes he no longer
conducted the war by means of Jewish soldiers, but called in the aid of foreign
mercenaries.[280] [278] Medaba is a well-known town on the east side of the
Jordan, south of Heshbon, and its name and ruins are preserved to this day. It
is the Old Testament מֵידְבָא Numbers 21:30; Joshua 13:9; Joshua 13:16; Isaiah
15:2; 1 Chronicles 19:7. Compare 1Ma_9:36; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 2, xiii.
15. 4, xiv. 1. 4; Ptolemy, v. 17. 6, viii. 20. 20; Stephen of Byzantium on the
name; Mishna, Mikwaoth vii. 1; Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p.
279.—Reland, Palestina, p. 893. Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, i. 407 f., iv.
223. Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2. 1181-1185 (Engl. transl, iii. 73). Winer, RWB. sub
voce. Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 318. [279] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 1; Wars
of the Jews, i. 2. 6; compare Antiq. xv. 7. 9.—Adora is the modern Dura, west of
Hebron, see Robinson, Bibl. Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 2-5; Guérin,
Judée, iii. 353 sqq. On Marissa, see above, page 221 (on 1Ma_5:66).—In
consequence of the Judaizing by John Hyrcanus, the Idumeans came by and by to
regard themselves as Jews (Wars of the Jews, iv. 4. 4). The Jewish aristocracy
would only have them treated as ἡμιιουδαῖοι, and so considered even the Idumean
Herod as not equal to them in birth (Antiq. xiv. 15. 2: Ἡρώδῃ … ἰδιώτῃ τε ὄντι
καὶ Ἰδουμαίῳ τουτέστιν ἡμιιουδαίῳ). [280] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 4. This
independent procedure on the part of Hyrcanus was possible only on account of
the internal weakness of the Syrian empire. Demetrius II, after his restoration
to the throne, was again guilty of the folly of waging war with Ptolemy VII.
Physcon, king of Egypt The Egyptian monarch therefore set up over against
Demetrius a pretender to the throne, in the person of a young Egyptian, whom he
gave out to be an adopted son of Antiochus Sidetes, who was, however, according
to others, a son of Alexander Balas.[281] This pretender was named Alexander,
and was surnamed by the Syrians Zabinas, i.e. “the purchased.”[282] Conquered by
this Alexander at Damascus, Demetrius was obliged to retire to Ptolemais, and to
take ship from thence to Tyre, where as soon as he landed he was murdered, in
B.C. 125 or 124.[283] [281] The former according to Justin, xxxix. 1; the latter
according to Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 257 sq. [282]
Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 258, correctly explains the
surname Zabinas (זְבִינָא in Ezra 10:48) by ἀγοραστός—The orthography vacillates
between Ζεβινᾶς (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 3), Ζαβινᾶς (Diodorus, ed. Müller,
xxxiv. 22; Porphyry in Eusebius, l.c.; inscription in Letronne, Recueil des
inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Egypte, ii. 61); Zabbinaeus in Justin,
Prolog. xxxix. [283] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 3; Justin, xxxix. 1; Porphyry in
Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 257 sq.—On his death especially, Justin:
Cum Tyrum religione se templi defensurus petisset, navi egrediens praefecti
jussu interficitur.—According to Appian, Syr. 68, his wife Cleopatra was the
instigator of the murder. Compare Livy, Epit. 60: Motus quoque Syriae
referuntur, in quibus Cleopatra Demetrium virum suum—interemit. Alexander
Zabinas, however, had on his part to contest the sovereignty with the son of
Demetrius, Antiochus VIII. Grypos. So he was not forced by necessity to live in
peace and friendship with Hyrcanus.[284] [284] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 9. 3:
φιλίαν ποιεῖται πρὸς Ὑρκανὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα. After some years, somewhere about
B.C. 122, Alexander Zabinas was subdued by his opponent. Antiochus VIII. Grypos
conquered him, and had him executed; while, according to others, he brought his
own life to an end by poison.—There now followed a long period of quiet. For
eight years Antiochus VIII. Grypos held undisputed sway in Syria.[285]
Nevertheless even he made no attempt against Hyrcanus. He had no longer the
ambition to restore to Syria its ancient dimensions. In B.C. 113 he was driven
out by his cousin and step-brother, Antiochus IX. Cyziceuos, who ruled Syria for
two years, and then, when Antiochus Grypos again secured possession of the
greater part of Syria in B.C. 111, he took up his residence in Coele-Syria, the
part adjoining Palestine, and made it his headquarters.[286] [285] Justin,
xxxix. 2. 9: Parta igitur regni securitate Grypus octo annis quietem et ipse
habuit et regno praestitit.—In accordance with this, the description in
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1, is to be corrected. [286] Porphyry in Eusebius,
Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 260; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1; Justin, xzziz.
2-3; Appian, Syr. 69. Of Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, who ruled in Coele-Syria from
B.C. 113 to B.C. 95, Diodorus gives the following description:[287] “So soon as
he attained the throne, Antiochus Cyzicenos gave way to drunkenness and shameful
sensuality, and to habits most unbecoming in a king. He took great delight in
theatrical displays and the performance of comedies, and generally in all sorts
of showmen, and tried to learn their art. He also zealously promoted the
exhibition of marionettes, and sought to fabricate in silver and gold animals
five ells long that would move of themselves, and other such arts. On the other
hand, battering-rams and engines of war, which would have brought him great
advantage and renown, he did not make. He also was passionately fond of
adventurous expeditions; and often through the night, without the knowledge of
his friends, accompanied only by two or three servants, he would go out into the
country to hunt lions, panthers, and boars. In such escapades he often engaged
to the extreme peril of his life in foolhardy encounters with wild beasts.”
[287] Diodorus, xxxiv. 34, ed. Müller: Ὁ Ἀντίοχος ὁ Κυζικηνὸς ἀρτίως παρειληφὼς
τὴν βασιλείαν, ἐξέπεσεν εἰς μέθας καὶ τρυφὴν ἀγεννῆ καὶ ζηλώματα βασιλείας
ἀλλοτριώτατα. Ἔχαιρε γὰρ μίμοις καὶ προδείκταις καὶ καθόλου πᾶσι τοῖς
θαυματοποιοῖς, καὶ τὰ τούτων ἐπιτηδεύματα μανθάνειν ἐφιλοτιμεῖτο. Ἐπετήδευσε δὲ
καὶ νευροσπαστεῖν καὶ διʼ αὑτοῦ κινεῖν ζῷα πενταπήχη κατάργυρα καὶ κατάχρυσα καὶ
ἕτερα πλείονα τοιαῦτα μηχανήματα. Οὐκ εἷχε δὲ ἑλεπόλεων οὐδὲ ὀργάνων
πολιορκητικῶν κατασκευάς, ἃ καὶ δόξαν μεγάλην καὶ χρείας ἀξιολόγους ἂν
παρέσχετο. Ἐνεθουσία δὲ καὶ πρὸς κυνηγεσίας ἀκαίρους, καὶ πολλάκις νύκτωρ λάθρᾳ
τῶν φίλων μετὰ δυοῖν ἢ τριῶν οἰκετῶν ἐξιὼν ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν, ἐκυνήγει λέοντας καὶ
παρδάλεις καὶ ὗς ἀγρίους. Παραβόλως δὲ συμπλεκόμενος ἀλόγοις θηρίοις, πολλάκις
ἦλθεν εἰς τοὺς ἐσχάτους κινδύνους. We see here traditions of an earlier
Antiochus IV. imitated again after a baser fashion. From such a ruler, who was
taken up with such pursuits, Hyrcanus had nought to fear. And so it came about
that from the death of Antiochus Sidetes, in B.C. 128, Judea had been able to
keep itself absolutely independent of Syria. The taxes laid upon Judea by
Antiochus Sidetes were not paid to any of the following kings. “Neither as their
subject nor as their friend did he longer pay them any regard.”[288] [288]
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1: οὔτε ὡς ὑπήκοος οὔτε ὡς φίλος αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν ἔτι
παρεῖχεν. In the last years of his reign Hyrcanus undertook an expedition for
the conquest of the neighbouring districts. After having previously subdued the
borders of Shechem and Mount Gerizim, he now directed his attack against the
city of Samaria, whose inhabitants had given him occasion to complain. He had
them enclosed by a wall and a trench, and then transferred the conduct of the
siege to his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus. The Samaritans in their straits
called in the aid of Antiochus Cyzicenos, who went indeed very willingly, but
was driven back by the Jews. So then a second time Antiochus sought to bring
them help by means of Egyptian auxiliary troops, which Ptolemy Lathurus
supplied, and by their help devastated the Jewish territory, without, however,
securing any decided advantage. After sustaining great loss, Antiochus withdrew
from the scene of conflict, leaving his generals, Callimander and Epicrates, to
carry on the campaign to its close. Of these the one was defeated by the Jews
and lost his life, while the other, Epicrates, also achieved nothing, but
treacherously gave over Scythopolis to the Jews. Thus Samaria, after a year’s
siege, fell into the hands of the Jews, and was utterly razed to the
ground.[289]—The Jewish legends relate that on the day of the decisive victory
of Antigonus and Aristobulus over Antiochus Cyzicenos, the occurrence was made
known to Hyrcanus by a voice from heaven, while he was presenting a
burnt-offering in the temple.[290] [289] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 2-3; Wars of
the Jews, i. 2. 7. According to the statement of the Wars of the Jews,
Scythopolis was not surrendered to the Jews by treachery, but was conquered by
them. Compare on this important city, Div. ii. vol. i. p. 110.—The day of the
conquest of Samaria was, according to Megillath Taanith, the 25th Marcheschwan,
or November. See Grätz, iii., 4 Aufl. p. 566; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 72 sq.
The year may be approximately fixed from this, that, on the one hand, Antiochus
Cyzicenos was already in undisturbed possession of Coele-Syria, which began with
B.C. 111; and, on the other hand, Ptolemy Lathurus was still co-regent with his
mother Cleopatra, which lasted till B.C. 107. The conquest of Samaria therefore
falls between B.C. 111 and B.C. 107, probably not long before B.C. 107, for
Cleopatra was so enraged at Ptolemy for affording assistance to Antiochus, that
she had “almost already” driven him out of the government. So Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 10. 2: ὅσον οὔτω τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτὸν ἐκβεβληκυίας. [290] Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 10. 3. The rabbinical passages in Derenbourg, p. 74. What has now been
told is all that is known to us as to the external events of what seems to have
been the truly brilliant reign of Hyrcanus. The record is scanty enough. But
even still more fragmentary is the reports which have come down to us regarding
the internal affairs of that government. Something may first of all be gained
from the inscriptions on the coins.[291] These, in common with the coins of the
immediate successors of Hyrcanus, bear the inscription— [291] On the coins: De
Saulcy, Recherches, 1854, pp. 95-102. Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 13-18.
Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, pp. 46-53. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage,
1864, pp. 51-61. Reichardt in the Wiener Numismat. Monatsheften, Bd. iii. 1867,
pp. 103-108. De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 236 sq. De Saulcy, Revue
archéologique, nouv. série, xxiii. 1872, pp. 8-13. Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für
Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp. 190-195. Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 74-81
(there the material is most fully given). יהוחנן הכהן הגדל וחבר היהודים or:
יהוחנן הכהן הגדל ראש חבר היהודים The reading of this last word is doubtful.
Probably it is to be read: cheber hajjehudim; and by cheber, which literally
means fellowship, association, is to be understood, not the γερουσία, but rather
the assembly of the whole body of the people.[292] The inscription would
therefore run thus: “Jochanan the high priest and the congregation of the Jews,”
or “Jochanan the high priest, head of the congregation of the Jews.” This
official title shows us that John Hyrcanus regarded himself as in the full sense
still high priest. As in the pre-Maccabean age, so also still the Jewish
commonwealth was a government of priests, and the chief priest standing at its
head was not an autocrat, but simply the chief of the congregation. The coins,
at least those of the first order, were not only stamped in his name, but also
in that of the congregation, On the other hand, it is a proof of the increasing
prominence given to the possession of princely prerogatives, that John has had
his name engraven on the coins. He is the first of the Jewish princes who did
so. Then from the coins of the second order the name of “the congregation”
disappears altogether, and instead thereof he is himself designated under his
twofold title of rank as “High Priest,” and as “Chief of the Congregation of the
Jews.” [292] The conjectures which have been made as to the meaning of חבר are
in some cases of the most remarkable kind. Madden in Coins of the Jews, p. 77,
gives a summary of them. One renders חָבֵר, “doctor, scholar” (Reichardt),
another makes it “friend” (de Saulcy, Recherches, p. 84; Revue Num. 1864, p.
382, subsequently abandoned by him); others, חֹבִר, “general” (Ewald, Gött. gel.
Anz. 1855, p. 643). Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. iv. 766, speaks of
the word as having its signification first discovered by Ewald. On the coins
with ראש חבר, Ewald reads ראש וחבר, and translates “commander-in-chief” (Gött.
gel. Anz. 1862, p. 844).—The inscription ראש חבר היהודים shows that חבר is
necessarily a corporation, as Hyrcanus is described as its head. It is therefore
to be read (as Hosea 6:9; Proverbs 21:9) חֶבֶר, and it is extremely questionable
whether an assembly in the more exact sense, therefore the Jewish senate, is
meant (so Geiger, Urschrift, p. 121 f.; Levy, Jüdische Münzen, p. 50; Madden,
History, pp. 54-56; Coins of the Jews, p. 78; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 83;
Wellhausen, Pharisäer, p. 28 f.; De Saulcy, Melanges des Numismatique, ii. 1877,
p. 86), or the Jewish people as a whole (so Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 14;
Hitzig, Geschichte, p. 473; Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schr. A. T.’s, § 503;
Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp. 190, 196 f.). The
expression “congregation of the Jews,” and their usage of the language, are
decidedly in favour of the latter meaning. See Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 55. In
reference to the internal policy of Hyrcanus, daring his thirty years’ reign,
one fact at least is well established, and that one of the greatest importance:
his breaking away from the Pharisees, and attaching himself to the Sadducees.
These two parties now appear for the first time under those names upon the arena
of history. Their beginnings lay far back; their consolidation under those names
seems to have been a consequence of the Maccabean movement.[293] The Pharisees
are nothing else but the party of strict zealots for the law: essentially the
same circles as we meet with in the beginning of the Maccabean movement under
the name of the Pious or Chasidim. Diametrically opposed to them were those who
in the most extreme fashion favoured everything Greek, who even went beyond the
Hellenizing movement of Antiochus Epiphanes by opening the door to Hellenism,
not only in the domain of social life, but also in that of religious worship.
These extreme Grecianizers, who were found specially in the ranks of the higher
priesthood, had been swept away before the blast of the Maccabean revolution.
Ideas of this sort could no longer be allowed to find expression in the league
of the Jewish commonwealth. But the foundations on which that type of thought
had grown up had still continued to exist there. It was the essentially worldly
spirit of the higher priesthood, opposed to any kind of religious enthusiasm.
They wished to maintain their position on the basis of the Mosaic law. But
whatever therein transcended the mere letter, they rejected with a lofty
assumption of superiority. They had far heartier interest in the affairs of this
life than in those of the time to come. The spirit which among the higher
priests was represented pre-eminently by “the sons of Zadoc,” was now called
that of the Zadocites or Sadducees.[294] [293] Josephus tells the story first of
all in connection with the times of Jonathan, Antiq. xiii. 5. 9. [294] See
further details of the nature and origin of the Pharisees and Sadducees in § 26,
Div. ii. vol. ii. pp. 1-46. The Maccabees belonged properly neither to the
Pharasaic nor to the Sadducean party. The zeal for the law, which had led them
to take the sword in their hand, associated them indeed with the Chasidim, who
also at the outset took part in the war of independence. But soon the two went
their several ways, and as time advanced they parted farther and farther from
one another. The Chasidim had no interest in political supremacy and political
freedom. With the Maccabees this was the point of most vital importance. They
did not indeed at a later period abandon their original aim, the preservation of
the religion of their fathers. But as time wore on they became more and more
deeply involved in other political schemes. In this way they were brought into
closer relations with the Sadducees. As political up-starts, the Maccabees could
not venture to ignore the influential Sadducean nobility. And it may be taken
for granted that in the γερουσία of the Maccabean age, the Sadducean party was
represented.—But in spite of all this, in religious sympathies the Maccabees
originally stood far nearer to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees. They were
the conservers of their fathers’ faith and their fathers’ law. It may be
unhesitatingly stated, even in regard to Hyrcanus, that in the earlier years of
his reign, in regard to the observance of the law, he held the doctrines of the
Pharisees. For it was his abandonment of the traditions of the Pharisees which
formed the chief accusation brought against him by the stricter Jews.[295] [295]
Josephus says in regard thereto, Antiq. xiii. 10. 5: μαθητὴς δʼ αὐτῶν καὶ
Ὑρκανὸς ἐγεγόνει καὶ σφόδρα ὑπʼ αὐτῶν ἠγαπᾶτα. The interests and activities of
the Maccabees were thus going forth in two different directions, the religious
and the political, and this explains to us the change of front which took place
during the course of Hyrcanus’ reign. The more the political interests were
brought into the foreground by him, the more were the religious interests put in
abeyance. And just in proportion as this policy was carried out, Hyrcanus was
obliged to withdraw from the Pharisees and associate himself with the Sadducees.
Any close and hearty relationship with the Pharisees could not possibly continue
while he wrought out the devices of his purely worldly policy. Hence it was just
what might have been expected, that he should openly break with the Pharisees
and cast in his lot with the Sadducean party. The ostensible occasion of the
breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees is described by Josephus and the
Talmud in a similar manner as follows. Hyrcanus once made the request, when many
Pharisees were with him at dinner, that if they observed him doing anything not
according to the law, they should call attention to it, and point out to him the
right way. But all present were full of his praise. Only one, Eleasar, rose up
and said: “Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in
earnest, lay down the high-priesthood and content thyself with the civil
government of the people.” And when Hyrcanus wished to know for what cause he
should do so, Eleasar answered: “We have heard it from old men that thy mother
had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.” But this statement
was incorrect. On account of it Hyrcanus was incensed against him in the highest
degree. When then Hyrcanus laid before the Pharisees the question as to the
punishment which Eleasar deserved, they made answer, “stripes and bonds.”
Hyrcanus, who believed for such an offence nothing less than death was due,
became now still more angry, and thought that Eleasar had given expression to a
sentiment that was approved of by his party. Forthwith he separated himself
entirely from the Pharisees, forbade under penalties the observance of the laws
ordained by them, and attached himself to the Sadducees.[296] [296] Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 10. 5-6. The rabbinical tradition is given in Grätz, iii., 4 Aufl.
684 ff. (note 11); Derenbourg, pp. 79, 80; Montet, Le premier conflit entre
Pharisiens et Saducéens d’après trois documents orientaux [Josephus, Talmud, and
Samaritan Chronicler Abulfath], in the Journal asiatique, VIIIme série, t. ix.
1887, pp. 415-423.—On the fact itself, see Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und
Sadducäer (1874), pp. 89-95. The story indeed, in its anecdotal form, bears on
it the imprint of a thoroughly legendary character, and is even by Josephus
given only as a tale derived from oral tradition. Nevertheless it may be
accepted as a fact that Hyrcanus did turn away decidedly from the party of the
Pharisees and abolished the Pharisaic ordinances. For it was a conscious
reaction against the policy pursued from the time of Hyrcanus, when Alexandra
returned again to the observance of the Pharisaic institutions.[297] Two of the
particular ordinances set aside by Hyrcanus are mentioned in the Mishna. But in
view of the thoroughgoing opposition of Hyrcanus to every sort of Pharisaic
ordinance, the cases referred to in the Mishna are spoken of as being only
unimportant matters of detail.[298] [297] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 2. [298]
Maaser scheni v. 15=Sota ix. 10: “Jochanan the high priest abolished the
confession for the time of tithing. He also abolished the singing of the verse
‘Awake’ (Psalms 44:23), and the inflicting a wound on the sacrificial victim.
Also down to his time on the days between the festival seasons was the hammer in
use in Jerusalem. Finally, in his days men were not wont to ask about Demai,
i.e. not to ask whether tithes had been paid on bought corn.”—On the meaning of
this passage, which in part is very obscure, see the commentaries in
Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 287 f., iii. 295 ff.; Herzfeld, Geschichte, iii. 249
ff.; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 71. The translation here given follows that of
Jost in his edition of the Mishna, and agrees with the explanations given in the
Talmud; but its correctness is very questionable. See especially Herzfeld.—For
the confession at the tithing, see Deuteronomy 26:12-15; Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8.
22; Mishna, Maaser scheni v. 6-15; Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum (1713), pp.
204-227. It may also be mentioned that in Para iii. 5, Jochanan is named as one
of those high priests in whose time a red heifer was burnt, according to the law
of Numbers 19. On a review of Hyrcanus’ government Josephus passes a favourable
verdict upon him, saying that “he was esteemed of God worthy of the three
privileges—the government of his nation, the dignity of the high-priesthood, and
prophecy.” Upon the whole, the reign of Hyrcanus seems to the Jewish historian a
pre-eminently happy one.[299] He is quite right, if political power is regarded
as the measure of prosperity and success. After Hyrcanus’ predecessors had
already enlarged the Jewish territory to the sea-coast by the addition of Joppa
and Gazara and other conquests in the west, Hyrcanus, by new conquests in the
east, south, and north, and by making still more secure his independence of
Syria, built up a Jewish state such as had not been from the time of the
overthrow of the ten tribes, perhaps not even since the partition of the kingdom
after the death of Solomon. [299] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 7. Among the great
sepulchral monuments in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, that of “the high priest
John” is frequently referred to by Josephus in his Wars of the Jews.[300] [300]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 6. 2, 7. 3, 9. 2, 11. 4; vi. 2. 10.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: � 9. ARISTOBULUS I., B.C. 105-104
========================================================================

§ 9. ARISTOBULUS I., B.C. 105-104 SOURCES Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 11; Wars of the
Jews, i. 3. A summary from Josephus in Zonaras, Annal. v. 3. The coins are most
completely given by Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 81-83. LITERATURE
EWALD, History of Israel, v. 385, 386. STANLEY, Jewish Church, vol. iii. 370.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 118-123. HITZIG, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, ii. 473-475. JOHN HYRCANUS left five sons.[301] But according to
his will, the government was to pass to his wife,[302] while only the
high-priesthood was to go to his eldest son Aristobulus. The young prince,
however, was not satisfied with this arrangement. He put his mother in prison,
where he allowed her to die of hunger, and assumed the government himself.[303]
Also all his brothers, with the exception of Antigonus, he cast into prison.
Only in the latter had he such confidence that he assigned to him a share in the
management of the kingdom. But this very pre-eminence proved the occasion of
disaster to Antigonus. It aroused the jealousy of many whose intrigues were at
last successful in making Aristobulus the murderer of his favourite brother. It
was represented to him that Antigonus was endeavouring to secure the supreme
power to himself. Aristobulus in consequence became suspicious, and gave orders
to his bodyguard, that if Antigonus should come to him armed, they should cut
him down. At the same time he commanded his brother to come to him unarmed. But
the enemies of Antigonus bribed the messengers, so that they should announce to
him that Aristobulus desired him to obtain new weapons and new armour, and
commanded him that he should come clad in armour in order that he might see his
new equipment. Antigonus acted accordingly, and was cut down by the bodyguard
when he, suspecting nothing, entered the citadel. After the deed was done,
Aristobulus is said to have bitterly repented, and his sorrow seemed to have
accelerated his death.[304] [301] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 7. [302] Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 11. 1: ἐκεινην γὰρ Ὑρκανὸς τῶν ὅλων κυρίαν καταλελοίπει. So, too,
Wars of the Jews, i. 3. 1. [303] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews,
i. 3. 1. On the chronology, see above, page 272. [304] Josephus, Antiq. xiii.
11. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 3. 1-6. The whole domestic tragedy, if it can be
taken as historical, presents the character of Aristobulus in a very dark light.
His whole concern was with the civil government. All considerations of piety
were sacrificed to that one end. In other directions also Aristobulus was
estranged still more completely than his father from the traditions of the
Maccabees. The monarchical selfish spirit led him to assume the title of king,
which his successors maintained down to the time of Pompey.[305] The Greek
culture, against the introduction of which the Maccabees had first taken a
stand, was directly favoured by him. Whether he assumed the title of Φιλέλλην is
not with absolute certainty to be concluded from the words of Josephus.[306] As
already his father Hyrcanus had given his sons purely Greek names (Aristobulus,
Antigonus, Alexander), it may be taken for granted that he was inclined to those
tendencies afterwards openly avowed by Aristobulus. [305] Josephus, Antiq. xiii.
11. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 3. 1.—Strabo, xvi. 2. 40, p. 762, tells this of
Alexander Jannäus, because he overlooked the short reign of Aristobulus. [306]
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 11. 3: χρηματίσας μὲν φιλέλλην. From the connection this
ought probably not to be rendered “he called himself Φιλέλλην,” but “he
conducted himself as a friend of the Greek.” The title Φιλέλλην is borne, for
example, by Arsaces VII. and other Parthian kings (Mionnet, Description de
médailles antiques, v. 650 sqq.), by one Antiochus of Commagene (see above, page
184), a Nabatean king Aretas, see Appendix II. On the coins Aristobulus has made
use neither of his royal title nor of his Greek name. He calls himself on them,
“Judas, high priest.” For the coins with the inscription— יהודה כהן גדול וחבר
היהודים belong, as Cavedoni was the first to point out, to one Aristobulus,
whose Hebrew name was Judas.[307]—How thoroughly Aristobulus, notwithstanding
his Greek leanings, still occupied the Jewish standpoint, is shown us by the
most important occurrence which is recorded of his short reign : the conquest
and Judaizing of the northern districts of Palestine. He undertook a military
expedition against the Itureans, conquered a large portion of their land, united
that to Judea, and compelled the inhabitants to allow themselves to be
circumcised and to live according to the Jewish law.[308] The Itureans had their
residence in Lebanon.[309] As Josephus does not say that Aristobulus subdued
“the Itureans,” but only that he conquered a large portion of their country and
judaized it; and as Galilee had not hitherto belonged to the territory of the
Jewish high priest, the conquests even of John Hyrcanus extending northwards
only as far as Samaria and Scythopolis; and as, yet again, the population of
Galilee had been up to that time more Gentile than Jewish,—the conjecture has
good grounds that the portion conquered by Aristobulus was mainly Galilee, and
that the actual judaizing of Galilee was first carried out by him.[310] In any
case, he extended the Jewish power farther northward, as Hyrcanus had toward the
south. [307] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 10: Ἰούδᾳ τῷ καὶ Ἀριστοβούλῳ κληθέντι. On the
coins which de Saulcy originally ascribed to Judas Maccabaeus, see de Saulcy,
Recherches, p. 84. Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 18 f. Levy, Gesch. der jüd.
Münzen, pp. 53-55. Madden, History, pp. 61-63. Reichardt, Wiener Numismat.
Monatshefte, iii. 1867, p. 108 f. De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 238.
Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, iii. 1876, p. 196. Madden, Coins of the
Jews, pp. 81-83.—The Greek coins ascribed by de Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 102-104,
to Aristobulus, belong to Julia or Livia, widow of Augustus; see Cavedoni, Bibl.
Numismatik, ii. 19, 50 f.; also in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 19 f. [308] Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 11. 3: πολεμήσας Ἰτουραίαν καὶ πολλὴν αὐτῶν τῆς χώρας τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ
προσκτησάμενος κ.τ.λ.—Strabo, in the name of Timagenes, as reported by Josephus,
l.c., says: χώραν τε γὰρ αὐτοῖς προσεκτήσατο καὶ τὸ μέρος τοῦ τῶν Ἰτουραίων
ἔθνους ῷκειώσατο κ.τ.λ. [309] Strabo, pp. 753, 755, 756. Inscription of the time
of Quirinius, Ephemeris epigraphica, iv. 538 (Ituraeos in Libano monte). Compare
also Appendix I at the end of the second volume. [310] The fact that the
districts north and east of Galilee were predominantly Gentile down to the time
of the Herodians is in favour of this view. They could not therefore have been
previously judaized by Aristobulus. But then the portion judaized by Aristobulus
could scarcely have been any other than Galilee itself. That Josephus does not
give it the usual territorial designation of Galilee, is explained by his making
use of non-Jewish documents.—A more serious difficulty is presented by the fact
that John Hyrcanus had his son, Alexander Jannäus, brought up in Galilee (Antiq.
xiii. 12. 1). But perhaps it should be said in this case that Hyrcanus had his
son, whom he wished to prevent from succeeding to the throne, brought up outside
of the country. It is also possible that Hyrcanus had already taken possession
of the southern parts of Galilee. Then what is told above would refer only to
the northern division. The statement about Alexander’s education in Galilee is,
owing to the connection in which it occurs, open to considerable suspicion.
Aristobulus died of a painful disease after a reign of one year.[311] Seeing
that the judgment passed upon him by Gentile historians is a favourable
one,[312] we cannot avoid entertaining the suspicion that the cruelties which
he, the Sadducee and friend of the Greeks, is said to have inflicted upon his
relatives, are calumnious inventions of the Pharisees. [311] Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 11. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 3. 6. [312] Strabo in the name of Timagenes,
according to Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 11. 3: ἐπιεικής τε ἐγένετο οὗτος ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ
πολλὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις χρήσιμος.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: � 10. ALEXANDER JANNAUS, B.C. 104-78
========================================================================

§ 10. ALEXANDER JANNÄUS, B.C. 104-78 SOURCES Josephns, Antiq. xiii. 12-15; Wars
of the Jews, i. 4. Summary in Zonaras, Annal. v. 4. Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i.
558 sq., goes back to a source independent of Josephus. Rabbinical Traditions in
Derenbourg, pp. 95-102. The coins are most completely collected in Madden, Coins
of the Jews (1881), pp. 83-90. LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, v. 386-392.
STANLEY, Jewish Church, iii. (1877) 370, 386-388. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden,
iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 123-135. HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. pp.
475-488. HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. pp. 430-434,
art. “Janai, Alexander.” MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Bl. iv., special map of Judea and
Phönicia in the Times of Alexander Jannäus. WHEN Aristobulus was dead, his widow
Salome Alexandra released from prison the three brothers of Aristobulus, whom he
had placed in confinement, and raised the eldest of them to the throne and the
high-priesthood,[313] while at the same time she gave him her hand in
marriage.[314] [313] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 1.
[314] This last statement is nowhere expressly made. But when Josephus names
Salome Alexandra as the wife of Aristobulus (Antiq. xiii. 12. 1), both which
names are borne by the wife of Alexander Jannäus, the identity is placed almost
beyond doubt. Compare Ewald, History of Israel, v. 386. Hitzig, ii. 476.
Alexander Jannäus, B.C. 104-78,[315] was, during his reign of twenty-six or
twenty-seven years, almost constantly involved in foreign or in civil wars,
which for the most part were provoked by his own wilfulness, and resulted by no
means invariably in his favour. [315] On the chronology, see above, pp. 272,
273. First of all he took the field against the citizens of Ptolemais,[316]
besieged them, and surrounded the city. The inhabitants applied for help to the
Egyptian prince Ptolemy Lathurus, who, driven from the throne by his mother
Cleopatra, was then exercising rule in Cyprus. Ptolemy arrived with an army, and
Alexander through fear of him raised the siege.[317]—He sought, however, by
guile to get rid of Ptolemy, for he openly concluded peace and a friendly treaty
with him, but secretly called his mother to his help against him. Ptolemy was at
first disposed to enter into a mutual agreement. But when he heard that
Alexander had secretly summoned his mother to his aid, he broke the truce and
went forth with his army against Alexander. He conquered and plundered the city
of Asochis in Galilee,[318] and thus put himself in position against Alexander
at Asophon on the Jordan.[319] Alexander had a standing army, fairly well
equipped. That of Ptolemy was not nearly so well armed, but his soldiers were
experienced, and had thorough confidence in the tactical skill of their general
Philostephanus. The two armies now lay on either side of the river. The Egyptian
troops began to cross. Alexander allowed them peacefully to accomplish this,
because he hoped more completely to destroy them when once they had all come
over. On both sides they fought bravely, and at first the army of Alexander
gained some advantage. But then the Egyptian general managed by a clever
manœuvre to cause a part of the Jewish army to retreat, and when once a part
fled, the rest could no longer hold their ground. The whole Jewish army took to
flight; the Egyptians pursued them, continuing the massacre without
intermission, “and slew them so long that their weapons of iron were blunted,
and their hands quite tired with the slaughter.”[320] [316] On Ptolemais, the
ancient Acco, one of the most important of the Phoenician coast towns in the
immediate neighbourhood of Galilee, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 90-96. [317]
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 2-4. [318] Asochis is often referred to by Josephus
in his Life, 41, 45, 68. It lay near Sepphoris (Antiq. xiii. 12. 5: μικρὸν
ἄπωθεν; Life, 45: παρὰ δὲ Σεπφωριτῶν εἰς Ἀσωχὶν καταβάντες), and on the plain
(Life, 41, 45), and so undoubtedly in the modern valley el-Battôf. For
conjectures about its situation, see Robinson, Later Bibl. Researches in
Palestine, p. 111; also Biblical Researches, iii. 201-204. Guérin, Galilée, i.
494-497. Compare also Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 760; Raumer, Paläst, p. 121. [319]
Ἀσωφών, not otherwise known. Perhaps the same as צָפוֹן of Joshua 13:27. Compare
Grätz, iii. 124; Hitzig, ii. 478. [320] Ἕως οὗ καὶ ὁ σίδηρος αὐτοῖς ἠμβλύνθη
κτείνουσι καὶ αἱ χεῖρες παρείθησαν; compare generally, Josephus, Anitq. xiii.
12. 4-5. The whole country now lay open before Ptolemy. But now Cleopatra sent
an army to Palestine, in order to check in time the increasing power of her son.
While this army operated in Palestine, Ptolemy succeeded in pressing forward
into Egypt. But he was driven out of it again and obliged to return to Gaza, and
Cleopatra took possession of the whole of Palestine. When she had the power in
her hands, some of her counsellors advised her to unite the land of the Jews
again with Egypt. But the representations of her Jewish general Ananias
prevailed in getting their scheme set aside, and in inducing her rather to
conclude a treaty with Alexander. Ptolemy could no longer maintain his position
in the Jewish territory, and so he returned to Cyprus. Cleopatra also withdrew
her army from Palestine, and Alexander was again ruler of the country.[321]
[321] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 1-3. He was now in a position to make
preparations for other conquests. He began these on the east of the Jordan, for
he took Gadara[322] and the strong fortress of Amathus on the Jordan.[323] The
former he succeeded in taking only after a two months’ siege. Then he turned his
attention to the land of the Philistines, conquered Raphia, Anthedon, and
finally the city of Gaza, so celebrated in days of old.[324] For a whole year
Alexander lay before that city, and at last he obtained the mastery only through
treachery, whereupon he plundered it and set it on fire.[325] [322] Gadara,
which is well known from the Gospel history, lies south-east of the lake of
Gennesareth, then an important Hellenistic city. See details in Div. ii. vol. i.
pp. 100-104. [323] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 3: μέγιστον ἔρυμα τῶν ὑπὲρ τὸν
Ἰορδάνην κατῳκημένων, afterwards the site of one of the five “conventions”
established by Gabinius (Antiq. xiv. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5). According
to Eusebius, it lay twenty-one Roman miles south of Pella (Eusebius,
Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 219: λέγεται δὲ καὶ νῦν Ἀμαθοῦς κώμη ἐν τῇ Περαίᾳ
τῇ κατωτέρᾳ, Πελλῶν διεστῶσα σημείοις καʹ εἰς νότον). This description
corresponds to the situation of the present ruins of Amatha in the neighbourhood
of the Jordan, north of Jabbok. See generally: Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2. 1031 f.
Raumer, Palästina, p. 242. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung des
römischen Reichs, ii. 364 f. [324] On Raphia, Anthedon, and Gaza, see Div. ii.
vol. i. pp. 66-74. [325] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 4.
2. The conquest of Gaza must have taken place in B.C. 96, for it was about the
same time that Antiochus VIII. Grypos died.[326] [326] Josephus, Antiq. xiii.
13. 4. No sooner was peace secured with those outside of the nation than
conflicts arose within. The incurable dissension of parties which had already
cast its shadows over the reign of Hyrcanus, became productive of strife and
turmoil during Alexander’s reign, especially in matters of internal government.
The rabbinical legends tell of disputes between the king and the chiefs of the
schools of the Pharisees which were of a very harmless kind, childish wranglings
rather than serious contendings. But their tales are so utterly worthless from a
historical point of view, that they can find a place here only as evidence of
the peculiar lusts and equally peculiar morals of Talmudic Judaism. The hero of
these tales is Simon ben Shetach, the celebrated Pharisee, reputed to be a
brother of Alexander’s wife Salome. Of his doings at court the following are
told.[327] There came once 300 Nazarites to Jerusalem in order to present there
the prescribed sacrifices. Simon found ways and means to relieve them of the
one-half of their burden. But with the other half he could not do so, and
therefore he petitioned the king that he should bear the cost, pretending that
he himself would bear the expense of the other half. The king agreed to this.
But when he discovered that Simon had deceived him he was exceedingly angry, and
Simon was obliged to go into hiding in order to escape his wrath. Some time
thereafter Parthian ambassadors arrived at the king’s court and wished to see
the distinguished rabbis. The king turned to the queen, who knew Simon’s place
of concealment, and urged her to induce her brothers to bring him forth. The
queen obtained from him a promise that no injury would be done the high priest,
and then urged him to come. No sooner was the agreement come to than Simon
entered in and seated himself between the king and the queen, whereupon the
following conversation took place between him and the king. The king: “Wherefore
didst thou flee?” Simon: “Because I heard that my lord and king was angry with
me.” The king: “And why didst thou deceive me ?” Simon: “I did not deceive thee.
Thou didst give thy gold, and I my wisdom.” The king: “But why didst thou not
tell this to me ?” Simon: “If I had told thee, thou wouldest not have given it
me.” The king: “Wherefore hast thou taken thy place between the king and the
queen?” Simon: “Because it is written in the book of Sirach, Exalt wisdom, and
it will exalt thee among princes” (Sir_11:1).—Thereupon the king ordered to set
wine before him, and called upon him to invoke the blessing at table. Simon
began: “Thanks be unto God for the nourishment which Jannai and his companions
have enjoyed.” “Thou dost ever continue stiff-necked,” said the king; “I have
never before in any grace at table heard the name of Jannai.” “Could I say,”
retorted Simon, “we thank Thee for that which we have eaten, when I as yet have
received nothing?” The king then gave orders that they should set food before
Simon; and when he had partaken of it, he said: “Thanks be unto God for that
which we have eaten.” [327] See Derenbourg, pp. 96-98, especially upon
Bereschith rabba, c. 91. Compare also Grätz, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 127, 703 f. (note
13). The real conflicts between Alexander on the one hand, and the Pharisees and
those of the people who sympathized with them on the other, were of an entirely
different and wholly tragic character. The deeper foundations of this strife lay
in the general course of development taken by the internal affairs of the nation
since the establishment of the Asmonean dynasty. Among the people the Pharisees
gained power and influence more and more. The policy of the Asmoneans separated
them always farther and farther from the popular movements, and brought them at
last into direct antagonism with the nationalist party. It could only be with
deep-seated resentment that pious Jews could look on and see a wild warrior like
Alexander Jannäus discharging the duties of high priest in the holy place,
certainly not with the conscientious and painstaking observance of the
ordinances regarded by the Pharisees as divine. Even while he was discharging
his priestly office it is said that for the first time they broke out in open
rebellion. During the Feast of Tabernacles, when every one taking part in it was
required to carry a palm branch (לוּלָב φοίνιξ) and a citron fruit (אֶתְרוֹג
κίτριον) as a festal emblem, Alexander was once, as he stood beside the altar
about to offer sacrifice, pelted by the assembled people with the citrons. At
the same time they insulted him by calling out that he was the son of a prisoner
of war, and was unworthy of the office of sacrificing priest. Alexander was not
the man to bear this quietly. He called in the aid of his mercenaries, and 600
Jews were massacred.[328] The bitterness of feeling created thereby among the
people was so great, that only a favourable opportunity was waited for in order
to break off the hated yoke. [328] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 5; Wars of the
Jews, i. 4. 3.—In the Talmud (Sukka 486) it is related that once a Sadducee
poured out the usual libation of water, not on the altar, but on the earth, on
account of which the people pelted him with citrons. Alexander’s name is not
mentioned. Possibly he is intended. But “the narrative of Josephus is not
improved by inserting its Talmudic re-echo as giving the motive for the action
of the people” (Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 96). So Grätz, iii., 4
Aufl. pp. 128 f., 704 f. (note 13). Derenbourg, p. 98 sq. note. By his love of
war Alexander was soon again involved in further complications. He went forth
against the Arab tribes which dwelt east of the Jordan, and of these he made the
Moabites and Gileadites tributary. But Amathus, which had once previously been
conquered but never very securely held, was now utterly destroyed. He then began
hostilities against the Arabian king Obedas; but during the conflict with him in
the neighbourhood of Gadara,[329] Alexander fell into an ambuscade, in which he
was so sore pressed that he narrowly escaped with his bare life. He went as a
fugitive to Jerusalem. But there a poor reception awaited him. The Pharisees
took advantage of the moment of Alexander’s political weakness to break down his
power and influence at home. There was a general rebellion against him, and
Alexander had for six full years to fight against his own people with mercenary
troops. No less than 50,000 Jews are said to have perished during this period in
these civil conflicts. When Alexander’s power had been established he held out
the hand of peace. But the Pharisees wished to turn the state of affairs to
account so as to secure a victory to their party. When therefore Alexander
inquired what they wanted from him, and under what conditions they would agree
to maintain the peace and yield obedience, they said that they wanted only his
death. At the same time they called to their aid Demetrius III. Eucärus, a son
of Antiochus Grypos, and at that time governor of a portion of
Syria,[330]—somewhere about B.C. 88.[331] [329] So Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 5.
According to the Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 4, it was at Gaulana, the ancient
גּוֹלַן, east of the lake of Gennesareth. [330] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 5;
Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 3-4. [331] More than six years after the conquest of
Gaza, B.C. 96, i.e. after B.C. 90, but before B.C. 86, for there is a coin of
Antiochus XII., who first became ruler after the overthrow of Demetrius III.
Eucärus, with the date Seleucid year 227, or B.C. 86-85 (Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies
grecques, 1883, p. 437); compare generally on the chronology, above, p. 183.
Demetrius arrived with an army. The Jewish national party united themselves with
him at Shechem. Alexander was completely beaten, lost all his mercenary troops,
and was obliged to flee to the mountains.[332] But now it seemed as if among
many of the Jews who now attached themselves to Demetrius, the national feeling
had again wakened up. They would rather, in a free Jewish state, be subject to
an Asmonean prince than be incorporated into the empire of a Seleucid ruler. Six
thousand Jews went over to Alexander, and Demetrius was in consequence under the
necessity of withdrawing again into his own land. The rest of the Jews who still
continued in revolt had no other object than to get rid of Alexander. But they
were by him defeated in many battles, and many of them were slain. The leaders
of the rebellion at last fled to Bethome or Besemelis, where[333] they were
besieged by Alexander. After the overthrow of the city, Alexander carried them
as prisoners to Jerusalem, and there within the city, at least according to the
account of Josephus, while he along with his mistresses gave himself up to
debauchery, he had somewhere about 800 of the prisoners crucified in his own
presence, and while they were yet alive caused their wives and children to be
slain before their eyes. His opponents in Jerusalem were by these atrocities so
paralysed with terror, that they fled during the night to the number of 8000,
and during his lifetime kept away from the land of Judea.[334] [332] Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 14. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 4-5. [333] The former according to
Antiq. xiii. 14. 2; the latter according to Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 6. Neither
of the two is capable of demonstration. For all manner of conjectures, see
Ewald, History of Israel, v. 390; Grätz, iii. 131; Hitzig, ii. 482. [334]
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 14. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 5-6. From this time
forward Alexander, throughout his whole reign, enjoyed peace at home. It was not
so in the matter of his relations with those outside. The empire of the
Seleucidae then, indeed, lay in its death-throes. Its last convulsions, however,
were the occasion of again putting Judea into commotion. Antiochus XII., the
youngest of the five sons of Antiochus Grypos, was at this time at war with his
brother Philip and the king of the Arabians. When once he resolved to take his
way to Arabia through Judea, Alexander Jannäus endeavoured to prevent that by
constructing a great wall and trench from Joppa to Capharsaba, and fortifying
Joppa with a wooden tower. But Antiochus laid everything low with fire, and made
his way through it all.[335] [335] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 1; Wars of the
Jews, i. 4. 7.—Capharsaba (כפר סבא), now called Kefr Saba, north-east of Joppa,
was afterwards called Antipatris. See Div. ii. vol. i. p. 130. When Antiochus
met his death in battle against the king of the Arabians, and that monarch,
whose name was Aretas, extended his rule to Damascus, he became from this time
forth the most powerful and the most dangerous neighbour of the Jews. On the
south and the east Palestine was bounded by districts which lay under the
dominion of the Arabs. Very soon Alexander Jannäus also began to have experience
of their power. He was obliged by an attack of Aretas to retreat to Adida,
within the boundaries of Judea, where he suffered a rather serious defeat, and
could only by making concessions purchase the withdrawal of the Arabian
king.[336] [336] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 8.—On
Adida, see above, p. 252, and 1Ma_12:38. It lay east of Lydda, and commanded the
road from Joppa to Jerusalem. On Aretas and the Arabian kings generally, see
Appendix II. at close of the second volume. More fortunate were the results of
the campaigns which Alexander Jannäus during the next three years, B.C. 84-81,
carried on in the country east of the Jordan, in order to extend his power in
that direction. He conquered Pella, Dium, Gerasa, then advanced again northward
and took Gaulana, Seleucia, and at last the strong fortress of Gamala. When,
after these exploits, he returned to Jerusalem, he was then received by the
people in peace.[337] [337] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 3; Wars of the Jews, i.
4. 8.—The places named all lie east of the Jordan. On Pella, Dium, and Gerasa,
see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 113-119; Josephus in the Wars of the Jews names only
Pella and Gerasa, in the Antiquities only Dium and Essa, the latter certainly a
corruption of the text for Gerasa, since the facts given in reference to both
places are clearly identical.—Gaulana is the ancient גּוֹלָן, east of the Lake
of Gennesareth, from which the province of Gaulanitis takes its name
(Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8; Joshua 21:27; 1 Chronicles 6:56). It was even in
the days of Eusebius a large village (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 242: καὶ νῦν
Γαυλὼν καλεῖται κώμη μηγίστη ἐν τῇ Βαταναίᾳ). But its situation is nc longer
discoverable.—Seleucia is also often referred to by Josephus in the history of
the Jewish war (Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 6, iv. i. 1; Life, 37). According to
the Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1, it lay on the Lake Semechonitis, or Lake Merom,
therefore in the extreme north of Palestine.—On Gamala, the conquest of which by
Vespasian is related in detail by Josephus in Wars of the Jews, iv. 1, see § 20.
Not long after this, as the result of a drunken debauch, he became sick, and
this sickness continued throughout the last three years of his life, B.C. 81-78.
He did not, however, abandon his military expeditions until at last, amid the
tumult of war, during the siege of the fortress Ragaba he succumbed to his
sickness and excrtions in B.C. 78.[338] His body was brought to Jerusalem, where
he was buried with great pomp.[339] [338] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 5; Wars of
the Jews, i. 4. 8.—Ragaba lay, according to Josephus, in the district of Gerasa,
ἐν τοῖς Γερασηνῶν ὅροις, therefore east of the Jordan. It can be identified with
רֶגֶב in Perea, mentioned in the Mishna, Menachoth viii. 3, which produced
valuable oil; but can scarcely be the same as Ἐργά, fifteen Roman miles west of
Gerasa (Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 216), as Raumer thinks (Paläst.
p. 255), for the latter must have been long in the power of Alexander Jannäus.
Compare generally, Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2. 1041 f. [339] Josephus, Antiq. xiii.
16. 1. The monument to Alexander is referred to by Josephus in Wars of the Jews,
v. 7. 3. Of the coins issued by him, those are of special interest which bear
the inscription in two languages— יהונתן המלךְ || ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ. They were
known even to the earlier numismatists; but first de Saulcy stated the correct
and now generally accepted view regarding them, that the Hebrew inscription
supplies us with the Hebrew name of Alexander.[340] Jannai is therefore a
contraction for Jonathan, not, as was formerly supposed, for Jochanan.[341] But
if undoubtedly Alexander’s name was Jonathan, then the coins of the high priest
are to be ascribed to him which bear the inscription [340] See on the coins of
Alexander Jannäus generally, Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 477-480. Mionnet,
Description des médailles antiques, v. 562 sq.; Suppl. viii. 378. De Saulcy,
Recherches sur la Numismatique judaique, pp. 85-93, 105 sq. (he ascribes the
coins of the high priest Jonathan to Jonathan the Maccabee). Cavedoni in Grote’s
Münzstudien, v. 20 f. Reichardt, Wiener Numismat. Monatshefte, iii. 1867, pp.
109-111. De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 238 sq. Madden, Numismatic
Chronicle, 1874, 306-308. Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp.
197-201 and 201-206 (see below, note 30). Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 83-90.
Stickel, Zeitschrift des deutschen Paläst. Ver. vii. 1884, p. 212. [341] Compare
Ewald, Gött. gel. Anz. 1855, p. 650; History of Israel, v. 386. Levy, p. 115.
Derenbourg, p. 95, note. Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 85, note. יהונתן הכהן
הגדל וחבר היהדים (or ינתן). These high-priestly coins are of the same type as
the coins of John Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. The bilingual royal coins are a
novelty introduced by Alexander.[342] [342] Of the high-priest coins with the
name in its contracted form, ינתן many are copied in the royal coins of
Alexander. Merzbacher therefore ascribes all with the designation ינתן to
Alexander’s successor Hyrcanus II. But much as this hypothesis was favoured by
an examination of the coins, it must still be left undecided, since it cannot be
proved that Hyrcanus II. had the name of Jonathan. By the conquests of Alexander
the boundaries of the Jewish state had now been extended far beyond the limits
reached by John Hyrcanus. In the south, the Idumeans had been subdued and
judaized. In the north, Alexander’s dominion reached as far as Seleucia on the
Lake Merom. The sea-coast, on which Joppa had been the first conquest of the
Maccabees, was all now completely under Jewish rule. With the single exception
of Ascalon, which had been able to maintain its independence, all the coast
towns were conquered by Alexander, from the borders of Egypt as far as
Carmel.[343] But also the country east of the Jordan, from the Lake Merom to the
Dead Sea, was wholly under his sway; among them a number of the more important
towns, which had previously been centres of Greek culture, such as Hippos,
Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others.[344] [343] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 4,
expressly mentions as then in the posession of the Jews: Rhinocorura, south of
Raphia on the Egyptian coast, Raphia, Gaza, Anthedon, Azotus, Jamnia, Joppa,
Apollonia, Straton’s Tower; see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 66-87. But Dora also must
have belonged to the domain of Alexander; for Straton’s Tower and Dora had
previously belonged to a tyrant Zoilus, who had been subdued by Alexander
(Antiq. xiii. 12. 2 and 4). On the other hand, it is not by accident that
Ascalon is wanting. It was from B.C. 104 an independent city, as the era used by
it and the acknowledgment of its freedom by the Romans prove; see Div. ii. vol.
i. p. 74. [344] Josephus, in Antiq. xiii. 15. 4, gives a summary sketch of the
extent of the Jewish territory at the death of Alexander. Compare in addition,
Tuch, Quaestiones de Flavii Josephi libris historicis, Lips. 1859, pp. 12-19.
See also for further particulars the list of places taken by the Arabs in Antiq.
xiv. 1. 4, fin.—A similar sketch, according to a document inde pendent of
Josephus, is given by the Byzantine chronicler Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 558
sq. On the value of this report, see Gelzer, Julius Africanus, Bd. i. (1880) pp.
256-258. Syncellus refers first of all to Julius Africanus, but he again to an
older Jewish document, probably the work of Justus of Tiberias (see above, p.
68). He names several cities which are omitted by Josephus, e.g. Abila, Hippos,
Philoteria. The mention of Philoteria is specially important, because the place
bearing that name is quite unknown in later times. According to Polybius, v. 70,
it was in the time of Antiochus the Great one of the most important cities on
the lake of Gennesareth (ἡ δὲ Φιλοτερία κεῖται παρʼ αὐτὴν τὴν λίμνην, εἰς ἣν ὁ
καλούμενος Ἰορδάνης ποταμὸς εἰσβάλλων κ.τ.λ.). Only once again do we meet with
the name in Stephen of Byzantium (ἔστι καὶ Κοίλης Συρίας Φιλωτέρα, ὡς Χάραξ ἐν
ὀγδόῳ χρονικῶν; on Charax, see Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. iii. 636 sqq.).
Compare also above, p. 196.—An outline map of the Jewish territory of the time
of Alexander Jannäus is given in Menke’s Bibelatlas, Sheet iv. This work of
conquest, however, proved at the same time a work of destruction. It did not
lead, as once the conquests of Alexander the Great had done, to the furtherance,
but to the extinction of Greek culture. For in this respect Alexander Jannäus
was still always a Jew, who subjected the conquered territories, as far as they
went, to Jewish modes of thought and manners. If the cities in question would
not consent to this, they were laid waste.[345] Such was the fate that befell
the great and hitherto prosperous coast towns, and the Hellenistic cities on the
east of the Jordan. The Romans, Pompey and Gabinius, were the first to rebuild
again those ruins, and reawaken in them a new prosperity. [345] This is
expressly stated in regard at least to Pella, Antiq. xiii. 15. 4: ταύτην δὲ
κατέσκαψαν, οὐχ ὑποσχομένων τῶν ἑνοικούντων εἰς τὰ πάτρια τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθη
μεταβαλέσθαι.—The fact that such destruction was executed is told in regard to
many other cities, or it may be deduced from this, that Pompey and Gabinius had
them built again (Antiq. xiv. 4. 4, v. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 7, 8. 4. See
especially, Antiq. xiv. 5. 3: τὰς πόλεις πολὺν χρόνον ἐρήμους γενομένας).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: � 11. ALEXANDRA, B.C. 78-69
========================================================================

§ 11. ALEXANDRA, B.C. 78-69 SOURCES Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16; Wars of the Jews,
i. 5. Summary in Zonaras, Annal. v. 5. Rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg, pp.
102-112. The coins in Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), p. 91 sq. LITERATURE
JOH. MÜLLER (praeside G. G. Zeltner), De Alexandra Judaeorum regina tanquam
specimine sapientis ex hac gente foeminae. Altdorffi 1711. EWALD, History of
Israel, v. 392-394. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 136-150.
HITZIG, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, ii. 488-490. WELLHAUSEN, Die Pharisäer und
Sadducäer (1874), pp. 97-99. ACCORDING to the latest expression of Alexander’s
will, the succession of the throne went to his widow Alexandra, who again
nominated her eldest son Hyrcanus high priest.[346] Alexandra, or, as her Hebrew
name runs, Salome, B.C. 78-69, was in all respects the direct antithesis of her
husband.[347] While he hated the Pharisees, and was hated by them, she
befriended them, and committed to them the helm of government. While he was a
despot of the real Oriental type, she was a God-fearing ruler, according to the
very ideal of the Pharisees. Her rule, measured by the Pharisaic standard, was
faultless. [346] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 1.—Only a
couple of coins of Alexandra’s are known, bearing the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣ.
ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔ. See de Saulcy, Recherches, p. 106. Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 23.
Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, p. 61. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp.
70-72. Reichardt, Wiener Numismat. Monatshefte, iii. 1867, p. 111 f. Madden,
Numismatic Chronicle, 1874, 308-310. Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik,
iii. 1876, 201. Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 91 sq. [347] On the chronology,
see above, p. 272.—On the Hebrew name, see especially Derenbourg, p. 102, for
the rabbinical tradition. In Eusebius, Chronicon ad annum Abr. 1941, she is
called Alexandra quae et Salina. In accordance with this see the Armenian
translation and Jerome; see Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 134, 135. So,
too, the imitators and continuators of Eusebius, Chronicon paschale, ed.
Dindorf, i. 351 (Ἀλεξάνδρας τῆς Σαλίνας). Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 559 (Σαλίνα
ἡ καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρα). Accordingly, in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 130,
instead of the Σααλίνα of the common text, we should read, not Σαλλίνα, with
Gutschmid, but Σαλίνα. Compare also Jerome, comment. on Daniel 9:24 sqq. (Opp.
ed. Vallarsi, v. 687): Alexandra quae et Salina vocabatur. Jerome there
translates Eusebius, Demonstr. evangel. viii. 2; but just where these words
occur our Greek text is defective.—Josephus calls her only Alexandra. See
further, above, p. 295. Alexander, upon his deathbed, is said to have advised
his wife to make peace with the Pharisees.[348] This may be true, or it may not;
this at least is a fact, that Alexandra, from the beginning of her reign, took
her stand unhesitatingly on the side of the Pharisees, lent an ear to their
demands and wishes, and in particular gave legal sanction again to all the
Pharisaic ordinances abolished since the time of John Hyrcanus. During these
years the Pharisees were the real rulers in the land. “She had indeed the name
of regent, but the Pharisees had the authority; for it was they who restored
such as were banished, and set such as were prisoners at liberty, and to say all
at once, they differed in nothing from lords.”[349] To this period of Pharisaic
reaction we may also assign a series of triumphs of the Pharisees, of which a
report is given in the rabbinical traditions. But the authentic accounts which
are given of these in the Festival-Calendar (Megillath Taanith, i.e. the list of
the joyous days of thanksgiving on which fasting was not to be practised) are so
brief and enigmatical, that they afford no satisfactory historical basis. And
the quite modern Hebrew commentary thereon gives purely worthless fancies.[350]
Also the statement of the Mishna, that Simon ben Shetach had once caused eighty
women to be hanged in Ascalon, cannot be used for this reason, that that
celebrated rabbi had no connection with Ascalon.[351] Historical information is
therefore wholly to be derived from Josephus. And the picture of this queen with
which he presents us, in respect of vividness leaves nothing to be desired. The
Pharisees, conscious of their power, went so far as to cause the execution of
the former counsellors of King Alexander who had advised him to massacre the 800
rebels. This despotic proceeding did not involve in ruin the aristocracy of
Jerusalem. An embassy representing them, including Alexandra’s own son
Aristobulus, approached the queen, and besought her to put a stop to the scheme
of the Pharisees; and the queen was obliged, whether she wished it or not, to
consent thereto.[352] [348] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 5.—According to the
Talmud, Sota 22b, in Derenbourg, p. 101, he is said to have given this advice:
“Fear neither the Pharisees nor their opponents, but fear the hypocrites who
pretend to be Pharisees, whose deeds are those of Zimri, and who claim a reward
like that of Phinehas.” [349] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 2: Πάντα τοῖς
Φαρισαίοις ἐπιτοέπει ποιεῖν, οἶς καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἐκέλευσε πειθαρχεῖν, καὶ εἴ τι δὲ
καὶ τῶν νομίμων Ὑρκανὸς ὁ πενθερὸς αὐτῆς κατέλυσεν ὦν εἰσήνεγκαν οἱ Φαρισαίοι
κατὰ τὴν πατρῴαν μαράδοσιν, τοῦτο πάλιν ἀποκατέστησε. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ὄνομα τῆς
βασιλειας εἶχεν αὐτή, τὴν δὲ δύναμιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι· καὶ γὰρ φυγάδας οὗτοι κατῆγον
καὶ δεσμώτας ἔλυον, καὶ καθάπαξ οὐδὲν δεσποτῶν διέφερον. Compare also Wars of
the Jews, i. 5. 2. [350] On Megillath Taanith, see above, p. 163.—The passages
in Megillath Taanith that here claim attention are § 1, 2, 10, 19, 24. In
addition, see Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 567-572 (note
1). Derenbourg, p. 102 sq. For criticism, consult Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und
die Sadducäer, pp. 56-63. [351] M. Sanhedrin vi. 4.—Derenbourg, at p. 69, refers
this to Simon the Maccabee; but there is opposition thereto. On p. 106 he
attributes it to Simon ben Shetach. Compare also Jost, Geschichte des
Judenthums, i. 242. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iii. 146 f.—Ascalon did not
indeed belong to the Jewish territory. See above, p. 306. [352] Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 16. 2-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 3. In her foreign policy Alexandra showed
circumspection and energy.[353] There are, however, no very important political
events to be recorded during her reign. The most important was a military
expedition of her son Aristobulus against Damascus, which, however, ended
without result.[354] The Syrian empire was then in the hands of the Armenian
king Tigranes. He assumed a threatening attitude toward the end of the reign of
Alexandra. The danger, however, that thus hung over Judea was arrested, partly
by Alexandra purchasing peace by bestowing rich presents, partly and mainly by
the Romans having just then made a descent under Lucullus upon the empire of
Tigranes, which obliged him to abandon his plans in regard to Judea.[355] [353]
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 2 and 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 2. [354] Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 16. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 3. [355] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16.
4; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 3. Upon the whole, Alexandra’s reign was looked upon
by the people as one of prosperity. There was peace abroad as well as at home.
The Pharisees were satisfied; and since they had the people at their bidding,
all expressed themselves in favour of the God-fearing queen. In the Pharisaic
tradition the days of Alexandra are naturally represented as a golden age, in
which even the soil of the land, as if blessed on account of the piety of the
queen, enjoyed a truly miraculous fruitfulness. “Under Simon ben Shetach and
Queen Salome rain fell on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the corns of wheat
were as large as kidneys, the barley corns as large as olives, and the lentils
like golden denarii; the scribes gathered such corns, and preserved specimens of
them in order to show future generations what sin entails.”[356] [356] Taanith
23a, in Derenbourg, p. 111. But the Pharisees were not yet so exclusively in
possession of power that the queen, without risk, could depend upon their
support alone. The influence of the Sadducean nobles was not altogether broken.
And the discontent of this circle was all the more considerable, from the fact
that at its head stood Alexandra’s own son Aristobulus. The queen must herself
have felt, toward the close of her life, on what a shifting foundation she had
built. When, in her seventy-third year, she fell sick of a serious complaint,
and intended to bestow the succession to the throne upon her elder son Hyrcanus,
Aristobulus thought that the time had now arrived for unfurling the standard of
revolt. He succeeded in getting the strongest fortresses into his possession. As
the number of his adherents rapidly grew, the elders of the people[357] and
Hyrcanus became sorely distressed, and made representations to the queen that it
was necessary to adopt measures against him. The queen granted the necessary
authority for this, but died even before the war broke out, in B.C. 69.[358]
[357] τῶν Ἰουδαίων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. [358] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 5-6; Wars of
the Jews, i. 5. 4.—The death of Alexandra occurred in the first half of the year
B.C. 69.—Compare above, p. 272.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: � 12. ARISTOBULUS II., B.C. 69-63
========================================================================

§ 12. ARISTOBULUS II., B.C. 69-63 SOURCES Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1-4; Wars of the
Jews, i. 6. 7. Zonaras, Annal, v. 5-6, a summary from Josephus. Rabbinical
traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 112-118. LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, v.
394-399. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 151-165. HITZIG,
Geschichte der Volkes Israel, ii. 490-500. MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Sheet iv.,
special map of “Judea and Phoenicia according to the Arrangements of Pompey and
Gabinius.” THE star of the Asmoneans was now hasting to its setting. After
Alexandra’s death a war immediately broke out between the brothers Aristobulus
II. and Hyrcanus II., which, after a few years, ended in the Romans taking from
the Jews that freedom which they had wrested from the Syrians. Alexandra had
died just at the critical moment when the idea had taken possession of her son
Aristobulus to grasp for himself the government by force. Her legitimate
successor was her eldest[359] son Hyrcanus, who had been already, during the
reign of his mother, invested with the office of high priest. He also began to
exercise civil government. But his brother Aristobulus was by no means disposed
to acquiesce in his plans. He advanced against Hyrcanus with an army. Near
Jericho they engaged in a battle, in which many of the soldiers of Hyrcanus went
over to Aristobulus, and thus secured for him the victory. Hyrcanus fled to the
citadel of Jerusalem, but was obliged there to surrender to Aristobulus. A truce
was now concluded between the two brothers, according to the terms of which
Hyrcanus, who undoubtedly was a weak and indolent character, was to renounce the
royal and high-priestly rank, and to resign both to his brother Aristobulus. In
return, he was to be left in the undisturbed enjoyment of his revenues.[360]
[359] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 2, xiv. 1. 3, 3. 2. [360] Josephus, Antiq. xiv.
1. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 1.—According to Antiq. xv. 6. 4, the reign of
Hyrcanus lasted for three months.—Grätz, iii. 154; Holtzmann, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, ii. 212; and Derenbourg, p. 113, are wrong in assuming that
Hyrcanus retained the rank of high priest. That this was not the case follows
from Antiq. xiv. 1. 2 (αὑτὸν δὲ ζῆν ἀπραγμόνως), and is expressly stated in
Antiq. xv. 3. 1 and xx. 10. By all this the state of affairs had been by no
means improved. For now the Idumean Antipater or Antipas, the father of him who
was afterwards King Herod, joined in the game.[361] His father, who was also
called Antipater, had by Alexander Jannäus been appointed governor, στρατηγός,
of Idumea, and his son had now, as it seems, stepped into his place. But the
younger Antipater saw clearly that he could assert his position much better
under the government of the weak and unmanly Hyrcanus, than under the warlike
and active Aristobulus. He therefore set all plans in motion for overturning
Aristobulus and restoring again Hyrcanus to the head of affairs. First of all,
he managed to win to himself adherents from the most distinguished of the Jews,
representing to them that Aristobulus, against all right and fairplay, had
seized upon the throne, while Hyrcanus was the legitimate ruler. Then he turned
to Hyrcanus, made it appear to him that his life was in danger so long as
Aristobulus held the reins of government, and that at once, for his own sake, he
must seek his overthrow. The indolent and easy-minded Hyrcanus at first gave him
no hearing. But at last Antipater’s endeavours were successful. He had also
secured the confederacy of the Arabian prince Aretas, who promised that if
Hyrcanus fled to him, he should receive him as a friend. Now at length Hyrcanus
was induced to listen to the representations of Antipater. In company with him,
he fled by night from Jerusalem, and betook himself to Petra, the capital of
Aretas.[362] To him he gave the promise that, after he had won again the
sovereignty, he would restore to him the twelve cities which Alexander Jannäus
had taken from the Arabians; while Aretas, on the other hand, undertook to lend
him his support in recovering the throne.[363] [361] In regard to the descent of
the family, the most contradictory reports have come down to us. According to
Nicolas of Damascus in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 3, Antipater is said to be a
descendant of the first Jews who returned from Babylon. Since this statement is
in contradiction to all other early documents, Josephus is certainly right in
treating it as a piece of flattery to Herod on the part of Nicolas of Damascus
(l.c.: ταῦτα δὲ λέγει χαριζόμενος Ἡρώδῃ). According to Josephus, Antipater was
an Idumean of an honourable family (Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2: γένος δʼ ἦν
Ἰδουμαῖος, προγόνων τε ἕνεκα καὶ πλούτου καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἰσχύος πρωτεύων τοῦ
ἔθνους). Justin Martyr gives it as a report current among the Jews that he was
an Ascalonite (Dialogue with Trypho, c. 52: Ἡρώδην Ἀσκαλωνίτην γεγονέναι). And
that statement also occurs in Julius Africanus in the more definite shape, that
Antipater’s father, Herod, had been a temple attendant of Apollo at Ascalon, and
that Antipater, as a boy, had been carried off by the Idumeans when they robbed
the temple of Apollo, and thus grew up among the Idumean robbers as one of
themselves (Julius Africanus, Epist. ad Aristidem, in Eusebius’ Hist. Eccles. i.
7. 11; compare i. 6. 2-3; also in the Chronicle of Julius Africanus, cited by
Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 561). The following copy these stories from Julius
Africanus: Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 130, ii. 134, 138; Chronicon
paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 351, 358; Sulpicius Severus, ii. 26; Epiphanius, Haer.
xx. 1, and other Christian writers. Josephus and Julius Africanus are
fundamentally agreed as to his Idumean extraction; only that it was according to
Josephus a distinguished one, according to Julius Africanus a mean one,—he
distinctly emphasizes his poverty. Josephus calls Antipater’s father also
Antipater; Julius Africanus calls him Herod. In favour of his Ascalon descent
are certain allusions of Herod to that city; see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 76. It is
further well deserving remark that the names of Antipater and Herod were once to
be met with in Ascalon. An Antipatros of Ascalon figures on a tombstone at
Athens, Corpus Inscript. Semit. t. i. n. 115; a Herod of Ascalon on a tombstone
at Puteoli, Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. x. n. 1746. But for the rest, the story
told by Julius Africanus reveals such bitter hatred, that we can scarcely get
rid of the suspicion of Jewish or Christian prejudice. As Julius Africanus
refers in support of the story to the συγγενεῖς of Jesus Christ (Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. i. 7. 11: τοῦ γοὺν σωτῆρος οἱ κατὰ σάρκα συγγενεῖς … παρέδοσαν καὶ
ταῦτα; compare i. 7. 14: οἱ προειρημένοι δεσπόσυνοι καλούμενοι διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ
σωτήριον γένος συνάφειαν), it would seem to be derived from a Christian source.
Stark in his Gaza und die philistäische Küste, p. 535 f., and Gelzer in his
Julius Africanus, i. 258-261, strongly support its credibility. Compare also
generally, Ewald, History of Israel, v. 397; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon,
iii. 27. [362] On Petra as the capital of the Nabatean empire, see Appendix II.
at the close of the second volume. [363] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 3-4; Wars of
the Jews, i. 6. 2. In fulfilment of this promise Aretas went forth against
Aristobulus with an army, and conquered him in a battle. In consequence of this
victory a great part of the army of Aristobulus went over to Hyrcanus, and
indeed the people as a whole attached themselves to their old king. Only a few
remained faithful to Aristobulus, so that he was obliged to withdraw to the
temple mount, where he was besieged by Aretas and Hyrcanus. Of the period of
this siege Josephus relates certain episodes which are highly characteristic of
the Jewish piety of that time. On the side of Hyrcanus there was a certain
Onias, who had attained unto a great reputation by having prayed to God for rain
during a great drought, and having had his prayer immediately answered. They
wished to make use of this man, or rather of the irresistible power of his
prayers, to secure the destruction of the besieged. They conducted him into the
camp, and insisted that he should solemnly invoke God’s curse upon Aristobulus
and his adherents. But instead of doing so, Onias went forth into the middle of
the camp and said: “O God, the King of the whole world, since those that stand
now with me are Thy people, and those that are besieged are also Thy priests, I
beseech Thee that Thou wilt neither hearken to the prayers of those against
these, nor bring to effect what these pray against those.” But the people were
so little in sympathy with this spirit of brotherly love in Onias that they
immediately stoned him to death.[364] In connection therewith Josephus relates
also another incident which places the besiegers in a by no means favourable
light. The Passover festival came round,[365] at which the priests who were
among the followers of Aristobulus wished at any cost to offer the appointed
sacrifices. But they had no animals for sacrifice, and they knew of no other way
of procuring such but by obtaining them for payment from the people of Hyrcanus.
A thousand drachmas were demanded for the supply. The price was indeed
preposterously extravagant. Yet, notwithstanding, the besieged consented to the
terms, and passed out the money through an opening in the wall. The besiegers,
however, after accepting of the money, still kept the animals to themselves. For
this wickedness, as Josephus thinks, retribution soon came upon them. A violent
storm burst forth which destroyed all the fruits of the field, so that the
modius of wheat cost eleven drachmas.[366] [364] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 2. 1. The
story of the hearing of the prayer of Onias when he once prayed for rain is very
vividly depicted in the Mishna, Taanith iii. 8. He is there called חוֹנִי
הַמְּעַנֵּל (מְלַנֵּל meaning properly the “circle diviner,” because he prayed
standing in a circle). Compare also Derenbourg, p. 112 sq. [365] It must have
been the Passover of the year B.C. 65, for immediately afterwards Scaurus
arrived in Judea. [366] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 2. 2.—Compare the rabbinical
traditions in Derenbourg, p. 113 sq. While this was going on, Pompey had
meanwhile begun his victorious campaign in Asia.[367] He had conquered
Mithridates in B.C. 66, and had in the same year received the voluntary
submission of Tigranes. While he himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he
sent Scaurus to Syria in B.C. 65.[368] When that general arrived at Damascus he
heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed forward without delay
to see how he might turn to account this strife between the rival princes. He
had scarcely reached Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him,
both from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his favour and
support. Aristobulus offered him in return four hundred talents; and Hyrcanus
could not be behind, and so promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted
Aristobulus rather because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement,
and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw if he did not
wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans. Aretas did not venture to show
opposition. He therefore raised the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to
Damascus. But Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted upon
him a crushing defeat.[369] [367] On the war of Pompey in Asia, B.C. 66-62,
compare Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 174-180 (ad ann. 66-62). E. W. Fischer,
Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 212-220, 226 f. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, 5 Aufl. iii.
113-154. Peter, Geschichte Rom’s (2 Aufl.), ii. 161-168. [368] Clinton, Fasti
Hellenici, iii. 345, note. [369] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 2. 3; Wars of the Jews,
i. 6. 2-3. But the Roman favour which Aristobulus had so exerted himself to
secure, under the protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon
proved fatal to his wellbeing and that of his country. He himself left no stone
unturned in order to win the goodwill of Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent
Pompey a costly present, a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred
talents, which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus.[370] But all this could not save Aristobulus, whenever Pompey found
it to be for his advantage to withdraw his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus.
In the spring of B.C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into
Syria,[371] subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon,[372] and
advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus.[373] There he was met
at one and the same time by representatives of three Jewish parties. Not only
did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy.
Hyrcanus complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had violently
assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his conduct by pointing out the
incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the people wished to have nothing to do with either,
asked for the abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old
theocratic constitution of the priests.[374] Pompey heard them, but cautiously
deferred any decision, and declared that he would put all things in order when
he had accomplished his contemplated expedition against the Nabateans. Till then
all parties were to maintain the peace.[375] [370] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 3. 1.
The words: τοῦτο μέντοι τὸ δῶρον ἱστορήκαμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνακείμενον ἐν Ῥώμῃ
κ.τ.λ., are not the words of Josephus, but belong to the quotation from Strabo,
as the rest of the context shows. The value of the vine is once again given
which Josephus had himself stated before. Josephus might indeed himself have
seen it on his first visit to Rome in A.D. 64 or 65. But in that case he would
not have failed to mention that this was before the great fire. For in A.D. 69
the Capitol was burnt down (Tacitus, Hist. iii. 71-72; Suetonius, Vitell. 15;
Dio Cassius, lxv. 17). [371] According to Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 7, Pompey passed
the winter in the town of Aspis, the situation of which is not known. [372]a
Among the subdued princes, Josephus mentions in Antiq. xiv. 3. 2, a Jew, Silas,
as tyrant of Lysias. Bacchius Judaeus is probably another petty prince of
similar kind, whose overthrow is commemorated on a medal of A. Plautius, edile
in B.C. 54. See Reinach, Actes et conférences de la société des études juives,
1887, p. cxcvi. sq.; Les Monnaies juives, p. 28 sq. For the coins, see also
Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. ii. 1886, p. 324 sq. The theory
of the Duc de Luynes, that Bacchius is the Hebrew name of Aristobulus II. (Revue
numismatique, 1858, p. 384), is absolutely impossible. Reinach thinks he might
rather be identified with that Dionysius of Tripoli mentioned by Josephus in
Antiq. xiv. 3. 2. [373] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 3. 2. The order of march here
given is an absurdity. Pella is either an interpolation, as Hitzig, p. 496,
thinks, or a textual error for Abila. Still it is to be noted that the golden
vine of Aristobulus was first brought to Pompey in Damascus (Antiq. xiv. 3. 1).
Josephus indeed tells about it before he relates the previous march of Pompey by
Heliopolis and Chalcis to Damascus, which would naturally make it seem as if
Pompey had gone twice to Damascus, in B.C. 64 and B.C. 63. But evidently the
affair is to explained thus: that Josephus derived the story of the golden vine
from another source, and did not place it in quite the right setting in relation
to the main narrative. Compare Niese, Hermes, Bd. xi. 1876, p. 471. [374]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 3. 2. Diodorus, xl. 2nd ed., Müller. [375] Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 3. 3. Aristobulus, however, was by no means satisfied with this
arrangement, and betrayed his discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he
had accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabateans.[376] Pompey grew
suspicious, postponed his campaign against the Nabateans, and marched
immediately against Aristobulus. He passed by Pella and crossed the Jordan near
Scythopolis, and at Corea entered the territory of Judea proper.[377] Thence he
sent messengers to Alexandrium, to which Aristobulus had fled, and ordered him
to surrender the fortress. After long delay and manifold negotiations,
Aristobulus did this, but at the same time went to Jerusalem in order that he
might there prepare for resistance.[378] Pompey pursued him through Jericho, and
soon appeared in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart.
He betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further presents, and promised
to surrender to him the city if Pompey would suspend hostilities. Pompey was
satisfied with this, and sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the
city, while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius returned without
having obtained his object, for the people in the city had shut the gates
against him. Pompey was so enraged at this that he put Aristobulus in prison,
and immediately advanced against the city.[379] In Jerusalem opinions were now
divided. The adherents of Aristobulus had no wish for peace, and resolved to
defend themselves to the utmost. The adherents of Hyrcanus, on the other hand,
regarded Pompey as their confederate, and wished to open the gates to him. The
latter were in the majority, and succeeded in carrying out their purpose. The
city was surrendered to Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing
sword took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together on the temple
mount and there prepared themselves for resistance.[380] [376] On the situation
of Dium, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 115. On the route of the march of Pompey
generally, Menke’s Bibelatlas, Sheet iv. [377] On the situation of Corea, see
Gildemeister, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, iv. 1881, p. 245 f.
Also Grätz’s criticism of this in Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft
des Judenthums, 1882, pp. 14-17. Gildemeister rightly identifies it with the
Karawa of today in Wadi Faria in the valley of the Jordan, scarcely two hours’
journey north from Mount Sartaba. The neighbouring fortress of Alexandrium must
therefore just have been Mount Sartaba. Pompey thus marched from Scythopolis, in
the Jordan valley, directly south to Jericho. In this way the marking of the
route of march in Menke’s Bibelatlas, resting on the older hypothesis, is to be
vindicated as quite correct. [378] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 3. 3-4; Wars of the
Jews, i. 6. 4-5. [379] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 6-7.
1. Pompey’s camp is also referred to in Wars of the Jews, v. 12. 2. [380]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 2. The temple mount was
then, as afterwards, the strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east
and the south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated from the city
by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a gradual slope; but even there
approach was made almost impossible by the construction of strong
fortifications. In this fortress, well-nigh impregnable, the adherents of
Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would or not, had to
engage upon a regular siege. It was quite evident from the nature of the ground
that the north side must be the point of attack. A rampart was thrown up, and on
it were placed the great battering-rams and engines of war which they had
brought with them from Tyre. For a long time the powerful walls withstood the
shock of their blows. At length, after a three months’ siege, a breach was made
in the wall. A son of the dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it
with his troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful massacre. The
priests, who were then engaged offering sacrifice, would not desist from the
execution of their office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000
Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general butchery. It was towards
the close of autumn of the year B.C. 63, under Cicero’s consulship, according to
Josephus on the very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath,
that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander.[381] [381]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 2-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 3-5. Dio Cassius, xxxvii.
16. In general matters, also Strabo, xvi. 2. 40, p. 762 sq. Livy, Epitome, 102.
Tacitus, Hist. v. 9. Appian, Syr. 50; Mithridates, 106. The day of atonement: τῇ
τῆς νηστείας ἡμέρᾳ, Antiq. xiv. 4. 3. The Sabbath: ἐν τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου ἡμέρᾳ, Dio
Cassius, xxxvii. 16. Compare Strabo, l.c. The day of atonement falls upon the
10th Tishri, or October. That Josephus means this by the term “Fast day,” is
rendered quite certain when we consider the use of the word among the Jews. See
Acts of Apostles, 27:9. Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 4. Philo, Vita Mosis, lib. ii.
§ 4; de victimis, § 3; de septenario, § 23 [the principal passage]; legat. ad
Cajum, § 39 (ed. Mangey, ii. 138, 239, 296, 591). Mishna, Menachoth xi. fin.—The
third month, περὶ τρίτον μῆνα, Antiq. xiv. 4. 3, is not the third month of the
year, either Jewish or Greek, but the third month of the siege, as Josephus
expressly says, Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 4: τρίτῳ γὰρ μηνὶ τῆς πολιορκίας; Wars
of the Jews, V. 9. 4: τρισὶ γοῦν μησὶ πολιορκηθέντες. Herzfeld in Frankel’s
Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1855, pp. 109-115,
conjectures that the statement about the day of atonement rests on an error of
Josephus, who found in his Gentile documents that the conquest took place on a
fast day, which, however, according to the intention of the original writer, did
not mean the day of atonement, but the Sabbath, according to a mistaken idea
widely spread in the Graeco-Roman world that the Jews fasted on the Sabbath.
See, for example, Suetonius, Augustus, 76. This is at least possible; and it has
also a certain air of probability, from the fact that Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4.
3, cites among his authorities Strabo, who, in his description of the world,
xvi. 2. 40, p. 763, says in regard to the conquest of Jerusalem: κατελάβετο
(scil. Πομπήιος) δʼ ὥς φασι, τηρήσας τὴν τῆς νηστείας ἡμέραν, ἡνίκα ἀπείχοντο οἱ
Ἰουδαῖοι παντὸς ἔργου. Here we have, in fact, the Sabbath fast day. The
statement of Josephus may thus be quite satisfactorily explained. But in any
case it must be maintained that the conquest occurred late in autumn. For the
long series of events which took place between the advance of Pompey in the
spring of B.C. 63 (Antiq. xiv. 3. 2) and the conquest of the city in the middle
of spring, could not possibly have been accomplished within so short a space of
time. It is therefore plainly impossible that the conquest should have occurred
in June, as Grätz, iii. 162, and Hitzig, ii. 498 f., suppose, and they have been
led into this mistake in consequence of their erroneous interpretation of the
phrase “the third month.” Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy
Place, into which only the feet of the high priest had ever before entered. But
he left the treasures and precious things of the temple untouched, and also took
care that the service of God should be continued without interruption. On the
besieged he passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were
beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary (τῇ χώρᾳ καὶ τοῖς
Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπιτάττει φόρον).[382] The boundaries of the Jewish territories
were greatly curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken from
the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of the Jordan, such as
Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others; also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the
regions around them. All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the
governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria.[383] The contracted Jewish
territory was given over to Hyrcanus II., who was recognised as high priest,
without the title of king.[384] [382] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the
Jews, i. 7. 6.—Compare Cicero, Pro Flacco, 67: Cn. Pompeius captis Hierosolymis
victor ex illo fano nihil attigit. [383] Compare on these cities and their
condition under the Romans, § 23, I. Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 57-149. The list in
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 7, is not complete. He
mentions only the most important. Undoubtedly not only did all the coast towns
lose their freedom, but also all those towns on the east of the Jordan which
afterwards formed the so-called Decapolis. For in almost all the towns of
Decapolis coins have been found upon which the Pompeian era is used. Compare the
works of Noris, Belley, Eckhel, Mionnet, de Saulcy, referred to in Div. ii. vol.
i. p. 57. Pompey was therefore the founder of Decapolis. All the towns belonging
to it, as well as Samaria and all the coast towns, owed to Pompey the
restoration of their freedom as communes, of which they had previously been
deprived by the Jews. [384] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7.
6-7. Compare Antiq. xx. 10: τῷ δὲ Ὑρκανῷ πάλιν τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην ἀποδοὺς τὴν μὲν
τοῦ ἔθνους προστασίαν ἐπέτρεψε, διάδημα δὲ φορεῖν ἐκώλυσεν. After Pompey had
made these arrangements for the government of Palestine, he sent Scaurus back as
governor of Syria, while he himself hasted away again to Asia Minor, and first
of all to Cilicia. He took Aristobulus along with him as a prisoner of war. He
had with him also his two daughters and his sons Alexander and Antigonus, the
former of whom contrived almost immediately to make his escape.[385]—When, in
B.C. 61, Pompey celebrated his triumph in Rome with great magnificence and
display, the Jewish priest-king, the descendant of the Maccabees, was made to
march in front of the conqueror’s chariot.[386] Besides Aristobulus and his
family, Pompey also had with him a great number of Jewish prisoners, who, at a
later period being set at liberty, formed the original stock of the Jewish
community at Rome, which quickly rose to a position of importance.[387] [385]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 7. [386] Compare the
description of the triumph in Plutarch, Pompeius, 45; Appian, Mithridates, 117.
Appian conjectures wrongly that Aristobulus had been put to death after the
triumph, for this did not take place until B.C. 49. See the following section.
[387] Compare Philo, De legatione ad Cajum, § 23 (ed. Mangey, ii. 568). With the
institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish people, after having existed
for scarcely eighty years, if we reckon it as beginning in B.C. 142, was
completely over-thrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no
essential change in the internal government of the country. He suffered the
hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and gave the people as their high
priest Hyrcanus II., who was favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of
the nation was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the Romans.
This result, indeed, was inevitable from the moment the Romans set foot in
Syria. For their power was altogether of a different sort from that of the
Seleucidae. And even the most powerful of the princes, and one most loved by the
people, would have been utterly unable to withstand the continued pressure of
the superior forces of the Romans. But the work of conquest was made light to
their Western assailants by the fact that the country was torn with internal
strifes, and that the contending parties were so blind to their own interests as
to seek protection and help from the strangers. There was no longer any trace
left of that spirit which had led the people on to victory a hundred years
before.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: SECOND PERIOD
========================================================================

SECOND PERIOD FROM THE CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM BY POMPEY TO THE WAR OF HADRIAN


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: THE ROMAN-HERODIAN AGE, B.C. 63-A.D. 135
========================================================================

THE ROMAN-HERODIAN AGE, B.C. 63-A.D. 135 PALESTINE, if not immediately
incorporated with the province of Syria, was at least placed under the
supervision of the Roman governor of Syria. Throughout this period, therefore,
even more than throughout the previous period, its history became mixed up with
that of Syria, and therefore here again we shall require to prefix a summary
sketch or brief survey of the history of that country.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF SYRIA, B.C. 65-A.D. 70
========================================================================

SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF SYRIA, B.C. 65-A.D. 70 SOURCES
For the period of the Republic and the Civil Wars, B.C. 65-30, the chief
original sources are JOSEPHUS, DIO CASSIUS, APPIAN, CICERO, and PLUTARCH. For
the period of the Empire, B.C. 30-A.D. 70: JOSEPHUS, DIO CASSIUS, TACITUS, and
SUETONIUS. LITERATURE NORIS, Cenotaphia Pisana Caii et Lucii Caesarum
dissertationibus illustrata.[388] Venetiis 1681.—A list of the governors of
Syria from A.U. 707-822, or B.C. 47 to A.D. 69, is given in Dissertation ii. c.
16, pp. 267-335. [388] The two Caesars are the sons of Agrippa and Julia,
therefore grandsons of Augustus. The elder, Caius, died in A.D. 4; the younger,
Lucius, in A.D. 2. SCHÖPFLIN, Chronologia Romanorum Syriae praefectorum, etc.,
in Commentationes historicae et criticae, Basileae 1741, pp. 465-497.—It treats
of the whole period of Pompey down to the Jewish war of Vespasian and Titus.
SANCLEMENTE, De vulgaris aerae emendatione libri quatuor. Romae 1793,
fol.—Sanclemente gives in lib. iii. 3-4, pp. 330-349, a list of the governors of
Syria from M. Titius under Augustus to Cn. Piso under Tiberius. Consult
especially lib. iv. 3-6, pp. 413-448, on Quirinius and his taxing. BORGHESI, Sul
preside della Siria al tempo della morte di N. S. Gesù Cristo, 1847; reprinted
in Oeuvres complètes de Bartolomeo Borghesi, vol. v. 1869, pp. 79-94. ZUMPT, De
Syria Romanorum provincia ab Caesare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum, in
Commentationes epigraphicae, Part ii. 1854, pp. 71-150. Compare also, Zumpt, Das
Geburtsjahr Christi, 1869, pp. 20-89. GERLACH, Die römischen Statthalter in
Syrien und Judäa von 69 vor Christobis 69 nach Christo. Berlin 1865. MOMMSEN, De
P. Sulpicii Quirinii titulo Tiburtino, in Res gestae divi Augusti, 2 Aufl. 1883,
pp. 161-182. MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp.
415-422, gives a short list of governors. KELLNER, Die römischen Statthalter von
Syrien und Judäa zur Zeit Christi und der Apostel (Zeitschrift für kathol.
Theologie, 1888, pp. 460-486).—Treats of the governors of Syria from B.C. 44 to
the destruction of Jerusalem. On the organization, and history of the province
of Syria generally, see KUHN, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm.
Reichs, Bd. ii. 1865, pp. 161-201.—Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2
Aufl. pp. 392-430.—Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, Bd. v. 1885, pp. 446-552.
Compare also, Bormann, De Syriae provinciae Romanae partibus capita nonnulla.
Berol. 1865. On the constitution of the Roman provinces generally, see Bein,
art. Provincia in Pauly’a Real-Encyclop. vi. 142-155.—Kuhn, Die städtische und
bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Justinians, 2
Bde. 1864-1865.—Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp.
497-567.—Compare also Mommsen, Römisches StaatSrecht, iii. 1 (1887), pp.
590-832. In connection with the Roman, Jewish, and New Testament history, the
history of the province of Syria is treated of in the comprehensive work of
Lewin, Fasti Sacri, London 1865. It embraces the period from B.C. 70 to A.D.
70.—In the Index also under Syria there is given, a list of the governors. The
Roman history generally is treated of in the form of chronological tables in:
CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii.; Fasti Romani, vol. i.—E. W. Fischer,
Römische Zeittafeln von Roms Gründung bis auf Augustus’ Tod, Altona
1846.—Compare also the well-known works of Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, Bd.
iii. (5 Aufl. 1869), from Sulla’s death to the battle of Thapsus, B.C.
78-46.—Peter, Geschichte Roms, Bd. ii., 2 Aufl. 1866, Bd. iii. 1867, Bd. iii. 2,
1869, to the death of Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 180.—For the period of the
Republic: Drumann, Geschichte Roms in seinem Uebergange von der
republik-anischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder Pompeius, Cäsar, Cicero und
ihre Zeitgenossen, 6 Bde. 1834-1844. Ludwig Lange, Römische Alterthümer, Bd.
iii., 2 Aufl. 1876, treats of the transition from the republic to the
monarchy.—For the period of the Empire: HÖCK, Römische Geschichte vom Verfall
der Republik bis zur Vollendung der Monarchie unter Constantin, Bd. i. in 3
Abtheil. 1841-1850; reaches only to the death of Nero. Schiller, Geschichte der
römischen Kaiserseit, Bd. i. in 2 Abtheil. 1883, down to Diocletian; Bd. ii.
1887, down to Theodosius the Great. The Syrian history during this period falls
naturally into two divisions, the one embracing the Period of the Republic, the
other the Period of the Empire. I. THE PERIOD OF THE DECAY OF THE REPUBLIC, B.C.
65-30 1. Syria Under the Predominating Influence of Pompey, B.C. 65-48 M.
Aemilius Scaurus, B.C. 65, 62 Sent by Pompey, he arrived at Damascus in B.C. 65,
where previously Lollius and Metellus had been stationed (Josephus, Antiq. xiv.
2. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 346). From B.C.
64 to B.C. 63 Pompey himself was in Syria. He arrived there in B.C. 64, during
the consulship of L. Julius Caesar and C. Marcius Figulus (Dio Cassius, xxxvii.
6). He passed the winter in Aspis (Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 7). He took the city of
Jerusalem in B.C. 63, and went in B.C. 62 to Italy (Clinton and Fischer, under
the year B.C. 62). On his departure, Pompey left Scaurus in Syria (Appian, Syr.
51; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 5). This governor carried on to its close the
campaign against the Arabian prince Aretas, contemplated by Pompey (Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1). Reference is made to this on the
coins bearing the inscription Rex Arreas, M. Scaurus, Aed. cur., ex S. C.
(Eckhel, Doctr. Num. v. 131; Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. i.
1885, p. 120 sq.).—A decree of the Tyrians in honour of Scaurus is communicated
by Renan in Mission de Phénicie, p. 533 sq. From Joppa Scaurus took with him the
skeleton of the sea monster to which Andromeda had been fastened (Pliny,
Historia Naturalis, ix. 5. 11).—Compare, in reference to Scaurus generally,
Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 28-32; Pauly’s Real-Encycl. i. 1, 2 Aufl. pp.
372-374; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 185 ff.; Gaumitz, Leipziger Studien zur class.
Philologie, Bd. ii. 1879, pp. 249-289, especially p. 259. Marcius Philippus,
B.C. 61-60 According to Appian, Syr. 51, between Scaurus and Gabinius, Marcius
Philippus and Lentulus Marcellinus were, for two years each, governors of Syria
(τῶνδε μὲν ἑκατέρῳ διετὴς ἐτρίφθη χρόνος), both with praetorian power. Seeing
that Gabinius arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 57, we must assign to
Marcius Philippus the years B.C. 61-60, and to Leutulus Marcellinus the years
B.C. 59-58. Compare Clinton, iii 346, against Noris, p. 223, and Schöpflin, p.
466, who give to both only the two years B.C. 59-58. The correct statement is
also given in: Lewin, Fasti Sacri, n. 101, 103; Godt, Quomodo provinciae Romanae
per decennium bello civili Caesariano antecedens administratoe sint (Kiel 1876),
pp. 7, 8. Lentulus Marcellinus, B.C. 59-58 Compare what is said above. He too,
like his predecessor, had still to carry on the war against the Arabians
(Appian, Syr. 51). A. Gabinius, B.C. 57-55 On account of the constant
disturbances caused in Syria by the Arabs, it was resolved in B.C. 58 to send
thither immediately a proconsul (Appian, Syr. 51), and indeed first of all they
sent A. Gabinius, one of the consuls of the year B.C. 58 (Plutarch, Cicero, c.
30), who therefore arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 57.[389]—He used
his power in an exceedingly oppressive and tyrannical manner (Dio Cassius,
xxxix. 55, 56). Cicero also speaks frequently of his boundless rapacity. For
example, it is declared in Pro Sestio, c. 43: “Gabinium haurire cotidie ex
paratissimis atque opulentissimis Syriae, gazis inumerabile pondus auri, bellum
inferre quiescentibus, ut eorum veteres illibatasque divitias in profundissimum
libidinum suarum gurgitem profundat.” In De provinciis consularibus, c. 4: “In
Syria imperatore illo nihil aliud [neque gestum] neque actum est nisi pactiones
pecuniarum cum tyrannis, decisiones, direptiones, latrocinia, caedes.”—Gabinius
was a favourite and an unswerving adherent of Pompey, and therefore when Pompey
came into conflict with the senate he took the side of his patron, as he showed,
for example, in his Egyptian campaign. He had engaged, as early as B.C. 56,[390]
in an expedition against the Parthians, well fitted to serve the interests of
the republic, when he received instructions from Pompey to reinstate King
Ptolemy Auletes, who had been driven out of Alexandria by a popular revolt.
Ptolemy himself gave to this command the necessary stimulus by a present of
10,000 talents. These two reasons moved Gabinius more powerfully than the
contrary wishes of the senate, and the existing law which forbade the proconsul
to overstep the limits of his province. He suspended his operations against the
Parthians, pushed forward to Egypt, and conquered the Egyptian army. In this
campaign young Marc Antony, the future triumvir, distinguished himself. King
Ptolemy was restored to his throne in the beginning of the year B.C. 55 (Dio
Cassius, xxxix. 56-58; Cicero, in Pison. c. 21; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6. 2;
Plutarch, Anton. c. 3; Appian, Syr. 51; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 244, 247).
He was therefore at Rome on this account, mainly at Cicero’s instigation, in
B.C. 55, accused de majestate. The trial was already going on when he, in
September B.C. 54, after the province had been meanwhile transferred to Crassus,
arrived in Rome (Cicero, ad Quint. iii. 1. 5-7). His wealth and the influence of
Pompey prevailed in securing for him a favourable judgment in this matter; but
on account of his boundless oppressions he was sentenced to exile, although now
Cicero himself, induced to do so by Pompey, pled on his behalf (Dio Cassius,
xxxix. 59-63, cf. 55; Appian, Syr. 51; Civ. ii. 24; Cicero, ad Quint. fr. iii.
1-4; pro Ralirio Postumo, cc. 8 and 12).—Compare on Gabinius generally, Drumann,
Geschichte Roms, iii. 40-62; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. iii. pp. 565-571. [389] For
the consuls and praetors went then to the province immediately after the expiry
of their terms of office. This was first changed in B.C. 52, when it was
determined that five years must always elapse. Compare Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, i. (2 Aufl. 1881) p. 522. [390] From this indication of the
time we reach the conclusion that the reinstatement of Ptolemy took place in the
beginning of B.C. 55, probably in March. Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 247. M.
Licinius Crassus, B.C. 54-53 In the year B.C. 60, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus
had formed what is called the first Triumvirate. In B.C. 56 this arrangement was
renewed upon their meeting together at Luca. The result of this was that in B.C.
55 two of the triumvirs, Pompey and Crassus, obtained the rank of consuls. While
they held the consulship, Pompey undertook the administration of Spain, Crassus
that of Syria, to he entered upon by each in B.C. 55 (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 33-36;
Livy, Epitome, 105; Plutarch, Pompeius, 52; Crassus, 15; Appian, Civ. ii. 18).
Crassus started from Rome and went to Syria in November B.C. 55, even before the
expiry of his consulship (see Clinton, ad ann. B.C. 54; Fischer, Röm.
Zeittafeln, p. 250).[391]—In B.C. 54 he fitted out an expedition against the
Parthians, and pressed forward till he had crossed the Euphrates, but he then
turned back and spent the winter in Syria. In the spring of B.C. 53 he renewed
his campaign, crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma, but suffered a serious defeat,
and was obliged to withdraw to Carrae. When he could not even here maintain his
ground, he continued his retreat, and had reached as far as the Armenian
mountain land when the Parthian general Surena offered him terms of peace on the
condition that the Romans should confine themselves to the districts on the
other side of the Euphrates. Crassus was obliged to agree to these terms; but
when going to a conference with Surena, accompanied by a small retinue, he was
treacherously set upon by the Parthian troops and murdered in B.C. 53 (according
to Ovid, Fast. vi. 465: V. Idus Junias, or 9th June; see Clinton and Fischer, ad
ann. B.C. 53). Many of his people were taken prisoners by the Parthians: part
succeeded in making their escape; another part had even before this returned to
Syria under the leadership of the quaestor Cassius Longinus (Dio Cassius, xl.
12-27; Plutarch, Crassus, 17-31; Livy, Epitome, 106; Justin, xlii. 4).—Compare
on Crassus generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iv. 71-115, Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop. iv. 1064-1068. On the Parthian campaign, Gutschmid, Geschichte
Irans und Seiner Nachbarländer (1888), pp. 87-93; and the literature referred to
by Gutschmid, p. 171 f. [391] He cannot, however, have entered Syria in the
beginning of the year, since he sent forward a subordinate to take over the
province from Gabinius, who was sent away unrecognised by Gabinius (Dio Cassius,
xxxix. 60). C. Cassius Longinus, B.C. 53-51 After the death of Crassus the
supreme command in Syria fell to Cassius Longinus. The Parthians now made
inroads upon the Roman territory, pressed on in B.C. 51 as far as Antioch, but
were fortunately again driven back by Cassius in autumn of B.C. 51 (Dio Cassius,
xl. 28-29; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Livy, Epitome, 108; Justin, xlii. 4;
Cicero, ad Atticum, v. 20; ad Familiares, ii. 10; Philipp. xi. 14; Drumann,
Geschichte Roms, ii. 117 f.; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 194 ff. On the
chronology, see especially, Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 260 f.).[392] [392] Cicero
was then (August B.C. 51-July B.C. 50; compare Fischer, Zeittafeln, pp. 262,
299) proconsul of Cilicia, and boasted of having had something to do with the
expulsion of the Parthians (compare especially, ad Familiares, xv. 1-4). M.
Calpurnius Bibulus, B.C. 51-50 Cassius Longinus was succeeded by Bibulus
(according to Cicero, ad Familiares, ii. 10; ad Atticum, v. 20; Dio Cassius, xl.
30). He is called Λεύκιος Βύβλος in Appian, Syr. 51. But from the testimony of
Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 19, xv. 1 and 3, and Livy, Epitome, 108, and Caesar,
Bell. Civ. iii. 31, it is put beyond dispute that he was M. Bibulus, the
colleague of Caesar in the consulship in B.C. 59.—He arrived in Syria in autumn
of the year B.C. 51 (Cicero, ad Atticum, v. 18 and 20).—He also had still
trouble with the Parthians (compare Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 19), but was
able to rid himself of it in great measure by stirring up internal feuds among
them. According to Dio Cassius, xl. 30, these civil conflicts took place as
early as B.C. 51, during the consulship of M. Marcellus and Sulp. Rufus. Compare
Cicero, ad Atticum, vii. 2, sub fin.: Parthi repente Bibulum semivivum
reliquerunt.—Cicero, who at this same time administered the neighbouring
province of Cilicia, in ad Atticum, vi. 1. 13, mentions Bibulus among those who
in the administration of their province “valde honeste se gerunt.”—Compare also
Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 264 f. On Bibulus generally, Drumann, Geschichte
Roms, ii. 97-105; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 101 f. Vejento, B.C. 50-49 “Bibulus
de provincia decessit, Vejentonem praefecit.” So writes Cicero in the beginning
of December B.C. 50 (ad Atticum, vii. 3. 5). Q. Metellus Scipio, B.C. 49-48
When, during the first days of the year B.C. 49, the civil war between Caesar
and Pompey broke out, the provinces had just been partitioned among the Pompeian
party, and the province of Syria had been conferred on the father-in-law of
Pompey, Q. Metellus Scipio, who had held the consulship in the year B.C. 52
(Caesar, Bell. Civ. i. 6; compare Cicero, ad Atticum, ix. 1).—Toward the end of
B.C. 49 he withdrew from Syria two legions for the support of Pompey, and
wintered with them in the territory of Pergamum (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 4 and
31). In the following year he proceeded to Macedonia, and joined Pompey shortly
before the battle of Pharsalia (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 33, 78-82). In the
battle of Pharsalia he commanded the centre of Pompey’s army (Caesar, Bell. Civ.
iii. 86).—Compare on Metellus Scipio generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii.
44-49; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 32-34. 2. Syria During the Time of Caesar,
B.C. 47-44 Sextus Caesar, B.C. 47-46 After the battle of Pharsalia, 9th August
B.C. 48, Caesar followed Pompey by sea to Egypt, which he reached in the
beginning of October, shortly after the assassination of Pompey, which had taken
place on the 28th September. Contrary to expectation, he became involved in
Egypt in a war with King Ptolemy, which detained him there for nine months
(Appian, Civ. ii. 90). Not till the end of June B.C. 47 could he get away from
Egypt, and then he went as speedily as possible (Dio Cassius, xlii. 47: τάχει
πολλῷ χρησάμενος) through Syria to Asia Minor in order to make war upon
Pharnaces, king of Pontus (Auct. de Bell. Alexandr. c. 33, 65 ff.; Plutarch,
Caesar, 49, 50; Suetonius, Caesar, 35; Appian, Civ. ii. 91).[393] Hitherto
Syria, as it would seem, had been left very much to itself. Now for the first
time, during his short visit to the province (according to Cicero, ad Atticum,
xi. 20, Caesar was at Antioch in the middle of July B.C. 47), Caesar organized
the administration of Syria by setting up a relative of his own, Sextus Caesar,
as governor (Bell. Alexandr. c. 66; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 26; compare Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 9. 2).—Many cities of Syria then obtained from Caesar important
privileges, and, in consequence, began reckoning from a new era, the aera
Caesariana; so, e.g., Antioch, Gabala, Laodicea, Ptolemais (see Noris, Annus et
epochae Syromacedonum, ed. Lips. pp. 162 sqq., 270 sqq., 293 sqq., 424 sqq.;
Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 279 sqq., 313 sqq., 315 sqq., 423 sqq.). Compare
Bell. Alexandr. 65: commoratus fere in omnibus civitatibus, quae majore sunt
dignitate, praemia bene meritis et viritim et publice tribuit. Marquardt.
Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 397. [393] Caesar journeyed by sea from Egypt to
Syria, and from Syria to Cilicia; compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 3, 9. 1.
Auct. de Bell. Alexandr. 66: eadem classe, qua venerat, proficiscitur in
Ciliciam. In an earlier passage, Bell. Alexandr. 33: sic rebus omnibus confectis
et collocatis ipse itinere terrestri profectus est in Syriam, the words itinere
terrestri ought to be struck out. Caecilius Bassus, B.C. 46 While Caesar in the
spring of B.C. 46 had still to fight in Africa with the party of Pompey, a
Pompeian, Caecilius Bassus, sought to secure to himself the governorship of
Syria. He was indeed beaten by Sextus, but he succeeded in getting the governor
put out of the way by assassination, won over the soldiers to his side, and made
himself master of Syria (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 26-27; Livy, Epitome, 114;
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. Diverging in points of detail, Appian, Civ. iii.
77, iv. 58, with whom Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 125-127, and Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop. ii. 36 f., agree). C. Antistius Vetus, B.C. 45 In opposition to
Caecilius Bassus the party of Caesar was headed by Antistius Vetus. In autumn of
the year B.C. 45 he besieged Bassus in Apamea, but could gain no decided
advantage over him, because the Parthians brought assistance to Bassus (Dio
Cassius, xlvii. 27. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. The date is given by
Cicero, ad Atticum, xiv. 9. 3, and Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27, as διὰ τὸν χειμῶνα).
L. Statius Murcus, B.C. 44 In order to put down Caecilius Bassus, Caesar sent,
probably in the beginning of B.C. 44 L. Statius Marcus to Syria with three
legions.[394] He was supported by the governor of Bithynia, Q. Marcius Crispus,
who also had three legions under his command. By both Bassus was again besieged
in Apamea (Appian, Civ. iii. 77, iv. 58; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27; Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. Compare Strabo, xvi. p. 752). [394] From Cicero, ad
Familiares, xii. 19, we learn that Caesar once nominated Q. Cornificius as
governor of Syria. Cicero writes to Cornificius as follows: Bellum, quod est in
Syria, Syriamque provinciam, tibi tributam esse a Caesare ex tuis litteris
cognovi. As the letter is not dated, it cannot be used as determining anything
further as to the time. In any case, that seems to have been a plan that was
never carried out. 3. Syria Under the Administration of Cassius, B.C. 44-42 C.
Cassius Longinus, B.C. 44-42 Affairs took a new turn in consequence of the
murder of Caesar on 15th March B.C. 44. Among the conspirators who accomplished
that deed was, besides Brutus, the celebrated C. Cassius Longinus, the same man
who, in the years B.C. 53-51, had successfully defended Syria against the attack
of the Parthians. He had been already nominated by Caesar as governor of Syria
for the year B.C. 43 (Appian, Civ. iii. 2, iv. 57). But after Caesar’s death
Marc Antony contrived it so that Syria was given to Dolabella, and another
province, possibly Cyrene, to Cassius (Appian, Civ. iii. 7-8, iv. 57). Cassius,
however, did not agree to these arrangements, but went to Syria as the province
assigned to him by Caesar. He arrived there in the end of the year B.C. 44,
before Dolabella had made his appearance (Appian, Civ. iii. 24, iv. 58; Dio
Cassius, xlvii. 21, 26).[395]—At the time of his arrival Caecilius Bassus was
still under siege by Statius Murcus and Marcius Crispus in Apamea. He succeeded
in winning over to himself the two besieging generals, where-upon also the
legion of Bassus went over to him. Cassius himself relates to Cicero that this
occurred in March and May B.C. 43 (Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 11 and 12.
Compare ad Brutum, ii. 5; Philippic, xi. 12, 30; Appian, Civ. iii. 78, iv. 59;
Dio Cassius, xlvii. 28; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 2; Drumann, Geschichte Roms,
ii. 128).—Thus Cassius had considerable fighting power at his command[396]
before Dolabella, who had meanwhile established himself in the interests of Marc
Antony in Asia Minor, made his appearance in Syria in B.C. 43, and pressed
forward as far as Laodicea, on the sea-coast south of Antioch (Appian, Civ. iii.
78, iv. 60; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 29-30). Cassius laid siege to him there (Cicero,
ad familiares, xii. 13-15), and compelled him to yield, whereupon Dolabella had
his head struck off by a soldier of his bodyguard (Appian, Civ. iv. 60-62; Dio
Cassius, xlvii. 30; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 129 ff., 514 ff.; Wegehaupt,
P. Cornelius Dolabella, 1880).—After the defeat of Dolabella, Cassius intended
to turn to Egypt, but instead of this was called by Brutus to Asia Minor in B.C.
42.[397] He therefore left his nephew[398] with a legion in Syria (Appian, Civ.
iv. 63), met with Brutus at Smyrna, then undertook an expedition against Rhodes,
again joined Brutus at Sardes, and then accompanied him to Macedonia, where,
late in autumn of the year B.C. 42, at Philippi, the troops of the conspirators
were defeated by Marc Antony and Octavian. Cassius, as well as his confederate
Brutus, ended his life by his own hand (Appian, Civ. iv. 63-138; Dio Cassius,
xlvii. 31-49; Plutarch, Brutus, 28-53). [395] a On the negotiations in regard to
the provinces during the year B.C. 44, see further details in Drumann,
Geschichte Roms, i. 139-144, ii. 123 f. Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 196 f. Lange,
Römische Alterthümer, iii., 2 Aufl. p. 498 ff. Krause, Appian als Quelle für die
Zeit von der Verschwörung gegen Caesar bis zum Tode des Decimus Brutus, Thl. i.
1879, p. 12 ff. Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 22 ff. Otto Eduard
Schmidt, Jahrbücher für class. Philologie, 13, Supplementband, 1884, pp.
700-712. [396] Of the three above-named generals, Cassius had at their own wish
dismissed Crispus and Bassus, but he retained in his service, with the retention
of his former rank, Statius Murcus (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 28). [397] Van der
Chijs, de Herode M. p. 18, has rightly shown, in opposition to Fischer, Römische
Zeittafeln, p. 328, that Brutus’ call to Cassius was given, not in. B.C. 43, but
in B.C. 42, not till some time after Cicero’s death, which took place on 7th
December B.C. 43 (Plutarch, Brutus, 28), when already Octavian and Marc Antony
had formed the plan of passing over to Greece (Appian, iv. 63). On the other
hand, he is in error in making Cassius winter in Egypt in B.C. 43-42, since the
opposite is proved from Appian, iv. 63. Hitzig, ii. 517, gives the right view.
Compare also Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta Societatis philol. Lips. iv. 1875, p.
251 sq. [398] His name is unknown. In the battle at Philippi a nephew of Caesius
fell, named L. Cassius (Appian, iv. 135). Perhaps this is the same as he who is
referred to in the text, as Noris, Cenot. Pis. p. 280, conjectures. 4. Syria
Under the Rule of Marc Antony, B.C. 41-30 Decidius Saxa, B.C. 41-40 After the
battle of Philippi, Octavian went to Italy, while Marc Antony proceeded first of
all to Greece and afterwards to Asia (Plutarch, Antonius, 23-24). On his march
through Asia, Antony met for the first time, in B.C. 41, at Tarsus, Cleopatra,
who managed so to fascinate him by her charms, that he followed her to Egypt,
where he spent the winter of B.C. 41-40 in inactivity and self-indulgence
(Plutarch, Antonius, 25-28).—During B.C. 41, before he went to Egypt, he
arranged the affairs of Syria,[399] exacted on every hand an exorbitant tribute
(Appian, Civ. v. 7), and left Decidius Saxa as governor (Dio Cassius, xlviii.
24; Livy, Epitome, 127). [399] Where he already had served under Gabinius. See
above, p. 331. In the spring of B.C. 40, Antony left Egypt, and in the summer of
the same year arrived in Italy, with the intention of engaging in conflict with
Octavian; but after some unimportant skirmishing, he concluded with him at
Brundisium a treaty, according to which the provinces were to be partitioned
between Octavian and Antony, in such a way that the former should have the West
and the latter the East (Appian, Civ. v. 52-65; Dio Cassius, xlviii. 27-28. The
dividing line was at Scodra, now called Scutari, in Illyria, Appian, v. 65).
Antony remained for somewhere about a year in Italy, during which time he
appointed several vassal kings, among whom was Herod,[400] and then went in
autumn of B.C. 39 to Athens (Appian, Civ. v. 75-76; Dio Cassius, xlviii. 39),
where, with several intervals of absence, he remained till the spring of B.C. 36
(Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 441 f., 447 f.). [400] Appian, Civ. v. 75: ἵστη δέ
πῃ καὶ βασιλέας, οὓς δοκιμάσειεν, ἐπὶ φόροις ἄρα τεταγμένοις, Πόντου μὲν Δαρεῖον
τὸν Φαρνάκους τοῦ Μιθριδάτου, Ἰδουμαίων δὲ καὶ Σαμαρέων Ἡρώδην, Ἀμύνταν δὲ
Πισιδῶν, καὶ Πολέμωνα μέρους Κιλικίας, καὶ ἑτέρους ἐς ἕτερα ἔθνη. Also some
appointments of later times (B.C. 35) in Dio Cassius, xlix. 32. Compare
Plutarch, Antonius, 36: πολλοῖς ἐχαρίζετο τετραρχίας καὶ βασιλείας ἐθνῶν
μεγάλων, ἰδιώταις οὗσι, πολλοὺς δʼ ἀφῃρεῖτο βασιλείας. At the time when Antony
secured to himself from Octavian the rule over the East, a large portion of the
eastern territory, the whole province of Syria, had been taken possession of by
the Parthians. These had, in B.C. 42, just about the time when Cassius left
Syria (Appian, Civ. iv. 63), been invited by Cassius to join a league against
Octavian and Antony. But nothing came of that plan then, for the whole programme
fell through at Philippi, and the negotiations that had been for a long while
under consideration were brought to an end. But Labienus, the chief of the
embassy, remained at the Parthian court, and succeeded by his persistent
representations in persuading King Orodes at length to make an inroad upon the
Roman territory. As early perhaps as the autumn of B.C. 41, at latest in the
spring of B.C. 40, a great Parthian army, under the command of Labienus and
Pacorus, the son of King Orodes, invaded Syria, and attacked Decidius Saxa, who
fell in the battle. He then conquered all Syria, Phoenicia (with the exception
only of Tyre), and Palestine, and finally pressed on to Asia Minor, and even
went as fur as the Ionian coast (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 24-26; Appian, Syr. 51;
Civ. v. 65; Plutarch, Antonius, 30; Livy, Epitome, 127).—On the chronology, see
especially, Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römisch-parthenischen
Feldzüge in den Jahren 713-718 d. St. (Leipziger Dissertat. 1879) pp. 49-51.
Generally, Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (Tüb. 1888), p.
93 ff., and the literature there referred to by Gutschmid. P. Ventidius, B.C.
39-38 Toward the end of the year B.C. 40, according to Bürcklein, or, according
to the usual reckoning, in B.C. 39, Antony sent P. Ventidius with an army to
Asia. This general, in B.C. 39, drove Labienus back to Taurus, and defeated him
there in a decisive battle. Labienus was himself taken prisoner and put to
death. Ventidius then overran Cilicia, gained a victory over Pharnapates, a
general under Pacorus, at Amanus, the mountain boundary between Cilicia and
Syria, and took possession now without difficulty of Syria and Palestine (Dio
Cassius, xlviii. 39-41; Livy, Epitome, 127; Plutarch, Antonius, 33).[401]—In
B.C. 38 the Parthians made a new invasion, but suffered a complete defeat in the
district of Cyrrestic at the hands of Ventidius. Pacorus was slain in the
battle, on the same day on which Crassus had fallen fifteen years before. This
gives as the date of the battle V. Idus Junias, or 9th June (Dio Cassius, xlix.
19-20; Livy, Epitome, 128; Plutarch, Antonius, 34. Compare also Dio Cassius,
xlix. 21: ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἑκατέρου τοῦ ἔτους ἀμφότερα συνηνέχθη).—Ventidius now
went forth against Antiochus of Comagene. While he laid siege to his enemy in
Samosata, Antony himself arrived, dismissed Ventidius, and continued the siege.
But he met with little success, was satisfied with an apparent submission on the
part of Antiochus, and went back to Athens, leaving C. Sosius governor in Syria
(Dio Cassius, xlix. 20-22; Plutarch, Antonius, 34).—On the chronology, see
Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie des röm. parth. Feldzüge, pp. 51-61. [401]
That all this happened during the year B.C. 39, is distinctly stated in Dio
Cassius, xlviii. 43, init. C. Sosius, B.C. 38-37 Sosius completed the
subjugation of Syria by conquering the Jewish king Antigonus, the confederate of
the Parthians, and taking Jerusalem. He then set up Herod as king, who had been
nominated before by Antony. Dio Cassius, xlix. 22, assigns this to B.C. 38,
under the consulship of Ap. Claudius Pulcher, and C. Norbanus Flaccus. But
compare what is said under § 14. In the year B.C. 36 Antony himself again
appeared in the East. Wishing to deal a decisive blow at the Parthians, he
advanced against them with a great force, but accomplished nothing, and was
obliged, after the beginning of the winter, to retire again with heavy losses
(compare Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, pp. 97-101).—But before he went forth
against the Parthians, in the spring of B.C. 36, he had again met with Cleopatra
in Syria. And after his return from that unfortunate expedition, he gave himself
up in Leuke Kome, between Sidon and Berytus, to the usual luxurious indulgences
in her company (Dio Cassius, xlix. 23-31; Plutarch, Antonius, 36-51).—He then
followed her, before the end of the year B.C. 36 (Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p.
358 f.), to Egypt, and remained there till B.C. 33, abandoning himself to
unbounded revels and pleasures, which were interrupted only by two short
campaigns against Armenia in B.C. 34 and B.C. 33 (Dio Cassius, xlix. 33, 39-41,
44; Plutarch, Antonius, 52-53; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 461-467; Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop. i. 1, 2 Aufl. p, 1178). During this period and that immediately
following, down to the battle of Actium, only two governors of Syria are known
to us. L. Munacius Plancus, B.C. 35 In B.C. 35, while L. Cornificius and Sextus
Pompeius were consuls (Dio Cassius, xlix. 18), Sextus Pompeius, who after his
defeat by Octavian had fled to Asia Minor, was there put to death. Appian, Civ.
v. 144, says that it is uncertain whether the order for his execution was given
by Antony himself or by Plancus the governor of Syria (εἰσὶ δʼ οἳ Πλάγκον, οὐκ
Ἀντώνιον λέγουσιν ἐπιστεῖλαι, ἄρχοντα Συρίας). We see from this incidental
statement that at this time L. Munacius Plancus was governor of Syria. He was
one of the most trusty friends of Antony, but went over to the side of Octavian
before the outbreak of the war between that prince and Antony in B.C. 32 (Dio
Cassius, 1. 3).—Compare also generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iv. 207-213;
Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. v. 204-208; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 83 ff. L. Calpurnius
Bibulus, B.C. 32-31 (?) Appian, Civ. iv. 38, makes a passing reference to L.
Bibulus among the conspirators who subsequently effected a reconciliation with
Octavian and Antony. “But Bibulus reconciled himself [with Antony and Octavian]
at the same time as Messala, and served under Antony as the commander of a ship,
and was often employed in negotiations for peace between Antony and Octavian,
and was appointed by Antony governor of Syria, and died while he held the office
of governor.”[402] Since Bibulus is here said to have died during his
governorship, but was, according to the evidence of the coins, alive at least in
B.C. 33 (Drumann; Geschichte Roms, ii. 106), Noris, Cenot. Pison. p. 286;
Schöpflin, p. 477, and others correctly place his term as governor in the period
of the wars between Antony and Octavian. Compare also Drumann, Geschichte Roms,
ii. 105 f.; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 92 ff.; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 581. The coins
in Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. i. 1885, p. 304 sq. [402]
Βίβουλος δὲ ἐσπείσατο ἅμα τῷ Μεσσάλᾳ, καὶ ἐναυάρχησεν Ἀντωνίῳ, διαλλαγάς τε
πολλάκις Ἀντωνίῳ καὶ Καίσαρι ἐς ἀλλήλους ἐπόρθμευσε, καὶ στρατηγὸς ἀπεδείχθη
Συρίας ὑπʼ Ἀντωνίου, καὶ στρατηγῶν ἔτι αὐτῆς ἀπέθανεν. Antony was meanwhile
becoming more and more enslaved by the caresses of Cleopatra. He had allowed
himself to be persuaded to promise Roman provinces to her and to her children.
Thus Cleopatra obtained, among others, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia as far as
Eleutherus, with the exception of Tyre and Sidon, portions of Judea and Arabia,
which were taken away from their kings Herod and Malchus, and, finally, a part
of Iturea, the king of which, Lysanias, had been slain (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3.
8, 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5; Dio Cassius, xlix. 32; Plutarch,
Antonius, 36. On the time at which these donations were made, see below at §
15). Cleopatra’s son, Ptolemy, whom she had borne to Antony, at a somewhat later
period obtained Syria as far as the Euphrates and Phoenicia, while Coele-Syria
continued the portion of his mother (so Plutarch, Antonius, 54; compare Dio
Cassius, xlix. 41). See generally, Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, 2 Aufl. p.
118.—These donations were not indeed confirmed by the senate (Dio Cassius, xlix.
41). And the glory of Antony soon came to an end. After the last Armenian
campaign of B.C. 33 he went to Greece. While he was there in B.C. 32 the war
between him and Octavian broke out, and in the following year, by the battle of
Actium of 2nd September B.C. 31, the power of Antony was finally and completely
overthrown. II. THE PERIOD OF THE EMPIRE, B.C. 30-A.D. 70 1. Octavianus
Augustus, B.C. 30-19th August A.D. 14 Q. Didius, B.C. 30 After the battle of
Actium, Antony fled to Egypt. Octavian pursued him, but was obliged, on account
of the unfavourable season, to pass the winter in Samos (Suetonius, Augustus,
17). It was not until the year B.C. 30 that he made a land journey through Asia
and Syria (Asiae Syriaeque circuitu Aegyptum petit, Suetonius, Augustus, 17) to
Egypt, where, on 1st August B.C. 30, before the gates of Alexandria, he engaged
in a battle in which Antony was beaten, while at the same time his fleet went
over to Octavian. In consequence of this, Antony and Cleopatra took away their
own lives, and Octavian became supreme and absolute sovereign over the whole of
the Roman empire (Dio Cassius, li. 1-14; Plutarch, Antonius, 69-86. Compare
Clinton, ad ann. 30; Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 370 f.). During the period that
elapsed between the battle of Actium and the death of Antony, from September
B.C. 31 to August B.C. 30, a certain Q. Didius is said to have been governor of
Syria. He incited the Arab tribes to burn the ships which had been built for
Antony in the Arabian Gulf, and prevented the gladiators, who sought to proceed
from Cyzicus to the aid of Antony, from passing over into Egypt, in which King
Herod also lent him assistance (Dio Cassius, li. 7; Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6.
7).—It seems that this Didius had been appointed by Antony; but after the battle
of Actium, when he saw that the cause of Antony was lost, he joined the party of
Octavian. Toward the end of B.C. 30 Octavian returned back again from Egypt to
Syria, and now for the first time had affairs there thoroughly well arranged
(Dio Cassias, li. 18). The winter of B.C. 30-29 was spent by Octavian in Asia.
M. Messala Corvinus, B.C. 29 Those gladiators whom Didius had prevented from
taking part in the campaign in Egypt, were driven about into various places, and
ultimately slain by Messala, i.e. M. Messala Corvinus, consul of the year B.C.
31 (Dio Cassius, li. 7). Messala must therefore have been governor of Syria
after Didius. M. Tullius Cicero, B.C. 28(?) From Appian, Civ. iv. 51, we know
that M. Tullius Cicero, the son of the great orator, after he had held the
office of consul for the year B.C. 30, was appointed governor of Syria But
nothing can with certainty be said about the time of his administration.
Schöpflin, p. 478, and Zumpt, ii. 74 sq., make him follow immediately after
Messala. Mommsen was formerly disposed to set him down in the period following
the year 741 A.U., or B.C. 13 (Res gestae divi Augusti, 1 Aufl. p. 114 f.), but
now leaves the date of his governorship undetermined (Res gestae, 2 Aufl. p.
165). The words of Appian are at least favourable to the view of Schöpflin and
Zumpt.[403] The inscription on which Cicero is mentioned as governor of Syria
(Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 572) has now been proved to be not genuine (Corp. Inscr.
Lat. t. x. falsae n. 704*; Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, p. 165,
note).—Compare generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vi. 711-719; Pauly’s
Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 2232 ff.). [403] Ἐπὶ δʼ ἐκείυοις αὐτὸν ὁ Καῖσαρ, ἐς
ἀπολογίαν τῆς Κικέρωνος ἐκδόσεως, ἱερέα τε εὐθὺς ἀπέφηνε καὶ ὕπατον οὐ πολὺ
ὕστερον καὶ Συρίας στρατηγόν.—Augustus had now the opportunity of making up to
the son for the wrong done to his father, and he sought to do so as soon and as
completely as possible. He would therefore give him a province as soon as he
could after his consulship, and not allow seventeen years or more to pass. In
B.C. 27 the well-known partition of the Roman provinces between Augustus and the
senate was carried out. Augustus had hitherto administered all the provinces
through his legates. But now he gave a part of them back to the senate,
reserving to himself only the more important, that is, those which were most
difficult to manage. Among the latter was Syria, which was in itself one of the
most important of the provinces, and which, on account of the attacks which were
constantly threatened on its eastern frontier, could not be left without a
strong military guard.[404] [404] Compare on this partition of the provinces,
especially Dio Cassius, liii. 12; also Strabo, xvii. p. 840; Suetonius,
Augustus, 47.—The more important modifications which Augustus, partly now and
partly at a later period (according to Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 380, with
reference to the Western Provinces in B.C. 27-24, with reference to the Eastern
Provinces in B.C. 22-19), introduced into the administration of the provinces
are essentially as follows (compare especially, Dio Cassius, liii. 13-15;
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp. 543-557; and
Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1. 217-246; comp. also i. 303-308):—
(a) In regard to the senatorial provinces. They were divided into two classes:
into those that were administered by such as had been consuls, and into those
that were administered by such as had been praetors. Only Africa and Asia were
consular provinces, all the rest were praetorian—All governors, even if but for
a year, were chosen by lot. The lex Pompeia of B.C. 52, however, required that
at least five years should elapse between their holding of the office in the
capital and their departure to their province. The interval was frequently
longer.—The two consuls to whose turn the appointments came then cast lots for
the two consular provinces, Africa and Asia (those to whom the appointments fell
were not always the oldest consuls; see Zippel, Die Losung der konsularischen
Prokonsuln in der früheren Kaiserzeit, Königsberg, Progr. 1883).—In like manner
the praetors chosen for provincial appointments cast lots for praetorian
provinces (particulars in regard to them, however, are not certainly known).—The
governors of the senatorial provinces had all the title of proconsuls, whether
they had before been consuls or only praetors; but the proconsuls of Africa and
Asia had twelve lictors, the others only six.—None of the governors of
senatorial provinces had an army at their command, but only a small garrison
sufficient for the purpose of maintaining order. An exception was made only in
the case of Africa, where a legion was stationed, which, however, was
subsequently put under the charge of the legate of Numidia. (b) In regard to the
imperial provinces. They, too, were divided into those administered by such as
had been consuls and those administered by such as had been praetors, and,
besides, there were some which were administered by simple knights.—All the
governors were nominated independently by the emperor, on whose pleasure it
depended solely how long their term of office should be.—The governors of
consular provinces (to which also Syria belonged), as well as those of
praetorian provinces, were called legati Augusti pro praetore (Dio Cassius,
liii. 13:τοὺς δὲ ἑτέρους ὑπό τε ἑαυτοῦ αἱρεῖσθαι καὶ πρεσβευτὰς αὐτοῦ
ἀντιστρατήγους τε ὀνομάζεσθαι, κἂν ἐκ τῶν ὑπατευκότων ὦσι, διέταξε. Among the
inscriptions is found: LEG ∙ AVG ∙ PB ∙ PR ∙ On later modifications of this
rule, see Waddington, Inscriptions de la Syrie, Explanations to Nos. 2212 and
2602), and all of them had five lictors (not six, as formerly was supposed, on
the ground of a false reading of Dio Cassius; see against that, Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, i. 308; Marquardt, Saatsverwaltung, i. 550).—As distinguished from
governors of the senatorial provinces, and to indicate their military authority,
they had the paludamentum, and wore a sword. Varro, Down to B.C. 23 Immediately
before Agrippa had been sent to the East (in B.C. 23), a certain Varro is spoken
of as governor of Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20.
4). Whether this was one of the otherwise well-known bearers of that name can no
longer be determined. It is equally uncertain when he first went to
Syria.—Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 75-78, identifies our Varro with the
Terentius Varro referred to by Dio Cassius, liii. 25, and Strabo, iv. 6. 7, p.
205, who in B.C. 25, as legate of Augustus, subdued the Salassi, a nation of
Gallia Transpadana, and, at least according to Zumpt’s conjecture, died in B.C.
24. Zumpt therefore assigns his administration of Syria to the years B.C.
28-26.[405] But Josephus affirms decidedly that our Varro was still in Syria
when Augustus gifted to Herod the district of Trachonitis,[406] which Zumpt
correctly places at the end of B.C. 24 or beginning of B.C. 23. Varro must then
have been still in Syria, and so cannot be identical with that Terentius
Varro.—On the other hand, Mommsen’s view (Res gestae, p. 165 sq.), that Varro
may have been a legate of Agrippa, is also improbable; for Josephus places Varro
in the period preceding that of Agrippa’s stay in the East. [405] In the blank
that has hitherto existed between Varro and Agrippa, Zumpt places C. Sentius
Saturninus. But inasmuch as Zumpt makes the Tiburtine inscription (see below,
under Quirinius) refer to Saturninus, he assumes for that officer two separate
terms in the governorship of Syria, of which the first embraced the years B.C.
26-23. [406] Augustus commanded Varro to root out the robber bands of
Trachonitis, and at the same time gave the government of the district to Herod.
Compare Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1: Καῖσαρ δὲ ἀνενεχθέντων τούτων ἀντέγραφεν
ἐξελεῖν τὰ λῃστήρια, τὴν δὲ χώραν Ἡρώδῃ προσέυειμεν. M. Agrippa, B.C. 23-13 In
B.C. 23 Augustus sent M. Agrippa, his trusted friend and counsellor, who soon
after, in B.C. 21, became his son-in-law, to Syria (Dio Cassius, liii. 32).
Josephus describes him as “the representative of Caesar in the countries beyond
the Ionian Sea” (Antiq. xv. 10. 2: τῶν πέραν Ἰονίου διάδοχος Καίσαρι). He had
therefore evidently very extensive powers—more than an ordinary legatus
Caesaris. According to Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3, he held this position (the
διοίκησις τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας) for ten years, that is, down to B.C. 13.—Agrippa
did not, indeed, go to Syria in B.C. 23, but waited from B.C. 23 to B.C. 21 in
Mitylene, on the island of Lesbos, and then returned to Rome (Dio Cassius, liii.
32, liv. 6; Suetonius, Augustus, 66; comp. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 2; Fischer,
Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 388, 392). Then he was engaged for five years in the West,
and did not again go to the East till B.C. 17 or 16, where he remained till B.C.
13 (Dio Cassius, liv. 19, 24, 28; Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1-3. 3, fin.;
Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 402-408). He was therefore by no means during the
ten years always even in the East, let alone in Syria. But since, to use the
phrase of Mommsen, Agrippa’s position was more that of a collega minor than that
of an adjutor (Res gestae, p. 164), he could discharge his official duties in
absentia by means of legates, and so indeed he actually did send his legates in
B.C. 23 from Lesbos (τοὺς ὑποστρατήγους), Dio Cassius, liii. 32) to Syria. He is
therefore during this period, at least during B.C. 23-21 and B.C. 17-13, to be
regarded as governor of Syria.[407] [407] Mommsen (Res gestae, pp. 163-165)
regards the statement of Josephus, referred to in the text, as inaccurate to
this extent, that Agrippa was clothed with a sort of regency for the whole
kingdom, for the West no less than for the East. Yet even Mommsen admits that
Agrippa exercised this office of regency at the bidding of the emperor and in
the place of imperial legates, sometimes in the East, sometimes in the West. So
far the statement of Josephus is not wholly unjustifiable (aliquatenus
excusatur). During the period B.C. 21-19 occurred the two years’ visit of
Augustus to the East (Dio Cassius, liv. 7-10; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp.
392-396. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4). M.
Titius, About B.C. 10 About the time when Herod made his third journey to Rome
(probably in B.C. 10; see below at § 15, the Chronology of Herod), M. Titius was
appointed governor of Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 6). He was consul in B.C.
31.—Nothing more definite can be said about the date of his administration.
Compare regarding him, Strabo, xvi. 1. 28, p. 748; Mommsen, Res gestae div. Aug.
p. 166; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 2011 f. C. Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9-6
Titius was succeeded by Sentius Saturninus (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1), who had
held the office of consul in B.C. 19. Josephus names alongside of him also
Volumnius as Καίσαρος ἡγεμών. But Volumnius must certainly have been subordinate
to Saturninus, since the supreme command in a province was always in one hand.
Sentius Saturninus is also referred to in Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10. 8, 11. 3;
xvii. 1. 1, 2. 1, 3. 2. P. Quinctilius Varus, B.C. 6-4 The immediate successor
of Saturninus was Quinctilius Varus (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 2), consul in
B.C. 13, who at a subsequent period undertook the disastrous campaign against
Germany. From evidence afforded by the coins (as shown in Eckhel, Doctr. Num.
Vet. iii. 275; Mionnet, v. 156), it is proved that Varus was governor of Syria
in the, years 25, 26, 27 of the aera Actiaca. The twenty-fifth year of the aera
Actiaca, as that era begins with 2nd September B.C. 31, extends from autumn B.C.
7 to autumn B.C. 6. Varus must therefore have gone to Syria at least before
autumn B.C. 6; but he remained there till after the death of Herod (Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 9. 3, 10. 1, 10. 9, 11. 1), i.e. till the summer of B.C. 4, or
longer. Compare in regard to him also, Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 166. P. Sulpicius
Quirinius, B.C. 3-2 (?) During the period B.C. 3-2 there is no direct evidence
about any governor of Syria. But it may be concluded with a fair amount of
probability from a passage in Tacitus, that about this time P. Sulpicius
Quirinius, consul in B.C. 12, was appointed governor of Syria. Tacitus in the
Annals, iii. 48, expressly records the death of Quirinius in A.D. 21 (coss.
Tiber. iv., Drus. ii.), and on that occasion gives the following account of him:
Consulatum sub divo Augusto, mox expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensium castellis
insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector Gaio Caesari Armeniam optinenti.[408]
Strabo, xii. 6. 5, p. 569, tells the story of the war with the Homonadensians in
the following words: Ἐκείνους δὲ (τοὺς Ὁμοναδέας) Κυρίνιος ἐξεπόρθησε λιμῷ καὶ
τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας ἐζώγρησε καὶ συνῴκισεν εἰς τὰς ἐγγὺς πόλεις, τὴν δὲ χώραν
ἀπέλιπεν ἔρημον τῶν ἐν ἀκμῇ. Quirinius therefore had previously conquered the
Homonadensians, on account of which the honour of a triumph had been accorded
him, and this indeed took place after his consulship in B.C. 12, but before he
had been appointed by C. Caesar, his counsellor, on his arrival in Armenia in
A.D. 3 (Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 430). But a war could not at any time be
carried on except by the governor of that province in which or from which the
war was being conducted. Quirinius must therefore have been then governor of
that province to which the Homonadensians belonged, or from which the war
against them proceeded. Seeing that the Homonadensians occupied the Taurus
Mountains, we might have to do with the provinces of Asia, Pamphylia, Galatia,
Cilicia, Syria. But of these the first three must be at once set aside, because
they had no legions, so that their governors could not carry on a war.[409] And
further, Cilicia was probably at that time only a part of the province of Syria
(and with this agrees the judgments of Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 95-98;
Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 57-61; and Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 172 sq.), at least
it was, as also Pamphylia and Galatia were, no consular province, whereas
Quirinius led the war against the Homonadensians as one who had been consul.
Now, one who had been a consul was never sent to a praetorian province, which
was administered by one who had been a praetor. The only conclusion then that
remains is that Quirinius at the time of that war with the Homonadensians was
governor of Syria.[410] But since this governorship belongs to the period before
the year A.D. 3, that is, to the period before he had been appointed counsellor
to C. Caesar in Armenia, it cannot be identical with the one of A.D. 6, referred
to by Josephus. The only date, therefore, that we can assign to it is the
interval between Varus and C. Caesar, that is, B.C. 3-2.[411] [408] The
following words: Tiberium … coluerat, are, according to Mommsen, Res gestae, p.
174 sq., to be connected, not with what goes before, but with what follows.
[409] Compare in reference to Asia, also Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 4
(ed. Bekker, v. 184. 1-2). [410] In what relation the Homonadensians stood to
the Romans before their conquest by Quirinius it is difficult to determine, and
for our object it is of no importance. They probably stood even before that time
under the suzerainty of the governor of Cilicia resp. Syria, if we may assume
that the former was part of the latter. But even if this were not the case,
Quirinius carried on the war against it from Syria, and as the governor of
Syria. [411] During the period between Agrippa and Titius, if indeed there was
an interval between the two, this war could not have taken place; because, at
least as a rule, the imperial provinces also were apportioned a considerable
time after the administration of the civic office, in this case the consulship.
It is wholly on this combination, in regard to which Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii.
90-98; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 43-62; and Mommsen, Res gestae div. Aug. p. 172
sq., are thoroughly agreed that the assumption of an earlier governorship than
that of A.D. 6, referred to by Josephus, is based (for a full statement of
Zumpt’s theory, see note in Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 129-135). For
the inscription, which some have sought to make use of in this question, cannot
prove anything material to the point at issue. It does, indeed, prove that the
individual to whom it refers was twice governor of Syria.[412] But whether it is
to be applied to Quirinius is open to question, since the name is not given in
the inscription. The main ground upon which Mommsen and others have referred it
to Quirinius is just that they regard the fact of Quirinius having been twice
governor to be proved from other sources, that is, from Tacitus and Josephus.
The theory that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria is not therefore to be
based upon the inscription, but, on the contrary, the application of the
inscription to Quirinius is based upon the proof, elsewhere obtained, that he
held the governorship a second time.[413] [412] Yet even this may be doubted.
See Strauss, Die Halben und die Ganzen, p. 75 f. Wieseler, Beiträge zur
richtigen Würdigung der Evv. p. 41 f. Rud. Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für
wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1880, pp. 98-114.—The last-named especially seeks to
show that the iterum is to be connected only with leg. pr. pr. divi Augusti, and
can accordingly only mean that the person referred to, when he became a second
time legatus Augusti, was intrusted with the administration of Syria. See in
opposition to this, Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 162. [413] The inscription was found
in A.D. 1764 in the neighbourhood of Tibur, and in A.D. 1765 was published for
the first time. Sanclemente (De vulgaris aerae emendatione, 1793, pp. 414-426)
applied it to Quirinius. He was followed in this by Borghesi, Henzen, Nipperdey,
Bergmann, Mommsen, Gerlach. On the other hand, Zumpt (Commentt. epigr. ii.
109-125; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 72-89) refers it to C. Sentius Saturninus.
Zumpt founds his refusal to apply it to Quirinius mainly on the fact that he had
been proconsul for Africa (Commentt. epigr. ii. 115 sq.; Geburtsjahr Christi,
pp. 80-83). Mommsen contests this, and endeavours, on the other hand, to show
that Sentius Saturninus was proconsul for Africa (Res gestae div. Aug. pp. 168,
170 sq.). This latter statement would tell decidedly against Saturninus, the
former against Quirinius, seeing that one and the same person could never be
proconsul for Africa and for Asia (see above, p. 347), the latter of which
offices the person referred to in the inscription held. We must therefore still
leave the question here raised in suspenso, but give in full the half of the
text of the inscription (see the whole of it in Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. xiv. n.
3613), with the words and letters supplied by Mommsen:— bellum gessit cum gente
homonadensium quae interfecerat amyntam rEGEM ∙ QVA ∙ REDACTA ∙ IN ∙ POTestatem
imp. caesaris AVGVSTI ∙ POPVLIQVE ∙ ROMANI ∙ SENATVs dis
immortalibusSVPPLICATIONESdot;BINAS ∙ OB ∙ RES ∙ PROSPere ab eo gestas et IPSI ∙
ORNAMENTA ∙ TRIVMPHalia decreuit PRO ∙ CONSVL ∙ ASIAM ∙ PROVINCIAM ∙ OPtinuit
legatus pr. pr.DIVI ∙ AVGVSTI ∙ iTERVM ∙ SYRIAM ∙ ET ∙ PHoenicen optinuit. C.
Caesar, B.C. 1-A.D. 4 (?) In the year B.C. 1, that is, A.U.C. 753, Augustus sent
his grandson, C. Caesar, son of Agrippa and Julia, now eighteen years of age, to
the East, in order to compel the Parthians and Armenians, who refused any longer
to recognise the authority of Rome, again to yield submission. Caesar went first
of all to Egypt, then, probably, still before the end of the year B.C. 1, to
Syria, without, however, entering Palestine (Suetonius, Aug. 93). There he
remained probably during the year A.D. 1, and then went onward against the
Parthians in A.D. 2, and against the Armenians in A.D. 3. After he had succeeded
in putting matters right, Augustus called him back to Rome. But he died on his
homeward journey, on 21st February A.D. 4, at Limyra in Lycia (Zonaras, x. 36;
Dio Cassius, Leviticus 10 a, where he introduces a quotation from Xiphilinus;
Velleius Paterculus, ii. 101-102; Tacitus, Annals, i. 3. The date of the death
according to the Cenotaphium Pisanum. Compare, Clinton, ad ann. B.C. 1—A.D. 4.
Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 426-431).—According to Zonaras, x. 36, C. Caesar
had proconsular authority (τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀνθύπατον ἔδωκεν); according to
Orosius, vii. 3, he was sent ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provincias;
according to Suetonius, Tiberius, 12, he was Orienti praepositus. He must
therefore have held during this period the administration of Syria. Compare
Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 165. Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 32-40, decidedly
opposes this view, because he assumes that, in addition to C. Caesar, ordinary
legati Augusti were also then present in the imperial provinces, only that
Caesar had the right of independent action, having authority wherever he went
superior to the governors of the provinces concerned. Zumpt depends for support
to this opinion mainly upon the fact that, if the case were otherwise, Augustus
would have renounced all power in the East, which is not to be supposed. But
this argument will not by any means stand the test; for then we should have to
suppose that, besides Agrippa, ordinary legati Caesaris were also to be found in
the provinces, which, however, even Zumpt does not assume. In favour of
Mommsen’s theory (which had previously been for the most part set forth by
Baronius in his Annals, and by Schöpflin) is to some extent the circumstance
that no legati Augusti of that period are known to us, although, considering the
scantiness of our information, this cannot be regarded as by any means
conclusive; and also, and much more decidedly, the testimony of Orosius, vii. 3,
that C. Caesar had been sent ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provinoias. One
cannot see why Augustus should have assigned to him the ordering of the affairs
of Egypt and Syria, if there had been already at that very time imperial legates
in those provinces.[414] [414] Under Germanicus (see under date A.D. 17-19) such
a state of matters did indeed find place. But this cannot be regarded as a
parallel case, because the jealous, suspicious Tiberius sought to paralyze the
power of Germanicus by his legates, whereas Augustus had no such reason for
acting so. Apart from these points, the positive conjectures of Zumpt about the
legates of Syria during that period are extremely hazardous. He assumes that the
counsellors (rectores) appointed for the youthful Caesar were always at the same
time governors of Syria. Such rectores were, according to Zumpt, first of all P.
Sulpicius Quirinius (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 48); after him, M. Lollius
(Suetonius, Tiberius, 12); and last of all, C. Marcius Censorinus (Velleius
Paterculus, ii. 102). Compare Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 98-104, 107 sq.;
Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 40-43, 62-71.—But Quirinius was counsellor of Caesar
certainly not before, but after Lollius, viz. in A.D. 3, when Caesar was already
in Armenia (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 48: datusque rector Gaio Caesari Armenian
optinenti), Lollius having meanwhile died during the Parthian campaign in A.D. 2
(Velleius Paterculus, ii. 102). Compare Mommsen, Res gestae, pp. 173-175. On the
chronology, Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 428-430.—It is particularly.
questionable whether Censorinus ought to be reckoned among those rectores at
all. He is at least never expressly named as such.[415]—And, finally, the
hypothesis is utterly without support, that these rectores were at the same time
governors of Syria. [415] The whole passage in Velleius Paterculus, ii. 102,
runs as follows: “Quo tempore M. Lolli, quem veluti moderatorem juventae fili
sui Augustus esse voluerat, perfida et plena subdoli ac versuti animi consilia,
per Parthum indicata Caesari, fama volgavit. Cujua mors intra paucos dies
fortuita an voluntaria fuerit ignoro. Sed quam hunc decessisse laetati homines,
tam paulo post obisse Censorinum in iisdem provinciis graviter tulit civitas,
virum demerendis hominibus genitum.”—The words “in iisdem provinciis” are
certainly in favour of the suppositions that Censorinus had the same office as
Lollius. L. Volusius Saturninus, A.D. 4-5 Consul suffectus in B.C. 12.—From a
coin we know that he was governor of Syria in the year 35 of the Actian era,
which corresponds to autumn 757-758 A.U.C., or A.D. 4-5 (Eckhel. Doctr. Num.
iii. 275 sq.; Mionnet, v. 156). P. Sulpicius Quirinius, A.D. 6 ff After the
banishment of Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, in A.D. 6, P. Sulpicius Quirinius
went to Syria, and immediately on his arrival took the census in Judea
(Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5; xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1). How long he continued
governor of Syria cannot be determined.—Reference is made to his operations in
Syria in an inscription which was long regarded as ungenuine, but has now been
proved to be undoubtedly genuine by the discovery of the second half of it in
the original (see especially, Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. iv. 1881, pp.
537-542; also, Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, Lausannae 1883, pp. 48-51; a
facsimile of the restored piece in De Rossi, Bullettino di archeologia
cristiana, 1880, tav. ix., comp. p. 174).—On the inscription one Q. Aemilius Q.
or Pal. Secundus says of himself among other things: jussu Quirini censum egi
Apamenae civitatis millium homin(um) civium CXVII. Idem missu Quirini adversus
Ituraeos in Libano monte castellum eorum cepi. Q. Caecilius Creticus Silanus,
A.D. 11-17 Consul in A.D. 7.—That he went to Syria as governor at the latest in
A.D. 11, is proved by a coin of the year 41 of the Actian era, that is, autumn
763-764 A.U.C., or A.D. 10-11 (so Sanclemente, p. 348). Other coins for the
years 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 of the Actian era were given by Eckhel, Doctr. Num.
iii. 276; Mionnet, v. 156-159. The latest of these coins, that of the year 47 of
the Actian era, belongs to A.D. 16-17. In accordance with this, Tacitus, Annals,
ii. 43, records the recall of Silanus by Tiberius in A.D. 17.—Compare also,
Tacitus, Annals, ii. 4; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 4; Mommsen, Res gestae, p.
166. 2. Tiberius, 19th Aug. A.D. 14-16th March A.D. 37 Cn. Calpurnius Piso, A.D.
17-19 In the year A.D. 17, probably toward the end of the year, Tiberius sent
his nephew and adopted son Germanicus to the East that he might look to the
settlement of various matters. He obtained higher powers than the governors of
the provinces to which he went (decreto patrum permissae Germanico provinciae
quae mari dividuntur, majusque imperium, quoquo adisset, quam iis qui sorte aut
missu principis obtinerent. Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43). At the same time Silanus
was recalled, and in his place Cn. Calpurnius Piso, consul in the year B.C. 7,
was appointed governor of Syria, a man of a violent and unbending character
(ingenio violentus et obsequii ignarus, Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43). Germanicus
went first of all to Greece, where in the beginning of the year A.D. 18 he
entered on his second consulship. He then passed over to Byzantium and then to
Troy, and proceeded west along the Ionian coast to Rhodes, and from thence to
Armenia. After he had put matters there to rights, he went to Syria, where Piso
had already arrived before him (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 53-57).[416] Owing to the
violent character of Piso, hostilities between them could not long be avoided.
Yet these outbursts had at first no ulterior consequences (Tacitus, Annals, ii.
57-58). In the year A.D. 19 Germanicus undertook a journey to Egypt, chiefly to
inquire into the antiquities of that country (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 59-61). Soon
after he returned to Syria he fell sick, and died on 9th Oct. A.D. 19. Common
report charged his death upon Piso (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 69-73; Clinton, Fasti
Romani, i. p. 4). Even before the death of Germanicus occurred, Piso had quitted
Syria, having been commanded by Germanicus to leave the province (Tacitus,
Annals, ii. 70). [416] Yet Piso cannot have reached Syria before the year A.D.
18, since he bad met with Germanicus on his outward journey at Rhodes (Tacitus,
Annals, ii. 55). Cn. Sentius Saturninus, A.D. 19-21 After the death of
Germanicus his generals transferred the supreme command to Cu. Sentius
Saturninus, consul in A.D. 4 (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 74). But Piso, on his return
voyage, obtained in the neighbourhood of the island of Cos the intelligence of
the death of Germanicus, and now resolved to take violent possession of Syria.
He landed in Cilicia, gained possession of the stronghold of Celenderis
(Κελένδερις, Strabo, pp. 670, 760; compare Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 1; Wars of
the Jews, i. 31. 3), but was obliged there, on surrendering to Sentius, to agree
to the condition that he should return to Rome (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 75-81).—He
reached Rome in the beginning of the year A.D. 20, was there accused by the
friends of Germanicus, but avoided condemnation by committing suicide (Tacitus,
Annals, iii. 8-15.) How long Sentius Saturninus remained in Syria is not known.
He is referred to as legatus Caesaris in an inscription found at Nicopolis, on
the borders of Syria and Cilicia, on the Gulf of Issus, which at the earliest
belongs to the year A.D. 21, Tiber. iv. cos. (Ephemeris epigraph. vol. v. 1884,
p. 573, n. 1336). According to this inscription, it would seem that he had been
also formally appointed governor of Syria; for it is in this sense probably that
the title legatus Caesaris is to be understood (see Mommsen’s remarks as above).
L. Aelius Lamia, Down to A.D. 32 From the Annals of Tacitus, i. 80; Suetonius,
Tiberius, 41, 63, we know that Tiberius repeatedly appointed legates without
actually allowing them to go to their provinces (Tacitus: qua haesitatione
postremo eo provectus est, ut mandaverit quibusdam provincias, quos egredi urbe
non erat passurus). By this measure L. Aelius Lamia among others was affected.
Tacitus, in his Annals, vi. 27, has given the following particular account of
his death: Extremo anni (A.D. 33) mors Aelii Lamiae funere censorio celebrata,
qui administrandae Suriae imagine tandem exsolutus urbi praefuerat. Genus illi
decorum, vivida senectus; et non permissa provincia dignationem addiderat. We
see from this that Aelius Lamia, immediately after he had been released from the
imago administrandae Suriae, i.e. from the nominal, not actual, administration
of Syria, was appointed praefectus urbi. He did not, however, hold the office of
praefectus urbi until after the death of L. Piso, see Dio Cassius, lviii. 19:
τόν τε Πίσωνα τὸν πολίαρχον τελευτήσαντα δημοσίᾳ ταφῇ ἐτίμησεν, ὅπερ που καὶ
ἄλλοις ἐχαρίζετο· καὶ Λούκιον ἀντʼ αὐτοῦ Λαμίαν ἀνθείλετο, ὃν πρόπαλαι τῇ
Συρίᾳ[417] προστάξας κατεῖχεν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ. Seeing then that Piso, according to
Tacitus, Annals, vi. 10, and Dio Cassius, lviii. 19, died in A.D. 32, Aelius
Lamia must have been appointed praefectus urbi in that year, and was therefore
up to that date, at least in name, governor of Syria (Zumpt, Commentt. epigr.
ii. 131 sq.; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 184, 265).—Josephus, in his Antiq. xviii.
6. 2-3, seems indeed to contradict this view. He makes the statement that
Agrippa I., before he became king of Judea, once paid a visit to Pomponius
Flaccus, governor of Syria, and successor of Aelius Lamia (see below), and that
then, after many adventures by the way, he returned to Rome, and there, after he
had been for some time resident in Rome, charged his freedman Eutychus with
theft, and had him brought up before Piso as praefectus urbi (Antiq. xviii. 6,
5). It seems therefore at first sight necessary to assume that Flaccus some time
before the death of Piso had been made governor of Syria, for apparently Lamia
could not have held the office down to that date. But, in truth, on closer
examination of the facts this argumentation[418] will not be found convincing.
That particular Piso before whom Eutychus was brought (Josephus, Antiq. xviii.
6. 5) cannot possibly have been the Piso who died in A.D. 32, since the
occurrence referred to took place, as will be shown farther on, under the
history of Agrippa, in § 18, in the year A.D. 36.[419] We have here then to do
with another Piso, who at a later period, A.D. 36-37, held the office of
praefectus urbi,[420] so that mention of him contributes nothing to the solution
of the question when Flaccus succeeded Lamia.—We must accordingly confine
ourselves wholly to the statements of Tacitus, which represent Lamia as
occupying his nominal office of governor of Syria up to the date of his entrance
upon his civic prefecture, i.e. up to A.D. 32.[421] When the governorship was
conferred upon him we cannot determine. He had held it certainly for a long
time, as is evident from the “tandem” of Tacitus and the “πρόπαλαι” of Dio
Cassius.[422] [417] So Dindorf reads instead of στρατιᾶ. [418] It has been urged
mainly by Wieseler in his controversy against Keim’s chronology of the life of
Jesus. See Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evv., sec. 8, Anm.;
Beweis des Glaubens for 1870, April no. p. 170 (there Wieseler assumes that
Flaccus “had entered Syria somewhere about A.D. 27”). Theolog. Studien und
Kritiken, 1875, pp. 533-535. [419] In order to support his opinion that the Piso
alluded to by Josephus in his Antiq. xviii. 6. 5 was he who died in A.D. 32,
Wieseler is obliged to have recourse to very questionable hypotheses. 1. He is
obliged to assume that between the apprehension of Eutychus and his trial before
Tiberius no less than four years had passed, A.D. 32-36, for undoubtedly the
trial did not take place before the autumn of A.D. 36, half a year before the
death of Tiberius (Antiq. xviii. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 5). Keim in the
Protestant. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, No. 51, col. 1218, rightly declares that this
is contrary to fact; while Wieseler in the Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 169,
firmly stands by his statement. 2. He is obliged, however, to make a violent
alteration of the text of Josephus. For this same Piso is immediately
thereafter, in Antiq. xviii. 6. 10, once again referred to, and that in
connection with the spring of the year A.D. 37, after the death of Tiberius.
Wieseler therefore strikes the name out of that passage (Beweis des Glaubens,
1870, p. 168; Beiträge, p. 8 f.). 3. He is also obliged to make a further
alteration in the text. For Josephus says expressly, in his Antiq. xviii. 5. 3,
that Agrippa had gone to Rome only a year before the death of Tiberius (ἐνιαυτῷ
πρότερον ἢ τελευτῆσαι Τιβέριον), i.e. not in A.D. 32, but in A.D. 36. In this
case Wieseler by an alteration of the text reads instead of one year several
years (Beiträge, p. 13 f.; Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 169). Compare on the
other side, Keim, Protestant. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, No. 51, col. 1217. In
opposition generally to Wieseler, see also Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2
Aufl. 1874, pp. 84-87. [420] So also Borghesi, Oeuvres, iii. 325 sq. Mommsen,
Index zu Plin. Epist., ed. Keil, p. 405. Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium (1874),
Index, p. 180 sq.—In regard to others of the name of Piso belonging to that same
period, see Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. i. 143-151, 226 sq. [421] Gerlach (pp.
49-52) assumes that Flaccus had gone to Syria as early as A.D. 22. He supports
his opinion by reference to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 1-3, and Suetonius,
Tiberius, 42. But from the former passage it does not follow, as Gerlach wishes
to make out, that the visit of Agrippa to Flaccus was made in A.D. 24, soon
after the death of Drusus, who died in A.D. 23; and in the latter passage the
confestim is to be connected only with the words: Pisoni praefecturam urbis
detulit, whereby the statement loses all its force as a proof passage. The words
of Tacitus do not permit us to restrict the period of office of Aelius Lamia to
two years, and to postulate between his ceasing to hold the post of governor and
his appointment to the office of city prefect a lengthened interval Gerlach
himself at a later period abandoned this view (Zeitschrift für luther.
Theologie, 1869, p. 48). [422] From the fact that about A.D. 30 there was
actually no governor in Syria, is to be explained the circumstance that no one
is named as such in Luke 3:1. L. Pomponius Flaccus, A.D. 32-35 (?) Since Lamia
withdrew from the office of governor of Syria in A.D. 32, Flaccus, who had been
consul in A.D. 17, succeeded him in that year. The death of Flaccus is reported
by Tacitus in his Annals, vi. 27, in immediate connection with the above passage
about Aelius Lamia in the following words: exim (that is to say, after the death
of Aelius Lamia) Flacco Pomponio Suriae pro praetore defuncto recitantur
Caesaris literae, quis incusabat egregium quemque et regendis exercitibus
idoneum abnuere id munus, seque ea necessitudine ad preces cogi, per quas
consularium aliqui capessere provincias adigerentur, oblitus Arruntium, ne in
Hispaniam pergeret, decumum jam annum attineri. Since Tacitus, however, mentions
this among the events of the year 33, the first suggestion that would occur to
the reader is that the death of Flaccus took place during that year. And this is
the opinion almost universally entertained. Yet it is not to be regarded as by
any means impossible that Tacitus had gathered his facts about Lamia and Flaccus
from materials that had been supplied him, and that the death of Flaccus did not
occur till a subsequent date.[423] In fact, Keim[424] has raised the supposition
to a high degree of probability that Flaccus did not die before A.D. 35. In
favour of this view may be alleged:—1. The remark of Tacitus, that then, at the
time of Flaccus’ death, Arruntius had been already detained for ten years from
going to his province, Spain. By Hispania only Hispania citerior can be
intended; for Hispania ulterior was a senatorial province (see Tacitus, Annals,
iv. 13). But that province did not become vacant before A.D. 25 (Tacitus,
Annals, iv. 45). Accordingly the tenth year of Arruntius must correspond to A.D.
35. 2. Agrippa I. went to Rome in the spring of the year 36 (ἐνιαυτῷ πρότερον ἢ
τελευτῆσαι Τιβέριον, Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3), after having not long before
visited Flaccus in Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 2-3). If then, allowing for
hindrances and delays that may have occurred, we allow for Agrippa’s journey to
Rome after his visit to Flaccus a whole year (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 3-4),
it must still be assumed that Flaccus was in Syria in A.D. 35.—Finally, it may
further be alleged in favour of taking A.D. 35 as the year of the death of
Flaccus, that his successor Vitellius, who certainly went to Syria in A.D. 35,
is thus made immediately to follow, whereas in the other case a vacancy must
have occurred. [423] That Tacitus does not in every case follow strictly the
chronological order is shown, e.g., in Annals, xii. 23, where the death of King
Agrippa I., which occurred in A.D. 44, is mentioned among the occurrences of
A.D. 49. [424] Comp. especially, Protestant. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, No. 51, col.
1216 f.; also Geschichte Jesu, i. 628, iii. 490 f. (Engl. transl. Jesus of
Nazara, ii. 396, vi. 231). A similar opinion is also expressed by Liebenam,
Forschungen sur Verwaltungsgeschichte des röm. Kaiserreichs, 1 Bd. Die Legaten
in den römischen Provinzen (1888), p. 267. A coin of Flaccus of the year 82 of
the aera Caesariana,[425] corresponding to autumn 786-787 A.U.C., or A.D. 33-34,
is given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 279; Mionnet, v. 167.—Compare also
generally, Suetonius, Tiberius, 42; Pauly’s Real Encyclopaedie, v. 1878 f.;
Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium (1874), Index, p. 195. [425] This era begins in
autumn 705 A.U.C., eighteen years earlier than the Actian era. Compare Noris,
Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, iii. ed. 4, Lips. p. 162 sqq. Sanclemente, De
vulgaris aerae emendatione, pp. 224-229. Eckhel, Doctrina Num. iii. 279 ff.
Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 460 ff. L. Vitellius, A.D. 35-39 In A.D. 35
Tiberius sent L. Vitellius, who had been consul in A.D. 34, father of the next
emperor, as legate to Syria (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 32).[426] Tacitus bears
testimony on his behalf that, in contrast to his subsequent manner of life, he
was blameless in his administration of the province (eo de homine haud sum
ignarus sinistram in urbe famam, pleraque foeda memorari, ceterum in regendis
provinciis prisca virtute egit).—In A.D. 39 he was recalled by Caligula, and
Petronius appointed his successor (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2).[427] Compare
also generally, Suetonius, Vitellius, 2; Dio Cassius, lix. 27; Pliny, Hist. Nat.
xv. 83; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2682 f.; Liebenam, Forschungen zur
Verwaltungsgeschichte des römischen Kaiserreichs, 1 Bd. p. 373. [426] From the
words of Tacitus, “cunctis quae apud orientum parabantur L. Vitellium
praefecit,” it may perhaps be assumed that Vitellius had held under his
authority a wider region than the province of Syria. Yet even Tacitus himself in
the Annals, vi. 41, names him “praeses Suriae;” as does also Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 4. 2: Συρίας τίν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. So, too, Suetonius, Vitellius, 2; Dio
Cassius, lxix. 27; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xv. 83. He was therefore certainly governor
of Syria, but had perhaps over and above this a more extensive authority. [427]
From what Josephus says, it would appear as if the recall of Vitellius and the
arrival of Petronius did not occur till the autumn of A.D. 40. Petronius after
his arrival went into winter quarters at Ptolemais (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8.
2). The negotiations begun straightway with the Jews took place during seed-time
(Antiq. xviii. 8. 3, 8. 6), i.e. in November or December; see Winer,
Realwörterbuch, ii. 342. In regard to these matters Petronius wrote to Caligula,
who received the letter shortly before his death, which took place on 24th
January A.D. 41, and answered it (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 8-9: καὶ τελευτᾷ
μὲν οὐ μετὰ πολὺν χρόνον ἢ γράψαι τῷ Πετρωνίῳ τὴν—ἐπιστολήν). Josephus seems
therefore to set the arrival of Petronius in the autumn of A.D. 40. According to
the most decided testimony of Philo, on the other hand (Legat. ad Cajum, § 33,
ed. Mangey, ii. 583), Petronius was already in harvest time in Palestine, that
is, in April (see Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 340), and at the head of troops
which he had had time to bring across the Euphrates (Legat. ad Cajum, § 31, ed.
Mangey, ii. 576). He must therefore certainly have reached Syria in A.D. 39. So
also Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des römischen Kaiserreichs,
1 Bd. Die Legaten in den römischen Provinzen (1888), p. 374. 3. Caligula, 16th
March A.D. 37-24th January A.D. 41 P. Petronius, A.D. 39-42 Petronius had been
sent by Caligula into Syria in A.D. 39. We know from a coin (given in Eckhel,
Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 167) that he was still governor in the year 90
of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to autumn 794-795 A.U.C., or A.D. 41-42;
therefore for somewhere about a year after the beginning of the reign of
Claudius.—Compare in regard to him Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2-9; xix. 6. 3;
Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 31-34, ed. Mangey, ii. 576-584; Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 1402. 4. Claudius, 24th January A.D. 41-13th October A.D.
54 C. Vibius Marsus, A.D. 42-44 As successor of Petronius, Claudius sent C.
Vibius Marsus, Consul suffectus in A.D. 17, into Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6.
4). He had occasion repeatedly to protect Roman interests against King Agrippa
(Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 2, 8. 1). His recall took place soon after the death
of Agrippa in A.D. 44, therefore towards the end of A.D. 44 or in the beginning
of A.D. 45 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1).—Compare also Tacitus, Annals, xi. 10.
This passage does not prove that Marsus was still governor of Syria in A.D. 47;
for Tacitus there, under the history of the year 47, recapitulates earlier
occurrences in the history of Parthia. See Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 137;
Gerlach, p. 67. Compare generally, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2571. C.
Cassius Longinus, A.D. 45-50 Marsus was succeeded by C. Cassius Longinus, Consul
suffectus in A.D. 30 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1). He was celebrated in his day
as a jurist (ceteros praeminebat peritia legum, Tacitus, Annals, xii. 12), yea,
as the founder of a special school of jurisprudence (Cassianae scholae princeps
et parens, Pliny, Epist. vii 24. 8). Coins with his name belonging to the years
94 and 96 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to A.D. 45-46 and 47-48, are
given by Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 167. Tacitus speaks of him as
governor of Syria as late as A.D. 49 (Annals, xii. 11-12). Not long afterwards
he seems to have been recalled by Claudius. In regard to his subsequent
fortunes, see Tacitus, Annals, xvi. 7 and 9; Suetonius, Nero, 37. Generally,
Digest. i. 2. 2. 51; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 201; Rudorff, Römische
Rechtsgeschichte, i. 169 f.; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 298. 3;
Mommsen, Index to Pliny’s Epistles, ed. Keil, p. 406; Liebenam, Forschungen zur
Verwaltungsgeschichte, 1 Bd. p. 375 f. C. Ummidius Quadratus, A.D. 50-60 In A.D.
51, C. Ummidius Quadratus is spoken of by Tacitus, Annals, xii. 45, as governor
of Syria. It may therefore be assumed with Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 138, that
he went there in A.D. 50. Coins bearing his name belonging to the years 104-108
of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to A.D. 55/56-59/60, are given in Eckhel,
Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 159. He died while governor of Syria in A.D.
60 (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 26).[428]—His public career (he had been quaestor as
early as A.D. 14) is sketched in the inscriptions: Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n.
3128=Inscr. Regni Neapol. n. 4234=Corp. Inscr. Lat. x. n. 5182. His full name,
C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus, is also given on a brazen tablet which contains
the oath of the inhabitants of Aritium in Lusitania upon Caligula’s assuming the
reins of government (Orelli, n. 3665=Corp. Inscr. Lat. ii. n. 172=Ephemeris
epigr. v. p. 155).—Compare also with reference to him, Tacitus, Annals, xii 54,
xiii. 8-9; Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 743;
Nipperdey on Tacitus, Annals, xii. 45. [428] Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 138,
gives the date as A.D. 61. But what is recorded in Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 20-28,
took place in A.D. 60, coss. Nero IV. Cornelius Cossus. 5. Nero, 13th October
A.D. 54-9th June A.D. 68 Cn. Domitius Corbulo, A.D. 60-63 After the death of
Ummidius Quadratus in A.D. 60, Domitius Corbulo went to Syria as governor
(Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 26). On his doings in that capacity, see Tacitus, Annals,
xv. 1-17; Dio Cassius, lxii. 19 ff. He held the position of governor till A.D.
63, in which year a higher office was given him, while another governor was sent
to Syria; Tacitus, Annals, xv. 25: Suriae exsecutio Citio (?), copiae militares
Corbuloni permissae et quinta decuma legio ducente Mario Celso e Pannonia
adjecta est. Scribitur tetrarchis ac regibus praefectisque et procuratoribus et
qui praetorum finitimas provincias regebant, jussis Corbulonis obsequi, in
tantum ferme modum aucta potestate, quem populus Romanus Cn. Pompeio bellum
piraticum gesturo dederat. The name of the individual who obtained the province
cannot be determined with certainty. The best manuscript has Citius. The editors
make various conjectures: Cincius, C. Itius, Cestius. Most might be said in
favour of Cestius, for we certainly meet with him as governor of Syria in A.D.
65 (so, e.g., Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 141).—In regard to Corbulo’s death in
A.D. 67, see Dio Cassius, lxiii. 17. An inscription of A.D. 64 has been found in
Armenia, on which he is called leg. Aug. pro pr. (see Ephemeris epigr. v. p.
25). Generally, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 1218 f.; Teuffel, History of
Roman Literature, § 291. 3, and the monographs there quoted from of Held (1862)
and Wolffgramm (1874). Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, 1 Bd. p.
169 f. For an estimate and characterization of Corbulo, see also Gutschmid,
Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (1888), p. 131, Anm. C. Cestius
Gallus, A.D. 63-66 If the conjecture given above is correct, Cestius Gallus went
to Syria as early as A.D. 63. He was there undoubtedly in A.D. 65, for he went
up to Jerusalem at the Passover of A.D. 66, in the twelfth year of Nero=October
A.D. 65-A.D. 66 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), after
having been already for a long time in Syria (Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 3).
Coins with his name of the years 114 and 115 of the aera Caesariana=A.D.
65/66-66/67, are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 281 sq.; Mionnet, v. 169;
Supplem. viii. 131.—During his governorship in May A.D. 66, the month Artemisios
(Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), the Jewish war broke out of which Cestius Gallus
lived only to see the opening campaign. For he died in the winter of A.D. 66-67
“by accident or through fatigue” (fato aut taedio occidit, Tacitus, History, v.
10).[429] [429] Cestius Gallus was still in Syria in the winter of A.D. 66-67
(Josephus, Life, 8, 43, 65, 67, 71). But before the beginning of the spring the
management of the war had been committed to Vespasian (Wars of the Jews, iii. 4.
2). C. Licinius Mucianus, A.D. 67-69 When Palestine was separated from Syria and
transferred to Vespasian as a distinct province, Syria was assigned to Licinius
Mucianus.[430] Josephus speaks of him in A.D. 67 when referring to the siege of
Gamala (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 5), and in A.D. 69 when referring to the
election of Vespasian as emperor (Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 5-6). Compare also,
Tacitus, History, i. 10; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 1. Coins with his name of the
time of Galba (9th June A.D. 68-15th January A.D. 69) and of Otho (15th
January-16th April A.D. 69)[431] are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 282;
Mionuet, v. 169; Suppl. viii. 131.—In the autumn of A.D. 69, in order to oppose
Vitellius, he brought an army from Syria to Rome (Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
iv. 11. 1; Tacitus, History, ii. 82 sq.; Suetonius, Vespasian, 6; Dio Cassius,
lxv. 9), where he did not, however, arrive until after the death of Vitellius,
which occurred on 20th December A.D. 69. He had then for a long time the supreme
power in his hands (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4; Tacitus, History, iv.
11, 39, 49, 80; Dio Cassius, lxv. 22, lxvi. 2).—Compare in regard to him also,
Borghesi, Oeuvres, iv. 345-353; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 1069 f.; L.
Brunn, De C. Licinio Muciano, Lips. 1870; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature,
§ 314. 1; Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium, Index, p. 190 sq.; Liebenam,
Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. 257 f. [430] On the severance of
Palestine from Syria, see Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des
römischen Reichs, ii. 179 f., 183-189; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i.
419.—Tacitus, History, i. 10: Suriam et quattuor legiones obtinebat Licinius
Mucianus … bellum Judaeicum Flavius Vespasianus (ducem eum Nero delegerat)
tribus legionibus administrabat. Tacitus, History, ii. 5: Ceterum hic Suriae,
ille Judaeae praepositus, vicinis provinciarum administrationibus invidia
discordes, exitu demum Neronis positis odiis in medium consuluere. Also Aurelius
Victor, De Caesarib. c. 9, epit. c. 9, ascribes the establishment or erection of
the province of Palestine to Vespasian.—In opposition to this, Pick in Sallet’s
Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiii. 1885, pp. 197-200, expresses the opinion
that Vespasian did not hold Palestine as a separate province; his office is
rather to be regarded as that of “a legatus Augusti pro praetore of a higher
rank without a special province, who, intrusted with the conduct of a war,
occupies a position superior to the ordinary governors.” But this view is not
reconcilable with the precise words of Tacitus. [431] Both coins bear the date
of the year 117 of the aera Caesariana, and just for this reason afford sure
grounds for determining the reckoning of the era. The later governors of Syria
do not come within the range of our investigation, since from this time forth
Palestine continued to be a separate province from. Syria. For the governors of
Palestine from the time of Vespasian to Hadrian, see § 21.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 32: � 13. HYRCANUS II, B.C. 63-40. REBELLION OF ANTIPATER AND HIS SONS PHASAEL AND HEROD
========================================================================

§ 13. HYRCANUS II, B.C. 63-40. REBELLION OF ANTIPATER AND HIS SONS PHASAEL AND
HEROD SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xiv. 5-13; Wars of the Jews, i. 8-13. ZONARAS,
Annales, v. 7-9 (abstract of Josephus). LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, v.
394-412. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 167-189. HITZIG,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 500-523. STANLEY, History of the Jewish
Church, vol. iii. 408-421. SCHNECKENBURGER, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte,
pp. 166-173. HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. pp. 179-203.
LEWIN, Fasti sacri, pp. 8-54. OWING to the meagreness of the sources, it is
difficult to give an exact account of the position which Palestine at this time
occupied in reference to the Romans. This much is certain, that it was tributary
(Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 6), and lay under the
general oversight of the Roman governor of Syria. But the question is, whether
it was immediately incorporated or not with the province of Syria. In favour of
the latter supposition might be alleged the statement of Josephus, that by the
enactment of Gabinius, who divided Palestine into five sections, the country was
now freed from monarchical rule: ἀσμένως δὲ τῆς ἐξ ἑνὸς ἐπικρατείας
ἐλευθερωθέντες τὸ λοιπὸν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ διῳκοῦντο (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5).
Hyrcanus therefore had stood at the head of the government of the country, and
was subordinate only to the supervision of the Roman governor.[432] [432] So
also Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römisches Reichs, ii.
163. Mendelssohn in Ritachil’s Acta societatis philolog. Lipsiensis, v. 162.
After the campaign of Pompey there followed for Palestine some years of peace.
Scaurus as well as his two successors, Marcius Philippus and Lentulus
Marcellinus, had still indeed some skirmishes with the Arabians.[433] But these
had no influence upon the fortunes of Palestine. In A.D. 57, however,
Aristobulus’ son Alexander, who had escaped from his keepers on his way to Rome,
sought to secure to himself the government of Palestine. He succeeded in
collecting an army of 10,000 heavy-armed soldiers and 1500 horsemen, and got
into his power the fortresses of the Alexandrium, Hyrcania, and Machaerus.[434]
Gabinius, who had just then arrived as proconsul in Syria, sent against him,
first of all, his lieutenant M. Antonius, afterwards the well-known triumvir,
and soon followed with the main body of his troops. Alexander was defeated in an
engagement near Jerusalem, and withdrew into the stronghold of the Alexandrium.
Here he was besieged by Gabinius, and was compelled to surrender; but it would
seem that, on condition of his yielding up the fortresses which were m his
possession, he was allowed his freedom.[435] At this time, too, Gabinius made an
important change in the political relations of Palestine. He assigned to
Hyrcanus only the care of the temple, but took from him the political
administration; for he divided the country into five districts (σύνοδοι,
συνέδρια), with Jerusalem, Gazara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sepphoris as their
capitals.[436] What is to be understood by those five σύνοδοι or συνέδρια is not
altogether clear. They may be regarded as either customs, districts, or
circuits, making the jurisdiction of law courts (conventus juridici).[437] The
term συντελεῖν (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5: οἳ δʼ ἵνα συντελῶσιν εἰς Ἀμαθοῦντα)
favours the former view; the term σύνοδοι (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5) favours
the latter.[438] Possibly the one view may not exclude the other. At least this
measure of Gabinius took away the remnant of political independence which
Palestine had hitherto enjoyed. Pompey having already deprived Hyrcanus of the
title of king, the next step was to strip him of all political prerogatives and
to restrict him to his priestly functions. The country was parted into five
divisions, which were “delivered” from the dominion of Hyrcanus, i.e. were
incorporated in the province of Syria. This arrangement was not indeed of long
duration. By the ordinances of Caesar it was again wholly set aside. [433]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1. Appian, Syr. 51. [434] On
the Alexandrium, see p. 320. The position of Hyrcania is unknown. Machaerus, now
called Mkaur, lay to the east of the Dead Sea. For more details about this
important fortress, see § 20. [435] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 2-4; Wars of the
Jews, i. 8. 2-5. [436] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8.
5.—About Amathus, in the country east of the Jordan, see above, p. 297. On
Sepphoris in Galilee, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 136-141. The other three towns
were situated in Judea proper. On Gazara, see above, p. 261. Josephus, Antiq.
xiv. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5, has also the form Gadara. But by this it
is quite evident he does not mean the Hellenistic Gadara in Peraea, which had a
population mainly pagan, and had been separated from the Jewish territory by
Pompey. We are to understand by it the Gazara Judaized by Simon the Maccabee,
for which also elsewhere the form Gadara is found. So Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 4
and 1Ma_4:15. Also in Strabo, xvi. 2. 29, p. 759, by Γαδαρὶς, ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν
ἐξιδιάσαντο οἱ Ιουδαῖοι, we are to understand the region of Gazara, which indeed
he confounds with Gadara in Peraea; for from this latter placc were sprung the
celebrated men who are referred to by him. In a Notitia episcopatuum a Ῥεγεὼν
Γαδάρων in the neighbourhood of Azotus, to be distinguished from Γάδειρα between
Pella and Capitolias (Hieroclis Synecdemus et notitiae graecae episcopat. ed.
Parthey, 1866, p. 144). At a Synod at Jerusalem in A.D. 536 there were present
together a bishop Ἀράξιος Γαδάρων and a bishop Θεόδωρος Γαδάρων There were
therefore two placcs in Palestine called Gadara (Le Quien, Oriens christianus,
t. iii. p. 595 sq.). Compare also Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche
Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 365-367. Menke’s Bibelatlas, Bl. iv. [437] On
the erection of a province, the Romans were wont to divide the country into
customs or taxation districts, each of which was grouped round one of the larger
towns. The communal court of such a town was utilized by the Romans as a fiscal
or customs court, for it had to make arrangements for collecting the taxes in
its district. More extensive, as a rule, than these customs districts, were the
juristic circuits (conventus juridici). For the purpose of deciding civil
matters (only about these had it jurisdiction), a diet was held from time to
time at a certain place, to which the depute judges of the circuit went, in
order, under the presidency of the governor, to decide cases that had arisen
since last session. See Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. (1881) p. 500
f. Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, ii. (1859) pp. 5, 13. Rein, art.
“Conventus,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 635 f. [438] For example, Kuhn,
Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 336, 367, regards
the Synedria of Gabinius as conventus juridici. Also I have myself argued in
favour of this opinion, Div. ii. vol. i. p. 168 f. Still the matter does not
seem to me beyond question. Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol.
Lapsiensis, v. 163, does not hazard a decided statement, and declares only that
it is certain that the remnants of freedom that had been left to the Jews by
Pompey were taken from them by this measure of Gabinius. Soon after this, in
A.D. 56, the country was anew involved in a revolution by Aristobulus and his
son Antigonus, who had both escaped from their Roman imprisonment. Aristobulus
so completely failed to learn caution from the abortive attempt of his son
Alexander, that he made himself a similar endeavour in that direction in which
his son had failed. But he himself had no better fortune. A detachment of the
Roman army attacked him, and the little band which he had gathered was, without
much difficulty, driven across the Jordan. He attempted to defend himself in
Machaerus; but was obliged after a two years’ siege to yield, and was sent again
as a prisoner to Rome. His children, however, were set at liberty by the
senate.[439] Just then Gabinius, against the will of the senate, undertook the
Egyptian campaign, in order to set up Ptolemy Auletes again as king (see above,
p. 331). When he returned from thence, in A.D. 55, he had once again to deal
with a revolt in Judea. Alexander had made a fresh attempt to secure the
sovereignty, and had won over to his side at least a part of the people. His
proceedings, however, were also this time again brought to a speedy end.[440]
[439] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, i 8. 6. Dio Cassius, xxxix.
56. Plutarch. Antony, 3. [440] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6. 2-3; Wars of the Jews,
i. 8. 7. In A.D. 54 the triumvir, M. Licinius Crassus, went to Syria as
proconsul in place of Gabinius. While Gabinius had already sorely oppressed the
country by his exactions, Crassus at once began to indulge in open robbery.
Pompey, upon the taking of the temple, had left its rich treasures untouched.
Crassus now laid hold for himself of all these: in pure gold alone, 2000
talents; of other articles of value, 8000 talents.[441] Palestine was soon
indeed delivered from his rapacity, for he met his death in A.D. 53 in the war
against the Parthians. [441] Joeephus, Antiq, xiv. 7. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8.
8. During the period B.C. 53-51 C. Cassius Longinus, the quaestor of Crassus,
held the supreme authority in Syria. He had not only to be on his guard against
the Parthians, but also to suppress the revolutionary elements that were still
always present in Palestine. Aristobulus, indeed, was detained in his Roman
imprisonment, and his sons had for the time no wish to risk anew sharing his
fate. But a certain Pitholaus now undertook to play their role, and gathered
together the malcontents. He did not indeed succeed in his aim any better than
those who had tried before. For the final issue of his undertaking was this,
that he himself was slain, and 30,000 of the disturbers of the peace were sold
as slaves.[442] [442] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 9.
With the year B.C. 49 begins the period of the civil wars, disastrous for Italy
as well as for the provinces, but peculiarly disastrous for the provinces,
inasmuch as they were obliged to find the enormous sums which the contesting
parties required for carrying on their operations. During these twenty years,
from Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon down to the death of Antony, B.C. 49-30, the
whole Roman history was reflected in the history of Syria and also in that of
Palestine. Every change and turn in the Roman history was answered by a
corresponding movement in Syrian history, and during this short period Syria and
Palestine changed sides and owned new masters no less than four times. When, in
the beginning of the year B.C. 49, Pompey and the party of the senate had fled
from Italy, and Caesar had established himself in Rome, Caesar and his friends
wished to make use of the prisoner Aristobulus for their own ends. And so they
released him from prison and gave him two legions, in order that with these he
might fight in Syria against the party of Pompey. But the adherents of Pompey
who still remained in Rome put a stop to the enterprise by ridding themselves of
Aristobulus by poison. At the same time also one of Aristobulus’ sons,
Alexander, fell a victim to the party strifes of the civil war. He too had made
his appearance as an adherent of Caesar, and so he was now, at the express
command of Pompey, beheaded at Antioch by Q. Metellus Scipio, Pompey’s
father-in-law, who was then proconsul for Syria (see above, p. 334).[443] [443]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 1-2. That Caesar sent
Aristobulus into Palestine is also reported by Dio Cassius, xli. 18. After the
battle of Pharsalia, on 9th August B.C. 48, and Pompey’s death, on 28th
September of the same year, Hyrcanus and his old friend Antipater immediately
attached themselves to Caesar’s party.[444] They clearly perceived that their
safety depended wholly upon his grace, and therefore they hastened to prove
their capacity for serving him. Caesar, after his landing in Egypt, in October
B.C. 48, had become involved in a war with King Ptolemy. Mithridates started
from Pergamum in the spring of B.C. 47 to go into Egypt with an auxiliary
force.[445] When he encountered obstacles at Pelusium, Antipater went to his
help, at the command of Hyrcanus, with 3000 Jewish troops, which had been indeed
collected for this very purpose, and he had also arranged that the neighbouring
powers should contribute auxiliaries. With these Jewish troops Antipater
rendered most important service to Mithridates, not merely in the capture of
Pelusium, but also throughout the whole of the Egyptian campaign. Not less
important was the aid rendered by Hyrcanus in seeing to it that the Egyptian
Jews ranged themselves upon Caesar’s side.[446] [444] Antipater, even before
Caesar’s interference in the affairs of Palestine, is described as procurator of
Judea. He is so described, not only by Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 8. 1: ὁ τῶν
Ἰουδαίων ἐπιμελητής), but also by Strabo, who refers again to Hypsicrates
(Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 3: τὸν τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐπιμελητήν). Possibly he obtained
this position through Gabinius, who, on account of Antipater’s many services in
the interest of Rome, “settled the affairs which belonged to the city Jerusalem
in accordance with Antipater’s inclinations” (Antiq. xiv. 6. 4: καταστησάμενος
δὲ Γαβίνιος τὰ κατὰ τὴν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πόλιν ὡς ἦν Ἀντιπάτρῳ θέλοντι. Wars of the
Jews, i. 8. 7: Γαβίνιος ἐλθὼν εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα πρὸς τὸ Ἀντιπάτρου βούλημα
κατεστήσατο τὴν πολιτείαν). Since this must have been an institution not in
contradiction to the other ordinances of Gabinius, it may perhaps be assumed
that to Antipater was made over the chief administration of the taxes in the
Jewish territory. For ἐπιμελητής is an administrative officer; in its primary
application, an officer of finance. Certainly Antipater cannot have been a
political official in the service of Hyrcanus; for Hyrcanus, since the passing
of the measures of Gabinius, had no longer any political functions. If, then, he
acted ἐξ ἐντολῆς Ὑρκανοῦ (Antiq. xiv. 8. 1), this is to be explained of the
spiritual authority which Hyrcanus had as high priest (Antiq. xiv. 5. 1: κατʼ
ἐντολὴν Ὑρκανοῦ belongs to a period when Hyrcanus had no longer any political
power). On Antipater’s services to the cause of Rome in the period B.C. 63-48,
see Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 1, 2, 6. 2, 3, 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1, 3,
7, 9. [445] Bellum Alexandr. c. 26. [446] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 1-3; Wars of
the Jews, i. 9. 3-5.—In the decree of Caesar, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2, the number of
the Jewish auxiliary troops is given only as 1500. When, therefore, Caesar, at
the conclusion of the Alexandrian war, in the summer of B.C. 47, went to Syria
and rewarded, by proofs of his clemency, the governing families that had
favoured him,[447] Hyrcanus and Antipater were treated in the most generous
manner. Antigonus indeed appeared before Caesar as the only remaining son of
Arietobulus, complained that Hyrcanus and Antipater had violently thrust
themselves forward, and sought to show that his claims were older and
better.[448] But Caesar estimated the trustworthiness and usefulness of Hyrcanus
and Antipater more highly than the professions of Antigonus, ignored the claims
of the latter, and showed favour exclusively to the other two. Even before the
intervention of Antigonus, Hyrcanus seems to have been established as high
priest, and upon Antipater the right of Roman citizenship and immunity from
tribute had been conferred.[449] Hyrcanus was now appointed ἐθνάρχης of the
Jews, i.e. he was reinstated in the political authority that had been taken from
him by Gabinius; but Antipater was made procurator, ἐπίτροπος, of Judea, and so
confirmed in the authority with which he had been already invested. At the same
time permission was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.[450] [447] Bellum,
Alexandrinum, 65 “Reges, tyrannos, dynastas provinciae finitimos, qui omnes ad
eum concurrerant, receptos in fidem condicionibus impositis provinciae tuendae
ac defendendae dimittit et sibi et populo Romano amicissimoa.” [448] Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 1-2. [449] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8.
3: Ὑοκανῷ μὲν τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην βεβαιώσας, Αντιπάτρῳ δὲ πολιτείαν ἐν Ρώμῃ δοὺς
καὶ ἀτέλειαν πανταχοῦ. So, too, Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 5. [450] Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 8. 5: Υρκανὸν μὲν ἀποδείκνυσιν ἀρχιερέα … [Ἀντίπατρον] ἐπίτροπον
ἀποδείκνυσι τῆς Ἰουδαίας. Ἐπιτρέπει δὲ καὶ Ὑρκανῷ τὰ τῆς πατρίδος ἀναστῆσαι
τείχη. Similarly, Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 3.—These enactments seem to be
different from those referred to in the preceding note; the concessions referred
to in. the one case having been granted before, and those in the other after the
intervention of Antigonus. So think Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis
philol. Lipsiesis, v. 190 sqq.; Judeich. Caesar im Orient, 1885, p. 123 f. See
especially, Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 1: Ἀντίγονος … γίνεται παραδόξως
Ἀντιπάτρῳ μείζονος προκοπῆς αἰτιος. It is certainly the case, as appears from
the decrees of Caesar, in thorough agreement therewith, that Hyrcanus was
appointed high priest by Caesar, with political functions, ἀρχιερεύς and
ἐθνάρχης and so reinstated in the political position of which he had been stript
by Gabinius.—The decree of senate communicated by Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5,
belongs probably to a much earlier period. See above, p. 268. We obtain further
details with respect to the proceedings of Caesar from documents communicated by
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2-10, which. however, are so slight and fragmentary
that in regard to many particulars no certain conclusion can be reached.[451]
This, at least, is unquestionable, that the letter of Caesar to the Sidonians,
Antiq. xiv. 10. 2, was written in the year B.C. 47, and that the formal decree
of Caesar appointing Hyrcanus was issued in that same year.[452] According to
this document, Hyrcanus was appointed hereditary ἐθνάρχης and ἀρχιερεύς of the
Jews, with all the rights and privileges which belonged to him as high priest
according to the Jewish law, and jurisdiction in all Jewish matters was conceded
to the Jews. Hyrcanus also, for himself and for his children, was declared the
“confederate” of the Romans, and it was stipulated that the Roman troops should
not seek winter quarters in his territory, nor should levies of money be
exacted.[453] It is uncertain whether some of .the other documents belong to
this same year or not, but it is certain that Hyrcanus, not long before Caesar’s
death, somewhere about the end of the year B.C. 45, sent an embassy to Rome,
which procured a decree of senate granting new concessions to the Jews. The
beginning of this decree of senate, under Caesar’s fourth dictatorship and
fifteenth consulship, i.e. B.C. 44, is given in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 7. Its
date is probably correctly preserved in Antiq. xiv. 10. 10: πρὸ πέντε εἰδῶν
Φεβρουαρίων i.e. 9th February. As it was not immediately put down in the tables
of the treasury, a new decree of senate was passed, after Caesar’s death, during
the consulship of Antony and Dolabella, τῇ πρὸ τριῶν εἰδῶν Ἀπριλλίων i.e. 11th
April B.C. 44, by which the recording of the former decree of the senate in the
tables of the treasury was now ordered (Antiq. xiv. 10. 9-10). Since the new
decree is of a purely formal character, we gain no information from it regarding
the contents of the claims conceded to the Jews. Also, the fragment of the
earlier decree preserved in Antiq. xiv. 10. 7 contains only the formal
introduction. It is extremely probable, however, that other portions of it are
contained among the fragments in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 3-6. Yet it is just
here that the difficulties of the investigation begin. The question arises as to
what pieces belong to the decree of senate of B.C. 44 and what to former years,
such as B.C. 47 or other years. Owing to the corruptness of the text, no certain
result can ever be reached.[454] The chief portion of the passage peculiarly
rich in material, Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, belongs most probably to B.C. 44. Among the
concessions there said to have been secured to the Jews, the most important are
these: that Joppa, “which the Jews had originally, when they made a league of
friendship with the Romans,” was made over to them; that also the villages in
the great plain, which they had previously possessed, should be restored to
them; and that, finally, also still other places “which belonged to the kings of
Syria and Phoenicia, the confederates of the Romans,” should now be given to
them.[455] It may be assumed that these were merely possessions that had been
taken away from them by Pompey. Of the places thus restored, Joppa, as affording
a harbour, was the most important. [451] Compare, in regard to these documents,
especially, Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v.
1875, pp. 191-246 (and the review of that paper in the Theolog.
Literaturzeitung, 1876, Nr. 15, col. 394 f.); and Niese, Hermes, Bd. xi. 1876,
pp. 483-488; and in reply, Mendelssohn, Rhein. Museum, neue folge, Bd. xxxii.
1877, pp. 249-258. Also, Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der
Evangelien, 1869, p. 75 ff. Wieseler, Theolog. Studien und Kritiken, 1877, p.
290 ff. Rosenthal, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums,
1879, pp. 176 ff., 216 ff., 300 ff. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 501 f.
(English translation, History of Rome—the Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian,
London, 2 vols.). Judeich. Caesar im Orient, 1835, pp. 119-141 (only with regard
to the events and documents of the year B.C. 47, to which date Judeich makes
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, also to refer). Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd.
iii., 4 Aufl. 1888, pp. 660-671.—For the older literature, see above, p. 109;
also in Bloch. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, p. 144 ff. [452] In this
document Caesar designates himself αὐτοκράτωρ καὶ ἀρχιερεύς, δικτάτωρ τὸ
δεύτερον (imperator et pontifex maximus dictator II.). Caesar’s second
dictatorship extended from October 48 to the end of the year 46 (see Mommsen,
Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. i. pp. 451-453). But since the title of consul is not in
the formula, whereas Caesar held the consulship in the years 48, 46, 45, and 44,
the document must be assigned to the year 47. [453] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2:
διὰ ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας Ὑρκανὸν Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ ἐθνάρχας Ἰουδαίων
εἶναι βούλομαι, ἀρχιερωσύνην τε Ἰουδαίων διὰ παντὸς ἔχειν κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἔθη,
εἶναί τε αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς παὶδας αὐτοῦ συμμάχους ἡμῖν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατʼ
ἄνδρα φίλοις ἀριθμεῖσθαι· ὅσα τε κατὰ τοὺς ἰδίους αὐτῶν νόμους ἐστὶν ἀρχιερατικὰ
ἢ φιλάνθρωπα, ταῦτα κελεύω κατέχειν αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ. ἄν δὲ μεταξὺ
γένηταί τις ζήτησις περὶ τῆς Ἰουδαίων ἀγωγῆς, ἀρέσκει μοι κρίσιν γίνεσθαι παρʼ
αὐτοῖς. παραχειμασίαν δὲ ἢ χρήματα πράττεσθαι οὐ δοκιμάζω.—For an exposition of
this passage, see Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis,
v. 195-197. Mcmmsen, Röm. Geschichte, v. 501 f. [454] The documents in Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 10. 3-4, contain scarcely anything else beyond the decree of Caesar
of the year B.C. 47, as already given in Antiq. xiv. 10. 2. Since they belong to
a year during which Caesar was consul, though the number of the consulship is
wanting, the date must have been 46, 45, or 44. And so Mendelssohn, Acta
societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v. 205-211, correctly maintains that they are
fragments of a decree of senate of B.C. 46, which merely confirmed the
enactments of Caesar of B.C. 47. On the confirmation, by the senate generally,
of bargains made by military commanders, see Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, iii. 2,
1888, pp. 1166-1168.—The portions given in Antiq. xiv. 10. 5-6 contain very
particular statements regarding the assessing of tribute, and seem to go
together as referring to the same period. According to the beginning of Antiq.
xiv. 10. 5, they belong to the year B.C. 44, Caesar’s fifth consulship. But this
seems to be contradicted by the fact that the permission to rebuild the walls of
Jerusalem is there recorded (Antiq. xiv. 60. 5), which, however, had been given
as early as B.C. 47 (Antiq. xiv. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 3), and, indeed,
the building had been already proceeded with and the walls restored (Antiq. xiv.
9. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 4). The date is further determined as B.C. 47 by
Antiq. xiv. 10. 6: Γαίος Καῖσαρ, αὐτοκράτωρ τὸ δεύτερον (it ought to have been:
αὐτοκράτωρ, δικτάτωρ τὸ δεύτερον). And finally, in Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, we meet
with various statements about Joppa which seem to belong to various periods. On
the basis of all these particulars, Mendelssohn, Acta societatis philol.
Lipsiensis, v. 197 sqq., conjectures that the passage, Antiq. xiv. 10. 5-6,
refers, indeed, to the decree of senate of B.C. 44, but that in the earlier
portion of that passage, xiv. 10. 5-6a, a decree of Caesar of the year B.C. 47
is quoted. This decree Mendelssohn distinguishes from the one communicated in
Antiq. xiv. 10. 2. This one last referred to was issued prior to the
intervention of Antigonus; the other, as given in xiv. 10. 5 and 6a, after that
occurrence. This is a conclusion, however, which can scarcely be sustained, for,
by the decree of appointment (Antiq. xiv. 10. 2), Antigonus was no longer in a
position to venture making hostile representations. But in other respects
Mendelssohn’s hypothesis, that the passage in Antiq. xiv. 10. 5 and 6a belongs
to the year B.C. 47, is highly probable. Mendelssohn finds the new decrees of
the senate of the year B.C. 44 only in the second half of Antiq. xiv. 10. 6,
beginning, perhaps, with the words, ὅσα τε μετὰ ταῦτα ἔσχον. Niese, Hermes, xi.
p. 483 ff., ascribed to the senate decree of B.C. 44 the whole of the passage
Antiq. xiv. 10. 3-6, because he assumed that the verbal permission given
somewhat earlier by Caesar to rebuild the walls was only at that date formally
ratified by the senate, and because he reads, in Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, τὸ δʼ
instead of τὸ δεύτερον. [455] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 6.—If it is correct that
the beginning of Antiq. xiv. 10. 6 belongs to a decree of the year B.C. 47, a
portion of the tribute of Joppa would have been assigned, even so early as that,
to the Jews. It would then be necessary with the old Latins to read: ὅπως
τελῶσιν ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πόλεως Ἰοπηνοί, ὑπεξαιρουμένου τοῦ ἑβδόμου ἔτους.
They did certainly hold it in the year B.C. 44 altogether in their own
possession: Ἰόπην δὲ πόλιν, ἣν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἔσχου Ἰουδαῖοι ποιούμενοι τὴν πρὸς
Ῥωμαίους φιλίαν, αὐτῶν εἶναι, καθὼς καὶ τὸ πρότερον, ἡμῖν ἀρέσκειν· φόρους τε
[ὑπέρ to be supplied] ταύτης τῆς πόλεως Ὑρκανὸν ἔχειν κ.τ.λ.—It is quite
uncertain who is intended by “the kings of Syria and Phoenicia confederate with
the Romans” that had formerly possessed some of the territories now given over
to the Jews. Probably they were princes to whom Pompey had gifted Jewish lands.
But perhaps the text is corrupt; for other obscurities may be explained from the
faulty tranemission of the text Compare, in exposition of Josephus, Antiq. xiv.
10. 5-6, Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, v. pp. 199
sqq., 234 sqq.; Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, v. 501 f. The Jews also, through
Caesar’s favour, obtained important privileges beyond the limits of Palestine.
The Alexandrian Jews gained protection by having the privilege of Roman
citizenship conferred upon them;[456] and the Jews of Asia Minor were guaranteed
the undisturbed exercise of their religion.[457] It was in accordance with the
general course of Caesar’s policy to keep the provincials contented, so as to
secure the interests of the empire. But by none of the foreign peoples was so
great a lamentation made over his death as by the Jews.[458] [456] See Div. ii.
vol. ii. p. 244. [457] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 8 and 20-24.—The decrees there
gathered together were not, indeed, directly issued by Caesar, but are, with a
high degree of probability, to be attributed to his initiative. See also Div.
ii. vol. ii. p. 225 f. [458] Suetonius, Caesar, 84: “In summo publico luctu
exterarum gentium multitude circulatim suo quaeque more lamentata est,
praecipueque Judaei, qui etiam noctibus continuis bustum frequentarunt.” The
weak Hyrcanus, who had been installed in Palestine as “Ethnarch” of the Jews,
held the government only in name. This was exercised in reality by the crafty
and active Antipater. He now even appointed his two sons, Phasaël and Herod,
governors, στρατηγοί, the one in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee.[459] Herod,
whom we meet with here for the first time, was then a young man twenty-five
years of age.[460] But even as early as this he gave proofs of that energy which
brought him afterwards to the throne. In Galilee a robber chief named Hezekiah,
with his numerous band, made the country insecure. Herod gained possession of
his person, and had him executed along with many of his followers.[461] They
were little accustomed in Jerusalem with such summary procedure. The aristocracy
of that city regarded Herod’s conduct as an infringement of the privileges of
the Sanhedrim, to which tribunal alone it belonged to pass a death sentence; and
they therefore insisted that Hyrcanus would call young Herod to answer for what
he had done. Hyrcanus yielded to their request, and summoned Herod before the
Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. Herod indeed appeared, not, however, as became an
accused person, in mourning garments, but decked in purple, and attended by a
bodyguard. When he thus entered the presence of the Sanhedrim, complaints were
hushed, and he would undoubtedly have been exculpated, had not the celebrated
Pharisee Sameas (Shemaiah ?) arisen and aroused the conscience of his
colleagues. They were now disposed to insist upon their prerogatives and condemn
Herod. But Hyrcanus had received orders from Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria,
to secure Herod’s acquittal. When he therefore perceived that things were taking
a dangerous turn, he suspended the sitting, and advised Herod to withdraw
secretly from the city. Herod did so; but he soon returned with an army against
Jerusalem in order to avenge himself for the insult that had been given him.
Only the most urgent representations of his father Antipater succeeded in
appeasing his wrath, and restraining him from open violence. He then returned to
Galilee, comforting himself with the reflection that he had at least given an
exhibition of his power, and put a wholesome terror upon his opponents.—During
this conflict with the Sanhedrim Herod was appointed, by Sextus Caesar, governor
of Coele-Syria, στρατηγὸς τῆς Κοίλης Συρίας.[462] [459] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9.
2; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 4. [460] The traditional text of Josephus in Antiq.
xiv. 9. 2 reads fifteen. The number twenty-five, which Dindorf and Bekker have
put into the text, is purely conjectural. But this change is necessary: 1.
Because a boy fifteen years old could not possibly have played the role which
Herod had already played; and 2. Because Herod at his death is represented to
have been about seventy years of age; Antiq. xvii. 6. 1: καὶ γὰρ περὶ ἔτος
ἑβδομηκοστὸν ἧν; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1: ἦν μὲν γὰρ ἤδη σχεδὸν ἐτῶν
ἑβδομήκοντα. Compare Havercamp’s note on Antiq. xiv. 9. 2; van der Chijs, De
Herods Magno, p. 1. [461] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 10.
5. [462] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 3-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 10. 6-9. The
rabbinical tradition preserves the remembrance of the scene before the
Sanhedrim. The names there given, however, are altogether different. Instead of
Hyrcanus, Jannäus; instead of Herod, a slave of Jannäus; instead of Shemaiah,
Simon ben Shetach. See Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 146-148. All
this happened in B.C. 47, or in the beginning of B.C. 46. In the spring of B.C.
46, while Caesar had to be away fighting against the adherents of Pompey in
Africa, one of Pompey’s party, Caecilius Bassus, succeeded in making himself
master of Syria by getting Sextus Caesar put out of the way by the hand of an
assassin. He was afterwards besieged in Apamea by the Caesarian party, under the
command of C. Antistius Vetus, in the autumn of B.C. [463] (see above, p. 336).
To the forces of Vetus were also added the troops of Antipater, which, as a new
proof of his serviceableness to Caesar, he had sent to the aid of the Caesarian
party.[464] The struggle of the two parties meanwhile continued without yielding
any decisive result; and even the new governor, L. Statius Murcus, who arrived
in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 44, and was supported by Marcius Crispus, the
governor of Bithynia, obtained no decided advantage over Caecilius Bassus. [463]
Not 47, as Hitzig, Geschichte, ii. 514, assumes. See, on the other hand, Cicero,
ad Atticum, xiv. 9. 3. [464] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, i.
10. 10. Meanwhile, on the 15th March B.C. 44, Caesar was murdered. Marc Antony
resolved to avenge his death and continue his work. And it was only the fact
that just then the fortunes of the party were in a rather backgoing condition
that prevented the conspirators from also taking immediate steps in their own
interest. It was only after Antony had proceeded against them in an openly
hostile manner that the leaders of the conspiracy went to the East in order to
collect their forces there: M. Brutus to Macedonia, L. Cassius to Syria. When
Cassius, in the end of the year B.C. 44, arrived in Syria, Caecilius Bassus was
still besieged by Statius Murcus and Marcius Crispus in Apamea. Although Murcus
and Crispus had hitherto belonged to Caesar’s party, they now placed their army
at the service of Cassius, and Statius Murcus even offered his own personal aid.
The legion of Caecilius Bassus also went over to Cassius.[465] Thus did Cassius
become master of Syria, and gained possession of a considerable fighting force.
But for the support of the large and now further increasing army immense sums of
money were necessary. And to this even the small Jewish land must contribute its
share. It was laid by him under an arrestment of 700 talents, in the collection
of which Antipater and his son Herod showed themselves particularly useful. For,
with the same zeal with which they had once secured to themselves Caesar’s
favour, they now sought to win the goodwill of Cassius. How useful this zeal
was, some frightful examples in Judea itself showed. The inhabitants of the
towns of Gophna, Emmaus, Lydda, and Thamna, because they could not contribute
their share, were sold by Cassius as slaves.[466] But young Herod, as a reward
for services rendered, was appointed by Cassius, as he had previously been by
Sextus Caesar, governor (στρατηγός) of Coele-Syria.[467] [465] For the proofs,
see above, p. 337. [466] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 11.
1-2. [467] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 4. About this
time, B.C. 43, Antipater became the victim of personal enmity. A certain
Malichus endeavoured, just as Antipater had done, to gain an influential
position in Judea. But Antipater, more than any one else, stood in the way of
his realizing his ambition. He must therefore, if he was to gain his end, rid
himself of that man. By bribery he won over the cupbearer of Hyrcanus, who put
Antipater to death by poison as he was one day dining with Hyrcanus.[468] [468]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 4. Herod undertook to
avenge the death of his father. While, therefore, Malichus was busying himself
in the endeavour to carry out his ambitious plans and secure to himself the
government of Judea, he was murdered in the neighbourhood of Tyre by hired
assassins, whom Herod, with the connivance of Cassius, had sent.[469] [469]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 8.—The murder of Antipater
took place before the conquest of Laodicea in the summer of B.C. 43 (see above,
p. 338), while the murder of Malichus occurred immediately after that event.
Hence both occurrences took place during the year B.C. 43 (Josephus, Antiq. xiv.
11. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 11. 7). After Cassius had departed from Syria, in
B.C. 42, still harder fortunes befell the province. Cassius had indeed wrung
from it the most exorbitant sums, but now that the province was left to itself
affairs fell into such a state of utter anarchy that there was no law but the
will of the stronger. During this period Antigonus also made an attempt, with
the assistance of Ptolemy the son of Mennaeus of Chalcis, to secure the
sovereignty of Palestine. Favoured by fate and fortune, Herod indeed frustrated
this attempt, but he was not able to prevent Marion, tyrant of Tyre, from
snatching to himself certain portions of Galilean territory.[470] [470]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 12. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 2-3.—In the narrative of
Josephus, which is based upon the statements of Nicolaus Damascenus, a veil is
thrown over the circumstance that Herod could not prevent the conquests of the
Tyrians. But he makes this clear from the subsequent letter of Antony, which
ordered the Tyrians to restore the places that they had conquered (see below,
note 41). A new crisis arose in Palestine, and especially in the fortunes of the
two Idumeans Phasael and Herod, when, late in autumn of the year B.C. 42, Brutus
and Cassius were defeated at Philippi by Antony and Octavian. With this one
stroke all Asia fell into the hands of Antony. The situation was all the more
critical for Phasael and Herod, after an embassy of the Jewish nobility appeared
before Antony in Bithynia about the beginning of B.C. 41, and made complaints
against these two princes. Yet Herod succeeded by personal explanations in
neutralizing for the time being the effect of these charges.[471] Soon after
this, while Antony lingered in Ephesus, an embassy from Hyrcanus appeared before
him asking that Antony should give orders for the emancipation of the Jews sold
into slavery by Cassius, and for the restoration of the places that had been
conquered by the Tyrians. Antony readily assumed the role of the protector of
all rights and privileges, and issued the orders prayed for, with violent
denunciation of the lawless proceedings of Cassius.[472]—Some time afterwards,
in the autumn of B.C. 41, when Antony had gone to Antioch, the Jewish nobles
renewed their charges against Phasael and Herod. But neither at this time did
they lead to any result. Antony, when he was serving in Syria under Gabinius in
B.C. 57-55, had been for many years the intimate friend of Antipater. That
friendship he did not now forget. And since, besides, Hyrcanus, who had also
gone to Antioch, gave a favourable account of the two brothers, Antony appointed
Phasael and Herod tetrarchs of the country of the Jews.[473] Hyrcanus was then
stripped of his political authority. He did not indeed mourn over the loss, for
he had for a long time possessed political authority only in name. [471]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 12. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 4. [472] Josephus, Antiq.
xiv. 12. 2. The original documents, a letter of Antony to Hyrcanus and two
letters to the Tyrians, Antiq. xiv. 12. 3-5. One of the letters to the Tyrians
(Antiq. xiv. 12. 4) refers expressly to the restoring of the conquered places;
the other (Antiq. xiv. 12. 5) refers to the liberating of Jewish slaves. Similar
letters were also sent to the cities of Sidon, Antioch, and Aradus (Antiq. xiv.
12. 6). Compare, with reference to the documents, Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta
societatis philol. Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 254-263. [473] Josephus, Antiq.
xiv. 13. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 5. The period of Antony’s residence in
Syria was for the province a time of sore oppression. His luxurious style of
living consumed enormous sums of money, and these the provinces were required to
provide. Thus, wherever Antony went exorbitant taxes were invariably imposed;
and Palestine was not by any means allowed to escape.[474] [474] Appian, Civ. v.
7: Ἐπιπαριὼν δὲ Φρυγίαν τε καὶ Μυσίαν καὶ Γαλάτας τοὺς ἐν Ἀσίᾳ, Καππαδοκίαν τε
καὶ Κιλικίαν καὶ Συρίαν τὴν κοίλην καὶ Παλαιστίνην καὶ τὴν Ἰτουραίαν καὶ ὅσα
ἄλλα γένη Σύρων, ἅπασιν ἐσφορὰς ἐπέβαλλε βαρείας. In the year B.C. 40, while
Antony was during part of the time held in thrall by Cleopatra in Egypt, and
during another part occupied with the affairs of Italy, the great invasion of
the Parthians occurred, who overran all Further Asia with their wild hordes. And
in consequence of this occurrence Antigonus succeeded, for a while at least, in
securing the end for which he had been striving. As the Parthians under Pacorus
and Barzapharnes, the former the son of King Orodes, the latter a Parthian
satrap, had already occupied Northern Syria, Antigonus succeeded in persuading
them, by great promises, to aid him in securing possession of the Jewish throne.
Pacorus marched along to the Phoenician coast, Barzapharnes advanced into the
interior of the country toward the south. Pacorus sent to Jerusalem a detachment
under the leadership of the king’s cupbearer, whose name was also Pacorus.
Before that company arrived at the city, Antigonus had already succeeded in
gathering around him a company of adherents from among the Jews, and had with it
advanced upon Jerusalem, where the battle was waged daily between him on the one
hand and Phasael and Herod on the other.[475] In the meantime the Parthian
troops under Pacorus arrived. The Parthian gave out that he desired to settle
terms of peace, and demanded of Phasael that he should go to the camp of
Barzapharnes in order that he might put an end to this strife. Although Herod
earnestly warned his brother, Phasael walked into the snare, and went along with
Hyrcanus and Pacorus, the cupbearer, to the camp of Barzapharnes. A small
detachment of Parthian horsemen remained behind in Jerusalem.[476] In the
Parthian camp the mask was soon thrown aside, and the two princes, Phasael and
Hyrcanus, were put in irons.[477] When Herod was told of this, not being strong
enough to offer open opposition, he resolved to escape from Jerusalem by flight.
Without attracting the attention of the Parthians, he had the female members of
his family and the children carried out of the city and brought to the fortress
of Masada, which he put under the charge of his brother Joseph.[478] Meanwhile,
on the spot where at a later period he built the fortress Herodium, he had to
fight with the Jews, who were still hostile to him. He was able, however,
successfully to repel their attack. After he had thus secured all belonging to
him in a stronghold, he continued his flight farther southward, and went first
of all to Petra in Arabia.[479] [475] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 3; Wars of the
Jews, i. 13. 1-2. [476] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 4-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 13.
3. [477] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 5-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 4-5. [478]
Masada was built on a steep rock on the western bank of the Dead Sea. In the war
of Vespasian it was the last place of refuge for the rebels, who yielded only
after the Romans had carried on long and fatiguing siege operations, in A.D. 73.
On its situation and history, see below in § 20 toward the end, where also the
more recent literature is given. [479] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 6-9; Wars of
the Jews, i. 13. 6-8. Their friendship for Antigonus did not restrain the
Parthians from plundering the country round about the capital. Phasael and
Hyrcanus were now placed at the disposal of Antigonus. The ears of Hyrcanus were
cut off, so that he might no longer be eligible for the office of high priest.
Phasael, on the contrary, escaped the hands of his enemies by dashing his head
upon a rock after he had received the joyful tidings of the fortunate flight of
his brother. Afterwards the Parthians carried away Hyrcanus with them as a
prisoner, and set up Antigonus as king.[480] [480] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13.
9-10; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 9-11.—Dio Cassius, xlviii. 26, erroneously names
him Aristobulus instead of Antigonus. Of the events of the years B.C. 43-40,
Julius Africanus in George Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 581 sq., and Syncellus
himself, ed. Diadorf, i. 576 sq. and 579, give a short account, which contains
some things different from Josephus, and derived probably from another source,
perhaps from Justus of Tiberias. It is most worthy of remark that Phasael is
represented, not as taking away his own life while a prisoner, but as falling in
battle (Julius Africanus in Syncellus, i. 581: Φασάηλος δὲ ἐν τῇ μάχη
ἀναιρεῖται). Also the sum which Cassius raised in Palestine is given, not as
700, but as 800 talents (Syncellus, i. 576). Compare generally, Gelzer, Julius
Africanus, i. 261-265. We have no right, however, to give a preference to these
brief statements over the very circumstantial and detailed report of Josephus.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 33: � 14. ANTIGONUS, B.C. 40-37
========================================================================

§ 14. ANTIGONUS, B.C. 40-37 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xiv. 14-16; Wars of the
Jews, i. 14-18. 3. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 10-11 (abstract from Josephus).
LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, v. 411-416. STANLEY, Jewish Church, iii.
419-423. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 190-197. HITZIG,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 523-533. SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp.
173-175. HAUSRATH, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 200-210. LEWIN, Fasti sacri, pp.
52-62. BÜRCKLEIN, Quellen und Chronologie der römisch-parthischen Feldzüge in
den Jahren 713-718 d. St. Dissertat. 1879. ANTIGONUS, or, as he was called
according to the evidence of the coins by his Hebrew name, Mattathias, had thus
by the help of the Parthians reached that position after which his father and
brother had vainly striven. After the example of his forefathers, from the time
of Aristobulus I., he assumed the rank and title of “king” and “high priest” (on
the coins: ΒΑΧΙΛΕΩΧ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΥ, מתתיה הכהן הגדל).[481] [481] Compare on the coins
of Antigonus: Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 480, 481. Mionnet, v. 563 sq. De Saulcy,
Recherches, pp. 109-113. Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, ii. 23-25. Levy, Geschichte
der jüdischen Münzen, pp. 65-67. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 76-79.
Reichardt in the Wiener Numismat. Monatsheften, Bd. iii. 1867, pp. 114-116. De
Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, p. 243 sq. Madden, Numismatic Chronicle,
1874, pp. 314-316. Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp.
209-213. Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 99-103. The hopes of Herod rested simply
and wholly on Roman aid. Without going to Petra—for the Arabian prince Malchus
had forbidden him to visit his country—he proceeded to Alexandria, and thence
took ship for Rome, although already the autumn storms had begun. After passing
through various dangers, he managed to reach Rome by Rhodes and Brundusium, and
immediately upon his arrival he laid his sad complaint before Antony.[482] Herod
knew how to win favour, whenever that had to be gained, by means of money. And
so it happened that he, after having secured also the goodwill of Octavian, was
declared at a formal session of the senate to be king of Judea. The appointment
was celebrated by a sacrifice at the capitol and a banquet by Antony.[483] [482]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 14. 1-3. Wars of the Jews, i. 14. 1-3. [483] Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 14. 4-5. Wars of the Jews, i. 14. 4. Compare Appian, v. 75 (see
above, p. 340).—The appointment falls under the year B.C. 40, during the
consulship of Cn. Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio (Antiq. xiv. 14. 5).
It must, however, have been very near the end of the year, for it was already
late in harvest when Herod took ship from Alexandria (Antiq. xiv. 14. 2; Wars of
the Jews, i. 14. 2). The statement of Josephus, that the appointment was made in
the 184th Olympiad (Antiq. xiv. 14. 5), is therefore incorrect, for that
Olympiad ended in the summer of B.C. 40. Also contemporary Roman history agrees
in setting the appointment in the autumn, since Antony and Octavian did not
reach Rome earlier than that. Compare Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione, pp. 360-366. Van der Chijs, De Herode Magno, pp. 31-35.—On the
other hand, it is certainly wrong, with Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen
Kalender, pp. 238-250, to place the appointment so late as autumn B.C. 39. From
the appointment to the actual possession of the office was now indeed a longer
and a more difficult step. For the time being the Parthians, and their protégé
Antigonus, still maintained their authority in the country. The Parthians were
indeed driven out of Syria in B.C. 39 by Ventidius, the legate of Antony (see
above, p. 341). But from Antigonus, Ventidius only exacted a heavy tribute, and
left him otherwise undisturbed. And Silo also, his lieutenant, pursued a similar
policy after the departure of Ventidius.[484] [484] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 14. 6;
Wars of the Jews, i. 15. 2. Dio Cassius xlviii. 41. This was the state of
matters when Herod, in B.C. 39, landed at Ptolemais. He quickly collected an
army; and as now Ventidius and Silo, at the command of Antony, supported him, he
soon made progress. First of all Joppa fell into his hands. Then also he gained
possession of Masada, where his relatives had hitherto been besieged. As he
succeeded, the number of his adherents increased, and he could even venture to
go to Jerusalem and lay siege to it. He made nothing, however, of this attempt
at the time, for the Roman troops of Silo, which were to have supported him,
assumed a stubborn and defiant attitude, and insisted upon withdrawing into
winter quarters.[485] [485] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i.
15. 3-6. In the spring of the year B.C. 38, the Parthians renewed the attack
upon Syria. While thus Ventidius and Silo had to go forth to fight against them,
Herod sought to subdue the country wholly under him, and to rescue it out of the
hands of many adventurers. Vast bands of brigands concealed themselves,
especially among the inaccessible caverns in the mountain gorges of Galilee. But
even of these Herod knew how to gain possession, for he let down his soldiers in
large chests (λάρνακες) from the lofty rocky peak, and thus secured for them an
entrance into the caves.[486] [486] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 5; Wars of the
Jews, i. 16. 4.—According to Antiq. xiv. 15. 4, and Wars of the Jews, i. 16. 2,
these caverns were situated in the neighbourhood of Arbela. The caves there
referred to are often elsewhere spoken of by Josephus (Antiq. xii. 11. 1; Life,
37). The description which he gives in Antiq. xiv. 15. 5, and in Wars of the
Jews, i. 16. 4, corresponds exactly with the actual character of the caves which
are to be seen at the present day in the neighbourhood of Jrbid (Arbed), not far
from the lake of Gennesareth, north-west of Tiberias. There can therefore be no
doubt that Jrbid is identical with Arbela and the caverns there with those
mentioned by Josephus. Compare Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol.
ii. 279, 280. Guérin, Galilee, i. 198-203. The Survey of Western Palestine;
Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 409-411 (description of Kulat Ibn Man, as
the rock fortress of the caverns is now called); and therewith the large English
map, Sheet vi. Frei, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, ix. 1886, p.
108 ff. Meanwhile, however, the Parthians were conquered by Ventidius on 9th
June B.C. 38. And that general then turned his attention against Antiochus of
Commagene, and laid siege to him in his capital of Samosata. During the siege
Antony himself arrived at Samosata. Herod could not let this opportunity escape
of speaking to his patron; for he had good grounds for complaining of the way in
which support had been withheld from him. He therefore now proceeded to Samosata
in order to pay his respects to Antony. He received him very graciously, and as
the surrender of Samosata soon afterwards took place, Antony instructed Sosius,
the successor of Ventidius, to afford efficient assistance to Herod.[487] [487]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 7-9; Wars of the Jews, i. 16. 6-7. In Palestine,
during the absence of Herod, matters were in a bad way. Joseph, the brother of
Herod, to whom he had in the meantime transferred the chief command, had been
attacked by an army of Antigonus, and was himself slain in the battle, and
Antigonus had ordered his head to be struck off. In consequence of these events,
the Galileans had seized the opportunity to rise again against Herod, and had
drowned his adherents in the lake of Gennesareth.[488] [488] Josephus, Antiq.
xiv. 15. 10; Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 1-2. A full report of all these
proceedings reached Herod at Antioch, and he now hastened to avenge the death of
his brother. Galilee was without difficulty reconquered. At Jericho he
encountered the army of Antigonus, but did not, it would seem, venture upon any
decisive engagement It was only when Antigonus divided his forces, and sent a
portion of his troops under Pappus to Samaria, that Herod courted a regular
contest. Pappus and Herod came together near Isana. The first attack was made by
Pappus, but he was utterly defeated by Herod, and driven into the city, where
all who had not managed to save themselves by flight were ruthlessly cut down.
Pappus himself there met his death. With the exception of the capital, all
Palestine thereby fell into the hands of Herod. Only the coming on of winter
hindered him from beginning immediately the siege of Jerusalem.[489] [489]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 11-13; Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 3-8.—Instead of ΙΣΑΝΑ
(Antiq. xiv. 15. 12), we have in Wars of the Jews, i. 17. 5, ΚΑΝΑ, which
evidently is simply a corruption of the text By a combination of the narratives
it appears that the place lay either in the south of Samaria or in the north of
Judea; for Pappus had been sent to Samaria, but Herod met him going against him
from Jericho. Our Isana is therefore undoubtedly to be identified with יְשָׁנָה,
which in 2 Chronicles 13:19 is mentioned along with Bethel (in Josephus, Antiq.
viii. 11. 3, Ἰσανά). The name is probably still preserved, as Clermont-Ganneau
conjectures, in the modern Ain Sinia, only a little to the north of Bethel.
Compare Clermont-Ganneau, Journal asiatique, septième série, t. ix. 1877, pp.
499-501. Quarterly Statements, 1877, p. 206 sq. Zeitschrift des DPV. i. 41 f.
Guérin, Samarie, ii. 38. The Survey of Western Palestine; Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, ii. 291, 302; and the large English map attached, Sheet xiv. In the
spring of B.C. 37, so soon as the season of the year admitted of it, Herod laid
siege to the capital, and began by the erection of military engines of assault.
When these were ready for operating, he left the army for a little while and
went to Samaria, in order there to celebrate his marriage with Mariamme, a
granddaughter of Hyrcanus, to whom he had been engaged for five years. This
engagement had been entered into in B.C. 42 (Antiq. xiv. 12. 1; Wars of the
Jews, i. 12. 3).[490] [490] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 15. 14; Wars of the Jews, i.
17. 8.—Mariamme (Μαριάμμη is not to be written Μαριάμνη) was a daughter of
Alexander, the son of Aristobulus II. and of Alexandra, a daughter of Hyrcanus
II. (Antiq. xv. 2. 5).—She was the second wife of Herod. His first wife was
called Doris, by whom he had one son called Antipater (Antiq. xiv. 12. 1). After
the celebration of the marriage he returned again to the camp. Sosius also now
appeared before Jerusalem with a great army; and Herod and Sosius made a joint
attack upon the city. They made their onslaught, as Pompey had done, from the
north. On this side mighty ramparts were raised, and against these the
battering-rams began to play. Forty days after the beginning of these
operations, the first rampart was taken; after fifteen days more the second also
fell. But the inner court of the temple and the upper city were always still in
the hands of the besieged. At last these too were stormed, and the besiegers now
went on murdering in the city all whom they could lay their hands upon.
Antigonus himself fell at the feet of Sosius and entreated of him mercy. The
Roman looked upon him with scorn, called him Antigone, and had him bound in
fetters. It was now Herod’s greatest care to rid himself as soon as possible of
his Roman friends. For the murdering and plundering that was going on in what
was now again his capital could not possibly be pleasing to him. By means of
rich presents he succeeded at last in inducing Sosius and his troops to take
their departure.[491] [491] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i.
17. 9, 18. 1-3. Dio Cassius, xlix. 22.—The date of the conquest of Jerusalem is
variously given by the two sources which we have at our disposal. Dio Cassius,
xlix. 22, places it in the consulship of Claudius and Norbanus in B.C. 38. He is
followed by Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. pp. 222 sq. (ad ann. 38), 299 eq.,
and Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 350, who adopt December B.C. 38 as the date
of the conquest. Josephus, on the other hand, says that it occurred under the
consulship of M. Agrippa and Caninius Gallus in B.C. 37 (Antiq. xiv. 16. 4). He
is followed by almost all the moderns. It is, in fact, quite clear that the
short and summary report of Dio Cassius cannot come into competition with the
detailed and circumstantial narrative of Josephus, which rests on thoroughly
good and reliable sources. But from the statement of Josephus it must certainly
be concluded that the fall of the city did not occur before B.C. 37. We know
that Pacorus was conquered by Ventidius on the 9th of June B.C. 38. Ventidius
thereupon directed his energies against Antiochus of Commagene, and besieged him
in Samosata. It was only after the siege had begun (compare especially Plutarch,
Antony, 34), therefore at the earliest in July B.C. 38, that Antony arrived at
Samosata. He there received the visit from Herod ; and when Samosata after a
long siege (Plutarch, Antony, 34: τῆς δὲ πολιορκίας μῆκος λαμβανούσης) had
capitulated, and he himself had again returned to Athens, he sent back Sosius
with orders to give assistance to Herod (Antiq. xiv. 15. 8-9). It must therefore
have been autumn of B.C. 38 before Herod received this support; and the
statement of Josephus puts it beyond question that a winter was past before the
conquest of Jerusalem was accomplished (Antiq. xiv. 15. 11: πολλοῦ χειμῶνος
καταρραγέντος; Antiq. xiv. 15. 12: χειμὼν ἐπέσχε βαθύς; then again, 15. 14:
λήξαντος δὲ τοῦ χειμῶνος; and finally, 16. 2: θέρος τε γὰρἦν). Accordingly the
conquest of Jerusalem cannot be assigned to an earlier date than the summer of
B.C. 37 (compare Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendation, pp. 366-371. Ideler,
Handbuch der Chronologie, ii. 390; and in opposition to Clinton, especially van
der Chijs, de Herode Magna, pp. 35-41; also Ewald, History of Israel, v. 416.
Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römischparthischen Feldzüge, 1879, pp.
61-65. Kellner in the Katholik, 1887, zweite Hälfte, pp. 65-75). But now the
opinions of scholars diverge from one another. Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 4, says
that the fall of the city took place τῇ ἑορτῇ τῆς νηστείας, by which undoubtedly
he means the great day of atonement, 10th Tischri=October. He is followed by van
der Chijs, Ewald, Kellner, etc. On the other hand, Herzfeld in particular, in
his paper in Frankel’s Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judenthums, 1885, pp. 109-115, entitled: Wann war die Eroberung Jerusalem’s
durch Pompejus, und wann die durch Herodes? has attempted to show that the
conquest took place earlier in the summer, and, indeed, the facts will oblige us
to assent to this conclusion. Herod certainly began the siege as soon as the
season of the year allowed (λήξαντος τοῦ χειμῶνος), that is probably in
February, at latest in March. Therefore, even although it is stated in the Wars
of the Jews, i. 18. 2, that the siege lasted for five months, it could scarcely
have been prolonged into October. It is much more probable that the fell of the
city occurred some time in July B.C. 37. The phrase ἑορτὴ τῆς νηστείας, which
Josephus met with in his pagan sources, may therefore refer, as in the case of
the conquest of Pompey, not to the day of atonement, but to an ordinary Sabbath
; for Dio Cassius here also again says that the city was taken ἐν τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου
ἡμέρᾳ (xlix. 22).—Yet the statement of Josephus is to be remembered, that the
capture took place τῷ τρίτῳ μηνί (Antiq. xiv. 16. 4). By this he certainly does
not mean the third month of the Olympiad year, as van der Chijs supposes, p. 35,
for the Greek months were never numbered ; but he intends either the third month
of the Jewish calendar, or the third month of the siege. Grätz, Geschichte,
iii., 4 Aufl. p. 196, and Hitzig, Geschichte, ii. 532, take the former view, and
so date the conquest of the city in June B.C. 37. But certainly this cannot have
been the meaning of Josephus, since at the same time he placcs the fall of the
city on the great day of atonement. It is therefore evident that by the phrase
employed he meant to indicate the third month of the siege. The three months,
then, are to be reckoned from the beginning of active operations (Antiq. xiv.
16. 2) ; the five months of the Wars of the Jews from the beginning of the
preparations (Antiq. xiv. 15. 14). Compare Herzfeld, Wann war die Eroberung, p.
113 f. The view of Gumpach. Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender, pp. 268-277, and
Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p.
20 ff., that the fall of the city did not take place before 718 A.U.C., or B.C.
36, is decidedly false, inasmuch as it is in opposition to all well-supported
chronological data. In this way was Herod, almost three years after his
appointment, enabled to enter on the actual possession of his sovereignty.
Antigonus was carried away by Sosius to Antioch, and there, in accordance with
the wish of Herod, he was by Antony’s orders led to the block. It was the first
time that the Romans had executed such a sentence on a king.[492] [492]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 4, xv. 1. 2, where Josephus also quotes a passage from
the now lost historical work of Strabo. Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 3. Dio Cassius,
xlix. 22. Plutarch. Antony, 36. The rule of the Asmonean dynasty was thus
brought to an end.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 34: � 15. HEROD THE GREAT, B.C. 37-4
========================================================================

§ 15. HEROD THE GREAT, B.C. 37-4 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xv., xvi., xvii. 1-8;
Wars of the Jews, i. 18-33. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 12-26 (summary of Josephus). On
the non-extant works of Herod, Ptolemy, Nicolas of Damascus, and Justus of
Tiberias, see above, pp. 56-69. The Rabbinical traditions are given in
DERENBOURG, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine (1867), pp.
149-165. The Coins are treated of in the most complete manner by MADDEN, Coins
of the Jews (1881), pp. 105-114. LITERATURE[493] [493] The older literature, of
which the most important is Noldii Historia Idumaea, is given in Winer,
Realwörterbuch, i. 483, 485 f. EWALD, History of Israel, v. 417-449. STANLEY,
Lectures on the Jewish Church, iii. 412-448. GEIKIE, The Life and Words of
Christ, 7th ed., 2 vols., London 1879, vol. i. pp. 33-63. FARRAR, Life of
Christ, 18th ed., London, 2 vols., vol. i. pp. 11-48. HAUSRATH, History of New
Testament Times, i. 207-ii. 57. LEWIN, Fasti sacri; or a Key to the Chronology
of the New Testament, 1865, pp. 62-127. VICKERS, The History of Herod, or
another look at a man emerging from twenty centuries of calumny. London 1885.
[An apology and defence!] GRÄTZ, Geschichte des Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp.
197-245. HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 534-559. SCHNECKENBURGER,
Zeitgeschichte, pp. 175-200. WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 481-483. ARNOLD in
Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. vi. 8-14. KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i.
233-253. In Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iii. 27-38. VAN DER CHIJS, Dissertatio
chronologico-historica de Herode Mayno, Judaeorum rege. Lugd. Bat. 1855. DE
SAULCY, Histoire d’Hérode, roi des Juifs. Paris 1867. SIEFFERT in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. vi. 47-55 REUSS, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften
A.T.’s 1881, § 541-545. MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, v. 503-507. KELLNER, Die
Regierungszeit des Herodes und ihre Dauer (Katholik, 1867, zweite Hälfte, pp.
64-82, 166-182). MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Sheet iv. Map of “Judea and Phoenicia after
the arrangement of M. Antony,” and Sheet v. Map of “Judea and neighbouring
countries at the time of the birth of Christ.”

|CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY.[494] [494] We prefix this chronological summary, because
in what follows the chronological order is not always adhered to. | B.C. A.U.C.
| | 37 717 |Conquest of Jerusalem, some time in July. Executions, Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 1. 2; compare xiv. 9. 4, fin.; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 4. | 36 718
|Hyrcanus II. returns from the Parthian imprisonment, Antiq. xv. 2. 1-4. | 35
719 |Beginning of the year: Aristobulus III., brother of Mariamme, is at the
instigation of his mother Alexandra nominated high priest by Herod, Antiq. xv.
2. 5-7, 3. 1.[495] [495] The appointment was made some time after Alexandra had
sent the portraits of Aristobulus and Mariamme to Antony in Egypt (Antiq. xv. 2.
6; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 3: εἰς Αἰγυπτον). Seeing, then, that Antony did not
go into Egypt until the end of B.C. 36 (see above, p. 342), the appointment
cannot have been earlier than the beginning of B.C. 35. End of the year :
Aristobulus III. is by Herod’s order, soon after the Feast of Tabernacles,
drowned in the bath at Jericho, τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην κατασχὼν ἐνιαυτόν, Antiq. xv.
3. 3 Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 2. | 34 720 |Herod is summoned by Antony to
Laodicea to answer for the death of Aristobulus, but is dismissed with Antony’s
favour, Antiq. xv. 3. 5 and 8. 9.[496] [496] Since Aristobulus, according to the
above statement, died in the end of the year B.C. 35, this summons to Laodicea
would fall in the spring of B.C. 34, when Antony undertook the expedition
against Armenia (Dio Cassius, xlix. 39); not, as we may assume, in B.C. 36, when
Antony went forth against the Parthians. The correct view is taken by van der
Chijs.—When Josephus says that then Antony went against the Parthians (Antiq.
xv. 3. 9), his statement is loose and inexact, but not altogether incorrect. For
Antony had, indeed, the design of going against the Parthians, see Dio Cassius,
xlix. 39. But Josephus is clearly in error when he names in Wars of the Jews, i.
18. 5, “Parthians” instead of “Armenians.”—The campaign ἐπὶ Πάρθους, referred to
in Antiq. xv. 3. 9, is therefore identical with the campaign ἐπʼ Ἀρμενίαν of
Antiq. xv. 4. 2. The impression given by Josephus, that two different
occurrences are there reported, probably results from his having used two
different sources. | 34 720 |Joseph, the husband of Herod’s sister Salome, is
executed, Antiq. xv. 3. 9. Antony presents to Cleopatra the Phoenician coasts,
with the exception of Tyre and Sidon, and portions of Arabia and Judea; the
region around Jericho being specially excepted, Antiq. xv. 4. 1-2; Wars of the
Jews, i. 18. 5.[497] [497] These presents are referred to by Plutarch, Antony,
36 (Φοινίκην, κοίλην Συρίαν, Κύπρον, Κιλικίας πολλήν, ἔτι δὲ τῆς τε Ἰουδαίων τὴν
τὸ βάλσαμον φέρουσαν καὶ τῆς Ναβαταίων Ἀραβίας ὅση πρὸς τὴν ἐντὸς ἀποκλίνει
θάλασσαν), and Dio Cassius, xlix. 32 (πολλὰ μὲν τῆς Ἀραβίας τῆς τε Μάλχου καὶ
τῆς τῶν Ἰτυραίων, τὸν γὰρ Λυσανίαν … ἀπέκτεινεν … πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῆς Φοινίκης τῆς
τε Παλαιστίνης, Κρήτης τέ τινα καὶ Κυρήνην τὴν τε Κύπρον). Both writers assign
these proceedings to the year B.C. 36. Plutarch indeed places the transaction
before the Parthian campaign; Dio Cassius, after the return from it. According
to Josephus, on the other hand, the presentation of portions of Arabia, Judea,
and Phoenicia took place in B.C. 34, when Antony was entertaining the idea of
going against Armenia. For that this campaign is intended in Antiq. xv. 4. 1-3;
Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5, cannot be doubted when we compare these passages
with Dio Cassius, xlix. 39-40. The date given by Plutarch and Dio Cassius
obtains an apparent confirmation from the statement of Porphyry, that Cleopatra
had reckoned the sixteenth year of her reign the first, because Antony in that
year, after the death of Lysimachus (it ought to be Lysanias), had gifted to her
the kingdom of Chalcis (Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 170: τὸ
δʼ ἑκκαιδέκατον ὠνομάσθη τὸ καὶ πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ τελευτήσαντος Λυσιμάχου [l.
Λυσανίου] τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ Χαλκίδος βασιλέως, Μάρκος Ἀντώνιος ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ τήν τε
Χαλκίδα καὶ τοὺς περὶ αὐτὴν τόπους παρέδωκε τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ). That this statement
of Porphyry is correct, is also proved by a coin and an inscription. On a coin
of Cleopatra the date is given: ἔτους καʹ τοῦ καὶ ςʹ θεᾶς (Letronne, Recueil des
inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Egypte, ii. 90; Sallet, Zeitschrift für
Numismatik, Bd. xiv. 1887, p. 379 f.); and on an inscription we have the date κʹ
τοῦ καὶ εʹ (Letronne, Recueil, ii. 125=Corpus Inscr. Graecorum, n.
4931-4932=Lepsius, Denkmüler aus Aegypten, Bd. xii. Blatt 88, Inscript. Graec.
n. 264, reviewed by Krall, Wiener Studien, Bd. v. 1883, p. 313 f.). Seeing,
then, that the sixteenth year of Cleopatra, according to the usual reckoning of
the years of her reign, corresponds to the year B.C. 36 (answering precisely to
the period from autumn B.C. 37 to autumn B.C. 36, see Letronne, ii. 98), her new
era begins with this same year, and it may safely be assumed that she obtained
the kingdom of Lysanias in B.C. 36. But on more exact investigation this
statement of Porphyry is found to favour, not that of Plutarch and Dio Cassius,
but rather that of Josephus. Why does Porphyry name only the kingdom of Chalcis,
and not also Phoenicia and the other countries which were far more important
than Chalcis? Evidently because Chalcis was the first present, while the others
were not bestowed till a later period. But this is just exactly what is assumed
by Josephus. When Herod had made answer for himself before Antony at Laodicea,
he wrote home an account of what had happened: Cleopatra’s schemes for obtaining
Judea were no longer to be dreaded, since she had received instead Coele-Syria
(Antiq. xv. 3. 8, fin.). When Cleopatra, however, soon renewed more successfully
her petitions to have Judea and Arabia given to her, the execution of Lysanias
had been already carried out (Antiq. xv. 4. 1). The cession to her of
Coele-Syria, by which is to be understood mainly the territory of Lysanias, thus
preceded the other gifts of countries. Plutarch and Dio Cassius group together
facts that belong to different periods of time. Josephus has given the more
exact statement. Compare on the donations of Antony to Cleopatra generally what
is said above, p. 344.—According to the conclusions which we have reached, the
presentations spoken of by Josephus, Antiq. xv. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i 18.
6, must be assigned to a date not much later than the audience of Herod with
Antony in Laodicea. Cleopatra with Herod in Jerusalem, Antiq. xv. 4. 2; Wars of
the Jews, i. 18. 5. | 32 722 |War of Herod with the Arabians, after the
out-break of hostilities between Antony and Octavian, Antiq. xv. 5. 1; Wars of
the Jews, i. 19. 1-3. Earthquake in Palestine, Antiq. xv. 5. 2; Wars of the
Jews, i. 19. 3: κατʼ ἔτος μὲν τῆς βασιλείας ἕβδομον, ἀκμάζοντος δὲ τοῦ περὶ
Ἄκτιον πολέμου, ἀρχομένου ἔαρος.[498] [498] The seventh year of Herod
corresponds to B.C. 31-30, and is to be reckoned from 1st Nisan to 1st Nisan.
See the note at the close of the section.—The earthquake, therefore, took place
in the Nisan of the year B.C. 31. Nisan is also elsewhere described as the
beginning of spring. See Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1 (ὑπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ἔαρος);
compare this with iv. 7. 3 (τετράδι Δύστρου). According to Mishna, Taanith i. 2,
Nederin viii. 5, Baba Mezia viii. 6, the rainy season is reckoned from the Feast
of Tabernacles to the Passover, therefore down to the middle or even to the end
of Nisan. | 32 722 |Herod conquers the Arabians, Antiq. xv. 5. 2-5; Wars of the
Jews, i. 19. 3-6. After the battle at Actium on 2nd September, Herod attached
himself to the party of Augustus, for he supported Didius in the struggle with
Antony’s gladiators; compare Antiq. xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 2. Also
above, p. 345. | 30 724 |Spring: Hyrcanus II. executed, Antiq. xv. 6. 1-4; Wars
of the Jews, i. 22. 1; πλείω μὲν ἢ ὀγδοήκοντα γεγονὼς ἐτύγχανεν ἔτη, Antiq. xv.
6. 3.[499] [499] Zonaras, Annales, v. 14, fin.: ἦν ἐτῶν ὀγδοήκοντα πρὸς ἑνί.
Also some of the manuscripts of Josephus have eighty-one. Herod visits Augustus
at Rhodes, and is by him made king, Antiq. xv. 6. 5-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20.
1-3. He attaches himself to Augustus on his march to Egypt at Ptolemais, Antiq.
xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3. Autumn: Herod visits Augustus in Egypt,
and gets Jericho back from him, as also Gadara, Hippo, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon,
Joppa, Straton’s Tower, Antiq. xv. 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3. End of the
year : he accompanies Augustus on his return from Egypt as far as Antioch.
Antiq. xv. 7. 4. | 29 725 |End of the year: Mariamme executed, Antiq. xv. 7.
4-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 3-5 (Antiq. xv. 7. 4: ἥ τε ὑποψία τρεφομένη
παρέτεινεν ἐνιαυτοῦ μῆκος, ἐξ οὗ παρὰ Καίσαρος Ἡρώδης ὑποστρέφει). | 28?
|Alexandra executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 8. | 25 729 |Costobar, the second husband of
Salome, and the sons of Babas, executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 10. The date is
discovered from the statement of Salome: ὅτι διασώζοιντο παρʼ αὐτῷ χρόνον
ἐνιαυτῶν ἤδη δώδεκα, that is, after the overthrow of Jerusalem in B.C. 37. | ?
|The four years’ contendings begun. Theatre and amphitheatre built in Jerusalem,
Antiq. xv. 8. 1. | ? |Conspiracy against Herod, Antiq. xv. 8. 3-4. | 27 727
|Samaria rebuilt and named in honour of Augustus Sebaste, Antiq. xv. 8. 5; Wars
of the Jews, i. 21. 2.[500] [500] The rebuilding of Samaria is by Noris, Annus
et epochae Syromacedonum, v. 5. 1, ed. Lips. pp. 531-536, and Eckhel, Doctrina
Num. iii. 440 sq., set down in the year A.U.C. 729, or B.C. 25. And it would at
least appear as if Josephus assigns it to the same year. Then immediately after
he has referred to it in xv. 8. 5, he proceeds in xv. 9. 1 to say: κατὰ τοῦτον
μὲν οὖν τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, τρισκαιδέκατον ὄντα τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας. But the
thirteenth year of Herod began on 1st Nisan A.U.C. 729, or B.C. 25. The coins of
Samaria, however, employ an earlier epoch (see especially, Mionnet, Description
de médailles antiques, v. 513-516, Supplément, viii. 356-359, and de Saulcy,
Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 275-281). Even the coins of Caracalla with
the date 242 (Mionnet, Supplément, viii. 358=de Saulcy, p. 280) carry as as far
back as the spring of the year 729; for Caracalla was murdered in April A.U.C.
970. We are carried still farther back by a coin of Nero with the date 94
(Mionnet, Supplemént, viii 357). From this coin it is evident that the epoch of
Samaria began before June 728 A.U.C.; for Nero died in June A.U.C. 821. The
reading of the year-number 94 is not altogether certain (de Saulcy, p. 276 sq.);
yet a principal reason why de Saulcy suspects the correctness of the reading is,
that the year-number 94 is not reconcilable with the assumed epoch of B.C. 25.
On the other side, we are not led much farther back, that is, not farther back
than to the 16th January 727 A.U.C., on which day Augustus first assumed the
title Σεβαστός, after which the city was named (see Mommsen, Corpus Inscript.
Lat. t. i. p. 384; Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, p. 149; Römisches
Staatsrecht, ii. 2. 708). Moreover, a coin of Julia Domna, wife of Septimus
Severus, with the year-number 220 (Mionnet, v. 514 f.=de Saulcy, p. 279), proves
that the epoch of the city began in any case after the summer of A.U.C. 726, for
Septimus Severus did not come to the throne before the summer of A.U.C. 946. If
we assume, therefore, that the epoch of Samaria, like that of most Syrian
cities, began in autumn, we may set down autumn of A.U.C. 727 as the epoch. The
rebuilding of Samaria took place, therefore, probably in the year 727, in any
case before the spring of 729, i.e. before the thirteenth year of Herod. But
this contradiction between the coins and what seems to be the chronology of
Josephus is not the only difficulty which meets us. Costobar’s execution,
according to Antiq. xv. 7. 10, occurred in the thirteenth year of Herod.
Thereupon a whole series of events is recorded in xv. 8. 1-5, which could not
possibly have occurred in the space of one year. And yet, when we pass on to xv.
9. 1, we find that we are always still within this thirteenth year of Herod.
From this it follows that the whole section xv. 8. 1-5 is evidently arranged
according to the subject-matter, for Josephus here brings together statements to
show how Herod by illegal procedure created opposition and gave offence, how the
dissatisfaction of the people expressed itself in words and deeds, and what
concessions Herod made in order to soothe the excitement of the multitude. If we
consider all this, and remember that Josephus gathered his materials from
various sources (see above, p. 88), it becomes in the highest degree probable
that in the principal document used by Josephus, the section xv. 9. 1 was
attached immediately to xv. 7. 10; that, on the other hand, xv. 8.1-5 is
interpolated from another document, and that the words κατὰ τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν
ἐνιαυτόν, etc., have been taken over by Josephus unchanged from his principal
document, and that it is connected in its text, not with the time of the
rebuilding of Samaria, but with the time of Costobar’s execution. In this way a
solution is found for all difficulties. | 25 729 |Famine and pestilence (κατὰ
τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, τρισκαιδέκατον ὄντα τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας =B.C.
25-24, from Nisan to Nisan), Antiq. xv. 9. 1. The famine continues also into the
following year, B.C. 24-23, Antiq. xv. 9. 1, when Petronius was governor of
Egypt, Antiq. xv. 9. 2. | 25 729 |Herod sends 500 men as auxiliaries to the
expedition of Aelius Gallus against Arabia, Antiq. xv. 9. 3 ; compare Strabo,
xvi. 4. 23, p. 780: συμμάχων, ὧν ἦσαν Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν πεντακόσιοι.—The campaign
ended in the following year, B.C. 24, disastrously, and without any appreciable
results.[501] [501] The most detailed description of the campaign is given by
Strabo, xvi. 4. 22-24, pp. 780-782 ; while it is reported more briefly by Dio
Cassius, liii. 29 ; Pliny, Historia, Naturalis, vi. 28. 160 sq.; Monumentum
Ancyranum, v. 18 eq. (in Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, p.
105).—Compare generally, Krüger, Der Feldzug des Aelius Gallus nach dem
glücklichen Arabien unter Kaiser Augustus (62, p. 8), Wismar 1862 ; Mommsen, Res
gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, 1883, pp. 105-109; Römische Geschichte, v. 608 ff.;
Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 1883, pp. 198-201; Joh.
Schmidt, Philologus, Bd. xliv. 1885, pp. 463-469; Schiller, Jahresbericht über
die Fortschritte der class. Altertumswissenschaft, Bd. xlviii. pp. 251-257. For
the geographical particulars, besides what is given in Schiller, Kaiserzeit, i.
201, compare the well-known works of Forster, Mannert, and Ritter, and
especially Fresnel, Journal asiatique, troisième série, t. x. 1840, pp. 83-96,
177-181; Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii. 748 ff.; Sprenger, Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society, new series, vol. vi. 1873, pp. 121-141; Die alte
Geographie Arabiens, 1875, pp. 226-229 ; Kiepert, Lehrbuch der alten Geographie,
1878, p. 187.—Dio Cassius placcs the whole campaign within the tenth consulship
of Augustus, B.C. 24, or A.U.C. 730. But, according to Strabo, the campaign
proper did not begin until the year after Aelius Gallus had pushed on to Leuke
Kome with great loss, and had there, in consequence of the numerous invalids in
hie army, been obliged to spend the winter (Strabo, xvi. 4. 24, p. 781:
ἠναγκάσθη γοῦν τό τε θέρος καὶ τὸν χειμῶνα διατελέσαι αὐτόθι τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας
ἀνακτώμενος). The whole campaign, therefore, embraccd the years B.C. 25-24. This
may be accepted as certain. It is on the other hand, questionable whether Aelius
Gallus conducted the expedition as governor of Egypt, and was followed in that
office by Petronius, or whether, on the contrary, Petronius was at the time of
the Arabian campaign governor of Egypt, and was followed in that office by
Gallus. We know definitely that both held the office of praefectus Aegypti (see
on Aelius Gallus, Strabo, pp. 118 and 806 ; Dio Cassius, liii. 29; on Petronius,
Strabo, pp. 788 and 819; Dio Cassius, liv. 5; Pliny, vi. 29. 181). We know
further that Petronius undertook several expeditions against the Ethiopians
which happened to occur just at the same time as the expedition of Gallus
against Arabia (Monumentum Ancyranum, v. 18 sq.: “Meo jussu et auspicio ducti
sunt duo exercitus eodem fere tempore in Aethiopiam et in Arabiam quae
appellatur eudaemon;” Strabo, xvii. 1. 54, p. 820 sq.; Dio Cassius, liv. 5;
Pliny, Historia Naturalis, vi. 29. 181 sq.; according to Strabo, the Ethiopians
had made an attack upon the Thebaid, when the garrison of Egypt was weakened by
the withdrawal of the troops of Aelius Gallus; and thus the expedition of
Petronius became necessary. Dio Cassius placcs this occurrence in B.C. 22).
Krüger and Schiller now assume that Aelius Gallus undertook the expedition
against Arabia, not as governor of Egypt, but under a special commission, and
that only after his return from the campaign did he receive the governorship of
Egypt in succession to Petronius. Mommsen and Schmidt, on the other hand,
maintain that Aelius Gallus directed the Arabian campaign as governor of Egypt,
and that Petronius was his successor in Egypt. This latter view is supported by
these two considerations : 1. Dio Cassius, liii. 29, expressly designates Gallus
at the time of the Arabian expedition ὁ τῆς Αἰγύπτου ἄρχων. 2. Dio Cassius
placcs the Ethiopian campaign two years later than the Arabian, the latter in 24
B.C., the former 22 B.C. Since, then, according to Strabo, there are certainly
two Ethiopian campaigns of Petronius to be distinguished from one another, these
would fall in B.C. 23-22, or perhaps B.C. 24-22. In the second half of the year
B.C. 24, Petronius may be supposed to have succeeded Gallus as governor of
Egypt, after having been already for some time his substitute and representative
(so also Haakh in Pauly’s Encyclofaedie, v. 1401). | ? |Herod builds for himself
a royal palace, and marries the priest’s daughter, Mariamme, Antiq. xv. 9. 3
(the name: Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, 29. 2, 30. 7). The building of Caesarea
is begun, Antiq. xv. 9. 6. Since the building after twelve years’ labour was
completed in B.C. 10, the works must have been begun in B.C. 22. | 23 731 |The
sons of the first Mariamme, Alexander and |

|Aristobulus, are sent to Rome for their education, Antiq. xv. 10. 1. Augustus
bestows upon Herod the provinces of Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis, Antiq.
xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4 (μετὰ τὴν πρώτην Ἀκτιάδα).[502] [502] The
games at Actium were celebrated on 2nd September for the first time in B.C. 28,
then in the years B.C. 24, 20, 16, etc. That enlargement of territory therefore
took place “after the course of the first Actiad had run,” i.e. in the end of
B.C. 24 or beginning of B.C. 23. See Zumpt, Commentt. epigraph. ii. 76. | 22 732
|Herod visits Agrippa in Mytilene in Lesbos, Antiq. xv. 10. 2.[503] [503]
Josephus only says, Herod visited Agrippa περὶ Μυτιλήνην χειμάζοντα. Since
Agrippa was in Mytilene from spring B.C. 23 till spring B.C. 21, this may have
been the winter of B.C. 23-22 or of B.C. 22-21. | 20 734 |Augustus comes to
Syria and bestows upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3: ἤδη
αὐτοῦ τῆς βασιλείας ἑπτακαιδεκάτου παρελθόντος ἔτους (the seventeenth year of
Herod extended to 1st Nisan at the end of the year B.C. 20); Wars of the Jews,
i. 20. 4: ἔτει δεκάτῳ πάλιν ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν ἐπαρχίαν (also reckoned from the end
of the year B.C. 30).—Dio Cassius, liv. 7, places the visit of Augustus to Syria
in the consulship of M. Appuleius and P. Silius, A.U.C. 734.—Also Dio Cassius,
liv. 9, makes mention of that presentation. Pheroras appointed tetrarch of
Perea, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 5; compare i. 30. 3. Herod
remits one-third of the taxes, Antiq. xv. 10. 4. Begins the temple building,
Antiq. xv. 11. 1: ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας γεγονοτος ἐνιαυτοῦ=B.C.
20-19.[504] [504] According to Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1, the building was
begun in the fifteenth year, which either is wrong, or refers to the earlier
preparations for the building. That the building of the temple began in the year
B.C. 20-19 is quite certain, from the fact that it was begun in the same year in
the beginning of which the emperor went to Syria, which, according to Dio
Cassius, liv. 7, was in the spring or summer of B.C. 20.—The building of the
court of the temple occupied eight years, the building of the temple proper a
year and a half (Antiq. xv. 11. 5-6; it is not clear whether these 8 + 1½ years
are to be added, or whether the latter period is to be regarded as identical
with the first year and a half of the whole building period). After the
completion of the temple a great festival was celebrated. Seeing that it
synchronized with the day of Herod’s ascending the throne (Antiq. xv. 11. 6),
the temple building, if we are right in setting down the date of Herod’s
accession at July, must have been begun in winter, therefore in the end of the
year B.C. 20, A.U.C. 734, or in the beginning of B.C. 19, A.U.C. 735.—When it is
therefore declared in John 2:20 at the time of the Passover that the temple had
been forty-six years in building (τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν ᾠκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς
οὗτος), this means that the forty-sixth year was regarded as running or as
completed at the Passover of A.U.C. 780=A.D. 27, or A.U.C. 781=A.D. 28. The
latter is more probably the correct date. See Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis,
p. 187; Beiträge, p. 156 ff.; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. pp.
11-13. | 18 or 17 |Herod fetches his sons Alexander and Aristobulus home from
Rome: the first Roman voyage of Herod,[505] Antiq. xvi. 1. 2.—Since Herod met
Augustus in Italy, and as Augustus did not return to Italy before the summer of
B.C. 19, the journey of Herod must be placed at the earliest in the middle of
the year B.C. 19, and at latest before the summer of B.C. 16, since Augustus was
in Gaul from the summer of B.C. 16 till the spring of B.C. 13.[506] [505] That
is to say, from the time of his ascending the throne, and so without taking into
consideration his journey in the year B.C. 40-39. [506] Noris, Cenotaphia
Pisana, Diss. ii. cap. 6, pp. 150-153, places the journey of Herod in question
in the year A.U.C. 737, or B.C. 17. For the chronology of the history of
Augustus, see the argument in Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 395 f. | 15 739
|Agrippa visits Herod in Jerusalem, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1 (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, §
37, ed. Mangey, ii. 589).—He left Judea again before the end of the year:
ἐπιβαίνοντος τοῦ χειμῶνος.[507] [507] Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 402, and
van der Chijs, p. 55, set the visit of Agrippa in the year B.C. 17, and the
return visit of Herod in the year B.C. 16, because they proceed on the
assumption that Agrippa went to Palestine immediately after his arrival in the
East. But Josephus by no means says so, and it is not at all certain that
Agrippa had even arrived in the East in B.C. 17, since, according to the
indefinite statement of Dio Cassius, liv. 19, this may have occurred in B.C. 16
just as likely as in B.C. 17. But that Agrippa came into Palestine first in B.C.
15, and that Herod first visited Agrippa in Asia Minor in B.C. 14, is proved
from this, that Herod then met Agrippa at Sinope on his expedition to the
Crimea, which campaign, according to Dio Cassius, liv. 24, took place in B.C.
14. So also Lewin, Fasti sacri, p. 97; Hitzig, ii. 548, and Keim in
Bibel-lexicon, iii. 33. | 14 740 |Herod with Agrippa in Asia Minor, Antiq. xvi.
2. 2-5 (ἔαρος ἠπείγετο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ). Compare also: Antiq. xii. 3. 2; Nicolas
of Damascus in Müller, Fragment. Hist. Graecor. iii. 350. After his return he
remits a fourth part of the taxes, Antiq. xvi. 2. 5. Beginning of quarrels with
the sons of Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus.—Antipater brought to the court,
Antiq. xvi. 3. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 1. | 13 741 |Antipater is sent with
Agrippa to Rome that he might be presented to the emperor, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3;
Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 2. (On the date compare: Dio Cassius, liv. 28; Fischer,
Zeittafeln, p. 408.) | 12 742 |Herod goes with his sons Alexander and
Aristobulus to Rome in order to accuse them before the emperor. Herod’s second
Roman journey. He meets the emperor at Aquileia. Augustus reconciles the
discord.—Antipater returns back with them to Judea, Antiq. xvi. 4. 1-6; Wars of
the Jews, i. 23. 3-5.[508] [508] Even early writers such as Noris, Cenotaphia
Pisana, Diss. ii. cap. 6, pp. 153-157, and Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione, p. 334 sq., placed this journey of Herod correctly in the year B.C.
12, or A.U.C. 742. So too, e.g. Zumpt, Caesaris Augusti index rerum a se
gestarum sive Monumentum Ancyranum, ed. Franz et Zumpt, 1845, p. 59, and
Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, 1883, p. 61. Quite decisive in this
matter is the fact that during Herod’s presence at that time in Rome, Augustus
had the games celebrated, and “distributed presents among the Roman people”
(Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 4. 5: Ἡρώδης μὲν ἐδωρεῖτο Καίσαρα τριακοσίοις ταλάντοις
θέας τε καὶ διανομὰς ποιούμενον τῷ Ῥωμαίων δήμῳ). In Monumentum Ancyranum, iii.
7-21 (in Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, p. 58 sq.), Augustus gives a
complete and chronologically arranged list of the largesses (congiaria) which he
had distributed among the people during his reign (compare on these congiaria of
the Roman emperors, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876, p. 132
ff.). They are eight in all. The fifth took place during the twelfth year of the
tribunate of Augustus (tribunicia potestate duodecimum, i.e. between June 742
and June 743 A.U.C. Compare on the reckoning of the tribunicial years of
Augustus, Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. p. 753 ff.); the sixth did not
occur till the eighteenth tribunicial year and the twelfth consulship of
Augustus (tribuniciae potestatis duodevicensimum, consul. xii.; the latter
corresponding to A.U.C. 749, or B.C. 5). Between these two terms, therefore, no
donation of this sort had been made. The date of the former can be still more
exactly fixed at the year 742, for in that year it is placed by Dio Cassius,
liv. 29, and also by an Inscription Fragment (Fasti Ripatransonenses, see Corpus
Inscript. Lat. t. i. p. 472=t. ix. n. 5289). It belongs, therefore, to the
second half of the year A.U.C. 742, or B.C. 12. Its amount was very munificent.
At least 250,000 citizens received 400 sesterces, or 100 denaria each, so that
in all at least 25 millions of sesterces were distributed, amounting to about
£1,000,000 sterling.—Since in the case before us it cannot be the donation of
the year B.C. 5 that is meant, we can only identify it with that of B.C. 12.
That in this year Augustus arrived at Aquileia is not indeed proved by any
direct evidence, but it may very well have been so, in consequence of the
Pannonian campaign of Tiberius, which occurred in that year (Dio Cassius, liv.
31; compare Suetonius, Augustus, 20: “Reliqua [bella] per legatos administravit,
ut tamen quibusdam Pannonicis atque Germanicis aut interveniret aut non longe
abesset Ravennam vel Mediolanium vel Aquileiam usque ab urbe progrediens”). The
games which Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 4. 5, speaks of alongside of the διανομαί, are
not indeed those which Augustus gave in the year 742 at the festival of the
Roman “Panathanaea” (quinquatrus) in March (Dio Cassius, liv. 28), since those
referred to by Josephus must have occurred later. And just inasmuch as,
according to Dio Cassius, liv. 29, the congiaria of this year were occasioned by
Agrippa’s death, so also among the games were those connected with Agrippa’s
financial obsequies, not indeed celebrated until five years afterwards, but
having certainly preparations made for them even then (so Mommsen after Dio
Cassius, Leviticus 8). In the first edition of this work I had, in agreement
with van der Chijs, assigned the journey of Herod to Rome, now under
consideration, to the year B.C. 10, inasmuch as Dio Cassius, liv. 36, relates of
this year, but not expressly of the year B.C. 12, that Augustus was absent from
Rome, by which his presence at Aquileia can be accounted for. But this argument
cannot hold ground against that drawn from the presents. No more weight can be
laid upon the fact that Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1, says that about this time
the rebuilding of Caesarea was celebrated (περὶ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον), which
certainly did not take place before B.C. 10. | 10 744 |The celebration of the
completion of the building of Caesarea fell εἰς ὄγδοον καὶ εἰκοστὸν ἔτος τῆς
ἀρχῆς=B.C. 10-9, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1; after it had been twelve years in building,
Antiq. xv. 9. 6: ἐξετελέσθη δωδεκαετεῖ χρόνῳ (xvi. 5. 1 says: ten years, which
is certainly wrong). On the building, compare also Wars of the Jews, i 21. 5-8.
| ? |The quarrel in Herod’s family becomes more and more bitter and complicated,
Antiq. xvi. 7. 2-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 1-6. | ? |Herod by torturing
Alexander’s dependants seeks to fasten guilt upon him; Alexander is cast into
prison, Antiq. xvi. 8. 1-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 7-8. | 10 ? |Archelaus,
king of Cappadocia, Alexander’s father-in-law, effects once more a
reconciliation between Herod and his sons, Antiq. xvi. 8. 6; Wars of the Jews,
i. 25. 1-6. Herod’s third journey to Rome, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1.[509] [509] The date
of this third journey cannot be more exactly determined. In the first edition of
this work I assigned it, with Noris and van der Chijs, to the year B.C. 8. Noris
(who in his Cenotaphia Pisana, Diss. ii. cap. 6, p. 157 sq., declares a precise
determination of the date impossible, but then in Diss. ii. cap. 16, § 9, p.
303, decides for that date) regards the fact decisive that Herod had met
Augustus in Rome, whereas in the years B.C. 10 and 9 he had been absent from
Rome. But he was by no means absent from Rome during the whole of these years.
Van der Chijs, p. 57 f., borrows his chief argument from Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, i. 21. 12. According to the statement made there, Herod once on his way to
Rome was made judge in the Olympian games. The Olympian games were celebrated in
B.C. 20, 16, 12, 8, etc. Since now, according to van der Chijs, the earlier
journeys did not by any means occur in any of these years, the reference can
only be to this last journey, which therefore falls in B.C. 8. But we have shown
in the previous note that the second journey took place in B.C. 12. The subject
has been treated in the most complete manner by Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione, p. 338 sqq. He comes to the conclusion that the journey of Herod in
question is to be placed in the year B.C. 10 mainly for this reason, that the
events which were transacted between that time and the departure of the Syrian
governor, Sentius Saturninus, required a period of at least three full years (p.
340a: “ad minus integrum triennium exposeunt”). But Saturninus did not take his
departure later than in the first half of the year B.C. 6 (see above, p. 351).
The arguments of Sanclemente are in fact interesting, but not quite convincing.
It is still quite possible that this journey of Herod was made in B.C. 9. | 9 ?
|Campaign against the Arabians, Antiq. xvi. 9. 2. | 8 ? |Herod in disfavour with
Augustus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 3. Herod having extorted by torture damaging statements
against Aristobulus and Alexander, has them cast into prison, and accuses them
to Augustus of high treason, Antiq. xvi. 10. 3-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 26. 3,
27. 1. | 7 ? |Augustus, having again become favourable to Herod through the good
offices of Nicolaus of Damascus (Antiq. xvi. 10. 8-9), gives him full power to
deal with his sons according to his own discretion, Antiq. xvi. 11. 1; Wars of
the Jews, i. 27. 1. Alexander and Aristobulus condemned to death at Berytus, and
strangled at Sebaste (Samaria), Antiq. xvi. 11. 2-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 27.
2-6.[510] [510] Since at the time of his condemnation (Antiq. xvi. 11. 3), and
also for some time after (Antiq. xvii. 1. 1, 2. 1, 3. 2), Saturninus was
governor of Syria, the condemnation must have taken place in the year B.C. 7,
for Saturninus went away from Syria not later than in the first half of the year
B.C. 6 (see above, p. 351). This also is the opinion of Sanclemente (De vulgaris
aerae emendatione, p. 346): “Beryti concilium habitum fuit labente anno U.C.
Varr. 747.” Antipater all-powerful at Herod’s court, Antiq. xvii. 1. 1, 2. 4;
Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 1, 29. 1. Executions of suspected Pharisees, Antiq.
xvii. 2. 4. | 6 ? |Antipater goes to Rome, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews,
i. 29. 2. First testament or will of Herod, in which he named Antipater, or if
he should die before himself, Herod, the son of the second Mariamme, his
successor, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 2. | 5 749 |Beginning of
the year: Pheroras, Herod’s brother, dies, Antiq. xvii. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews,
i. 29. 4. Herod discovers Antipater’s hostile designs, Antiq. xvii. 4. 1-2; Wars
of the Jews, i. 30. 1-7. Antipater returns again to Judea, Antiq. xvii. 5. 1-2;
Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 3-5; seven months after Herod had made that discovery,
Antiq. xvii. 4. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 2. Antipater on his trial; seeks in
vain to justify himself, and is put in chains, Antiq. xvii. 5. 3-7; Wars of the
Jews, i. 32. 1-5. Herod reports the matter to the emperor, Antiq. xvii. 5. 7-8;
Wars of the Jews, i 32. 5. Herod is ill and makes his second testament, in which
he appoints his youngest son Antipater his successor, Antiq. xvii. 6. 1; Wars of
the Jews, i. 33. 5. | 4 750 |Revolt of the people under the rabbis Judas and
Matthias rigorously suppressed by Herod, Antiq. xvii 6. 2-4; Wars of the Jews,
i. 33. 1-4. Herod’s illness becomes more severe, Antiq. xvii. 6. 5; Wars of the
Jews, i. 33. 5. Antipater, after leave had been obtained from the emperor, is
executed, Antiq. xvii. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7. Herod again changes his
will, for he appoints Archelaus king, and Antipas and Philip tetrarchs, Antiq.
xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7. Herod dies five days after the execution
of Antipater, βασιλεύσας μεθʼ ὃ μὲν ἀνεῖλεν Ἀντίγονον, ἔτη τέσσαρα καὶ
τριάκοντα, μεθʼ ὃ δὲ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων ἀπεδέδεικτο, ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα, Antiq. xvii.
8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8.[511] [511] In regard to the year of Herod’s
death, see the note at the close of this section. | Herod[512] was born to be a
ruler. Blessed by nature with a powerful body capable of enduring fatigue, he
early inured himself to all manner of hardships. He was a skilful rider, and a
bold, daring huntsman. He was feared in pugilistic encounters. His lance was
unerring, and his arrow seldom missed its mark.[513] He was practised in the art
of war from his youth. Even in his twenty-fifth year he had won renown by his
expedition against the robbers of Galilee. And then again, in the later period
of his life, when over sixty years of age, he led in person the campaign against
the Arabians.[514] Rarely did success forsake him where he himself conducted any
warlike undertaking. [512] The name Ἡρώδης (from ὕρως) occurs also previously,
see Corpus Inscript. Graec., Index, p. 92; Pape-Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech.
Eigennamen, s.v.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 481, Anm. 4. We have also some
fragments of an old Iambic poet called Herod (see Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie,
iii. 1236; Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, ii. 300). There is still
extant a celebrated oration, περὶ τοῦ Ἡρώδου φόνου, by the Attic orator
Antiphon, of the fifth century before Christ (see Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i.
1, 2 Aufl. p. 1154 f.). In the year B.C. 60 we find an archon at Athens bearing
the name of Herod (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 182). In Cicero’s letters an
Athenian Herod is frequently mentioned, who was the teacher of Cicero’s son
(Cicero, ad Atticum, ii. 2. 2, xiv. 16. 3, xv. 16. A.). In the second century
after Christ lived the celebrated Herod Atticus, the teacher of the Emperor
Marcus Aurelius (see, in reference to him, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2
Aufl. pp. 2096-2104).—Since the name is undoubtedly contracted from Ἡρωίδης, the
writing of it with the iota subscribed is to be preferred (Ἡρῴδης). On
inscriptions the form Ηρωιδης is met with (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 3155,
4893; Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 3); also Ηρωιδας (Corpus
Inscript. Graec. n. 2197c. [t. ii. p. 1028], n. 5774, 5775, lin. 180); also
Ηρωιδειος (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 5774, 5775, lin. 15, 42, 55, 87, 89, 114);
also Ειρωιδας (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 1574). The Etymologicum magnum, ed.
Gaisford, p. 437, 56, says, s.v. Ηρωιδης· Ἔχει τὸ ι προσγεγραμμένον, etc. This
mode of writing is adopted by Lobeck, Paralip. gramm. graec. p. 229; Pathologiae
graeci sermonis elementa, i. 280. It is employed throughout by Westcott and Hort
in their edition of the Greek New Testament. Compare their remark, vol. ii. p.
314: “Ἡρῴδης is well supported by inscriptions, and manifestly right;” and
Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Novum, Testamentum, ed. crit. octava
major, p. 109. That the later inscriptions (see the proof in Corpus Inscript.
Graec., Index, p. 92) and the coins invariably give the form Ηρωδης, affords no
evidence to the contrary, since it was not customary on inscriptions or coins to
insert the Iota subscriptum. [513] Compare generally the description given in
Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 13. [514] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 2. His character was
wild and passionate, harsh and unbending. Fine feelings and tender emotions were
strange to him. Wherever his own interests seemed to demand it, he carried
matters through with an iron hand, and scrupled not to shed streams of blood
that he might reach his object Even his nearest relatives, even his most
passionately loved wife, he could not spare, so soon as the wish arose in him.
He was, besides, cunning and adroit, and rich in devices. He understood
thoroughly what measures should be taken to suit the circumstances of each
changing day. Hard and unpitying as he was toward all who fell into his power,
he was cringing and servile before those that were high in place. His glance was
wide enough in its range, and his judgment sufficiently keen to perceive that in
the circumstances of the world at that time nothing was to be reached except
through the favour and by the help of the Romans. It was therefore an unvarying
principle of his policy to hold firmly by the Roman alliance under all
circumstances and at any cost. And he knew how to carry out this principle
happily and cleverly. Thus in his composition were linked together cunning and
energy. But these most conspicuous characteristics of his nature were set in
motion by an insatiable ambition. All his devices and endeavours, all his plans
and actions, were aimed directly toward the one end: the extending of his power,
his dominion, his glory.[515] This powerful lever kept all his powers in
restless activity. Difficulties and hindrances were for him so much greater
inducement to put forth more strength. And this indefatigableness, this
unwearied striving, continued to characterize him in extreme old age. [515]
Compare the sketch of Herod’s character given by Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 4.
Only by a combination of all these characteristics was it possible to attain to
such greatness, as he unquestionably reached, amid the perilous circumstances of
his times. His reign falls into three periods.[516] The first period, which
reaches from B.C. 37 to B.C. 25, is the period of the consolidation of his
power. He has still to contend with many hostile powers, but goes forth at last
from the conflict victorious over them all. The second period, from B.C. 25 to
B.C. 13, is the period of his prosperity. The friendship of Rome has reached its
highest point. Agrippa visits Herod in Jerusalem. Herod is repeatedly received
by the emperor. It is at the same time the period of great buildings,
preeminently the work of peace. The third period, from B.C. 13 to B.C. 4, is the
period of domestic trouble. Everything else now passes out of view in presence
of the disturbances in Herod’s own house. [516] Compare Keim in Bibellexicon. He
distributes the periods, however, somewhat differently. Also Ewald makes three
sections, v. 422-429, 429-437, 437-449. I In the first period of his reign Herod
had to contend with many powerful adversaries: the people, the nobles, the
Asmonean family, and—Cleopatra. The people, who were wholly in the hands of the
Pharisees, tolerated only with deep aversion the dominion of the Idumean,
half-Jew and friend of the Romans.[517] It must have been Herod’s first care to
secure their obedience. By the utmost rigour he was able to reduce the
rebellious elements; while he won the more pliant by bestowing on them favours
and honours. Even of the Pharisees themselves two performed good services for
Herod—Polio (Abtalion) and his scholar Sameas (Shemaia or Shammai). They saw in
the dominion of the foreigner a judgment of God, which as such they were under
obligation patiently to bear.[518] [517] Herod is called Ἡμιιουδαῖος in Antiq.
xiv. 15. 2. The Idumeans had been converted only by John Hyrcanus. See above, p.
280. On the ancestry of Herod, see above, p. 314. [518] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 1.
1; compare xiv. 9. 4, fin. On Polio and Sameas, see Div. ii. vol. i. 358, 359.
Among the nobles of Jerusalem there were numerous adherents of Antigonus. Herod
delivered himself from them by executing forty-five of the most wealthy and the
most prominent of their number. By confiscating their property he gained
possession of abundance of money, which he employed so as to secure a firmer
hold upon his patron Antony.[519] [519] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 1. 2; compare xiv.
9. 4, fin.; Wars of the Jews, i. 18 4. Of the members of the Asmonean family, it
was particularly Alexandra, Herod’s mother-in-law, the mother of Mariamme, who
pursued him with unremitting enmity. The aged Hyrcanus had indeed returned from
his Parthian exile;[520] but he was before that time on good terms with Herod.
And this good understanding still continued undisturbed. Since he could not,
owing to his physical mutilation, enter again on the high priest’s office, Herod
chose as high priest an utterly unknown and insignificant Babylonian Jew of the
saccrdotal family called Ananel.[521] But even this was considered by Alexandra
an infringement of Asmonean privileges. According to her view, it was her young
son Aristobulus, brother of Mariamme, who alone was entitled to the high
priest’s office. She therefore set every wheel in motion in order to secure her
rights. In particular, she applied to Cleopatra, urging her to exert her
influence upon Antony, so as to force Herod to appoint Aristobulus high priest.
Mariamme also pressed her husband with petitions in favour of her brother. Thus
Herod at last felt himself obliged to set aside Ananel (which was unlawful,
inasmuch as the high priest held his office for life), and in the beginning of
B.C. 35 made young Aristobulus high priest, who was now only in his seventeenth
year.[522] [520] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 2. 1-4. [521] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 2.
4.—Herod could not himself assume the position, since he was not even a
fall-born Jew, let alone a member of the saccrdotal family. [522] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 2. 5-7, 3. 1.—In respect to the chronology, I refer once for all to
the previous summary. The peace, however, was not of long duration. Herod saw,
and not without reason, in all the members of the Asmonean family his natural
enemies. He could not rid himself of suspicion and distrust, especially in
regard to Alexandra, and he kept a careful watch upon her proceedings. This
constant espionage Alexandra found intolerable, and thought to escape such
supervision by flight. The coffins were already prepared in which she and her
son Aristobulus were to have had themselves carried out of the city and thence
to the sea-coast, so as to fly to Egypt to Cleopatra. But their secret was
betrayed, and so their scheme proved futile, and thus it only served to increase
the suspicions of Herod.[523]—When, moreover, the people, at the next Feast of
Tabernacles, in B.C. 35, made a public demonstration in favour of young
Aristobulus while he officiated as high priest, Herod became thoroughly
determined to rid himself, without delay, of Aristobulus as his most dangerous
enemy and rival. Soon an opportunity for doing so was given him. Herod had been
invited to Jericho to a feast by Alexandra. And after the meal, as young
Aristobulus along with others was refreshing himself in the bath, he was pushed
under the water as if in sport by some of those with him who had been bribed by
Herod, and kept down so long that he was drowned. After the affair was done
Herod pretended the most profound grief, and shed tears, which, however, nobody
regarded as genuine.[524] [523] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3. 2. [524] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 3. 3-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 2. Alexandra, who clearly perceived
the true state of matters, agitated again through Cleopatra, so that Herod was
summoned to make answer before Antony for the deed. Antony, who since the spring
of B.C. 36 had been again residing in the East, and under the spell of
Cleopatra, was just then, in the spring of B.C. 34, undertaking a new expedition
to the West, ostensibly against the Parthians, really against the Armenian king
Artavasdes. When he had now reached Laodicea, that is, Laodicea by the sea,
south of Antioch, Herod was summoned to meet him there,—for Alexandra had,
through Cleopatra, actually obtained her wish,—to give an account of his
conduct. Herod did not dare to refuse, and, no doubt with a heavy heart,
presented himself before Antony. But it may be readily supposed he did not go
empty-handed. This circumstance and his clever representations soon prevailed in
dispelling all clouds. He was pronounced innocent, and returned to
Jerusalem.[525] [525] Josephus, Antiq. xv, 3. 5, 8-9. His absence was the
occasion of fresh disturbances. He had on his departure appointed his uncle
Joseph, who was also his brother-in-law, for he had married his sister Salome,
as his viceroy, and had committed Mariamme to his care. And as he considered his
going before Antony as dangerous, he had commanded Joseph, in case he should not
return, to kill Mariamme, for his passionate love for her could not brook the
thought that any other should ever obtain his beloved. When, then, he did
return, Salome calumniated her own husband, charging him with having himself had
unlawful intercourse with Mariamme. Herod at first gave no heed to the calumny,
as Mariamme maintained her innocence. But when he learned that Mariamme knew
about that secret command, which the chattering old man had told her as a proof
of the peculiar love of Herod, Herod thought that he had in this a confirmation
of those charges, and caused Joseph to be executed, without affording him an
opportunity of being heard.[526] [526] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3. 5-6, 9. On the
parallel passage, Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 4-5, see under, note 50. The fourth
hostile power during this first period of Herod’s reign was Cleopatra. She had
even previously, by her combination with Alexandra, been the means of giving
troubled days to Herod. It was still more unfortunate for him that she now
sought to use her influence with Antony to obtain an increase of territory.
Antony at first gave no heed to her demands. But at length, during that same
expedition against Armenia, in B.C. 34, he was induced to bestow upon her the
whole of Phoenicia and the coast of the Philistines south of Eleutherus, with
exception only of Tyre and Sidon,[527] and besides, a part of the Arabian
territory, and the fairest and most fertile part of the kingdom of Herod, the
celebrated district of Jericho, with its palm trees and balsams.[528] Opposition
on the part of Herod was not to be thought of, and he was now obliged to take
his own land in lease from Cleopatra.[529] He had indeed to accept the
disagreeable with as good a grace as possible, and to receive Cleopatra with all
honour and with royal munificence when she, on her return from the Euphrates, to
which point she had accompanied Antony, paid a visit to Judea. But when she
sought to draw him also into her net, he was cunning enough not to commit
himself any more into her power.[530] [527] See map in Menke’s Bibelatlas. [528]
The district of Jericho was at that time the most fruitful part and the most
profitable for revenue in all Palestine. This is stated most decidedly in
Strabo, xvi. 2. 41, p. 763, and in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 3. Near
Jericho there was, according to Strabo, the palm forest (ὁ φοινικών), extending
to a hundred stadia, and the balsam garden (ὁ τοῦ βαλσάμου παράδεισος), which
produced the produced balsam resin used as a means of healing. Josephus also
represents the date palm and the balsam shrub as the two principal plants grown
in the district. This region, peculiarly rich in revenue in consequence of its
being so well watered and possessing so hot a climate, is reckoned by Josephus
as extending to twenty stadia in breadth and seventy stadia in length. Since
both of these products were greatly in request (compare Strabo, xvii. 1. 15, p.
800), Josephus rightly designates this region a θεῖον χωρίον, ἐν ᾦ δαψιλῆ τὰ
σπανιώτατα καὶ κάλλιστα γεννᾶται (Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 3). Elsewhere, too,
he takes every opportunity of expatiating upon the fruitfulness of the district
of Jericho, with its palm trees and balsam shrubs (Antiq. iv. 6. 1, xiv. 4. 1;
Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 6; Antiq. xv. 4. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5). In one
passage he expressly declares that it was the most fruitful part of Judea (Wars
of the Jews, i. 6. 6; τὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας πιότατον). Subsequently Herod extended the
palm plantations as far as Phasaelis (see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 131). Archelaus
built near Jericho a new aqueduct for watering the palm groves there (Antiq.
xvii. 13. 1).—Also in Trogus Pompeius, according to the correct reading restored
by Rühl, Jericho is spoken of as the centre of the palm and balsam culture of
the Jordan valley (Justin’s Abstract, xxxvi. 3): “Opes genti ex vectigalibus
opobalsami crevere, quod in his tantum regionibus gignitur. Est namque vallis,
quae continuis montibus velut muro quodam ad instar hortorum clauditur. Spatium
loci ducenta jugera; nomine Ericus dicitur. In ea silva est et ubertate et
amoenitate insignis, siquidem palmeto et opobalsameto distinguitur.” Then
follows a description of the balsam shrub, which is trained like the vine, and
is annually at a fixed time stripped of its balsam.—Diodorus Siculus places the
palm and balsam plantations in general in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea, for
after giving a description of the balsam he proceeds (ii. 48. 9, almost in the
same words as in xix. 98. 4): Ἀγαθὴ δʼ ἐστὶ φοινικόφυτος … Γίνεται δὲ περὶ τοὺς
τόπους τούτους ἐν αὐλῶνί τινι καὶ τὸ καλούμενον βάλσαμον, ἐξ οὖ πρέσοδον λαμπρὰν
[xix. 98. 4: ἁδρὰν] λαμβάνουσιν, οὐδαμοῦ, μὲν τῆς ἄλλης σἰκουμένης εὑρισκομένου
τοῦ φυτοῦ τούτου, τῆς δʼ ἐξ αὐτοῦ χρείας εἰς φάρμακα τοῖς ἰατροῖς καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν
εὐθετούσης.—According to Pliny, the dates of Jericho were the best in the world,
Historia Naturalis, xiii. 4. 44: “sed ut copia ibi [in Aethiopiae fine] atque
fertilitas, ita nobilitas in Judaea, nec in tota, sed Hiericunte maxume,
quamquam laudatae et Archelaide et Phaselide atque Liviade, gentis ejusdem
convallibus.” Compare xiii. 4. 26: “Judaea vero incluta est vel magis palmis;”
xiii. 4. 49: “Servantur hi demum qui nascuntur in saisis atque sabulosis, ut in
Judaea atque Cyrenaica Africa.” Pliny’s most complete treatment of the balsam
(Historia Naturalis, xii. 25. 111-123) begins with the following words: “Sed
omnibus odoribus praefertur balsamum, uni terrarum Judaeae concessum, quondam in
duobus tantum hertis, utroque regio, altero jugerum xx. non amplius, altero
pauciorum.” The way in which the balsam was obtained was this: the bark was slit
with a stone, not an iron instrument, and then the thick juice ran out and was
gathered in small vessels.—Tacitus also, in his Historia, v. 6, mentions among
the most important products of Palestine balsamum et palmae. He describes the
mode of securing the balsam similarly to Pliny (compare also Strabo, p. 763, and
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 6).—Pausanias also gives it
as a special proof of the superiority of the palms of Palestine, that “their
fruit is always fit for use,” i.e. even when dried (he tells, ix. 19. 8, of the
sanctuary at Mykalessus in Boeotia: Φοίνικες δε πρὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ πεφύκασιν οὐκ ἐς
ἅπαν ἐδώδιμον παρεχόμενοι καρκόν, ὥεπερ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ). To Horace also the
material value of these plantations was known. As an example of a particularly
rich and valuable estate, he speaks of Herodis palmetis pinguibus (Epistolae,
ii. 2. 184).—According to Dioscorides, i. 18, the balsam used as a means of
healing grew only in Judea and Egypt (βάλσαμον … γεννώμενον ἐν μόνῃ Ἰουδαίᾳ κατά
τινα αὐλῶνα καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ).—We hear of the existence of the palm groves of
Jericho during somewhere about two thousand years. Even in the Old Testament
Jericho is called “the city of palm trees” (עִיר הַתְּמָרִים, Deuteronomy 34:3;
Judges 1:16; Judges 3:13; 2 Chronicles 28:15). Among Greek writers,
Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, speaks of the palm and balsam plantations
of the Jordan valley. Of the palms, he says that only in three places in
Coele-Syria with a saline soil do such grow as can have their fruit made use of
(Hist. plant. ii. 6. 2.: τῆς Συρίας δὲ τῆς Κοίλης, ἐν ᾗ γʼ οἱ πλεῖστοι
τυγχάνουσιν, ἐν τρισὶ μόνοις τόποις ἁλμώδεσιν εἶναι τοὺς δυναμένους
θησαυρίζεσθαι; ii. 6. 8: θησαυρίζεσθαι δὲ μόνους δύνασθαί φασι τῶν ἐν Συρίᾳ τοὺς
ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι. This αὐλών of Syria, where the palms grow, extends, according to
ii. 6. 5, to the Red Sea). On the balsam he says, in Hist. plant. ix. 6. 1: Τὸ
δὲ βάλσαμον γίνεται μὲν ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι τῷ περὶ Συρίαν. Παραδείσους δʼ εἶναί φασι
δύο μόνους, τὸν μὲν ὅσον εἴκοσι πλέθρων τὸν δʼ ἕτερον πολλῷ ἐλάττονα (Pliny, in
the above-quoted passage, derives his information from this source). In the
Mishna it is related that the inhabitants of Jericho were wont to prop up the
palms (Pesachim iv. 8). A Descriptio orbis of the fourth century after Christ
remarks upon the rich revenue (Müller, Geographi graec. minores, ii. 513 sqq.,
c. 31: “Nicolaum vero palmulam invenies abundare in Palaestina regione, in loco
qui dicitur Hiericho”). The existence of the palm groves there is also witnessed
to by the Christian pilgrims Arculf in the seventh century (see Tobler et
Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana, i. 1879, p. 176) and Saewulf in the beginning
of the eighth century (see Guérin, Samarie, i. 49). An English translation of
the travels of Arculf and Saewulf is given in a volume of Bohn’s Antiquarian
Library, Early Travels in Balestine. In the year 1838, Robinson saw there still
one palm tree (Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 290), which in the year
1888 was only a withered stump (Zeitschrift des DPV. xi. 98).—Compare generally
the articles “Balsam,” “Dattelpalme,” “Jericho,” in Winer’s Realwörterbuch;
Ritter, Erdkunde, xiii. 760-858; Theobald Fischer, Die Dattelpalme, ihre
geographische Verbreitung und culturhistorische Bedeutung, 1881 (=Petermann’s
Mittheilungen, 64, Ergänzungsheft; Anderlind, Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, Bd. xi. 1888, pp. 97-99 (occurrence of the date palm in
modern Syria).—On Jericho and its neighbourhood, see Robinson, Biblical
Researches in Palestine, ii. 273-304; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1, pp. 600-534;
Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 642-669; Sepp, Jerusalem und das heilige
Land, 2 Aufl. i. 720-734; Guérin, Samarie, i. 46-53; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina,
1 Aufl. p. 273 ff.; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, iii. 222 (Plan of the aqueducts near Jericho in the time of the
Romans); and with this also the large English Map, Sheet xviii. [529] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5.—Plutarch, Antony, 36, and Dio
Cassius, xlix. 32, assign this gift of territory to an earlier period. Compare
above, p. 402. [530] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 4. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5. Thus
Herod’s first four or five years were spent amid various struggles for his own
very existence. The outbreak in B.C. 32 of the war between Antony and Octavian
caused fresh anxieties. Herod wished to hasten with a powerful army to the help
of Antony; but at the instigation of Cleopatra he was instead ordered by Antony
to fight against the Arabian king. That prince had latterly failed to pay
regularly his tribute to Cleopatra, and was now to be punished for that fault.
And Cleopatra wished that the war should be committed to Herod, in order that
the two vassal kings might naturally weaken and reduce one another. And thus
Herod was sent against the king of Arabia rather than against Octavian. But as
Athenio, Cleopatra’s commander, went to the help of the Arabians, he suffered a
crushing defeat, and found himself obliged to stop the great war, and rest
satisfied with mere robber raids and plundering expeditions.[531] [531]
Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 1-3. Then again in the
spring of B.C. 31 a new calamity befell him, for a terrible earthquake visited
the country, by which 30,000 men lost their lives. Herod now wished to treat for
peace with the Arabians; but these slew his ambassadors and renewed their
attack. Herod required to use all his eloquence in order to induce his
dispirited troops again to enter into the engagement. But this time his old
fortune in war returned to him. He drove before him the Arabian army in utter
rout, and compelled its remnants, which had sought refuge in a fortress, soon to
surrender. Proud of this brilliant success, he returned home.[532] [532]
Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. 2-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3-6. Soon thereafter, on
2nd September B.C. 31, the decisive battle at Actium was fought, by which Antony
finally lost his power. It was at the same time a sore blow to Herod. But with
that adroitness which was characteristic of him, he passed over at the right
time into the camp of the conqueror, and soon found an opportunity for proving
his change of mind by action. In Cyzicus there was a troop of Antony’s
gladiators, who held themselves in readiness for the games, by which Antony had
intended to celebrate his victory over Octavian. When these now heard of the
defeat and flight of Antony, they wished to hasten to Egypt to the assistance of
their master. But Didius, the governor of Syria, hindered their departure, and
Herod afforded him in this zealous and efficient aid.[533] [533] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 2. Dio Cassius, li. 7. After he had
given such a proof of his disposition, he could venture to present himself
before Augustus. But in order to secure himself against any miscarriage, he
contrived to have the aged Hyrcanus, the only one who might prove a dangerous
rival, as nearer to the throne than himself, put out of the way. That Hyrcanus
was condemned to death for conspiring with the Arabian king, as was affirmed in
Herod’s own journals, is highly improbable when we consider the character and
the extreme age of Hyrcanus. Other contemporary writers have expressly declared
his innocence. For Herod in his critical position, the mere existence of
Hyrcanus was sufficient motive for the bloody deed. Thus fell the last of the
Asmoneans, a memorial of past times, an old man more than eighty years of age, a
sacrifice to the jealousy and ambition of Herod.[534] [534] Josephus, Antiq. xv,
6. 1-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 1. Herod now set out to meet Augustus, who had
passed the winter, B.C. 31-30, for the most part in Samos.[535] He met him in
the spring of B.C. 30 in Rhodes. At the meeting he played his part skilfully. He
boasted of his friendship with Antony, and of the service which he had rendered
him, and wished in this way to prove how useful he might be to any one whose
party he might join. Augustus was not inclined to give too much heed to this
speech, but found it to his advantage to win over to himself the crafty and
energetic Idumean who had been the steady friend of the Romans. He was very
gracious to him, and confirmed him in his royal rank. With this joyful result
Herod returned to his own home.[536] [535] Suetonius, Augustus, c. 17. [536]
Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 5-7 ; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 1-3. Soon thereafter, in
the summer, Augustus left Asia Minor and touched at the Phoenician coast on his
way to Egypt, and Herod failed not to receive him with all pomp at Ptolemais,
and took care that during that hot season of the year his army in its march
should want for nothing.[537] [537] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7 ; Wars of the
Jews, i. 20. 3. After Augustus in Egypt had done with Antony, who, as well as
Cleopatra, had committed suicide in August B.C. 30, Herod again visited
Augustus, undoubtedly with the intention of wishing him success, and securing
for himself as great a reward as possible. In this latter object he was
completely successful. Augustus now gave him back, not only the district of
Jericho, but also Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Straton’s
Tower.[538]—In proof of his gratitude, Herod gave his patron, on his return from
Egypt in the end of B.C. 30, the pleasure of his company as far as Antioch.[539]
[538] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 3 ; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3.—On all these
cities, see § 23. 1. [539] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 4. While thus he had
exchanged his outward dangers for good fortune, Herod had nothing but confusion
and strife in his own house. Even when he had gone away to Rhodes, he had
committed the guardianship of Mariamme to a certain Soemus, and to him again he
had given the same command as before to Joseph.[540] Mariamme had also this time
again come to know it, and gave to Herod on his return proofs of her
aversion.[541] The mother of Herod, Cypros, and his sister Salome, who had both
for a long time been disaffected toward the proud Mariamme, were greatly
gratified at this misunderstanding, and they knew how to inflame the quarrel by
giving currency to the most scandalous calumnies. At last Salome managed to
bribe the king’s cupbearer, and got him to declare that Mariamme had given him a
poison draught in order that he should give it to Herod. When Herod heard this,
he had Mariamme’s eunuch examined by torture in reference to this matter. This
servant indeed knew nothing of the poison draught, but confessed that Mariamme
hated her husband on account of the command which he had given to Soemus. When,
now, Herod heard that Soemus, as well as Joseph, had betrayed the secret of his
command, he saw again in this a proof of unlawful intercourse, and cried out
saying that he had now evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness. Soemus was
immediately executed ; Mariamme, after a judicial investigation, was condemned,
and then executed in the end of B.C. 29.[542] [540] Ibid. xv. 6. 5. [541] Ibid.
xv. 7. 1-2. [542] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 3-6.—A fabulous Talmudic story about
the death of Mariamme is given by Derenbourg, p. 151.—In criticism of the
account repeated by us from Josephus Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus,
1882, p. 113): “It is remarkable how precisely in order of time the succession
of events correspond in the two journeys of the king to. Antony and Augustus
(Antiq. xv. 3. 5-6 and 9, xv. 6. 5, 7. 1-6). On both occasions he put his wife
under the guardianship of a trusted individual, with instructions, if anything
should happen to prevent his return, that she should be slain; both times her
guardians, meaning no harm, communicated the secret to her; the king returning
home learns this, becomes suspicious of gross infidelity, and has the innocent
executed.… Moreover, it is remarkable that the second story is wholly omitted in
the Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 4-5; according to the story given there, Herod
kills not only Joseph, but also Mariamme, on his return from Antony. It might be
supposed that the two narratives in the Antiquities refer to one and the same
occurrence, that Josephus found the second story perhaps in some secondary
document, and regarding it, in consequence of the introduction of the name
Soemus, as different from the story given in his principal document,
incorporated it in his narrative of the journey of Herod to Augustus, so that no
particular might be omitted.”—This explanation might without more ado be
accepted, were it not, on the other hand, firmly established that the Wars of
the Jews frequently reproduces in a greatly abbreviated form the same original
document as is used in the Antiquities, and that the first story is expressly
presupposed in the second tale of the Antiquities (xv. 7. 1: τὰς Ἰωσήπῳ δοθείσας
ἐντολὰς ἀνεμνημόνευεν). That the same story would have been repeated in an
almost identical form, is scarcely probable. But it does seem to me probable
that both stories had already had a place in the principal source used by
Josephus, and that specially for this reason, that in both passages the
narrative of domestic. circumstances is so clearly bound up with the exposition
of the political history. In both passages the political history is introduced
between the beginning and end of the domestic affairs. In Herod’s relations with
Mariamme were revealed all the savagery and sensuality of his nature.
Ungovernable and passionate as his love for her was, such was also his hatred so
soon as he thought himself deceived by his wife. But equally ungovernable and
passionate was also his yearning over his beloved whom he himself had murdered.
In order to drown the pangs of remorse, he sought relief in wild excesses,
drinking bouts, and the pleasures of the chase. But even his powerful frame
could not endure such an excessive strain. While he was hunting in Samaria he
fell ill, and was obliged there to take to his bed. As his recovery was
doubtful, Alexandra began to scheme, so that in the event of his death she might
secure the throne to herself. She applied herself to those in command of the two
fortified places in Jerusalem, and sought to win them over to her side. But they
reported the matter to Herod, and Alexandra, who had long deserved that fate far
more than others, was then executed some time in B.C. 28.[543] [543] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 7. 7-8. Gradually Herod recovered, and soon found occasion for
further bloodshed. A distinguished Idumean, Costobar, had been, soon after his
accession, appointed by Herod governor of Idumea, and had subsequently been
married to Salome, whose first husband, Joseph, had been executed in B.C. 34.
Even during this first period he had secretly conspired against Herod with
Cleopatra, but had been received into Herod’s favour again at the entreaty of
Salome.[544] But now Salome herself was tired of her husband, and in order to
rid herself of him she had recourse to denunciation. She knew that her husband
had preserved the sons of Babas,[545] as it seems, distant relatives of the
Asmonean house, whom Herod ever since his conquest of Jerusalem had in vain
sought to track out. This information she communicated to her brother. Herod,
when he heard this, promptly resolved upon the course he would pursue. Costobar,
together with his protégés, whose place of concealment Salome had betrayed, was
seized and executed in B.C. 25. And now Herod could console himself with the
thought that of all the relatives of the aged Hyrcanus there was no longer one
surviving who could dispute with him the occupancy of the throne.[546]—Here then
the first period closes, the period of conflict with hostile powers. [544] Ibid.
xv. 7. 9. [545] The name Βαβας is found on an inscription given by Euting,
Sitzungeberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1885, p. 685, Tafel xi. n. 80.—A בבא בן
בוטי appears in Kerioth vi. 3; a יהודה בן בבא in Erubin ii. 4-5; Jebamoth xvi.
3, 5, 7; Edujoth vi. 1, viii. 2 (the Cambridge Manuscript has בן בבא four times,
and בן אבא three times). [546] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 7. 10. At the close of the
narrative Josephus says expressly: ὥστε εἶναι μηδὲν ὑπόλοιπον ἐκ τῆς Ὑρκανοῦ
συγγενείας. It is indeed only the male relatives that are here intended. For,
according to Antiq. xvii. 5. 2, fin., the daughter of Antigonus, the last of the
Asmonean kings, continued alive for about twenty years after this, and she had
been married to Herod’s eldest son Antipater. II The period from B.C. 25 to B.C.
13 is the period of glory and enjoyment, although the enjoyment was not
altogether unchequered and undisturbed. Among the glories of the period are to
be reckoned the magnificent buildings which he erected. All the provinces vied
with one another in their celebration of the emperor-cultus, and in the
lavishness of display every fourth year at the festal games in honour of Caesar.
For the former purpose emperor-temples (Καισάρεια) were erected; for the latter,
theatres, amphitheatres, race-courses for men and for horses. New cities also
were founded in honour of Caesar, and called after his name. “Provinciarum
pleraeque super templa et aras ludos quoque quinquennales paene oppidatim
constituerunt. Reges amici atque socii et singuli in suo quisque regno Caesareas
urbes condiderunt.”[547] All these endeavours were entered upon by Herod with
that energy by which he was characterized. But he was also unweariedly active in
erecting other buildings for purposes of use and luxury, and in the
reconstruction of entire cities.[548] [547] Suetonius, Augustus, 59-60. Compare
generally on the cultus of the emperor, Div. ii. vol. i. p. 15; and on the
festal games the same volume, pp. 23-28. [548] On the buildings of Herod,
compare Hirt, Ueber die Baus Herodes des Grossen überhaupt, und über seinen
Tempelbau zu Jerusalem insbesonders (Abhandlungen der histor.-philolog. Klasse
der Berliner Akademie aus den Jahren, 1816-1817, pp. 1-24); van der Chijs, de
Herode Magno, pp. 55-57. In Jerusalem a theatre was reared; in the valley near
Jerusalem, an amphitheatre.[549] Some time later, about B.C. 24, Herod built for
himself a royal palace, upon which marble and gold were lavished with profusion.
It was provided with strong fortifications, and thus was made to serve also as a
castle for the upper city.[550] Even during the time of Antony he had had the
citadel north of the temple rebuilt and named Antonia in honour of his
patron.[551]—In the non-Jewish cities of his territory, and farther away in the
province of Syria, he built numerous temples, especially such as he built in
honour of Caesar (Καισάρεια), and adorned them with statuary of the most
beautiful description.[552] [549] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 1: καὶ θέατρον ἐν
Ἱεροσολύμοις ᾠκοδόμησεν, αὖθις τʹ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ μέλιστον ἀμφιθέατρον. Also the
hippodrome in Jerusalem, which is casually referred to (Antiq. xvii. 10. 2; Wars
of the Jews, ii. 3. 1), was certainly built by Herod; so, too, were the theatre,
amphitheatre, and hippodrome in Jericho (see about these in Div. ii. vol. i. p.
33).—Schick (Quarterly Statement of Palestine Exploration Fund (1887), pp.
161-166) gives interesting reports with plans of a theatre near Jerusalem
discovered by him. It lay south of the city (south-south-west of Bir Ejub, north
of Wadi Jasul; its distance from Wadi Hinnom is not much greater than that of
the latter from the present city wall). The crescent-shaped space for the
spectators may still be marked out with perfect certainty. It is hewn out of the
natural rock on the north side of a hill, so that the spectators had a view of
the city. A straight line drawn through the middle of the sitting benches
measures 132 feet; the benches rise regularly at an angle of 37 degrees. It is
very strange that Schick should call his interesting discovery an amphitheatre,
since his plan and description leave no room for doubt that what he had before
him was a theatre. The amphitheatre was always an enclosed elongated circle, in
the middle of which was the arena for gladiatorial combats and contests with
wild beasts. The theatre, on the other hand, was a semicircle, on the open side
of which the stage was erected for dramatic performances. Schick had been misled
into this erroneous nomenclature by Josephus’ statement that the theatre of
Herod was ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, whereas the building discovered by Schick lay outside
of the city. But he himself must admit the building discovered by him does not
by any means lie ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ, which, according to Josephus, was the position of
the amphitheatre. If therefore ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις means “within the city walls,”
then the building discovered by Schick could neither be the theatre nor the
amphitheatre of Herod. But that rendering is not at all necessary, and so the
identifying of the theatre of Schick and that of Herod is quite possible and
highly probable.—Also on the restoration of the city of Hadrian the site once
occupied by Herod would not be overlooked. [550] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 3; Wars
of the Jews, i. 21. 1. Compare the description given in Wars of the Jews, v. 4.
3-4.—A tower of the palace of Herod is in a state of partial preservation to
this day, the so-called Tower of David. See the description by Schick,
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, i. 1878, pp. 226-237. [551]
Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 5, 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1.
Compare the description given in Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8; Tacitus, History, v.
11, fin. [552] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 4. Compare.
Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 3 (temple at Paneion). Also the
reconstructed cities of Sebaste and Caesarea contained each a temple of
Augustus.—De Vogüé and Waddington found at Sîʿa (a league and a half from
Qanawât, at the western base of the Hauran) the ruins of a temple of the
Herodian era (a sketch of which is given by de Vogüé in his Syrie Centrale,
Architecture Civile et Religieuse, pl. 2 et 3). Among these ruins were also
found the following subscription of an early statue of Herod: [Βα]σιλεῖ Ἡρώδει
κυρίῳ Ὀβαίσατος Σαόδου ἔθηκα τὸν ἀνδριάντα ταῖς ἐμαῖς δαπάναι[ς]. Le Bas et
Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii. n. 2364. New cities in
large number were built under his direction throughout the land. The old
Samaria, which after its destruction had been already rebuilt by Gabinius, was
now reconstructed by Herod in a magnificent style, and received from him the
name of Sebaste.[553] Not satisfied with this, he engaged in the year B.C. 22 on
a still more ambitious undertaking, for he erected on the coast, on the site of
the ancient Straton’s Tower, a new city of large and imposing dimensions, to
which he gave the name of Caesarea. As deserving of special mention, Josephus
speaks of the commodious haven attached to the city. In order to secure ships
while receiving their cargo from the storms, a powerful breakwater was carried
far out into the sea, the material for which had to be brought from a
considerable distance. On the breakwater were erected dwellings for the seamen,
and in front of these paths were made for pleasure walks. In the midst of the
city was a hill, on which a temple in honour of the emperor was built, which
could be seen far out at sea. Twelve full years were occupied in the building of
the city. And when it had been completed, a grand celebration of the event was
made with great pomp in the 28th year of Herod, corresponding to B.C. 10-9.[554]
[553] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 2; Strabo, xvi. p.
760. For further details, see Div. ii. vol. i pp. 123-127. On the time of the
building, see above, p. 405. [554] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 6, xvi. 5. 1; Wars of
the Jews, i. 21. 5-8. Compare also, Antiq. xv. 8. 5; Pliny, Historia Naturalis,
v. 13. 69. On the subsequent history of Caesarea, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp.
84-87. Also on the temple of Augustus, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 15-17. But
Herod’s love of building had not yet received full satisfaction. In place of the
ancient Capharsaba, he founded a city, which he named in honour of his father
Antipatris. At Jericho he built a citadel which he named after his mother
Cypros. In the Jordan valley, north of Jericho, he founded, in a previously
unbuilt but fruitful district, a new city, and named it after his brother
Phasaelis.[555] The ancient Anthedon he reconstructed, and, in honour of
Agrippa, named it Agrippaeum.[556] In honour of himself, he named two new
strongholds Herodium; the one lay in the mountainous region toward Arabia; the
other on the spot, three leagues south of Jerusalem, where he had conquered the
Jews who pursued him after his flight from Jerusalem. The latter fortress was
also supplied with rooms beautifully fitted up for the use of the king.[557] The
strongholds of Alexandrium and Hyrcania, built by the Armenians but destroyed by
Gabinius, were now restored by Herod, and furnished with new
fortifications.[558] He dealt similarly also with the fortresses of Machärus and
Masada, both of which he adorned with royal palaces.[559] Military requirements
also led to the rebuilding of Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in Perea, in which
places he established military colonies.[560] [555] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 5. 2;
Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 9. On Antipatris and Phasaelis, see Div. ii. vol. i.
pp. 130-132. [556] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 8. Compare Antiq. xiii.
13. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 2. In the two latter passages the name is given
in the form of Agrippias. On the subsequent history of the city, see Div. ii.
vol. i pp. 72, 73. [557] Wars of the Jews, i. 21.10. On the second-named and
more important of these fortresses, see also Antiq. xv. 9. 4; comp. Antiq. xiv.
13. 9; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 8. During the Roman period it was the chief town
of a toparchy (Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 5; Pliny, Historia Naturalis, v. 14.
70: Herodium cum oppido inlustri ejusdem nominis). During the war of Vespasian
it formed one of the last refuges for the rebels (Wars of the Jews, vii 6. 1).
According to Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 5, Herodium lay in the neighbourhood of
Tekoa (στρατοπεδευσάμενος δὲ κατά τινα κώμην ἣ Θεκωὲ καγεῖται, πρὸς τοὺς ἐν
Ἡρωδείῳ φρουρούς, ὅπερ ἦν πλεσίον.) According to Antiq. xiv. 13. 9, xv. 9. 4;
Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 8, 21. 10, it was 60 furlongs south of Jerusalem.
Seeing, then, that the present Tekoah is more than 60 furlongs south of
Jerusalem, Herodium must have lain to the north of Tekoa. Of this at least there
can be no doubt, that the steep rock which now by Europeans is called
Frankenberg, and by natives Jebel-el-Fureidis (Paradise, fruit-garden), is to be
identified with Herodium. The distance from Jerusalem in a direct line, as given
in the large English map, is 8 Roman miles, or 64 furlongs. On the hill there
are to this day remnants of the round towers which Herod, according to the
statement of Josephus (Antiq. xv. 9. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 10), had built
there. Also traces are still discernible of the stone steps which are made
mention of by Josephus. Compare generally, Robinson, Biblical Researches in
Palestine, ii. 173-175; Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 565-572; Sepp,
Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. i. 643 f.; De Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte, i. 168 sqq.;
Guérin, Judée, iii. 122-132; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, 1 Aufl. p. 267; Schick,
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, iii. 1880, pp. 88-99 (with plans);
The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 315 sq.,
320-332; Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, i. 158 f.; Ohlmann, Die Fortschritte der
Ortskunde von Palästina, 1 Thl. (Norden 1887) p. 17 f. [558] Both fortresses are
mentioned first in the time of Alexandra (Antiq. xiii. 16. 3). In Alexandrium,
Aristobulus waited the arrival of Pompey, but was forced to surrender the
fortress to him (Antiq. xiv. 3. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 5). Both the
fortresses were razed by Gabinius, because they had been strongholds to
Alexander in his revolt (Antiq. xiv. 5. 2-4; Wars of the Jews. i. 8. 2-5).
Alexandrium was fortified again by Pheroras (Antiq. xiv. 15. 4; Wars of the
Jews, i. 16. 3). Hyrcania for a long time served as a place of refuge for the
sister of Antigonus, and it was only shortly before the battle of Actium that
Herod secured possession of it (Wars of the Jews). The new fortifications which
Herod erected in both places were so important that he showed them to Agrippa on
his visit as worthy of attention (Antiq. xvi. 2. 1). The situation of Hyrcania
is not known. Alexandrium is probably identical with Mount Sartaba on the border
of the Jordan valley north of Jericho (see above, p. 320). [559] Machärus had
been first fortified by Alexander Jannäus (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2). Its
restoration by Herod is fully described by Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6.
2.—Masada had been fortified by the high priest Jonathan (Wars of the Jews, vii.
8. 3). On its restoration by Herod, see Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3.—Both
fortresses played an important part in the war of Vespasian. On their situation
and history, see further details in § 20 at the end. [560] Josephus, Antiq. xv.
8. 5. Compare Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 1. For further details regarding both,
see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 127-130. Also far beyond the bounds of Palestine
architectural works proclaimed the liberality of Herod. For the Rhodians, Herod
built at his own cost the Pythian temple. He aided in the construction of most
of the public buildings of the city of Nicopolis, which had been founded by
Augustus near Actium. In Antioch he caused colonnades to be erected along both
sides of the principal street.[561] Happening on one occasion to visit Chios, he
spent a large sum on the rebuilding of the piazza, destroyed during the
Mithridatic war.[562] In Ascalon he built baths and fountains. Tyre and Sidon,
Byblus and Berytus, Tripolis, Ptolemais, and Damascus were also graced with
memorials to the glory of Herod’s name. And even as far as Athens and
Lacedæmonia proofs of his liberality were to be found.[563] [561] Josephus,
Antiq. xvi. 5. 3. [562] Ibid. xvi. 2. 2. [563] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i.
21. 11.—In an inscription at Athens (Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 361=Corpus
Inscript. Attic. iii. 1, n. 556), Berenice, the daughter of Agrippa I., is
named: μεγάλων βασιλέων εὐεργετῶν τῆς πόλεως ἔκγονος.—Perhaps also the
inscription at Athens (Corpus Inscript. Attic. iii. 1, n. 550) refers to Herod
the Great: Ὁ δῆμος βασιλέα Ἡρώδην φιλορώμαιον εὐεργεσίας ἕνεκεν καί εὐνοίας τῆς
εἰς ἑαυτόν. Another similar one (CIA. iii. 1, n. 551) is, on account of its
divergent title, referred to another Herod, Herod of Chalcis. But the most
magnificent of all his building operations was the restoration of the temple of
Jerusalem. The old temple, built by Zerubbabel, was no longer in keeping with
the magnificence of the modern structures. The palaces in its neighbourhood
quite eclipsed it in grandeur. But now, as was only proper, it was to be brought
into harmony with its beautiful surroundings. The rebuilding was begun in the
eighteenth year of Herod, corresponding to B.C. 20-19, or A.U.C. 734-735. After
the temple proper was completed it was consecrated; but still the building was
carried on for a long period, and only a few years before its destruction, in
the time of Albinus (A.D. 62-64), was it actually finished. Its beauty was
proverbial. “He who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen anything
beautiful,” was a common proverb of that day.[564] [564] On the history of the
building, see Josephus, Antiq. xv. 11; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1. In the former
passage Josephus gives a detailed description of the whole extent of the temple
buildings, with their beautiful porticoes. The inner court and the temple proper
are described with the most minute accuracy (Wars of the Jews, v. 5). With this
description of Josephus the account given in the Mishna, in the tract Middoth,
agrees in all essential particulars. A brief and merely summary description is
given by Philo, De monarchia, lib. ii. § 2 (ed. Mangey, ii. 223 sq.).—The Jewish
proverb and other Rabbinical traditions are given in Derenbourg, pp.
152-154.—With all its grandeur, however, the temple was still inferior to the
palace of Herod (Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 1).—On the date of the building, see
above, p. 410. On its completion in the time of Albinus, see Antiq. xx. 9. 7.—On
the measures taken in order to maintain the ordinances of worship while the
building was proceeding, see Edujoth viii. 6. “Rabbi Elieser said: I have heard
that when the temple (היכל) was being built, they made curtains (קלעים) for the
temple and curtains for the court; and then they built the walls of the temple
outside of the curtains, but those of the court inside of the curtains.” While
the temple was building, it is said that rain fell only by night (Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 11. 7; Derenbourg, p. 152 sq.).—On the basis of the description given
in Josephus and in the Mishna tract Middoth, the temple of Herod has been in
innumerable instances represented in modern literature. The most important
literature is catalogued in Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel, 2
Aufl. 1869, pp. 260-265. Summary descriptions are given in the articles on the
temple in Winer’s Realwörterbuch, ii. 578-591; Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v.
479-484; and Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, pp. 1636-1645; in Keil’s Biblical
Archaeology, i. 187-201; Robinson, Bibl. Researches, i. 365-433; Ewald, History
of Israel, v. 432-434; Stanley, Jewish Church, iii. 436-444; and the handbooks
on Jewish Antiquities by De Wette, Haneberg, and others (see above, p. 14). The
statements of Josephus are well summarized by Spiess, Das Jerusalem des
Josephus, 1881, pp. 46-94. Compare also Hirt, Ueber die Baue Herodes der Grossen
(see above, p. 432). The differences between Josephus and the Mishna are
examined by Hildesheimer, Die Beschreibung des herodianischen Tempels in
Tractate Middoth und bei Flavius Josephus (Jahresbericht des Rabbiner-Seminars
für das orthodoxe Judenthum, Berlin 1876, 1877). Speculations on its
measurements may be seen in O. Wolff, Der Tempel von Jerusalem und seine Maasse,
Gräz 1887.—For determining topographical questions of detail) especially in
reference to the outer limits of the temple and its gates, a knowledge of recent
discoveries is indispensable. Exact descriptions of these are given in de Vogüé,
Le temple de Jérusalem, 1864; and Schick, Beit el Makdas oder der alte
Tempelplatz zu Jerusalem, wie er jetzt ist, 1887. An investigation into the
antiquity of the various portions of the surrounding wall as it now stands may
be seen in Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité, t. iv. 1887,
pp. 176-218. Valuable materials for the topography of the temple site are
contained in the works of Rosen, de Saulcy, the volume on “Jerusalem” in the
Survey of Western Palestine (1884), together with the plans, elevations,
sections (1884) on the largest scale attached thereto; and generally almost all
the works on the topography of Jerusalem referred to above on pp. 17-20.—The
prevailing view that the present boundaries of the temple site represent exactly
those of the temple restored by Herod, is opposed by Fergusson, The Temples of
the Jews and other Buildings in the Harem Area at Jerusalem, London 1879; and
Prof. Robertson Smith in his article “Temple” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
vol. xxiii. 1888, pp. 168-171. Besides the buildings, the games, celebrated with
great pomp and magnificence, belonged to the glory of the Augustan period. In
this department also Herod was quite abreast of the requirements of the age. Not
only in the predominantly pagan Caesarea, but even in Jerusalem, competitive
games were celebrated every fourth year.[565] To the eyes of legalistic Jews
these pagan exhibitions, with their slight valuation of the life of men and
animals, constituted a serious offence, which could be tolerated only under
threat of severe measures.[566] The zeal of the king, however, went so far that
he even gave liberal grants in support of the old Olympic games.[567] [565] In
Caesarea, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 8. In Jerusalem, Antiq. xv.
8. 1.—The expressions, κατὰ πενταετηρίδα (Antiq. xvi. 5. 1), πενταετηρικοὶ
ἀγῶνες (Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 8), and πανήγυρις τῆς πενταετηρίδος (Antiq. xv.
8. 1), are not to be held as meaning that the plays were celebrated every fifth
year, but every fourth year (as we would express it). See Div. ii. vol. i. p.
23. [566] On the view taken of the games by the strict loyalists among the Jews,
see Div. ii. vol. i p. 32, and the literature there referred to. [567] Josephus,
Antiq. xvi. 6. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 12. How unweariedly and extravagantly
he also in other ways promoted culture and learning of every kind we are
informed from explicit statements by Josephus. Very serviceable indeed was the
colonizing of the districts west of the lake of Gennesareth hitherto traversed
only by robber nomad tribes.[568] He laid out at great cost the parks and
gardens about his palace at Jerusalem. Walks and water canals were made through
the gardens; water fountains decorated with iron works of art were to be seen,
through which the water gushed. In the neighbourhood of these stood dovecots
with tamed pigeons.[569] The king seemed to have a special fondness for
pigeon-breeding; it is, indeed, only in connection with this that mention is
made of Herod in the Mishna. “Herodian pigeons” is the phrase used for pigeons
kept in captivity.[570] It seems, therefore, that Herod was the first in Judea
to keep and rear wild pigeons in an enclosed place. [568] Josephus, Antiq. xvi.
9. 2 (colonizing by 3000 Idumeans). Antiq. xvii. 2. 1-3 (settlement of a colony
of Babylonian Jews). Compare also Div. ii. vol. i. p. 4. [569] Josephus, Wars of
the Jews, v. 4. 4: πολλοὶ … πύργοι πελειάδων ἡμέρων (and the general description
there also given of the park). [570] In the Mishna the name of Herod occurs only
in the two following passages: Schabbath xxiv. 3, “On the Sabbath one should
not, indeed, place water for the hens and pigeons in the dovecot, but for the
geese, and hens, and the pigeons of Herod (יוני הרדסיות)”—Chullin xii. 1, the
law, Deuteronomy 22:6-7 (that from a bird’s nest only the young may be taken,
but the mother must be allowed to escape), applies only to such birds as build
in the open, e.g. geese and hens, but not to such as build in houses, e.g. the
pigeons of Herod (יוני הרדסיות).—In both passages the pigeons of Herod are
distinguished as pigeons kept in captivity from those that fly about in freedom.
The passage in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 4, shows us that they are wild
pigeons (πελειάδες), not tame house pigeons (περιστεραί), that are referred to.
The reading הדרסיות (hadoresijoth) is given even in the Babylonian Talmud on
Chullin xii. 1, along with the other, but is certainly false.—The Aruch (the
rabbinical lexicon of Nathan ben Jechiel) gives, s.v. יון, the following
explanation: “King Herod had pigeons brought from the wilderness, and bred them
in breeding-houses.” In reading this passage the learned Drusius had the
misfortune to read, instead of jonim (pigeons), jevanim (Greeks); in accordance
with which he explained the Ἡρωδιανοί (Matthew 22:16) as meaning Greeks whom
King Herod had brought from the wilderness and reared in inhabited districts.
Compare Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 630-632 (s.v. הרדסי).—Generally: Winer’s
Realwörterbuch, Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, and Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, arts.
“Taube;” Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Tauben in Palästina” (2
Aufl. xv. 215-218). Lorentz, Die Taube in Alterthume, Leipzig 1886. In order
that he might pose before the eyes of the Graeco-Roman world as a man of
culture, Herod, who continued to the last a barbarian at heart, surrounded
himself with a circle of men accomplished in Greek literature and art. The
highest offices of state were entrusted to Greek rhetoricians. In all more
important matters he availed himself of their counsel and advice. The most
distinguished of these was Nicolas of Damascus, a man of wide and varied
scholarship, versed in natural science, familiar with Aristotle, and widely
celebrated as a historical writer.[571] He enjoyed the unconditional confidence
of Herod, and was by him entrusted with all serious and difficult diplomatic
missions. Beside him stood his brother Ptolemy, also a trusted friend of the
king. Another Ptolemy was at the head of the finance department, and had the
king’s signet ring.[572] In addition to these, we find in the circle immediately
around the king two Greeks or half-Greeks—Andromachus and Gemellus. The latter
of those was also the tutor of Herod’s son Alexander.[573] Finally, in the
proceedings after Herod’s death we meet with a Greek rhetorician, Irenaeus.[574]
Among those Hellenic counsellors of the king there were indeed some very bad
characters, most conspicuous among them that Lacedfæmonian Eurykles, who
contributed not a little in fomenting and intensifying the trouble between Herod
and his sons.[575] [571] Compare on him above, pp. 58-63.—Since Nicolas of
Damascus in the discourse, Antiq. xvi. 2. 4, in which he treats of the interests
and aspirations of the Jews, employs the first person plural (τήν τε ἑβδόμην τῶν
ἡμερῶν ἀνίεμεν τῇ μαθήσει τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐδῶν καὶ νόμων, etc.), one might be
inclined to regard him as a Jew. But according to a note in Suidas (Lex. s.v.
Ἀντίπατρος), Antipater, his father, shortly before his death commissioned
Nicolas and his brother Ptolemy, in case he should die, to have made for Zeus a
censer which he had promised to the god (τῷ Διὶ θυμιατήριον, ὃπερ ἔφθη αὐτὸς
προῦπεσχημένος τῷ θεῷ, κατασκευάσαι ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσῃ). [572] That at the court
of Herod two men of the name of Ptolemy are to be distinguished, is put beyond
doubt from what took place immediately after his death. At that time Ptolemy,
brother of Nicolas of Damascus, was on the side of Antipas (Antiq. xvii. 9. 4;
Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 3); while at that same period another Ptolemy
represented the interests of Archelaus (Antiq. xvii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, i.
33. 8; Antiq. xvii. 9. 3 and 5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2.1 and 4). By the latter
Archelaus had Herod’s accounts and signet-ring carried to Rome to the emperor
(Antiq. xvii. 9. 5: Καίσαρι δὲ Ἀρχέλαος εἰσπέμψας … τοὺς λογισμοὺς τῶν Ἡρώδου
χρημάτων σὺν τῷ σημαντῆρι κομίζοντα Ητολεμαῖον; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 4:
Ἀρχέλαος … τὸν δακτυλιον τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοὺς λόγους εἰσπέμπει διὰ Πτολεμαίου).
This same man had during the lifetime of Herod charge of his signet-ring, and on
his death read his will (Antiq. xvii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8).
Identical with him is the διοικητὴς τῶν τῆς βασιλείας πραγμάτων referred to in
Antiq. xvi. 7. 2-3, and in the parallel passage, Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 2.
Compare also Antiq. xvi. 8. 5. [573] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 3. [574] Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 9. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 3. [575] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10.
1; Wars of the Jews, i. 26. 1-4. Herod to all appearance had very little real
interest in Judaism. His ambition led him. to foster the liberal arts and
culture. But any other form of culture than that of Greece was scarcely
recognised by the world of that day. So he himself submitted to receive
instructions, under the direction of Nicolas of Damascus, in philosophy,
rhetoric, and history, and boasted of being more nearly related to the Greeks
than to the Jews.[576] But the culture which he sought to spread throughout his
land was essentially Greek and pagan. He even erected heathen temples in the
non-Jewish towns of his kingdom.—Under these circumstances it is interesting to
observe the place which he gave to the law and the national aspirations of his
people. The Pharisaic-national movement had grown up, especially since the
reaction under Alexandra, into a power so strong and so firmly rooted in the
hearts of the people, that Herod could not possibly think of a violent
Hellenizing like that carried on by Antiochus Epiphanes. He was sagacious enough
to show respect in many points to the views of the Pharisaic party. Hence it is
particularly worthy of notice that his coins bear no human image, but only
innocent symbols, like those of the Maccabean coins; at most only one coin, and
that belonging probably to Herod’s latest period, bears the figure of an
eagle.[577] In the building of the temple he was anxiously careful to avoid
giving any offence. He allowed only priests to build the temple proper, and even
he himself ventured not to go into the precincts of the inner temple, which
should be entered only by the priests.[578] Upon none of the many beautiful
buildings in Jerusalem were images placed. And when the people once looked with
suspicion on the imperial trophies of victory which were set up in the theatre
at Jerusalem, because they took them for statues which were covered with the
armour, Herod had the trophies taken down in the presence of the most
distinguished men, and showed them to their complete satisfaction the bare
wooden frames.[579] When the Arabian Sylläus sought to win for himself the hand
of Herod’s sister Salome, it was required of him that he should adopt the Jewish
customs (ἐγγραφῆναι τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθεσι), and thereupon the proposed
marriage was abandoned.[580] Some of the most famous Pharisees, among whom Polio
and Sameas may be specially named, were held by Herod in high esteem, and were
not punished even when they refused to take the oath of allegiance.[581] [576]
Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 3: Ἕλλησι πλέον ἢ Ἰουδαίοις οἰκείως ἔχειν.—On the
humanistic studies of Herod under the direction of Nicolas of Damascus, see
Nicolaus Damascenus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Grace. iii. 350 sq.: Ἡρώδης πάλιν
διαμεθεὶς τὸν φιλοσοφίας ἔρωτα … ἐπεθύμησε πάλιν ῥητορικῆς, καὶ Νικόλαον
ἠνάγκαζε συρρητορεύειν αὐτῷ, καὶ κοινῇ ἐρρητόρευον. Αὖθις δʼ ἱστορίας αὐτὸν
[ἔρως] ἔλαβεν, ἐπαινέσαντος Νικολάου τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ πολιτικώτατον εἶναι λέγοντος,
χρήσιμον δὲ καὶ βασιλεῖ, ὡς τὰ τῶν προτέρων ἔργα καὶ πράξεις ἱστοροίη. … Ἐκ
τούτου πλέων εἰς Ῥώμην ὡς Καίσαρα Ἡρώδης ἐπήγετο τὸν Νικόλαον ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς
νηὸς καὶ κοινῆ ἐφιλοσόφους. [577] On the coins of Herod, see Eckhel, Docr. Num.
iii. 483-486; Mionnet, v. 565; Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, i. 52 f., 54-57; De
Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique judaïque, pp. 127-133; Cavedoni, Bibl.
Numismatik, ii. 25-31; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, pp. 67-72; Madden,
History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 81-91; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 21-25;
De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 245-247; Madden, Numismatic
Chronicle, 1875, pp. 43-45; Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 105-114.—The coins
have the simple inscription, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ, and various emblems—some the
number of the year 3 (Ι. Γ). The year number 15 (ΕΙ), which is read by some
numismatists, results probably from a false reading (see Madden, History of
Jewish Coinage, p. 86 sq.; Coins of the Jews, p. 109, note). A portrait is found
on none; but it is probable that a small copper coin with an eagle, of which
various copies have been found in Jerusalem, belonged to Herod the Great, not to
Herod of Chalcis, who never reigned in Jerusalem (see de Saulcy, Recherches, p.
131; Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, pp. 86-88;
Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 114. For Herod of Chalcis: Cavedoni, ii. 35; Levy,
p. 82, and Madden in his earlier History of the Jewish Coinage, pp. 111-113).
Reinach supposes that it belongs to the latest period of Herod the Great, when
he showed less respect to Jewish feelings than previously (Reinach, Les monnaies
juives, 1887, p. 32=Actes et conférences de la Société des études juives
[Beilage zur Revue des études juives], 1887, p. cxcviii.). [578] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 11. 5-6. [579] Ibid. xv. 8. 1-2. [580] Ibid. xvi. 7. 6. [581] Ibid.
xv. 1. 1, 10. 4. But clearly a thoroughgoing carrying out of Pharisaic views was
impossible under his scheme for the furtherance of culture, and he had no
intention of promoting them. For a time, what he raised with the one hand he
overthrew with the other. After he had carefully studied the Pharisaic
requirements in the building of the temple, he at last had an eagle put up over
the temple gate as if in insult.[582] Theatre and amphitheatre were already in
themselves heathen abominations. The Greek surroundings of the king, the
administration of state business by men of Greek culture, the development of
heathen splendour within the Holy Land, the provision for heathen worship within
the borders of Judea, in the king’s own territory, all this completely
outweighed those concessions to Pharisaism, and in spite of these lent to
Herod’s reign more of a heathen than a Jewish character. The Sanhedrim, which
according to the opinion of the people was the only court that had any right to
exist, under Herod was stripped of all importance, so that doubts have been
entertained as to its very existence.[583] The high priests, whom he appointed
and removed at his pleasure, were his creatures, and were for the most part
Alexandrians, with a veneer therefore of culture, and so offensive to the
Pharisees.[584] The treatment of the high-priesthood is quite typical of the
home policy of the king. As he had tossed aside with ruthless violence the old
Sadducean nobles on the one hand, because of their sympathy with the Asmonean
dynasty (see above, p. 420); so, on the other hand, he was just as little
satisfied with the Pharisees. Their ideals went far beyond the concessions of
the king, and the friendships enjoyed among the Pharisees were only
exceptions.[585] [582] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 2.
[583] Indeed, this may be accepted as certain. See Div. ii. vol. i. p. 170.
[584] Compare on the high priests, Studien und Kritiken, 1872, pp. 598-600; and
below, § 23, iv. (Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 195-206). [585] Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer
und die Sadducäer, pp. 105-109, has indeed rightly stated that the Pharisees
could be contented with Herod sooner than the Sadducees. But ho has too strongly
accentuated this correct idea. When one considers that in addition to this
contempt of the claims and the actual or imagined rights of the people, Herod
oppressed them by imposing a heavy taxation, it may be readily supposed that his
rule was endured amid much murmuring. All foreign glory could only be
distasteful to the people so long as it was secured by the oppression of the
citizens and accompanied by the disregarding of the laws of their fathers. Most
of the Pharisees regarded the government of the Roman vassal king generally as
not existing in right, and refused twice over the oath of allegiance which Herod
demanded, first for himself and then for the emperor.[586] The prevailing
dissatisfaction sought vent once in the earlier period of his reign, about B.C.
25, in a conspiracy. Ten citizens conspired to murder the king in the theatre.
Their plan, indeed, failed, since it was betrayed beforehand. When they were
just on the eve of committing the deed, they were seized, dragged before Herod,
and immediately condemned to death.[587] [586] The two cases of refusal to take
the oath, which are reported in Antiq. xv. 10. 4 and in xvii. 2. 4, seem to be
quite distinct. In the former passage it is said that Herod persecuted his
enemies in all manner of ways; “but for the rest of the multitude he required
that they should be obliged to take the oath of fidelity to him, and at the same
time compelled them to swear that they would bear him goodwill and continue so
to do in the management of his government” (Antiq. xv. 10. 4: τὸ δʼ ἄλλο πλῆθος
ὅοκοις ἠξίου πρὸς τὴν πίστιν ὑπάγεσθαι, καὶ συνηνάγκαζεν αὑτῷ ἐνώμοτον τὴν
εὔνοιαν ἧ μὴν διαφυλάξειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁμολογεῖν). It is an oath of fidelity to
the king that is here referred to. The Pharisees who refused were, out of
respect to Polio and Sameas, left unpunished. So, too, the Essenes. But all the
others were punished. In the other passage it is told that when the whole Jewish
people promised an oath of submission to the emperor and the king, more than
3000 Pharisees refused to swear (Antiq. xvii. 2. 4: παντὸς γοῦν τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ
βεβαιώσαντος διʼ ὅρκων ἦ μὴν εὐνοῆσαι Καίσαρι καὶ τοῖς βασιλέως πράγμασι, οἵδε
οἱ ἄνδρες οὐκ ὤμοσαν, ὄντες ὑπὲρ ἑξακισχίλιοι). Here the oath to the emperor
seems to have been the chief thing. The Pharisees who refused were sentenced to
pay a money fine, which was paid by the wife of Pheroras.—The latter passage is
the earliest instance that I know of showing that in the days of the empire not
only soldiers and officers, but also the people in Italy and in the provinces,
had to take the oath of fidelity to the emperor. Later evidence of the practice
we have from the time of Tiberius, Caligula, and Trajan. 1. On Tiberius entering
upon his reign, the chief officials first swore in verba Tiberii Caesaris, then
the senatus, milesque et populus (Tacitus, Annals, i. 7). In reference to the
provinces, compare Tacitus, Annals, i. 34: Germanicus … Sequanos, proximas et
Belgarum civitates in verba ejus [Tiberii] adigit. 2. On Caligula entering upon
his reign, the oath of fidelity to the new emperor was administered to all the
provincials. In Palestine this was done by the governor of Syria, Vitellius, who
happened to be present in Jerusalem when the news of the death of Tiberius
arrived (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3: ὥρκισε τὴν πληθὺν ἐπʼ εὐνοίᾳ τῇ Γαΐου).
The same zeal was displayed at the same time in far distant Spain. The formula
of the oath which the citizens of the little town of Aritium in Lusitania had
sworn to Caligula on 11th May A.D. 37, therefore scarcely two months after the
death of Tiberius, is preserved on an iron tablet (Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. ii.
n. 172. See Mommsen’s remarks upon it in Ephemeris epigr. t. v. pp. 154-158). In
essential agreement with this Latin oath formula is the Greek oath of the
citizens of Assos in the Troad to Caligula, which is known from an iron tablet
found there in 1881. It also bears the date of the consuls of the first half of
the year A.D. 37. The main body of this Greek formula runs as follows: Ὄμνυμεν …
εὐνοήσειν Γαίῳ Καίσαρι Σεβαστῷ καὶ τῷ σύμπαντι οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ φίλους τε
κρίνειν, οὓς ἂν αὐτὸς προαιρῆται, καὶ ἐχθροὺς οὓς αν αὐτὸς προβάλληται
(Ephemeris epigr. v. 154-158). 3. For the time of Trajan we learn explicitly
from Pliny that then the provincials on the anniversary of the emperor’s
accession yearly renewed the oath of fidelity to the emperor (Pliny, Epist. ad
Trajan. 52 [al. 60]: “diem, domine, quo servasti imperium, dum suscipis, quanta
mereris laetitia celebravimus … praeivimus et commilitonibus jus jurandum more
sollemni, eadem provincialibus certante pietate jurantibus.” Ibid. 103 [al. 104]
Traianus Plinio: “Diem imperii mei debita laetitia et religione commilitonibus
et provincialibus praeeunte te celebratum libenter cognovi litteris
tuis”).—Compare generally, Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 749. [587]
Josephus, Antiq. xv. 8. 3-4. In order to hold the revolting populace in check,
Herod had recourse on his part to means of violence; and so his reign the longer
it lasted the more despotic it became. The fortresses, which were partly new
erections of his own, partly old places made stronger, served not only to
protect him from foreign foes, but also for keeping down his own people. The
most important were Herodium, Alexandrium, Hyrcania, Machärus, Masada, to which
may also be added the military colonies at Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in Perea
(compare above, pp. 435-437). Especially to Hyrcania many political offenders
were deported in order there to disappear for ever.[588] As props of his
government against foreign as well as home foes Herod had dependable mercenary
troops, in which there were many Thracians, Germans, and Gauls.[589]—But,
finally, he sought by strict police regulations to nip in the bud every attempt
at rebellion. All idle loitering about the streets, all common assemblies, yea,
even meeting together on the street, was forbidden. And where anything of the
kind was nevertheless done, the king had information about it immediately
conveyed to him by his secret spies. He is said at times to have in his own
person acted the part of the spy.[590] [588] Ibid. xv. 10. 4. [589] Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 9. [590] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 4.
In order to be just, one must, however, admit that his government had also its
good side. Among his buildings many were of a useful description. We need only
mention the haven of Caesarea. By his strong hand were conditions created under
the protection of which trade and travel became safe. He also for a time at
least made attempts to win the hearts of his subjects by proofs of his
magnanimity. Once, in the year B.C. 20, he remitted a third of the taxes;[591]
at another time, in B.C. 14, he remitted a fourth of them.[592] Quite amazing
was the energy with which he sought to put a stop to the famine which spread
over the land in B.C. 25. He is said on that occasion to have converted into
money even his own table plate.[593] [591] Ibid. xv. 10. 4. [592] Ibid. xvi. 2.
5. [593] Ibid. xv. 9. 1-2. But the people in presence of prevailing evils had
only a very feeble and transitory gratitude for such benefits. And so, while
upon the whole his reign was undoubtedly glorious, it was by no means happy. The
chief glory of his reign lay in his foreign policy, and in this department he
undeniably achieved great success. He had secured the confidence of Augustus to
such a degree, that by imperial favour the extent of his territory was about
doubled. This is the place to estimate, according to its most essential and
characteristic feature, the position in the eye of the law of a rex socius in
the Roman empire of that day.[594] The dependence, in which all kings on this
side of the Euphrates stood to the Roman power, was expressed most strikingly in
this, that none could exercise royal authority and use the title of king without
the express approval of the emperor, with or without confirmation by the
senate.[595] The title was, as a rule, granted only to such princes as reigned
over a territory of considerable extent; the smaller princes were obliged to be
satisfied with the title of tetrarch or such like. The permission extended only
to the person of the individual who then received it, and ceased with his death.
Hereditary monarchies were not generally recognised within the domain of the
Roman authority. Even the son appointed by his father as his successor could
enter upon his government only after his nomination had been confirmed by the
emperor. This confirmation was refused if there appeared reasons for so doing,
and then the territorial domain of the father was either granted to the son with
restricted boundaries and with an inferior title, or given to another, or even
taken under direct Roman administration as a province. All this may indeed be
learned from the history of the Herodian dynasty, but it is also confirmed by
all other records.—The title socius et amicus populi Romani (φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος
Ῥωμαίων) seems as a special designation to have been granted only to
individuals, so that not all who actually assumed this position had really
formally received the title.[596] The possession of Roman citizenship is indeed
expressly witnessed to only on behalf of a few, but is to be assumed in regard
to all as probable. The family of Herod came into possession of it early through
Antipater, the father of Herod.[597] From the time of Caligula, too, honorary
senatorial rights (praetorian and consular rank) were for a time conferred upon
confederate kings.[598]—Their power was restricted especially in the following
particulars: 1. They could neither conclude treaties with other States nor
engage in a war on their own account, and so could exercise sovereign rights
only within the boundaries of their own land. 2. They had the right of coining
money only in a limited degree. The minting of gold coins seems to have been
almost entirely forbidden; in many cases also the minting of silver coins. To
the latter class belonged Herod and his successors; at least only copper coins
have come down to us from the whole line of Herodian princes. This fact is
particularly instructive, since it shows us that Herod by no means belonged to
the most distinguished of those kings, as by many of his statements Josephus
would lead us to suppose.[599]. A special obligation resting on them was the
providing of auxiliary troops in case of a war, as well as the protection of the
frontiers of the empire against foreign attacks. Also contributions in money
were on special occasions demanded. But a regular tribute seems not to have been
raised for the kings during the time of the empire. Only of Antony is it said
that he appointed kings ἐπὶ φόροις τεταγμένοις.[600]—The rights of sovereignty
which were left to dependent kings embraced, under the reservations specified,
the whole administration of home affairs and the execution of the laws. They had
unlimited power of life and death over their subjects. Their whole territory was
generally not regarded as belonging to the province. Within the bounds of their
territory they could impose taxes at will, and they administered the revenue
independently. Their army also was under their own control, and was organized by
themselves. [594] Compare upon this point, Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche
Verfassung dei römischen Reichs, Bd. ii. 1865, pp. 21-33; Bohn, Qua condicione
juris reges socii populi Romani fuerint, Berolini 1877; Mommsen, Römisches
Staatsrecht, iii. 1, 1887, pp. 645-715.—The work of W. T. Arnold, Roman System
of Provincial Administration, London 1879, quoted by Marquardt in his Röm.
Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. p. 500, was not accessible to me. [595] Herod had
his kingdom δόσει Καίσαρος καὶ δόγματι Ῥωμαίων, Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7. [596]
Also in regard to Herod, who in Antiq. xvii. 9. 6 is called φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος,
Bohn doubts whether the title officially belonged to him, Qua condicione, p. 14,
note 29. [597] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 5. [598]
Agrippa I. obtained in the first place praetorian rank (Philo in Flacc. § 6,
Mangey, ii. 523), subsequently consular rank (Dio Cassius, lx. 8). Herod of
Chalcis obtained praetorian rank (Dio Cassius, ibid.), as also Agrippa II. (Dio
Cassius, lxvi. 15).—The conferring of honorary senatorial rights (ornamenta,
τιμαί) on those not senators, first came into vogue under Tiberius (Mommsen,
Röm. Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. i. 375 f.). The interest of the question entirely
centres on the point as to their right of taking their place on public occasions
among the senators, and of wearing the insignia of their respective offices.
Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. 373 f., 377 f. [599] Compare on the right of
reges socii to coin money, Mommsen, Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens, 1860,
pp. 661-736; Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1, pp. 709-714; Bohn, Qua condicione
juris, pp. 42-49. [600] Appian, Civ. v. 75. More details are given in the
excursus on the taxing of Quirinius (§ 17, Appendix I.). For the hypothesis that
the reges socii were obliged to pay a regular tribute, a special attempt to
supply proof has been made by Huschke (Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu
Christi gehaltenen Census, 1840, pp. 99-116). He is followed by Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, pp. 405-408, with reference to Judea. On the
other hand, Bohn, Qua condicione juris, pp. 55-64.—Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. 1.
683, confines himself to the remark that the dependent principalities “even
under the Republic” paid a fixed yearly tribute; but he admits that “according
to the older Roman practice” the federation right excluded the payment of money
(p. 681), and that even in later times the payment of tribute by those belonging
to the league was determined “less by general rule than by enactments made in
reference to the particular case in point” (p. 683). The position thus
described, which afforded such abundant scope to the energy of the individual,
was taken advantage of by Herod with all his might. He availed himself, as
others ought also to have done, of every opportunity of presenting himself to
the emperor and proving his devotion to him.[601] Even in B.C. 30 he had several
times visited Augustus.[602] Ten years later, in B.C. 20, Augustus went again to
Syria, and Herod did not lose the chance of paying him his respects.[603] In
B.C. 18 or 17 Herod fetched home his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, who
were in Rome for their education, and was on that occasion very graciously
received by the emperor.[604] Subsequently he met with Augustus on two
occasions, in the years B.C. 12 and 10-9.[605] Herod was also on terms of
friendly intercourse with Agrippa, the trusted friend and son-in-law of
Augustus. While Agrippa was residing in Mytilene, B.C. 23-21, he there received
a visit from Herod.[606] And later still, in B.C. 15, Agrippa himself went to
Judea and offered a hecatomb in the temple at Jerusalem. The people were so
enthusiastic over the Roman who showed himself so friendly to the Jews, that
they accompanied him amid shouts of good-will to his ship, strewing his way with
flowers, and expressing admiration at his piety.[607] In the spring of the
following year, B.C. 14, Herod returned Agrippa’s visit; and as he knew that
Agrippa had planned an expedition to the Crimea, he took with him a fleet in
order to afford him assistance. At Sinope he met his noble friend and then went
with him, after the warlike operations were finished, over a great part of Asia
Minor, dispensing everywhere lavish gifts and granting petitions.[608]—His
relations with Augustus and Agrippa were so intimate that flatterers affirmed
that Herod was dearest to Augustus next to Agrippa, and to Agrippa next to
Augustus.[609] [601] Compare Suetonius, Augustus, 60: “Reges amici atque socii …
saepe regnis relictis, non Romae modo sed et provincias peragranti cotidiana
officia togati ac sine regio insigni, more clientium praestiterunt.” [602] See
above, p. 428. [603] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3.—Augustus does not seem ever to
have visited Judea. [604] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 1. 2. [605] Josephus, Antiq.
xvi. 4. 1-5, and 9. 1. Compare above, p. 411 f. [606] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10.
2. [607] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1; Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 37 (ed. Mangey,
ii. 589): εὐφημηθεὶς μυρία παρεπέμφθη μέχρι λιμένων, οὐχ ὑπὸ μιᾶς πόλεως, ἀλλʼ
ὑπὸ τῆς χώρας ἁπάσης, φυλλοβολούμενός τε καὶ θαυμαζόμενος ἐπʼ εὐσεβείᾳ.—In
reference to the hecatomb, compare Div. ii. vol. i. p. 302. On the sacrificing
by heathens in Jerusalem generally, see same volume, pp. 299-305. [608]
Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 2-5. Compare Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta
Hist. Graec. iii. 350. [609] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i.
20. 4. These Roman friendships also bore their fruits. Even as early as B.C. 30,
when Herod was with Augustus in Egypt, he had obtained from him important
enlargement of territory (see above, p. 428). New gifts were added at a later
period. Herod had in B.C. 25, in the campaign of Aelius Gallus against Arabia,
supplied 500 men of select auxiliary troops.[610] There may possibly be some
connection between this and the fact that soon afterwards, in B.C. 23, at the
time when Herod sent his sons Alexander and Aristobulus for their education to
Rome, he received the districts of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis, which
previously had been occupied by nomad robber tribes, with whom the neighbouring
tetrarch Zenodorus had made common cause.[611] When some years later, in B.C.
20, Augustus visited Syria, he bestowed upon Herod the tetrarchy of Zenodorus,
the districts of Ulatha and Panias, and the surrounding territories north and
north-west of the lake of Gennesareth.[612] At the same time Herod obtained
permission to appoint his brother Pheroras tetrarch of Perea.[613] And the
unbounded confidence which Augustus had in him is shown conspicuously in this,
that he, perhaps only during the period of Agrippa’s absence from the East (see
above, p. 349 f.), gave orders to the procurators of Syria (Coele-Syria ?) to
take counsel with Herod in regard to all important matters.[614] [610] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 9. 3; Strabo, xvi. 4. 23, p. 780. For further details, see above, p.
407. [611] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4.—The districts
named all lie west of the lake of Gennesareth. Compare in reference to them, §
17a; on Zenodorus, Appendix I. [612] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the
Jews, i. 20. 4; Dio Cassius, liv. 9. [613] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of
the Jews, i. 24. 5. [614] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20.
4. The somewhat obscure words in reference to the procurators are as follows,
Antiq. xv. 10. 3: ἐγκαταμίγνυσι δʼ αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς ἐπιτροπεύουσι τῆς Συρίας,
ἐντειλάμενος μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης τὰ πάντα ποιεῖν; somewhat differently, Wars
of the Jews, i. 20. 4: κατέστησε δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ Συρίας ὅλης ἐπίτροπον … ὡς μηδὲν
ἐξείη δίχα τῆς ἐκείνου συμβουλίας τοῖς ἐπιτρόποις διοικεῖν.—From the nature of
the thing it cannot refer to a formal subordination of the procurators of Syria
under Herod, but, as even the expression συμβουλίας in the latter passage shows,
only to the fact that the procurators as finance officers for the province were
told to make use of the counsel of Herod. Also it is probable that for Συρίας
ὅλης (resp. Συρίας) we should read Συρίας κοίλης. Compare Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 408.—One should not take the note too seriously,
since it evidently comes from the glorifying pen of Nicolas of Damascus. It is
not left untold how Herod used his influence with the Roman governors to secure
the Jews of the dispersion againat all oppression and infringement of their
rights on the part of their non-Jewish neighbours.[615] Thus the power of the
Jewish king told in favour even of those Jews who were not immediately under his
rule. [615] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 3-5. Compare also, Antiq. xvi. 6. 1-8; xii.
3. 2. The period from B.C. 20 to B.C. 14 was decidedly the most brilliant in his
reign. In spite of dependence upon Rome, his court, so far as outward grandeur
was concerned, might bear comparison with the best times that the nation had
seen. Internal affairs were indeed in a miserable state. Only by force could the
people be brought to tolerate the semi-pagan rule of the Idumean; and only his
despotic, iron hand prevented an uprising of the fermenting masses. III The last
nine years of Herod, B.C. 13-4, constitute the period of domestic misery.
Especially his unhappy quarrels with the sons of Mariamme cast a deep, dark
shadow over this period.[616] [616] Many things belong to this period that were
treated of in the preceding section, for the boundaries of the periods cannot be
always strictly observed. It is in general undoubtedly correct to say that the
domestic quarrels reached their height between B.C. 13 and B.C. 4. Herod had a
numerous family. In all he had ten wives, which was indeed, as Josephus points
out, allowed by the law; but it affords a striking proof of his sensuality.[617]
His first wife was Doris, by whom he had one son, Antipater.[618] Both were
repudiated by Herod, and Antipater was allowed to appear at Jerusalem only at
the great feasts.[619] In the year B.C. 37, Herod married Mariamme, the
grand-daughter of Hyrcanus (see above, p. 396), who bore him five children,
three sons and two daughters. Of the sons, the youngest died at Rome;[620] the
two elder ones, Alexander and Aristobulus, are the heroes of the subsequent
history.[621] The third wife, whom Herod married about B.C. 24, was also called
Mariamme. She was daughter of a famous priest belonging to Alexandria, who was
appointed high priest by Herod just at the time when he married his
daughter.[622] By this wife he had a son called Herod.[623] Of the other seven
wives, carefully enumerated by Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 1. 3, and Wars of the
Jews, i. 28. 4, only the Samaritan Malthoe, mother of Archelaus and Antipas, and
Cleopatra of Jerusalem, the mother of Philip, are of interest to us. [617]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 2, fin.; Antiq. xvii. 1. 2: πάτριον γὰρ ἐν
ταὐτῷ πλείοσιν ἡμῖν συνοικεῖν. According to the Mishna, Sanhedrin ii. 4,
eighteen wives were allowed to the king. How many a private man should have is
not expressly stated in the Mishna, but it is assumed that he may have four or
five (four: Jebamoth iv. 11; Kethuboth x. 1-6; five: Kerithoth iii. 7. Compare
in general also: Kiddushin ii. 7; Bechoroth viii. 4). In agreement with this is
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, c. 134: βέλτιόν ἐστιν, ὑμᾶς τῷ θεῷ ἕπεσθαι ἢ τοῖς
ἀσυνέτοις, καὶ τυφλοῖς διδασκάλοις ὑμῶν, οἵτινες καὶ μέχρι νῦν καὶ τέσσαρας καὶ
πέντε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς γυναῖκας ἕκαστον συγχωροῦσι. Compare further, Otto’s note on
that passage, and Winer, Realwörterbuch, article “Vielweiberei.” [618] Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 12. 1.—According to Antiq. xvii. 5. 2, Antipater was married to a
daughter of the last Asmonean Antigonus. [619] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3; Wars
of the Jews, i. 22. 1. [620] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 2. [621] The two
daughters were called Salampso and Cypros. Their descendants are enumerated by
Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4. [622] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 9. 3. The name
Mariamme: Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, and elsewhere. Josephus, in Antiq. xv. 9.
3, names her father Simon, her grandfather Boethos. In other places Boethos
himself is called her father. See Studien und Kritiken, 1872, p. 599 f.; and
below, § 23, iv. Div. ii. vol. i. p. 195. [623] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 1. 2.
About the year B.C. 23, Herod sent the sons of the first Mariamme, Alexander and
Aristobulus, for their education to Rome, where they were hospitably entertained
in the house of Asinius Pollio.[624] Some five years later, in B.C. 18 or 17, .
he himself fetched them home again, and from that time onward kept them at the
court in Jerusalem.[625] They would then be young men about seventeen or
eighteen years of age. In accordance with the customs of the age and country,
they were soon married. Alexander received a daughter of the Cappadocian king
Archelaus, whose name was Glaphyra; Aristobulus had given him a daughter of
Herod’s sister Salome, called Berenice.[626] Although in this way the Asmonean
and Idumean line of the Herodian family were connected together by affinity in
the closest relationship, they still stood over against one another as two
hostile camps. The sons of Mariamme, conscious of their royal blood, might well
look down with a certain pride upon the Idumean relationship; and the Idumeans,
pre-eminently the estimable Salome, returned the haughtiness of those Asmoneans
by common abuse. And so even thus early, after the sons had no more than
re-entered their father’s house, the knots began to be tied, which afterwards
became so twisted that they could not be loosed. For a time, however, Herod did
not allow these janglings to interfere with the love he had for his sons.[627]
[624] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1. [625] Ibid. xvi. 1. 2. [626] Josephus, Antiq.
xvi. 1. 2. Berenice was a daughter of Salome and Costobar (Antiq. xviii. 5. 4).
She is also spoken of by Strabo, xvi. 2. 46, p. 765.—King Archelaus of
Cappadocia reigned from B.C. 36 to A.D. 17 (Dio Cassius, xlix. 32, Ivii. 17;
Tacitus, Annals, ii. 42; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 448; Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1439 f.; Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 365 f.; Reinach, Revue Numismatique, 1886, pp.
462-466). [627] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 1. 2. The evil conscience of the king,
however, offered so fruitful a soil for such sowing of slanders, that they could
not fail ultimately to take root and to bring forth fruit. He was obliged to
admit to himself that the natural heritage of the sons was the desire to avenge
the death of their mother. And as now Salome again and again pictured to him the
danger which threatened from both, he at last began to believe it, and to look
upon his sons with suspicion.[628] [628] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3.1-2. In order
to provide what would counterbalance their aspiring projects, and to show them
that there was still another in existence who might possibly be heir to the
throne, he called back his exiled Antipater, and sent his sons for that reason
to Rome, in company with Agrippa, who just then, in B.C. 13, was leaving the
East, in order that he might present him to the emperor.[629] But by so doing he
put the weapon into the hand of the bitterest foe of his domestic peace. For
Antipater from this time forth laboured incessantly, by calumniating his
step-brothers, to carve out his way to the throne. The change in their father’s
attitude was naturally not without effect upon Alexander and Aristobulus. They
returned his suspicion with undisguised aversion, and already openly complained
of the death of their mother, and of the injurious treatment to which they were
subjected.[630] Thus was the rift between father and sons becoming always
deeper, until at last Herod, in B.C. 12, came to the conclusion to accuse his
sons before the emperor. Along with the two he started on his journey, and
appeared before the emperor at Aquileia as complainant against his sons. The
mild earnestness of Augustus succeeded for that time in reconciling the opposing
parties, and restoring again domestic peace. With thanks to the emperor, father
and sons returned home; and Antipater also himself joined them, and pretended to
rejoice in the reconciliation.[631] [629] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3; Wars of
the Jews, i. 23. 1-2. [630] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3. [631] Josephus, Antiq.
xvi. 4. 1-6; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 3-5. Scarcely had they reached home when
the old game began afresh. Antipater, who now again was one of those in
immediate attendance on the king, continued unweariedly the work of slander, and
in this he was faithfully supported by the brother and sister of Herod, Pheroras
and Salome. On the other hand, Alexander and Aristobulus assumed a more
decidedly hostile attitude.[632] Thus the peace between father and sons was soon
again broken. The suspicion of the king, which from day to day received new
fuel, became more and more morbid, and by and by reached a climax in a
superstitious fear of ghosts.[633] He now caused the adherents of Alexander to
be subjected to the torture, at first unsuccessfully, until at last one, under
the agony of torture, made injurious admissions. On the ground of these,
Alexander was committed to prison.[634]—When the Cappadocian king, Alexander’s
father-in-law, heard of the unfortunate state of matters at the Jewish court, he
began to fear for his daughter and son-in-law, and made a journey to Jerusalem
in order, if at all possible, to bring about a reconciliation. He appeared
before Herod very angry over his good-for-nothing son-in-law, threatened to take
his daughter back again to his own house, and expressed himself so ferociously
that Herod himself espoused the side of his son, and undertook his defence
against Archelaus. By such a manœuvre the sly Cappadocian succeeded in bringing
about the reconciliation which he desired, and was able to return home quite
satisfied.[635] Thus once again the wild storm was broken by a short temporary
lull. [632] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 7. 2 ff.; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 1 ff. [633]
Compare especially: Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 2, 5; Wars of the Jew, i. 24. 8.
[634] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 24 8. [635] Josephus,
Antiq. xvi. 8. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 25. 1-6. In that excited period Herod had
also to contend with foreign enemies, and even with imperial disfavour. The
free-booting inhabitants of Trachonitis wished to rid themselves of his strict
and severe government, and somewhere about forty of the worst disturbers of the
peace found ready shelter in the neighbouring parts of Arabia, where a certain
Sylleus carried on the government in the place of the weak King Obodas. When
Sylleus refused to deliver up these robbers, Herod undertook, with consent of
the governor of Syria, Saturninus, a warlike expedition against Arabia, and
enforced his rights.[636] But now Sylleus agitated at Rome, represented the
matter as an unlawful breach of national peace, and was able thereby to bring
Herod seriously into disfavour with the emperor.[637]—In order to justify
himself in regard to his conduct, Herod sent an embassy to Rome; and when this
was not successful, he sent a second, under the leadership of Nicolas of
Damascus.[638] [636] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1-2. [637] Josephus, Antiq. xvi.
9. 3. Compare Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. iii. 351;
Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 64. [638] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 4.
Meanwhile the family discord was with rapid strides approaching its tragical
end. The reconciliation, as might have been expected, was not of long duration.
In order to make the unhappiness complete, there now arrived at the court a
worthless Lacedæmonian, Eurykles, who inflamed the father against the sons and
the sons against the father.[639] At the same time, all the other
mischief-makers continued their work. At last matters came to such a pass that
Herod cast Alexander and Aristobulus into prison, and laid a complaint against
them before the emperor of being concerned in treasonable plots.[640] [639]
Josephus, Antiq, xvi. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 26. 1-4. [640] Josephus,
Antiq. xvi. 10. 5-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 1. Nicolas of Damascus had
meanwhile accomplished the task of his mission, and had again won over the
emperor to Herod.[641] When, therefore, the messengers bearing the accusation
reached Rome, they found Augustus already in a favourable mood, and at once
spread out before him their documents. Augustus gave to Herod absolute power to
proceed in this matter as he thought best, but advised him to summon to Berytus
a justiciary court consisting of Roman officials and his own friends, and to
have the charges against his sons investigated by it.[642] [641] Josephus,
Antiq. xvi. 10. 8-9. Nicolas of Damascus in Müller. [642] Josephus, Antiq. xvi.
11. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 1.—Berytus was probably fixed upon by Augustus
because it was a Roman colony, and so a centre of Roman activity and officialdom
in the neighbourhood of Palestine. According to Strabo, xvi. 2.19, p. 755 sq.,
Agrippa placed two legions in Berytus, i.e. the veterans of those legions. This
would be in B.C. 15, on the occasion of Agrippa’s visit to that quarter (see
above, p. 411). In fact, Eusebius gives the year of Abraham 2001, or B.C. 15, as
the date of the founding of the colony of Berytus (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, ii. 142); and Augustus says, in Monumentum Ancyranum, iii. 22 sqq.,
that in the year B.C. 14, during the consulship of M. Crassus and Cn. Lentulus,
he paid to the municipal authorities large sums for pieces of land which he
assigned to the veterans (Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, pp. 62-65).
The two legions were the Leg. V. Mac. and VIII. Aug. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii.
356; Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 119). The full name of Berytus as a colony runs
thus: “Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus” (Corpus Inscript. Let. t. iii. n.
161, 165, 166, 6041). Compare also, Pliny, Historia Naturalis, v. 20. 78;
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 3. 1; Digest. L. 15. 1. 1, 7, 8. 3. The coins
are given in Eckhel, Doctrina Num. iii. 354-359, and Mionnet, Description de
médailles ant. v. 334-351; Supplément, viii. 238-250. Robinson, Biblical
Researches in Palestine, iii. 436-447. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 62-64, 432-456.
Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 2. 2361 f. Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. i.
379. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. p. 427 f.—In the later
years of the empire, at least from the third century after Christ, there was in
Berytus a highly celebrated seminary for Roman law (Codex Justin. i. 17. 2. 9, x
49. 1. Robinson, Bibl. Researches, iii. p. 442. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 436.
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, p. 428). Its beginnings may quite well
have been within the period of Augustus (Hitzig, Geschichte der Volkes Israel,
ii. 554). Herod accepted the advice of the emperor. The court almost unanimously
pronounced the sentence of death. Only the governor of Syria, Saturninus, and
his three sons were of another mind.—Still it was doubtful whether Herod would
carry out the sentence. An old soldier, Teron, therefore ventured publicly to
sue for favour to the condemned. But the old man and three hundred others, who
were denounced as adherents of Alexander and Aristobulus, were put to death, and
the sentence was now without delay carried into execution. At Sebaste (Samaria),
where thirty years before Mariamme’s marriage had been celebrated, her sons were
executed upon the gibbet, probably in B.C. 7.[643] [643] Josephus, Antiq. xvi.
11. 2-7; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 2-6. Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta
Hist. Graec. iii. 351 sq. Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 65.—Compare
generally, Delitzsch, Jüdisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1875 (pp.
51-69: “Ein Junitag aus dem letzten Jahrzehnt des vorchristlichen
Jerusalems”).—On the punishment by strangling among the Jews, Mishna, Sanhedrin
vii. 1, 3; Terumoth vii. 2; Kethuboth iv. 3; Sanhedrin vi. 5, fin., ix. 3, 6,
xi. 1. Among the Romans, Bein, article “Laqueus,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie,
iv. 771. But such proceedings failed utterly in restoring peace to Herod’s
household. Antipater was now indeed all-powerful at court, and enjoyed the
unconditional confidence of his father. But this did not satisfy him. He wished
to have the government wholly in his own hand, and held secret conferences with
Herod’s brother Pheroras, tetrarch of Perea, at which it was suspected that
nothing good was done. Salome, the old serpent, had soon discovered these
ongoings, and reported the matter to the king.[644] And so the relations of
Antipater and his father soon became strained. Antipater, in order to avoid a
conflict, found it convenient to allow himself to be sent to Rome. That Herod
did not meanwhile entertain any serious suspicion against him is shown by his
will, in which even at that time he nominated Autipater his successor on the
throne; only in the event of Antipater dying before himself was Herod, the son
of Mariamme the high priest’s daughter, named his successor.[645] [644]
Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 1. 1, 2. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 1, 29. 1. [645]
Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 2. While Antipater was in
Rome, Pheroras died;[646] and by this also Antipater’s fate was sealed. Some
freedmen of Pheroras went to Herod and showed him that there was a suspicion
that Pheroras had been poisoned, and that Herod should investigate the matter
more closely. On examination it came out that poison certainly had been present,
that it was sent by Antipater, but that it was intended, not for Pheroras, but
was only given to him by Antipater in order that he might administer it to
Herod. Herod also now learned from the female slaves of Pheroras’ household all
the utterances which had escaped Antipater at those secret conclaves, his
complaining about the long life of the king, about the uncertainty of his
prospects, and other such things.[647] Herod could now no longer entertain any
doubt as to the deadly intentions of his favourite son. Under all sorts of false
pretences, he recalled him from Rome in order to put him on trial at home.
Antipater, who anticipated no trouble, returned, and to his great surprise—for
although since the discovery of his plots seven months had passed, he had heard
nothing of the matter—he was on his arrival committed to prison in the king’s
palace.[648] Next day he was brought forth to trial before Varus, the governor
of Syria. As in face of the manifest proofs brought against him he could say
nothing in defence of himself, Herod had him put in fetters, and made a report
of the matter to the emperor.[649] [646] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 3. 3; Wars of
the Jews, i. 29. 4. [647] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i.
30. 1-7. [648] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 4. 3, 5. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 31.
2-5. [649] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 3-7; War of the Jews, i. 32. 1-5. Compare
generally also, Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta Hist. Graec. iii. 352
sq.; Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 66 sq. Herod was now almost seventy years
of age. His days were indeed already numbered. He suffered from a disease from
which he could not recover. In a new will, which he now executed, he named his
youngest son Antipas, the son of the Samaritan Malthace, as his successor.[650]
[650] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1-4. During his
sickness he could not but perceive how anxiously the people longed to be
delivered from his yoke, and yearned for the moment when they would be
emancipated from his heathenish government. As soon as the news got abroad that
his disease was incurable, two rabbis, Judas the son of Sariphäus, and Matthias
the son of Margaloth, stirred up the people to tear down the offensive eagle
from the temple gate.[651] Only too readily they found an audience, and amid
great uproar the work pleasing to God was accomplished. Meanwhile Herod, in
spite of his sickness, was still strong enough to pass sentences of death, and
to have the principal leaders of the tumult burnt alive.[652] [651] The names of
the rabbins in Antiq. xvii. 6. 2: Ἰούδας ὁ Σαριφαίου καὶ Ματθίας ὁ Μαργαλώθου;
in Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 2: Ἰούδας τε υἱὸς Σεπφωραίου καὶ Ματθίας ἕτερος
Μαργάλου. [652] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 6. 2-4; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1-4. The
days of the old king were now at an end. The disease was always becoming worse,
and dissolution rapidly approached. The baths of Callirrhoë, on the other side
of the Jordan, to which the king had gone, no longer benefited him.[653] When he
had returned to Jericho, he is said to have given orders that upon his death the
most distingnished men of the nation, whom he had caused to be that up in the
arena of that place, should he cut down, so that there might be a great
lamentation as he passed away.[654] Amid all the pains which his disease caused
him, he lived long enough to have the satisfaction of accomplishing the death of
his son Antipater, the chief instigator of his domestic misery. Just in the last
days of his life the permission of the emperor arrived for the execution of
Antipater, which soon afterwards was carried out.[655] [653] Josephus, Antiq.
xvii. 6. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 5.—Callirrhoë is also mentioned by Pliny,
Historia Naturalis, v. 16. 72, and by Ptolemy, v. 16. 9. The Jewish tradition
identifies Callirrhoë and the biblical לֶשַׁע, Genesis 10:19 (Targum Jerus. on
Genesis 10:19; Bereshith rabba, c. 37). On this point, see Jerome, Quaest. Hebr.
in Genes. x. 19 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iii. 321): “hoc tantum adnotandum videtur,
quod Lise ipsa sit quae nunc Callirhoë dicitur, ubi aquae calidae prorumpentes
in mare mortuum defluunt.”—On its site, see especially, Dechent, Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 196-201. [654] Josephus, Antiq.
xvii. 6. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 6. The order was not carried out (Antiq.
xvii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8). Compare the similar rabbinical
tradition in Derenbourg, p. 164 sq. [655] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 7; War of the
Jews, i. 33. 7; Nicolas of Damascus in Müller. A few days before his death Herod
once again altered his will, for he named Archelaus, the older son of Malthace,
king, his brother Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip, the son of
Cleopatra of Jerusalem, tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and
Panias.[656] [656] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7-8. At
last, five days after the execution of Antipater, Herod died at Jericho in B.C.
4, unwept by those of his own house, and hated by all the people.[657]—A pompous
funeral procession accompanied the royal corpse from Jericho, a distance of
eight furlongs, in the direction of Herodium, where it was laid in its last
resting-place.[658] [657] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33.
8.—On the date of his death, see Fréret, “Eclaircissement sur l’année et sur le
temps précis de la mort d’Hérode le Grand, roi de Judée” (Mémoires de l’Académie
des inscriptions et belles-lettres, prem. série, t. xxi. 1754, pp. 278-298);
Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, 1793, pp. 307-394 (the classical
work); Wurm in Bengel’s Archiv. 2nd vol. 1st part, 1816, pp. 26-39 (worthy of
being consulted for its astronomical computations); Ideler, Handbuch der
Chronologie, ii. 389-393; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 46-51;
Seyffarth, Chronologia sacra, pp. 80-85; Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen
Kalender (1848), pp. 236-238; Van der Chijs, De Herods Magno, p. 62 sq.; Lewin,
Fasti sacra (1865), pp. ix., xxii.; Caspari, Chronological and Geographical
Introduction to the Life of Jesus Christ, pp. 28-34; Quandt, Zeitordnung und
Zeitbestimmungen in den Evangelien (1872), pp. 4-12; Sevin, Chronologie des
Lebens Jesu (2 Aufl. 1874), pp. 54-70; Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (1880),
pp. 6-57, 189-224; Schegg, Das Todesjahr des Königs Herodes und das Todesjahr
Jesu Christi, 1882; Riess, Nochmals das Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi (1883), pp.
1-68; Sattler, Das Jahr 749 nach Erbauung Roms das wahre Geburtsjahr Jesu
(Allgem. Zeitung, 1883, Beilage Nr. 72); Mémain, La connaissance des temps
évangéliques (1886), pp. 53-59; Kellner in the Katholik, 1887, zweite Hälfte,
pp. 75-82, 166-182. [658] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 3, fin.: ἤεσαν δὲ ἐπὶ
Ἡρωδείου στάδια ὀκτώ; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 9, fin.: σταδίους δὲ ἐκομίσθη τὸ
σῶμα διακοσίους εἰς Ἡρώδειον.—The former passage states how far upon the way the
funeral procession went; the latter passage gives the distance from Jericho to
Herodium. It is undoubtedly the more important of the two fortresses that is
intended (see above, p. 435), and its distance from Jericho is somewhere about
200 stadia or furlongs. Since Herod was buried there, the μνημεῖον of Herod at
Jerusalem (Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 2, 12. 2) was only a memorial, not an
erection over his tomb. Herod died shortly before a Passover (Antiq. xvii. 9. 3;
Wars of the Jews, ii. 1. 3), therefore in March or April. Since Josephus says
that he reigned thirty-seven years from the date of his appointment, thirty-four
years from his conquest of Jerusalem (Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i.
33. 8), it would seem as if, counting thirty-seven years from the year B.C. 40,
he must have died in B C. 3. But we know that Josephus elsewhere counts a year
too much, according to our reckoning. Thus he counts from the conquest of
Jerusalem by Pompey to that by Herod twenty-seven years (Antiq. xiv. 16. 4),
whereas the true number is twenty-six (B.C. 63-B.C. 37). Again, from the
conquest of Herod down to that by Titus he counts 107 years (Antiq. xx. 10),
whereas there were only 106 (A.U.C. 717-A.U.C. 823). He reckons the spring of
B.C. 31 the seventh year of Herod (Antiq. xv. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3),
whereas it was only the sixth year (his reign beginning with July B.C. 37). The
reason of this is that he counts portions of a year as a year; and, indeed, he
probably, according to the example of the Mishna (comp. Rosh hashana, i. 1:
בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן ראֹשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים), reckons the years of the king’s
reign from Nisan to Nisan. If this be so, the thirty-fourth year of Herod would
begin on the 1st Nisan of the year B.C. 4, and Herod must in that case have died
between 1st and 14th Nisan, since his death occurred before the Passover. That
this is indeed the correct reckoning is confirmed by astronomical date, and by
the chronology of the successors of Herod. 1. Shortly before Herod’s death an
eclipse of the moon occurred (Antiq. xvii. 6. 4). This only corresponds to the
year B.C. 4, in which on the night of March 12-13 an eclipse of the moon took
place; whereas in the years 3 and 2 B.C. in Palestine generally there was no
such phenomenon (Wurm, p. 34 f.; Ideler, p. 391 f.). 2. The chronology of two
successors of Herod, Archelaus and Antipas, requires B.C. 4=A.U.C. 750, as the
year of Herod’s death. (a) Archelaus. He was, according to Dio Cassius,
Leviticus 27, deposed by Augustus in the year A.U.C. 759, during the consulship
of Aemilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius, in the tenth year of his reign. So also
says Josephus in Antiq. xvii. 13. 2, and in Life, 1, where the earlier statement
of the Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 3, that this occurred “in the ninth year of his
reign,” is corrected. Hence his reign began in A.U.C. 750. (b) Antipas. He was
deposed by Caligula in the summer of A.D. 39=A.U.C. 792 (see under § 17b). Since
we still have coins of his bearing date the forty-third year of his reign, the
year of the beginning of his reign must at latest have been A.U.C. 750. All
these facts therefore yield this result, that Herod died in the year B.C.
4=A.U.C. 750, shortly before the Passover.—This result, at least so far as it
relates to the year, is now accepted by most modern scholars (among whom may be
named : Fréret, Sanclemente, Ideler, Wieseler, Gumpach, van der Chijs, Lewin,
Sevin, Schegg, Sattler, Memain). Others approach nearly the same conclusion:
Wurm (B.C. 4 or 3), Quandt, and Kellner (B.C. 3). The following diverge farther:
Caspari, Riess (B.C. 1), and Seyffarth (A.D. 1). In reference to matters of
detail, the following points may be noted : 1. The custom of reckoning a portion
of the calendar year in the beginning and end of a year, be it ever so email, as
a full year in the reign, did undoubtedly exist in Egypt. Not only the years of
the Ptolemies, hut also the years of the Roman emperors, were in Egypt numbered
in this manner (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 117 ff.; Mommsen, Römisches
Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 2, 758 ff.). At a later period this mode of reckoning
the years of the emperors became common outside of Egypt (Mommsen, i. 501 f.,
ii. 2. 756 ff.). In reference to the similar style of reckoning the years of the
Jewish kings by Josephus, see Gumpach, pp. 223-236.—2. Of the coins of Antipas
of A.D. 43 (MT) there are at present three known examples (Madden, Coins of the
Jews, 1881, p. 121 sq.; two according to Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p.
125, pl. LIX. n. 19 and 20; one according to de Saulcy, Mélanges de
Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 92). Their existence is thus put beyond question.
But great difficulties are caused by a coin with the supposed date of A.D. 44
(ΜΔ). It has been described not only by the little to be depended upon Vaillant,
but also in a manuscript account of travels by Galand, who found it at Jericho
in A.D. 1674 (communicated by Fréret, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscr. et
belles-lettres, t. xxi. 1754, pp. 292 sq.). Sanclemente, pp. 315-319, and
Eckhel, Doctrina Num. iii. 487, have both occupied themselves with this
discussion. Both conjecture that the date has been incorrectly read (it may
rather have been ΛΔ=34). Compare pro and contra also: Ideler, p. 391; Madden,
History of Jewish Coinage, p. 99; Coins of the Jews, p. 122; Riess, 1880, pp.
55-57; Sattler, Das Jahr. 749; Memain, p. 448 f.; Kellner, p. 176. Eckhel’s
reasons are very convincing; he points especially to this, that the coin
described by Galand, according to its other peculiarities, corresponds to those
of the year 34, but not to those of the year 43. The only point of difficulty
arises from the statement made by Fréret at p. 293 in reference to Galand’s
description: “les lettres de l’époque ΜΔ très-nettement figurées dans son
manuscrit et absolument séparées l’une de l’autre.” The matter therefore
continues undecided. But even if the date 44 be the correct reading, still the
death of Herod cannot in any case be placed earlier than A.U.C. 750. Were we to
accept an earlier date for Herod’s death, we would be obliged to extend the
period of the reign of Antipas down to A.U.C. 793.—3. The attempts that have
been made to determine more exactly the day of Herod’s death by the help of
Jewish tradition have not been successful. In the old Megillath Taanith, the 7th
Chislen and the 2nd Shebat are always characterized as days of rejoicing (see
text and translation in Derenbourg, Histoire, pp. 442-446, § 21 and § 25). But
it is only the quite late commentary, which is unsupported by any Jewish
tradition, that makes the remark that the 7th Chisleu was the day of Herod’s
death, and the 2nd Shebat the day of the death of Jannäus. On the worthlessness
of this commentary, see Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, pp. 56-63; compare
also above, p. 163. Kellner adopts the 7th Chisleu in the Katholik, 1887, zweite
Hälfte, pp. 180-182. But since it is related of Jannäus that on the 2nd Shebat
he had put in prison the most distinguished of the Jews, and ordered that after
his death they should be executed, many Jewish scholars assume an interchange of
this name for that of Herod, and put the death of Herod therefore on the 2nd
Shebat. So Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. p. 472 ff., note 1;
Brann, De Herodis qui dicitur Magni filiis, 1873, p. 8 sq. The one statement is
of as little value as the other. The end of his reign was bloody as its
beginning had been. The brighter portion lay in the middle. But even during his
better days he was a despot, and upon the whole, with all the glory of his
reign, “he was still only a common man” (Hitzig, ii. 559). The title of “the
Great,” by which we are accustomed to distinguish him from his more feeble
descendants of the same name, is only justified when it is used in this relative
sense.[659][660] [659] In this sense is the title intended even in Josephus in
the single passage in which he uses it (Antiq. xviii. 5. 4). [660] Schürer, E.
(1890). Vol. 1: A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ,
first division, Vol. I. (v-467). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 35: � 16. DISTURBANCES AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, B.C. 4
========================================================================

§ 16. DISTURBANCES AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, B.C. 4 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xvii.
9-11; Wars of the Jews, ii. 1-6. ZONARAS, Annales, vi. 1-2 (summary from
Josephus). NICOLAS OF DAMASCUS in Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecarum, iii.
353 sq.; Feder, Excerpta Escurialensia, p. 67 sq. LITERATURE EWALD, History of
Israel, v. 449-457. GEIKIE, Life and Words of Christ, 7th ed., London 1879, i.
263-272. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 246-253. HITZIG,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 559-562. SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp.
200-203. HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 275-283. LEWIN,
Fasti sacri ad Ann. 4. BRANN, De Herodis qui dicitur Magni filiis patrem in
imperio secutis, pars 1, 1873 (treats only of the events of B.C. 4). MENKE,
Bibelatlas, Bl. V. “Judea and neighbouring countries in the time of Christ and
the Apostles.” BY the last will of Herod, Archelaus had been named his successor
on the throne. Archelaus therefore made it his first business to secure the
emperor’s confirmation of his father’s arrangement, and with this end in view he
resolved to make a journey to Rome. But before he could start on such an
expedition, he had to stamp out a rebellion in Jerusalem. The people could not
so easily forget the execution of the two rabbis, Judas and Matthias, and
violently insisted that Archelaus should bring to punishment the counsellors of
Herod. Archelaus endeavoured at first in a conciliatory manner to dissuade the
people from their purpose. But when he could not succeed in this way, the only
result of his proposals being the increase of the tumult, he resolved to crush
the revolt by violence. He accordingly sent forth a detachment of soldiers
against the people assembled in the temple, where the people who had flocked
into Jerusalem in prospect of the approaching Passover festival were wont to
gather at that season in great crowds. But the detachment sent was not strong
enough to make way against the excited masses. A portion of the soldiers was
stoned by the people; the rest, together with their leader, took to flight.
Archelaus was now obliged to call out his whole fighting force; and only by the
help of his entire army, amid great bloodshed, was he able to put down the
rebellion.[661] [661] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 1-3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 1.
1-3. After Archelaus had thus by the exercise of force secured quiet, he
hastened to Rome, leaving his brother Philip to act as administrator of the
kingdom. Scarcely had he gone, when Antipas also started for Rome in order to
press his own claims there. He had by the third and last will of Herod received
only Galilee and Perea, whereas in the second will he had been appointed
successor to the throne. He therefore now wished to represent to the emperor
that to him, and not to Archelaus, did the kingdom properly belong. Many other
members of the Herodian family were also present in Rome at the same time as
Archelaus and Antipas, and these now mostly appeared against Archelaus, and
expressed a strong desire that Palestine should now be put under immediate Roman
government; or if this could not be, then they would rather have Antipas than
Archelaus.[662] [662] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 3-4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 2.
1-3. Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, iii. 353. Hence the sons of Herod plotted
and schemed against one another in Rome. Augustus, in whose hands the decision
lay, meanwhile convoked at his palace a consultative assembly, at which the
opposing brothers were called upon to make a statement of their conflicting
claims. A certain Antipater spoke on behalf of Antipas, while Nicolas of
Damascus, formerly the minister of Herod, appeared on behalf of Archelaus. Each
party sought to win over the emperor to his side, partly by advancing arguments,
partly by insinuating suspicions against his opponent. When Augustus had heard
both parties, he inclined more to the side of Archelaus, and made a statement to
the effect that he was most fit to ascend the royal throne. Yet he did not wish
immediately to decide the matter, and so dismissed the assembly without issuing
a final and formal judgment.[663] [663] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 5-7; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 2, 4-7. But before the question about the succession to the throne
had been decided in Rome, new troubles had broken out in Judea. Soon after the
departure of Archelaus the Jews had again risen in revolt, but had been restored
to quiet by Varus, the governor of Syria. Varus had then returned to Antioch.
leaving behind him in Jerusalem a legion to maintain order. But scarcely had he
gone when the storm broke out afresh. After Herod’s death, pending the
settlement of the question of succession to the throne, the emperor had sent to
Palestine a procurator, Sabinus. But he oppressed the people in every sort of
way, and behaved in all directions in the most reckless manner. Hence it was
that a revolt broke out again immediately after the withdrawal of Varus. It was
now the season of the Passover festival, and therefore crowds of people were
present in Jerusalem. They were divided into three great divisions, and attacked
the Romans at the three different points: on the north of the temple, south
beside the racecourse, and on the west of the city beside the royal palace. The
keenest struggle took place, first of all, at the temple. The Romans pressed
forward successfully into the temple court; but the Jews offered a most stubborn
resistance,—mounted upon the roofs of the buildings which surround the temple
court, and hurled down stones upon the soldiers. Thses were therefore obliged to
have recourse to fire, set flames to the roofs, and in this way succeeded at
last in reaching the temple mount. When the longed for booty of the treasury of
the temple fell into their hands, Sabinus appropriated to himself 400
talents.[664] [664] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3.
1-3. But this first defeat of the rebels was only the signal for the further
spread of the rebellion. In Jerusalem a portion of the soldiers of Herod joined
the rebels, and consequently they were able to lay siege to Sabinus and his
fighting force in the palace of Herod.[665] In the neighbourhood of Sepphoris in
Galilee, Judas, the son of that Hezekiah with whom Herod had once, to the great
indignation of the Sanhedrim, made so short a process (see vol. i. p. 383),
gathered a number about him, gained possession of the weapons stored up in the
royal arsenal, distributed these among his followers, and was able then to make
all Galilee unsafe. He is even said to have aimed at obtaining the royal
crown.[666] In Perea a certain Simon, formerly a slave of Herod, collected a
band, and had himself proclaimed king by his followers; but was soon afterwards
conquered by a Roman detachment, and put to death.[667] Finally, it is reported
of one termed Athronges, formerly a shepherd, that he had assumed the royal
crown, and for a long time, along with his four brothers, kept the country in a
ferment.[668]—It was a time of general upheaval, when every one sought to secure
the greatest possible benefit for himself. On the part of the people there was
agreement only on this one point, that every one wished at any cost to be freed
from the power of the Romans. [665] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 3; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 3. 4. [666] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 4. 1.
[667] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 4. 2. [668] Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 10. 7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 4. 3. When Varus was informed of these
proceedings, he hastened from Antioch, with the two legions which he still had
with him, in order to restore order in Palestine. On the way he also procured,
in addition, Arabian auxiliary troops sent by King Aretas, as well as other
auxiliaries. With this fighting force he first of all reduced Galilee.
Sepphoris, where that Judas had been fermenting disorder, was consigned to the
flames, and the inhabitants sold as slaves. Thence Varus proceeded to Samaria,
which, however, he spared because it had not taken part in the revolt. He then
directed his course toward Jerusalem, where the legion stationed there was still
being besieged by the Jews in the royal palace. Varus had there an easy game to
play; for when the besiegers saw the powerful Roman forces approach, they lost
their courage and took to flight. In this way Varus became lord of city and
country. But Sabinus, who in consequence of his robbing the temple and of other
misdeeds had no good conscience, made off as quickly as possible. Varus then led
his troops up and down through the country, apprehending the rebels who were now
lurking here and there in small parties. He had two thousand of them crucified,
while he granted pardon to the mass of the people. After he had then stamped out
the rebellion, he returned to Antioch.[669] [669] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10.
9-10, 11.1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 5. 1-3.—This war of Varus is also referred to
in contra Apionem, i. 7, as one of the most important between that of Pompey and
that of Vespasian. The name Varus is therefore probably to be restored in a
corrupt passage in Seder olam, s. fin., in which it is said that “from the war
of Asveros down to the war of Vespasian there were eighty years,” מפולמוס של
אסוירוס ועד פולמוס של אספסיינוס שמנים שנה. Although the number eighty is
somewhat too high, and although the best text exemplars give אסוירוס, it is yet
highly probable that ורוס should be read, i.e. Varos (so Grätz, Geschichte der
Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 249, 714 ff.; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 194; Brann, De
Herodis qui dicitur Magni filiis, p. 24 sq.). In reference to the transmission
of the text, compare especially, Salzer, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des
Judenthums, iv. 1877, pp. 141-144. While these things were going on in Judea,
Archelaus and Antipas were still in Rome waiting for the decision of the
emperor. Before this was issued an embassy from the people of Judea appeared
before the emperor, asking that none of the Herodians should be appointed king,
but that they should be permitted to live in accordance with their own laws.
About the same time Philip also, the last of the three brothers, to whom
territories had been bequeathed by Herod, made his appearance in Rome in order
to press his claims, and likewise to support those of his brother
Archelaus.[670] In regard to these conflicting claims, Augustus was obliged at
last to give a decision. In an assembly which he fixed precisely for this
purpose in the temple of Apollo, he heard first of all the ambassadors from the
Jewish people. These reported a long list of scandalous misdeeds which Herod had
allowed and sought them to buttress, their demand that none of the Herodian race
should any more govern in Palestine, but that it should be granted them to live
according to their own laws under Roman suzerainty. When they had ended, Nicolas
of Damascus arose and spoke on behalf of his master Archelaus.[671] When
Augustus had thus heard both sides, he issued his decision after a few days. By
it the will of Herod was in all essential points sustained. Archelaus obtained
the territory assigned to him: Judea, Samaria, Idumea; only the cities of Gaza,
Gadara, and Hippos were severed from these domains and attached to the province
of Syria; and instead of the title of king, that of ethnarch was given him.
Antipas obtained Galilee and Perea, with the title of tetrarch; Philip, also as
tetrarch. received the districts of Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis.
Archelaus was to derive from his territories an income of 600 talents, Antipas
200 talents, and Philip 100 talents. Also Salome, the sister of Herod the Great,
obtained the portion assigned to her, the cities of Jamnia, Azotus, Phasaelis,
and 500,000 pieces of silver, in addition to the palace at Ascalon.[672]—Salome
lived in the enjoyment of these possessions for some twelve or fourteen years.
She died about A.D. 10, in the time of the procurator M. Ambivius, and
bequeathed her property to the Empress Livia.[673] [670] Josephus, Antiq. xvii.
11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 1.—The facts here related have unquestionably
afforded the outward framework for the parable of the Pounds, Luke 19:12 ff.
Compare especially ver. 12: “A certain nobleman (Archelaus) went into a far
country (Rome) to receive for himself a kingdom (Judea), and to return.” Ver.
14: “But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying: We will
not have this man to reign over us.”—Sevin (Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 1874,
pp. 128-130) is wrong in thinking of the journey of Antipas reported by
Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1; for in it is wanting a main point, viz. the
embassy and protest of the people. Indeed, we have no information at all as to
the purpose of that journey. [671] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 2-3 Wars of the
Jews, ii. 6. 2. [672] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 4-5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6.
3; generally also, Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragmenta, iii. 354; Strabo,
xvi. 2. 46, p. 765.—On the cities named above, Gaza, Gadara, Hippos, Jamnia,
Azotus, Phasaelis, see § 23, I., Div. II. vol. i. pp. 68, 76, 78, 98, 100,
131.—The title ἐθνάρχης evidently signifies a rank somewhat higher than that of
τετράρχης. The former had been conferred, e.g., by Caesar upon Hyrcanus II. (see
vol. i. p. 378), but is otherwise rare. On the other hand, the title τετραρχης
is very common. Herod the Great and his brother Phasael had it conferred upon
them by Antony (Antiq. xiv. 13. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 5). In B.C. 20,
Pheroras was made tetrarch of Perea (Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 24.
5).—The expression τετραρχία was first made use of by Euripides with reference
to Thessaly. That country had been from early times divided into four districts
(Harpocration, Lex. ed. Dindorf, s.v. Τετραρχία … καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἐν τῇ κοινῇ
Θετταλῶν πολιτείᾳ ἐπὶ Ἀλεύα τοῦ Πύρρου διῃρῆσθαί φησιν εἰς δʼ μοίρας τὴν
Θετταλίαν. On the antiquity of the Aleuadae and on the constitutional history of
Thessaly generally, see Gilbert, Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthümer,
Bd. ii. 1885, pp. 5-17). Euripides therefore, at the close of his Alcestis,
makes Admetus say: “I now command the citizens and every tetrarchy (or: ‘and the
whole tetrarchy’) to proceed with the dances and to bring forward the
sacrifices,” etc. (Euripides, Alcestis 1154: Ἀστοῖς δὲ πάσῃ τʼ ἐννέπω τετραρχίᾳ,
etc.). When King Philip of Macedon had reduced the whole of Thessaly under his
rule, he set an ἄρχων over every τετράς (Harpocration, l.c.: ὅτι δὲ Φίλιππος
καθʼ ἑκάστην τούτων τῶν μοιρῶν ἄρχοντα κατέστησε δεδηλώκασιν ἄλλοι τε καὶ
Θεόπομπος ἐν τῇ μδʹ). With reference to this proceeding, Demosthenes says that
Philip instituted tetrarchies in Thessaly (Demosthenes, Philipp. iii. 26: ἀλλὰ
Θετταλία πῶς ἔχει; οὐχὶ τὰς πολιτείας καὶ τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν παρῄρηται καὶ
τετραρχίας κατέστησεν). While some doubt can be entertained as to the meaning of
τετραρχία in Euripides, it clearly signifies in Demosthenes a province
containing a fourth part of the kingdom (the government of a τετράς, whence also
is derived τετραδαρχία). We also meet with the expression in this original sense
in Galatia. Over this country, according to the description of Strabo, twelve
tetrarchies ruled, that is, four over each of the three tribes of the Trocmi,
Tolistoboii, and Tectosagae (Strabo, xii. 5. 1, p. 566 sq.; less correctly in
Pliny, Hist. Naturalis, v. 146). When the most of them had been massacred by
Mithridates (Appian, Mithridat. 46), Pompey rearranged matters, so that over
each of the three tribes there was set one tetrarch. Subsequently the number was
reduced to two, and finally to one, the Dejotarua (Strabo, xii. 5. 1, p. 567;
compare, in addition, the complete exposition of these relations in Niese,
Rhein. Museum, Bd. 38, 1883, pp. 583-600). But although the title of tetrarch
had wholly lost its original meaning, it was still retained; for the title of
king, which some assumed, applied, not to Galatia, but to other possessions
(Strabo, xii. 3. 13, p. 547, xiii. 4. 3, p. 625; Niese, Rhein. Museum). The
title of tetrarch, completely stripped of its original signification, is met
with also elsewhere very frequently in the Roman times. It was then used simply
to indicate a small dependent prince, whose rank and authority was less than
that of a king. Such tetrarchs seem to have been very numerous, especially in
Syria. Compare Pliny, Hist. Naturalis, v. 74 : “intercursant cinguntque has
urbes [Decapoleos] tetrarchiae, regnorum instar singulae; ibid. 77: Decapolitana
regio praedictaeque cum ea tetrarchiae; ibid. 81: Nazerinorum tetrarchia; ibid.:
tetrarchias duas quae Granucoinatitae vocantur; ibid. 82: tetrarchiam quae
Mammisea appellatur; ibid.: tetrarchias in regna descriptas barbarie nominibus,”
xvii. Josephus, Vita, 11: ἔκγονος Σοέμου τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τετραρχοῦντος.
Antony made presents of “tetrarchies and kingdoms” (Plutarch, Antony, 36:
πολλοῖς ἐχαρίζετο τετραρχίας καὶ βασιλείας ἐθνῶν μεγάλων). To the army of Varus
in B.C. 4 belonged also auxiliaries which ἡ βασιλεῖς ἥ τινες τετράρχαι τότε
παρεῖχον (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 9, init.). In the time of Nero the
“tetrarch and kings” in Asia were instructed to obey the orders of Corbulo
(Tacitus, Annals, xv. 25: “scribitur tetrarchis ac regibus praefectisque et
procuratoribus … jussis Corbulonis obsequi”). And so generally during the Roman
times besides the reges, the tetrarchae were very often referred to as minor
princes of subordinate rank (e.g. Cicero, in Vatinium, 12. 29; pro Balbo, 5. 13;
pro Milone, 28. 76; Philipp. xi. 12. 31; Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 3; Bell. Alex.
78; Horace, Satires, i. 3. 12. Further examples may be found in the lïterature
quoted below). Besides the Galatian tetrarchs and the Herodian princes, we have
particular information about the tetrarchs of Chalcis or Iturea: Ptolemy,
Lysanias, Zenodorus (see about these in Appendix I.). When we consider the small
importance of these minor princes, it is not to be wondered at that the title
τετράρχης is comparatively seldom met with on inscriptions and coins. On
inscriptions, compare Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 4033, 4058; Bullettino dell’
Instituto di corrisp. archeol. 1873, p. 365 sq. (both referring to Herod
Antipas); Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4521, 4523= Renan, Mission de Phénicie, pp.
317-319 (dynasty of Chalcie). Of coins, besides those of Philip and Herod
Antipas, we meet only with those of Ptolemy, Lysanias, and Zenodorus (see
Appendix I.).—Compare generally: Stephanus, Thesaurus, s.v. Τετράρχης and
Τετραρχία; Forcellini, Lexicon, s.v. tetrarches and tetrarchia; Winer,
Realwörterbuch, ii. 593; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v. 487-490; Bohn, Qua
condicione juris reges socii papuli Romani fuerint (1877), pp. 9-11; Niese,
Galatien und seine Tetrarchen (Rhein. Museum, Bd. 38, 1883, pp. 583-600). [673]
Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2. What had been the empire of Herod was therefore
now parted into three territories, each of which has for a while its own
history.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 36: � 17. THE SONS OF HEROD
========================================================================

§ 17. THE SONS OF HEROD a. PHILIP, B.C. 4-A.D. 34. HIS TERRITORY UNDER THE
ROMANS, A.D. 34-37 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1, 4. 6, 6. 10; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 9. 1-6. On the coins, see below. LITERATURE[674] [674] The most
thorough treatise on Herod’s sons and grandsons is the article by Keim in
Schenkel’s Bibellexikon.—The older literature is given by Reuss, Geschichte der
heiligen Schriften A. T.’s, § 558. EWALD, History of Israel, vi. 71-74, 347.
WESTCOTT in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. WINER, Realwörterbuch, ii. 250.
LEYRER in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xi. 618. KEIM, Jesus of Nazara,
i. 258, 274; in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iii. 40-42. LEWIN, Fasti Sacri (see
Index, p. 408). BRANN, Die Söhne des Herodes, 1873 (reprint from the
Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums), pp. 77-87. THE
extent of the territory which Philip received is variously stated in different
places by Josephus.[675] Putting altogether, it embraced the districts of
Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias, and, according to Luke 3:1,
also Iturea.[676] The districts named were not ancient tribal possessions of the
Jewish people, but were in great part added to the Jewish territory in later
times. The population was a mixed one; and the non-Jewish, i.e. Syrian and
Greek, element prevailed.[677] Philip himself was certainly a real exception
among the sons and grandsons of Herod. While all the others, copying fathers and
grandfathers, were ambitious, imperious, harsh, and tyrannical toward their
subjects, nothing but what is honourable is told of Philip. His reign was mild,
just, and peaceful. To the traditions of his father he remained faithful only in
this, that he also sought renown in the construction of great buildings. The
building of two cities by him is expressly reported. The ancient Panias, at the
sources of the Jordan, north of the lake of Gennezaret, he rebuilt, with larger
dimensions, and gave it, in honour of the emperor, the name of Caesarea. To
distinguish it from the well-known Caesarea by the sea, it was called Caesarea
Philippi, under which name we are familiar with it in the Gospel history
(Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27). The other city which he rebuilt was the
Bethsaida[678] situated at the point where the Jordan enters into the lake of
Gennezaret, which, in honour of the daughter of Augustus, he named Julias.[679]
Josephus tells of him, incidentally, that he first discovered and proved that
the supposed sources of the Jordan at Panias obtained their water by a
subterranean passage from the so-called Phiala. Philip demonstrated this by
throwing in chaff into the Phiala, which came out again at Panias.[680] [675]
Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1, 11. 4, xviii. 4. 6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. In
the latter passage, undoubtedly, instead of Ἰάμνειαν should be read Πανειάδα, in
accordance with Antiq. xvii. 8. 1, 11. 4. [676] Batanea corresponds to the Old
Testament Bashan (בָּשָׁנ); Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 232: Βασάν …
αὕτη Βασανῖτις ἡ νῦν καλουμένη Βαταναία. Yet the ancient Bashan was of larger
extent than the modern Batanea. By Bashan was understood the whole region on the
other side of Jordan between Hermon on the north and the district of Gilead on
the south, extending eastward as far as Salcha, on the southern slope of the
Hauran. See Deuteronomy 3:10; Deuteronomy 3:13; Joshua 12:4; Joshua 13:11;
Joshua 13:30; Joshua 17:1; Joshua 17:5; 1 Chronicles 5:23. But within this
district lay the later provinces of Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Gaulanitis; so
that thus Batanea is only a part of the ancient Bashan. The expression, however,
is sometimes used even by later writers in the wider sense; e.g. Josephus, Life,
11 med.: μετὰ τῶν ἐν Βαταναίᾳ Τραχωνιτῶν. Since the cities of Ashtaroth and
Edrei are named as the chief cities of Bashan (Joshua 12:4; Joshua 13:11; Joshua
13:30), it may be assumed that these also formed the centre of the modern
Batanea. Edrei, later Adraa, the modern Derʾa, lies almost exactly in the middle
between the southern point of the lake of Gennezaret and the southern end of the
mountains of Hauran. That Ashtaroth and Adraa lay in Batanea is stated by
Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, pp. 209, 213, 268, articles Ἀσταρὼθ
Καρναείν, Ἀσταρώθ, and Καρναεὶμ Ἀσταρώθ). The Greek Βαταναία of Polybius, xvi.,
also corresponds to that of Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 3, and Ptolemy, v. 15. 26.
[677] In Batanea, Herod the Great, in the last years of his reign, had settled a
Jewish colony from Babylon, under the leadership of a certain Zamaris, and
conferred on them the privilege of complete freedom from taxation, which was
also, in all essential points, respected by Philip. See Antiq. xvii. 2. 1-3. For
the history of this colony, compare also Josephus, Life, 11; De Saulcy,
“Monnaies des Zamarides” (Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 157-181). These “coins
of the Zamaridae” are in the highest degree problematical.—In Trachonitis, Herod
the Great had settled 3000 Idumeans, to whom he assigned the task of maintaining
the peace of the district against the robber bands which inhabited it. See
Antiq. xvi. 9. 2.—The majority of the inhabitants, however, was pagan, as is
proved by the large proportion of the Greek inscriptions of that region which
are still preserved. Compare also, in general, Wars of the Jews, iii. 3.5:
οἰκοῦοι δὲ αὐτὴν μιγάδες Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ Σύροι; and, in addition, Div. II. vol.
i. p. 4. [678] To be distinguished, probably, from the New Testament town of
that name. See, however, Div. II. vol. i. p. 136. [679] Josephus, Antiq. xviii.
2. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1.—On both cities, the time of their building and
their subsequent history, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 133-136. [680] Josephus, Wars
of the Jews, iii. 10. 7. According to the description of Josephus, the “Phiala”
can scarcely be anything else than the present Birket Ram. But then the story
told by him is not possible, owing to the relative levels. See Ritter, Erdkunde,
xv. 1. 174-177; Robinson, Later Biblical Researches, p. 400; Stanley, Sinai and
Palestine, p. 394; Guérin, Galilee, ii. 329-331; Schumacher, Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins, ix. 1886, p. 256 f. (with map). Trachonitis or ὁ
Τράχων (so Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 5, xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3;
and the inscription of Mismie) is the rugged plateau south of Damascus,
stretching on to Bostra, which is now called the Lejâh. It lies, therefore,
north-east of Batanea proper. Proof of this is afforded by the following data.
On an inscription at Mismie, the ancient Phäna, in the north of the Lejâh, this
place is characterized as μητροκωμία τοῦ Τράχωνος (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
4551=Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2524). Strabo speaks of the
Τράχωνες as two hills in the neighbourhood of Damascus (Strabo, xvi. 2. 20, p.
756: ὑπέοκεινται δ αὐτῆς δύο λεγόμενοι λόφοι Τράχωνες; compare also xvi. 2. 16,
p. 755). Eusebius places Trachonitis in the immediate neighbourhood of Bostra
(Onomasticon, s.v. Ἰτουραία, ed. Lagarde, p. 268: Τραχωνῖτις δὲ καλεῖται ἡ
παρακειμένη χώρα τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῇ κατὰ Βόστραν τῆς Ἀραβίας.. Ibid. s.v. Κανάθ, p.
269: κεῖται δὲ καὶ ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν Τραχῶνι πλησίον Βοστρῶν. Ibid. s.v.
Τραχωνῖτις, p. 298: ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἐπέκεινα Βοστρῶν κατὰ τὴν ἔρημον πρὸς νότον ὡς
ἐπὶ Δαμασκόν). Also in a rabbinical treatise on the boundaries of Palestine the
statement occurs: “Trachon, in the neighbourhood of Bostra” (jer. Shebiith vi.
1, fol. 36c; Tosephta Shebiith iv. ed. Zuckermandel, p. 66, 10; Siphre, section
Ekeb, at the end. The Jerusalem Talmud has טדכונא דמתחם לבוצרה, “Trachon, which
borders on Bostra.” Compare on the whole subject: Neubauer, Géographie du
Talmud, pp. 10-21; and, especially, Hildesheimer, Beiträge zur Géographie
Palästinas, Berlin 1886 [on Trachon, pp. 55-57]). The Targums identify טרכונא
with the biblical Argob (Onkelos, Deuteronomy 3:4; Deuteronomy 3:13 f.). Pliny
speaks of Trachonitis as in the neighbourhood of Panias (Pliny, Hist. Naturalis,
v. 74); Ptolemy (v. 15. 26) speaks of the Τραχωνῖται Ἄραβες as dwelling to the
east of Batanea. The latter passage is indeed explained by Waddington, Comptes
rendus de l’Academie des inscr. 1865, p. 102 sq., as meaning rather the reverse,
namely, that Batanea proper lay to the east of Trachonitis; but his exposition
hardly commends itself.—In determining the meaning of Luke 3:1, it is of
interest to note that Philo, or rather Agrippa in the letter communicated by
Philo, uses the abbreviated expression: τὴν Τραχωνῖτιν λεγομένην, to describe
the whole territory of Philip, just as for the territories of Herod Antipas he
uses the phrase: τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; both a parte potiori, as in Luke. See Philo,
Legat. ad Cajum, § 41, ed. Mangey, ii. 593 fin. Auranitis is the חַוְרָן
mentioned by Ezekiel 47:16; Ezekiel 47:18; which also in the Mishna, Rosh
hashana ii. 4, is spoken of as one of the stations for the five signals from
Judea to Babylon. Some manuscripts of the Mishna have חוורן, others חברן. Since
the Hauran, according to the context of the Mishna, must be a mountain,
Auranitis is undoubtedly the country round about the mountain peak, which now is
called Jebel Hauran. Gaulanitis has its name from the town Golan, which in the
Bible is reckoned in Bashan (Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8; Joshua 21:27; 1
Chronicles 6:56; Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 242). Josephus
distinguishes Upper and Lower Gaulanitis, and remarks that in the latter lies
the city Gamala (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1; according to the same passage,
Gamala lay on the eastern bank of the lake of Gennezaret). According to Wars of
the Jews, iii. 3. 1, Gaulanitis formed the eastern boundary of Galilee. Hence
Gaulanitis is practically within the same lines as what is now called Djaulan,
embracing the lowlands east of the Jordan from its source down to the southern
point of the lake of Gennezaret. A detailed description of it is given by
Schumacher in the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, ix. 1886. The
district of Panias, at the sources of the Jordan (see on the town Panias, Div.
II. vol. i. pp. 132-135), had in earlier times belonged to Zenodorus, and before
that to the kingdom of the Itureans (see Appendix I. at the close of this
volume). So far the statement of Luke is not altogether incorrect, that Philip
also ruled over Iturea. But that district formed, indeed, only a small portion
of what had been the kingdom of the Itureans. The Itureans proper had their
dwelling in the Lebanon (see Appendix I.), and during the period A.D. 38-49 were
under the sovereignty of a certain Soemus (Dio Cassius, lix. 12; Tacitus, xii.
23), while at that same time Agrippa I. had in his possession the whole
tetrarchy of Philip (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10, xix. 8. 2). Iturea proper
cannot therefore have belonged to the domain of Philip (see Keim in Schenkel’s
Bibellexikon, iii. 41). Wetzstein’s idea is certainly wrong, that Iturea is to
be placed upon the eastern slope of the Hauran. Compare generally on the
districts above named: Reland, Palaestina, pp. 106-110, 193-203; Gesenius,
Thesaurus, pp. 249 sq., 458 sq., 285 sq.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 800-1001;
Raumer, Palästina, p. 226 ff.; the articles on Basan, Trachonitis, Havran or
Hauran, and Golan in the Biblical Dictionaries of Smith, Kitto, Fairbairn,
Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm; F. W. Schultz in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2
Aufl. ii. 112-116 (article “Basan”); Cless in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2,
2038 f., art. “Trachonitis;” Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des
röm. Reichs, ii. 381 f., 384 f.; Porter, “Historico-Geographical History of
Bashan” (in Journal of Sacred Literature, new series, vol. vi. 1854, pp.
281-313); Five Years in Damascus, 1855, ii. 250-275; Wetzstein, Reisebericht
über Hauran und die Trachonen, 1860, pp. 36 f., 82-92; Wetzstein’s Excursus to
Delitzsch’s Commentary on Job; Waddington, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des
inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1865, pp. 82-89, 102-109. The treatise of
Nöldeke, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1875, p. 419 ff., deals with the sixth century
after Christ. With reference to the southern limits of the tetrarchy of Philip
this much may be accepted with confidence, that the region round about the
cities now called Bosra and Salkhat, south of the Hauran, did not belong to his
domain, as is proved by inscriptions discovered in these cities bearing the
names of the Arabian kings Malchus and Aretas. See de Vogüé, Syrie centrale,
Inscriptions sémitiques (1868), pp. 103, 107. On the other hand, Hebran, on the
southern slope of the Hauran, still belonged to his territory; for an Aramaic
inscription found there is dated not according to the years of the reign of an
Arabian king, but according to the years of Claudius: “In the month Tizri in the
seventh year of the Emperor Claudius”=A.D. 46. See de Vogüé, p. 100. From this,
therefore, one may conclude that Hebran belonged to the domain of Philip, and
that in A.D. 37 it was given over to Agrippa I., and was after his death placed
under Roman administration. Compare the remarks of Le Bas and Waddington,
Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2286. We know, however, nothing more about his reign
beyond what Josephus tells us in reporting his death:[681] “He had shown himself
a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government
He constantly lived in that country which was subject to him. He used to make
his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal, also, on which he sat in
judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his
assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately,
wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it and heard his complaint; he
then ordered the guilty, that were convicted, to be punished, and absolved those
that were accused unjustly.”—Of his private life we know only that he was
married to Salome, daughter of Herodias, and that there were no children by this
marriage.[682]—According to his political principles, he was a consistent friend
of the Romans, and laid great value upon the favour of the emperor. This is
shown not only in his giving to his cities the names of Caesarea and Julias, but
also in his impressing upon his coins the images of Augustus and Tiberius,—this
being the first instance in which any likeness was engraven on the coins of a
Jewish prince.[683] [681] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 6: Τελευτᾷ … μέτριον ὲν οἷς
ἧρχε παρασχὼν τὸν τρόπον καί απράγμονα. Δίαιταν μὲν γὰρ τὸ πᾶν ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ
ὑποτελεὶ ἐποιεῖτο· πρόοδοι δʼ ἦσαν αὐτῷ σὺν ὀλιγοις τῶν ἐπιλέκτων, καὶ τοῦ
θρόνου εἰς ὃν κρίνειε καθιζόμενος ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς ἑπομένου, ὁπότε τις ὑπαντιάσας
ἐν χρείᾳ γένοιτο αὐτῷ ἐπιβοηθεῖν, οὐδὲν εἰς ἀναβολὰς ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος ἱδρύσεως
τοῦ θρόνου ᾗ καὶ τύχοι γενομένης καθιζόμενος ἠκροᾶτο, καὶ τιμωρίας τε ἐπετίμα
τοῖς ἁλοῦσι καὶ ἠφίει τοὺς ἀδίκως ἐν ἐγκλήμασι γενομένους.—The judge’s sitting
upon the sella was a necessary formality, without which the decision would have
no legal effect. Examples: Matthew 27:19; John 19:13; Acts 25:6; Josephus, Wars
of the Jews, ii. 9. 3 (Pilate), ii. 14. 8 (Florus), iii. 10. 10 (Vespasian).
Generally on the sella curulis and the sitting of the magistrate, Rein in
Pauly’e Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 960; Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. 315
ff. [682] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4. [683] In explanation of this, it should
be remembered that Philip’s domain was predominantly pagan.—Compare on the
coins: Eckhel, iii. 490 sq.; Mionnet, v. 566 sq.; Lenormant, Trésor de
numismatique, p. 126, pl. lx. n. 1-2; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp.
100-102; De Saulcy, “Notes sur les monnaies de Philippe le tétrarque” (Annuaire
de la Société française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. iii. 1868-1873, pp.
262-265); Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 123-127 (this is the most
complete exposition); De Saulcy, “Monnaie inédite de Philippe le tétrarque”
(Annuaire de la Société fr. de. Num. et d’Arch. t. v., or, seconde série, t. i.
fasc. 3, 1879, p. 181 sq.).—The coins have on the one side the name of Philip,
ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, with the image of a temple and the number of the year 12,
16, 19, 33, 37 (the number of the year IB=12 in Madden, Coins, p. 125, and on an
example in de Saulcy, Annuaire, v. 3. 181 sq., not given by Madden). The year
Numbers 26, 29, given by Mionnet, are regarded by de Saulcy as false readings.
The coins of the year 37 (first communicated by Madden, History, p. 102) belong
to the last year of Philip, A.D. 33-34. The coins of the year 12 and 16=A.D. 8-9
or 12-13, have on the obverse the head of Augustus and the inscription ΚΑΙσΑΡΙ
σΕΒΑσΤΩ (fragmentary); those of the years 19, 33, 37 have the head of Tiberius,
with a similar inscription: those of 37 have the full name ΤΙΒΕΡΙΟς σΕΒΑσΤΟς
ΚΑΙσΑΡ.—The temple engraved on all the coins is indeed the temple of Augustus at
Panias which Herod the Great had built (Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i.
21. 3). The type is therefore wholly pagan.—The image and name of the emperor
are also found on the coins of many other dependent kings, from the time of
Augustus onward; yet there are still instances in which all allusion to the
supreme imperial authority is wanting. See Bohn, Qua condicione juris reges
socii populi Romani fuerint, 1877, pp. 45-49. Philip died, after a reign of
thirty-seven years, in the 20th year of Tiberius, A.D. 33-34, and was buried in
the tomb built by himself.[684] His territory was then added to that of Syria,
but retained the right of administering its own revenues;[685] and was again,
after a few years, made over to a prince of the Herodian family. The Emperor
Caligula, immediately after his succession to the throne, in March A.D. 37,
gifted the tetrarchy of Philip to Agrippa, a son of that Aristobolus who had
been executed by his father Herod, and so a grandson of Herod and Mariamme.[686]
[684] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 6.—The 20th year of Tiberius began on the 19th.
August A.D. 33. The 37th year of Philip ended, if we reckon from Nisan to Nisan
(compare vol. i. p. 465), in spring A.U.C. 787=A.D. 34. Philip therefore died in
the winter of A.D. 33-34. [685] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4 6. [686] Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 6. 10; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 6. b. HEROD ANTIPAS, B.C. 4-A.D.
39 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1 and 3, 4. 5, 5. 1-3, 7. 1-2; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 9. 1, 6. In the New Testament: Matthew 14:1-11; Mark 6:14-28; Luke
3:19 f., 9:7-9, 13:31, 23:7-12. On the coins, see below. LITERATURE GEIKIE, Life
and Words of Christ, 7th ed. London 1879, i. 298-302, 500, ii. 182. EWALD,
History of Israel, vi. 74-80, vii. 241, 242. HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche
Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 284 ff., 325 ff., ii. 207 ff., 221 ff. WINER,
Realwörterbuch, i. 484. WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels,
pp. 50, 159, 216. Also in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 465 f. KEIM,
Jesus of Nazara, i. 269, ii. 333, 340, 392, iv. 217, vi. 103. Also in Schenkel’s
Bibellexikon, iii. 42-46. GERLACH in the Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869,
pp. 32-53. LEWIN, Fasti Sacri (see Index, p. 408). BRANN, Die Söhne des Herodes,
1873 (reprint from the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judenthums), pp. 17-76. In the partition of their father’s possessions, a larger
slice than that given to Philip fell to the lot of his half-brother Antipas, or,
as he is frequently called by Josephus, on the coins, and in the New Testament,
Herod, to whom, as well as to Philip, was given the title of tetrarch.[687] His
territory, embracing Galilee and Perea, was indeed broken up into two parts by
the so-called Decapolis, which came in like a wedge between Galilee and
Perea.[688] But for this he was amply indemnified by the fact that the half of
his domains consisted of the beautiful, fertile, and thickly-populated Galilee,
with its vigorous and brave, though freedom-loving inhabitants.[689] In point of
character, Antipas was a genuine son of old Herod,—sly, ambitious, and
luxurious, only not so able as his father.[690] In regard to his slyness we have
unmistakable evidence from the life of Jesus, who, on a memorable occasion,
attached to him the designation of “that fox.”[691] It was always necessary to
have recourse to craft in order to keep the Galileans in order, and to guard the
frontiers of Perea against the robber raids of the Arabians. For the defence of
Galilee he rebuilt Sepphoris, that had been destroyed by fire by the soldiers of
Varus (see above, p. 4), and surrounded it with strong walls. And for the
defence of Perea he fortified Betharamphtha, and named it after the emperor’s
wife Livias or Julias.[692] He was also undoubtedly induced by political motives
to marry the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas.[693] He thought that in this
way he would be better able than by all fortifications to secure the country
against the inroads of the Arabians; and perhaps it was Augustus himself who
persuaded him to enter on this marriage.[694] [687] Thus is he correctly named
in Matthew 14:1; Luke 3:19; on the other hand, he is incorrectly called βασιλεύς
in Mark 6:14.—Since Herod Antipas is the only Herod who bore the title of
tetrarch, the two following inscriptions are undoubtedly to be referred to him.
They give evidence, at the same time, of his foreign travels:— [688] Compare the
map in Menke’s Bibelatlas.—On the Decapolis (Matthew 4:25; Mark 5:20; Mark
7:31), see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 94-121. [689] Compare the description of Galilee
in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 2-3, 10. 8. [690] Josephus in Antiq.
xviii. 7. 2, characterizes him as ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἡσυχίαν. [691] Luke 13:32.—Hofmann,
Schriftbeweis, ii. 1. 315; Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, p.
36; and Volkmar, Die Evangelien, 1870, p. 499 f., explain the use of the phrase
“that fox,” not as a symbol of craftiness, but as that of open robbery and
rapacity. See, on the other hand, Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 344; and Hamburger,
Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. i. (1870) art. “Fuchs.” In the Talmud
the fox is expressly designated as “being regarded as the sliest among the
beasts,” שאומרין עליו פקח שבחיות (b. Berachoth 61b). [692] Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 2. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1.—On both cities, and on the change of
the names Livias and Julias, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 141-143. [693] Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 5. 1.—On Aretas and the Nabatean kings generally, see Appendix II.
[694] Compare Suetonius, Augustus, c. 48: “Reges socios etiam inter semet ipsos
necessitudinibus mutuis junxit, promptissimus affinitatis cujusque atque
amicitiae conciliator et fautor.” (a) On the island of Cos (Corpus Inscript.
Graec. n. 2502): Ἡρώδην Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως υἱόν, τετράρχην, Φίλων Ἀγλάου, φύσει
δὲ Νίκωνος τὸν αὑτοῦ ξένον καὶ φίλον. (b) On the island of Delos (Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique, t. iii. 1879, p. 365 sq.): Ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀ[θηναίων καὶ
οἱ] κατοικο[ῦντες τὴν νῆσον] Ἡρώδην βασιλέ[ως Ἡρώδον υἱὸν] τετράρχην ἀρετῆ[ς
ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοί-] ας τῆς εἰς ἑαυτοὺ[ς … ἀνέθηκαν]. Like all the Herods, Herod
Antipas delighted in magnificent buildings. In this direction he was
particularly taken up with the idea of building a splendid capital, which he
undertook during the time of Tiberius.[695] He selected, as the site for his
city, the most beautiful spot in Galilee, the western bank of the lake of
Gennezaret, in the neighbourhood of the warm springs of Emmaus. The choice of
this spot was in one respect not a happy one. For just on that spot on which the
city was built, as became apparent from the sepulchral monuments, was an ancient
burying-ground, and the inhabiting of such a place was impossible to the Jews
who strictly observed the law, since every contact with a grave occasioned
ceremonial impurity of seven days.[696] Herod was therefore obliged, in order to
secure inhabitants for his city, to settle there by force many foreigners,
adventurers, and beggars, so that the population was of a very mixed
description. But in regard to the beauty of the buildings nothing more perfect
could be desired. It had, among other public structures, a δτάδιον[697] and a
royal palace, which, indeed, by its figures of animals gave offence, and during
the war with the Romans was sacrificed to the fanaticism of the Jews.[698] Also
there was not wanting a Jewish προσευχή, a μέγιστον οἴκημα.[699] The
constitution of the city was wholly modelled upon the Hellenistic pattern. It
had a council, βουλή, of 600 members, with an ἄρχων, and a committee of the δέκα
πρῶτοι; also Hyparchs and an Agoranomos. In honour of the emperor the new
capital was named Tiberias.[700] [695] On the time of the building of Tiberias,
see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 143, 144. [696] Numbers 19:16; Josephus, Antiq. xviii.
2. 3. More detailed particulars about impurity caused by graves are given in
Mishna Ohaloth xvii., xviii. [697] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 6, iii.
10. 10; Life, 17, 64. [698] Josephus, Life, 12. [699] Josephus, Life, 54. [700]
Compare on the building of Tiberias generally: Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 3;
Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1; Life, 9. For further details about the city and the
nature of its institution, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 143-147. During the time of
Pilate, A.D. 26-36, Antipas, together with his brother, successfully made
complaints against Pilate on account of his having set up an offensive votive
shield in the palace at Jerusalem.[701] And as he was in this instance the
representation of the Jewish claims, he also did not venture otherwise,
notwithstanding his paganish buildings at Tiberias, to break away completely
from the traditions of Judaism, and even in this respect showed himself a true
son of Herod. From the Gospel we know that he went up to the feast at Jerusalem
(Luke 23:7); and his coins, just like those of old Herod, have upon them no
image.[702] [701] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 30 (ed. Mangey, ii. 589
sq.).—Philo indeed does not mention the name of Antipas, but states that “οἱ
βασιλέως [Ἡρώδου] υἱεῖς τέτταρες οὐκ ἀποδέοντες τό τε ἀξίωμα καὶ τὰς τύχας τῶν
βασιλέων” made themselves specially prominent in the business. Philip and
Antipas were first of all intended by this statement. Archelaue was no longer
resident in Palestine after A.D. 6. But it remains questionable who the other
two are. We know expressly from Antiq. xvii. 1. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4,
that there were still three sons of Herod who might be named in this connection:
1. Herod, son of Mariamme; 2. Herod, son of Cleopatra; and 3. Phasael, son of
Pallas. [702] On the coins of Herod Antipas, compare Eckhel, iii. 486-490;
Mionnet, v. 566; Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p. 125, pl. lix. n. 16-20;
Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 53, 58-60; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Munzen,
p. 80; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 95-99; De Saulcy, Numismatic
Chronicle, 1871, p. 254; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 47-49; De
Saulcy, Melanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 92; Madden, Coins of the Jews,
1881, pp. 118-122 (this gives the most complete list).—The coins fall into two
classes: 1. The one class has the inscription ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, with the number
of the year, 33, 34, 37, 38; on the other side the name of the city, ΤΙΒΕΡΙΑΣ.
2. The other class has the inscription ΗΡΩΔΗΣ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΗΣ; on the other side, ΓΑΙΩ
ΚΑΙσΑΡΙ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΚΩ. Of this second class there are only three examples which can
be with certainty identified, all with the year number ΜΓ or 43=A.D. 39-40.
Since this was most probably the last year of Herod Antipas, the existence of
the year number 44, which some prefer to read, is extremely questionable. One of
the two who contend for this date, Vaillant, is generally not to be depended on;
the other, Freret, describes a coin (in the Mémoires de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, alte serie, t. xxi. 1754, p. 293, according to a
manuscript by Erland) which had on one side the inscription ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ
(sic), while the inscription on the other side was quite illegible. The coin,
seems therefore to have belonged to the first class, and it may be reasonably
conjectured that instead of ΜΔ, 44, should be read ΛΔ, 34. Compare, however,
what is said in vol. i. p. 465.—The coins of Antipas, with the name of the
emperor, without his image, occupy a middle position between those of Herod the
Great, which have neither name nor image of the emperor, and those of Philip,
which have both. The complaint against Pilate was probably not made before A.D.
36.[703] Also what we otherwise known of Herod Antipas belongs to the later
period, somewhere in the last ten years of his reign. During that period he was
almost wholly under the influence of a woman, who occasioned to him a whole
series of misfortunes. When once he made a journey to Rome, we know not for what
purpose, nor exactly at what time, he started before the departure of his
half-brother Herod, the son of Mariamme the high priest’s daughter, who had been
designated eventual successor to the throne in the first will of Herod (see vol.
i. p. 462). That Herod was married to Herodias, a daughter of Aristobulus,
executed in B.C. 7.[704] The issue of this marriage was Salome, the wife of the
tetrarch Philip, who was then not the first husband, as the Gospels tell us, but
the son-in-law of Herodias.[705] When now Antipas paid a visit to the house of
his brother, he was fascinated by Herodias, and made his proposals of marriage,
to which the ambitious woman readily assented. It was arranged that Herod on his
return from Rome should divorce his wife, the daughter of Aretas, and should be
married to Herodias. With this promise he proceeded on his journey to Rome. On
his return, his wife, who had meanwhile obtained information about the proposed
procedure, entreated him that he would have her sent to Machärus, the strong
fortress east of the Dead Sea, which then belonged to Aretas. Since Antipas did
not desire that his wife should know about his secret plans, he granted her
wish. But scarcely had the daughter of Aretas reached Machärus, when she fled
thence to her father, and let him know what friendly intentions her husband
entertained regarding her. From that moment the Arabian king took up an attitude
of direct opposition to Herod Antipas.[706] Nevertheless Antipas seems to have
proceeded immediately with his marriage with Herodias. [703] This conclusion may
be drawn from Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 24 (ed. Mangey, ii. 569), according to
which Tiberius, during the lifetime of Sejanus (who died A.D. 31), was
unfavourably disposed toward the Jews, whereas after his death he became
decidedly favourable to their religious peculiarities. [704] Compare on
Herodias, Winer, RWB. i. 486; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 46-49. [705]
Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4.—Philip is named as first husband of Herodias in
Mark 6:17. The parallel passage, Matthew 14:3, omits the name in cod. D, and is
put in brackets by Tischendorf (ed. 8), but is inclined, owing to the unanimous
testimony of all the other manuscripts, to hold it as genuine. In Luke 3:19, on
the other hand, where it is inserted in the textus receptus, it ought certainly
to be struck out.—Since, according to Josephus, not the tetrarch Philip, but the
above-named Herod, was the first husband of Herodias, the statement of Mark and
Matthew is evidently a mistake. Many, indeed (among them Winer, RWB. art.
“Philippius”), seek to explain away this mistake by assuming that they gave to
this Herod the name Herod Philip, who therefore, distinct indeed from the
tetrarch Philip, was meant by Mark and Matthew. But it must be admitted as very
remarkable that the one name should be chosen by Josephus and the other by the
New Testament writers; and yet more peculiar would it have been had the old
Herod two sons with the name of Philip. If we are to reason analogically from
the use of the name Herod, which several of his sons had, such reasoning will
not apply here: for that was the family name. And just as little to the purpose
is the analogy of the two brothers, Antipater and Antipas, for these are
actually quite different names. We can therefore come to no other conclusion
than this, that it must be admitted that the two evangelists made a mistake.
Compare Volkmar, Theol. Jahrbb. 1846, pp. 363-383; Ewald, History of Israel, vi.
77; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 390; Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 47. [706]
Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1.—On Machärus, see vol. i. p. 436, and § 20 toward
the end. Machärus at all other periods, before and after, formed part of the
Jewish territory. Alexander Jannaeus fortified it, as did also Herod the Great
(Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2). Herod Antipas put John the Baptist in prison
there. In the Vespasian war it was one of the best places of refuge for the
rebels (Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6, vii. 6). It is therefore very remarkable
that it should then have belonged to the Arabian king. The words of Josephus are
as follows: εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα τότε [al. τῷ τε, Bekker, conj. τὸν τῷ] πατρὶ
αὐτῆς ὑποτελῆ. It is equally remarkable that Antipas should have guilelessly
allowed his wife to go to this fortress belonging to the Arabian king. Or did he
consciously agree to it in order to smooth the way for her flight, wishing thus
to be rid of her? Josephus did not so conceive of the matter, for according to
his representation Herod Antipas knew nothing of the meditated flight. Hitzig
(Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 567) for these reasons regards the statement
that Machärus then belonged to Aretas as an interpolation. It may be, however,
that, on the contrary, some words have dropped out, or that Josephus himself
made a misstatement through carelessness. At the time of this marriage, or soon
thereafter, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ made their appearance, both of
them carrying on their labours in the domains of Antipas, the Baptist in
Perea,[707] Jesus in Galilee. Of John the Baptist, Josephus gives the following
account:[708] “He was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue,
both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to
come to baptism. For the washing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of
it, not in order to the putting away of some sins only, but for the purification
of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by
righteousness. Now, when many others came to crowd about him, for they were
greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence
John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a
rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it
best by putting him to death to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not
bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it
when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s
suspicious temper, to Machärus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put
to death.”—This account by Josephus, if it really belongs originally to him, and
the accounts of the New Testament about the Baptist and his relation with the
tetrarch Herod, mutually supplement one another. What Josephus says about the
contents of the Baptist’s preaching of repentance has indeed very much of the
style of the cultured Græco-Roman world. In this respect the short statements of
the synoptic Gospels are truer and more reliable.[709] On the other hand, it is
highly probable that the real occasion of the imprisonment of the Baptist by
Antipas was, just as Josephus states, fear of political trouble. The powerful
popular preacher did undoubtedly produce a great excitement, which was indeed
first of all of a religious kind, but certainly not without the mingling of a
political element. For the masses of the people were not then able to keep
separate their religious and political hopes. It is therefore quite credible
that Antipas feared political troubles from the labours of the Baptist, and so,
when he extended his activity to Perea, cast him into prison. Nevertheless the
evangelists may be right (Matthew 14:3 f.; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19 f.) when they
say that he did this because John blamed him for his marriage with Herodias. The
two statements are not inconsistent with one another.[710]—The place where John
was imprisoned is not named by the evangelists. From Josephus we learn that it
was Machärus, the strong fortress on the east of the Dead Sea. It must then have
been no longer in the possession of the Arabian king Aretas, as it was at the
time of the flight of the first wife of Antipas, but in the possession of Herod
Antipas himself. We do not indeed know in what way it had meanwhile come into
his hands.[711]—According to Josephus, it would seem as if the execution of the
Baptist followed immediately upon his arrestment and imprisonment But from the
Gospel narrative we see that Herod kept the Baptist a longer time in prison,
being undecided as to what he should do with him.[712] At last the decision was
brought about by Herodias, the chief foe of the rigid preacher of repentance.
When on the occasion of the celebration of Antipas’ birthday[713] in the palace
of Machärus, for there it was that the whole business was carried out,[714] a
great banquet was given, the daughter of Herodias, Salome (she was still a
κοράσιον, Matthew 14:11; Mark 6:22; Mark 6:28; therefore not yet married to
Philip), by her dancing so delighted the tetrarch, that he promised to fulfil to
her any wish she might express. At the instigation of her mother, she demanded
the head of the Baptist. Herod was weak enough to gratify the wish immediately,
and to give orders that the Baptist should be beheaded in the prison at
Machärus.[715] [707] The scene of the Baptist’s activity may have been, as Keim
(Jesus of Nazara, ii. 231-235) supposes, for the most part on this side of
Jordan, therefore in Judea. But in any case he did actually work on the other
bank in Perea is proved, not only by the fourth evangelist (i. 2, 8, iii. 26, x.
40), but also by the fact of the imprisonment by Antipas. This is admitted even
by Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 265, 266. [708] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 2:
Κτείνει τοῦτον Ἡρώδης ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους κελεύοντα, ἀρετὴν
ἐπασκοῦντας καὶ τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους δικαιο σύνῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβείᾳ
χρωμένους, βαπτισμῷ συνιέναι: οὕτω γὰρ δὴ καὶ τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ
φανεῖσθαι, μὴ ἐπὶ τινῶν ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων, ἀλλʼ ἐφʼ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ
σώματος, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης. Καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
συστρεφομένων (καὶ γὰρ ἤρθησαν ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τῇ ἀκροάσει τῶν λόγων) δείσας Ἡρώδης
τὸ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε πιθανὸν αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις μὴ ἐπὶ ἀποστάσει τινὶ φέροι (πάντα
γὰρ ἐῴκεσαν συμβουλῇ τῇ ἐκείνου πράξοντες), πολὺ κρεῖττον ἡγεῖται, πρίν τι
νεώτερον ἐξ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι, προλαβὼν ἀναιρεῖν, ἢ μεταβολῆς γενομένης εἰς τὰ
πράγματα ἐμτεσὼν μετανοεῖν. Καὶ ὃ μὲν ὑποηίᾳ τῇ Ἡρώδου δέσμιος εἰς τὸν
Μαχαιροῦντα πεμφθείς, τὸ προειρημένον φρούριον, ταύτῃ κτίννυται. [709] Compare,
in explanation of the passage in Josephus: Volkmar, Jesus Nazarenus (1882). pp.
332-334; Klöpper, “Ein paar Bemerkungen zu dem Urtheil des Josephus über
Johannes den Täufer” (Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1865, pp.
1-28).—Also in the almost unlimited literature on John the Baptist some notice
is, as a rule, taken of this passage in Josephus. See especially Keim, Jesus of
Nazara, ii. 201-266. The earlier literature is given in Winer, Realwörterbuch,
art. “Johannes der Täufer;” Hase, Leben Jesu, § 42; Reuss, Geschichte der heil.
Schriften Alten Testaments (1881), § 561. [710] The genuineness of the passage
in Josephus is but rarely vindicated (even Volkmar sets aside without more ado;
against this decision: J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Die heil. Schrift Neuen
Testaments, 7 Thl. 3 Abth. Der Brief Jakobi, 1876, p. 4 f.). This, however, may
be alleged in its favour, that the motive for imprisoning and executing the
Baptist are there reported in a manner so entirely different from the account in
the Gospels. But since Josephus in other passages has been certainly
interpolated by a Christian hand, we cannot be here perfectly confident
regarding its genuineness. Suspicion is awakened by the favourable estimate of
John, who could have been viewed sympathetically by Josephus only upon one side,
as an ascetic and moral preacher, but not as the prophet of the coming Messiah
who powerfully moved the people. [711] Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 382;
Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nr. 51, col. 1218 f., conjectures that
Antipas had gained possession of the fortress in the beginning of the war
against Aretas. But even apart from the fact that this supposition is possible
only if one places, as Keim does, the apprehension of the Baptist close upon the
outbreak of the war with Aretas, i.e. in A.D. 34, it is not still probable that
Herod should have confined a political prisoner in a fortress that had been
taken from the enemy. The word of Wieseler therefore in the Chronological
Synopsis, pp. 216-217; Beiträge, pp. 5, 13; Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 166,
that Aretas has been compelled at the bidding of Tiberius to surrender the
fortress to Herod, is more forcible.—Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie,
1869, pp. 49-51, believes that the fortress had never really been in the
possession of Aretas, but that it was only the city of Machärus that for a long
time lay under tribute to him. In this form the hypothesis is clearly
impossible, since the one thing without the other is inconceivable. On the other
hand, the supposition is well grounded, that the city and fortress of Machärus
never belonged to Aretas, and that the statement we have been discussing
originated in an error of Josephus or a corruption of our test of Josephus. See
above, p. 22.—The most extraordinary of all is the idea of Sevin, that Machärus
was still in the hands of Aretas when Herod Antipas imprisoned the Baptist, and
had him executed in that stronghold of his father-in-law. Sevin, Chronologie des
Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. p. 96; generally, pp. 90-96. [712] Matthew 14:5; Mark 6:20;
Matthew 11:2-6; compare Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 340-343; Hausrath,
Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. p. 331; Weiss, Marcusevangelium, p.
217 f. [713] The signification of γενέσια (Matthew 14:6; Mark 6:21) is matter of
controversy. See Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 266; Beiträge, p. 182 f.;
Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 223; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol.
i. p. 334; and the commentators on Matthew 14:6; Mark 6:21. Instead of the
ordinary morning “birthday,” many expositors understand it to mean the
anniversary day of his accession to the throne.” But an instance of this meaning
cannot with certainty be got in the whole range of Greek literature; and even
the rabbinical material, from which they seek support, is very weak. The
principal passage in Mishna Aboda sara i. 3: “The following are the festivals of
the heathen: The Calendae and the Saturnalia and the κράτησεις (קרטיסים), and
the day of the γενέσια of the king (יום גיניסיא של מלכים), and the day of birth
and the day of death. So R. Meir. The learned say: Only a case of death, wherein
there evidently appears the scorching of fire, is accompanied by an idolatrous
sacrifice; but where this is not the case there is no idol sacrifice.” An
explanation of the expressions used is not given in the Mishna. In the
Palestinian Talmud (Jer. Aboda sara i. fol. 39c), יום ניניסיא is interpreted by
יום הלידה, “birthday.” In the Babylonian Talmud (Bab. Aboda sara 10a) there is a
regular discussion over the meaning of the phrase, in which the reasons in
favour of the meaning “birthday” are brought forward, but finally preference is
given to the interpretation: יום שמעמידין בו מלךְ, “the day on which the king
ascended the throne” (see Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, i. 394a, and the literal
production of the whole discussion in the German translation in Abodah Sarah,
translated by Ferd. Chr. Ewald, 2 Ausg. 1868, p. 70 f.). Upon this only is
grounded the interpretation, “the anniversary of the accession to the throne,”
adopted by many modern scholars. But since the Palestinians undoubtedly knew
better about such matters than the Babylonians, who for the most part only
guessed without accurately knowing, the interpretation of the Babylonians should
not be accepted when it is in opposition to all other instances. So also Dalman,
Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1889, 172, in his review of Strack’s Aboda sara. Also
the connection of the context of the Mishna is in favour of the interpretation
“birthday.” For קרתיסים is most probably the anniversary of the obtaining of the
government. Therefore גיניסיא must be distinguished from it. But alongside of it
is mentioned “the day of birth,” as further investigation of the Mishna shows,
not the anniversary of the birth, but only that particular day on which a child
is born. On the custom of celebrating the birthday anniversary in general, see
Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Natalis dies;” Marquardt, Das Privatleben der
Römer, Bd. i. 1879, p. 244 f. [714] The Gospels of Matthew and Mark evidently
assume that the banquet was given in the same place where the Baptist lay a
prisoner. See Meyer on Matthew 14:10 ff. But that was Machärus. And there the
banquet may, in fact, have been given. For Machärus had a beautiful palace,
which had been built by Herod the Great (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2). There is
therefore no reason for transferring the scene to Julias, as is done by
Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 220, 221; Beiträge, p. 5. The Gospels are
silent in regard to the place; for from Mark 6:21 it is not necessarily to be
concluded, as Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 217; Bibellexikon, iii. 48; and
Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 369, think, that Mark assumes Galilee, that is,
Tiberius, as the scene of the transaction. [715] Matthew 14:6-11; Mark 6:21-28;
Luke 9:9.—In Mark 6:22 some very important and authoritative tests, accepted by
Westcott and Hort and Volkmar, read: τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρωδιάδος. According to
this reading the maiden herself was called Herodias, and may have been a
daughter of Herod Antipas, and not merely the daughter of Herodias. But a child
of the marriage of Antipas with Herodias could not then have been more than two
years old; whereas, on the other hand, we know from Josephus that Herodias by
her first marriage had a daughter called Salome (Antiq. xviii. 5. 4). Also in
the Gospel narrative itself the maiden appears only as a daughter of Herodias.
The statement, therefore, that would result from that reading of Mark, cannot in
any case be regarded as historically correct, be that reading ever so old.—On
the imprisonment and execution of the Baptist generally, compare Keim, Jesus of
Nazara, ii. 329 ff., iv. 215 ff.; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, pp.
124-128.—The narrative of the Gospels contains much that arouses suspicion;
especially that Salome is still designated a κοράσιον, whereas we are informed
by Josephus that she had been married long before A.D. 28-30 to the tetrarch
Philip, who had begun his reign in B.C. 4, and had died in A.D. 34 (see above,
p. 16). But just the weakest point in the Gospel story is proved on more careful
examination to be not improbable. The facts derived from Josephus are gathered
together in the following summary by Gutschmid (Literarisches Centralblatt,
1874, p. 522, in his review of Brann’s, Die Söhne des Herodes): “Aristobulus,
Salome’s second husband, was a son of Herod of Chalcis, by Mariam, the daughter
of Joseph and Olympias, a sister of Archelaus, who had married after B.C. 7, but
before B.C. 4. Therefore, at the earliest, Miriam’s son Aristobulus could not
have been born before B.C. 5, and not likely before A.D. 14. This affords us
incidentally dates for determining the age of Salome, whom we should not without
necessity regard as much older than Aristobulus, since her second marriage, by
which she was mother of three sons, was evidently one in which the partners were
of similar age. Philip, her first husband, had in B.C. 4 or 3 reached such an
age as to be capable of assuming the reins of government, and so must have been
born at latest in B.C. 21. Though a great disparity of age between the two
undoubtedly existed, we cannot, without making a most improbable hypothesis,
suppose the difference to have been more than thirty years; this would give as
the latest date for the birth of Salome, A.D. 10.” Gutschmid therefore assumes
that Salome was born in A.D. 10, and regards it as quite possible that she was
still a κοράσιον in A.D. 28, and that in her nineteenth year she married Philip,
who was in his forty-ninth year. Even before John had been removed from the
scene, the “Mightier,” to whom he had pointed, had already made His appearance,
and had begun to preach the gospel in Galilee. He, too, could not remain
unnoticed by the nobles of the land. Yet Antipas first heard of the deeds of
Jesus after the Baptist had been put to death. Hence, tormented by his evil
conscience, he felt convinced that the Baptist had risen again, and was
continuing his dangerous and revolutionary work.[716] In order to make sure
whether this was so, he desired to see the miracle-worker who preached in
Capernaum, and attracted all the people.[717] He meant in time to get rid of
Him, not, however, by violence, but by craft. He won over to him the Pharisees,
and got them to undertake the attempt to induce Jesus voluntarily to quit the
country by representing to Him that Herod sought His life.[718] The plan was
indeed very craftily conceived; but it failed in execution, because Jesus saw
through it. Subsequently, indeed, Jesus did quit Galilee in order to take His
death journey to Jerusalem. There also Antipas, who was at that time living at
Jerusalem that he might keep the Passover, had the satisfaction of meeting with
his mysterious subject. Pilate sent the prisoner to him, in order that he, as
ruler of the province, might pronounce the death sentence clamoured for by the
Jewish hierarchy. Antipas, however, would not lend himself to this scheme, but
contented himself with pouring contempt upon Jesus, and sending Him back again
to Pilate.[719] [716] Matthew 14:1 f.; Mark 6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9. [717] Luke
9:9.—Among the female followers of Christ there is mentioned the wife of an
officer of Antipas (Luke 8:3 : Ἰωάννα γυνὴ Χουζᾶ ἐπιτρόπου Ἡρώδου). [718] So at
least is Luke 13:31-32 understood by many expositors. This interpretation, too,
is correct; compare Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 344. [719] Luke 23:7-12. Compare
Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, pp. 40-42; Keim, Jesus of
Nazara, vi. 103-105. The chronology of the public ministry of the Baptist and of
Jesus Christ, which has hitherto been based for the most part on Luke 3:1 and
John 2:20, has been in recent times completely turned upside down by Keim.[720]
Whereas previously almost the only subject of contention had been whether the
year 30 or the year 31 was the year of Christ’s death, Keim sets down the
execution of the Baptist in the end of A.D. 34 (Jesus of Nazara, vi. 226, 232),
the death of Christ at Easter of A.D. 35 (Jesus of Nazara, vi. 232). His chief
argument is the following. Josephus remarked (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2) that the
defeat which Herod Antipas sustained in the war with the Arabian king Aretas in
A.D. 36, was considered by the people as a judgment for the execution of John
the Baptist. Accordingly, says Keim, the execution must be placed as near as
possible to the year 36; and since, in view of the deposition of Pilate before
Easter A.D. 36, Jesus must have been put to death not later than Easter A.D. 35,
and the execution of the Baptist must be put down as occurring in the end of the
year 34. There is also one other reason for insisting upon this late dating of
these events. The attack of Aretas upon Antipas was an act of vengeance on the
part of Aretas, because his daughter had been divorced by Antipas. Hence both
events must have occurred very nearly about the same time. And, seeing that the
execution of the Baptist could not have occurred until after the divorce of the
daughter of Aretas and the marriage with Herodias, the death of the Baptist and
of Christ could not for this reason have occurred in A.D. 29 and 30
respectively. [720] See Der geschichtliche Christus (3 Aufl. 1866), pp. 224-240;
Jesus of Nazara, ii. 381, vi. 220; Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nr. 49
and 51.—Keim is supported by Holtzmann, Hausrath, Sevin, Schenkel, and in all
essential points by Hitzig, who reckons indeed A.D. 36 as the year of Jesus’
death. See the summary of conclusions in Keim, vi. 226, 240; also in Sevin,
Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1874.—Against Keim, see especially:
Wieseler, Beiträge (1869), pp. 3-16; Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, pp. 163-173.
Against this theory Wieseler particularly has urged a series of arguments which
indeed are not all of a convincing character. He seeks especially as the ground
of Agrippa’s residence with Antipas (see under § 18) to prove that the marriage
with Herodias occurred at an earlier date. When Agrippa had been appointed by
Antipas agoranomos of Tiberius, Antipas was already married to Herodias.
Afterwards Agrippa was sent away by Antipas, and then stayed for a long time
with Flaccus, the legate of Syria, and then went to Rome, where he, or rather
his freedman Eutychus, became intimate with the city prefect Piso (Antiq. xviii.
6. 2-5). Seeing then—so argues Wieseler—that Flaccus died in A.D. 33, Piso
having previously died in A.D. 32, the marriage with Herodias must have taken
place before A.D. 32, Wieseler thinks in A.D. 29. But we saw already that that
Piso was not the man who died in A.D. 32, but a later one, and that Flaccus
possibly, indeed probably, did not die till A.D. 35 (see vol. i. pp. 360-364).
By these arguments, therefore, nothing can be proved. But the rock upon which
Keim’s chronology suffered shipwreck is the definite statement of Luke 3:1, that
the Baptist made his appearance before the public in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius, i.e. between August A.D. 28 and August A.D. 29; which statement indeed
Keim rejects as unworthy of belief. The tendency now is not to overestimate the
trustworthiness of Luke, and certainly in reference to the tracing of Quirinius
he has erred grievously. But it is surely impossible that in this case an error
of five full years should have been made. Evidently Luke took great care in
examining into this particular date. We have here therefore before us, not so
much his opinion, as that of the entire Christendom of his time.[721] Can it be
thought possible that all Christendom was wrong to the extent of five full years
about the date of their Lord’s death? More powerful reasons must be given than
those brought forward from Josephus before we can feel justified in adopting
such a view. [721] Probably the result of Luke’s investigations was this, that
Christ died at Easter A.D. 30. From this datum he then reckons back one year;
for he only allows one year for the public ministry (Luke 4:19-21), and so
reaches the 15th year of Tiberius as the date of the public appearance of the
Baptist and Christ.—In any case it is the year 30 that John 2:20, points out as
the date of Christ’s death; only that John, who assumes a two years’ activity of
Christ, places the beginning of His ministry in A.D. 28. Compare vol. i. p. 410.
The reasons advanced by Josephus are indeed nothing less than convincing. This
is at least correct, and also generally admitted, that the defeat of Antipas in
A.D. 36 took place somewhere about half a year before the death of Tiberius, in
March A.D. 37. But that the people could not have regarded it as a divine
judgment for the execution of the Baptist, seeing that that event was now seven
years past, cannot be maintained. A couple of years more would in this matter
make no difference. For Pharisaism was wont to discover such causal connections
after the expiry of very long periods indeed. Further, that the divorce of the
daughter of Aretas, followed by the marriage with Herodias, and the war with the
Arabian king, must have followed immediately upon one another, still remains a
point that cannot be proved. Josephus says expressly, that only from the divorce
is to be dated the beginning of the hostility between Antipas and Aretas (Antiq.
xviii. 5. 1: ὃ δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχθρας ταύτην ποιησάμενος), and that after additional
reasons arose, such as contentions about boundaries. Even Keim himself admits
the possibility of setting down the marriage to A.D. 32-33 (Jesus of Nazara, ii.
397). Why then not to the year 29, if once an interval of several years has to
be admitted? Hausrath, who in other respects agrees with Keim, put it back as
far as the year 27, and in this way deprives himself of the main ground upon
which he had supported his position (Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i.
p. 326, 328). Upon the whole, therefore, we feel entitled to hold by the
statements of the New Testament, and to place the death of Christ at Easter A.D.
30, that of the Baptist in A.D. 29, and the marriage of Herodias somewhat
earlier, perhaps in A.D. 29, perhaps even some years earlier (Gutschmid,
Literarisches Centralblatt, 1874, Sp. 523, places it about A.D. 26). The
connection with Herodias brought little good to Antipas. The Arabian king Aretas
could not forget that Antipas on her account had repudiated his daughter. The
feud arising from this cause was increased through boundary disputes about
Galaaditis,—for so we should read the name rather than Gamalitis.[722] Finally,
in A.D. 36 the misunderstanding between the two neighbours broke out into the
war which ended in the utter destruction of the army of Antipas.[723] The
conquered monarch had now no other resource but to complain of his victorious
opponent to the Emperor Tiberius.[724] [722] The district of Gamala belonged to
what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, and cannot therefore have been a subject
of contention between Antipas and Aretas. On the other hand, the province of
Galaaditis (Gilead) lay on the borders of their territories. But from ΓΑΛΑΑΔΙΤΙΣ
the other word ΓΑΜΑΛΙΤΙΣ might easily be made. Undoubtedly the text of the
passage in question (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1) is defective. Compare Keim in the
Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nr. 51, col. 1218. [723] The date is
derived from this, that the defeat of Antipas, as what follows shows, took place
not long—somewhere about half a year—before the death of Tiberius in March A.D.
37. [724] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 1. When Tiberius heard of the bold
proceedings of the Arabian prince, he gave Vitellius, governor of Syria, express
orders to gain possession of Aretas, dead or alive. Vitellius had indeed little
heart to enter on the expedition, for he was not greatly drawn toward Antipas.
But he could not oppose the imperial command, and so he prepared himself for the
war against Aretas. After he had ordered his army to march round about Judea to
Petra, he himself went on a visit to Jerusalem, where a feast was then being
celebrated, probably that of the Passover.[725] He waited in that city three
days. On the fourth, he received news of the death of Tiberius, which had taken
place on 16th March A.D. 37. He considered himself thereby released from his
undertaking, and turned back with his army to Antioch.[726] Thus the defeat of
Antipas remained unavenged. [725] Compare Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. 227; Sevin,
Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. pp. 75-77. [726] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5.
1-3. Since the imperial legates had their office only at the personal will of
the emperor, so, strictly taken, every command ceased with the death of the
emperor. See Mommsen, Römische Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1. 235, ii. 2. 873.
About this time we find our Jewish tetrarch present on one occasion at the
Euphrates during important negotiations between Vitellius and the king of the
Parthians. But it seems that the account of this affair in Josephus is not free
from error. “We know, for instance, that in the years 35 and 36 the Parthian
king Artabanus had to do repeatedly with the Romans. His affairs seemed to be
taking a favourable turn when, by the threats of Vitellius and the revolt of his
own subjects, he was obliged to betake himself to flight into the remoter
provinces. In consequence of this, Vitellius, in the summer of A.D. 36, went to
the Euphrates along with the pretender Tiridates, supported by the Romans, and
established him as king over the Parthians. Nevertheless, before the end of that
same year, Artabanus returned, drove out Tiridates, and secured the government
again to himself.[727] Subsequently Vitellius arranged a meeting with Artabanus
at the Euphrates, at which Artebanus concluded a peace with the Romans, and in
pledge thereof, sent his son Darius to Rome as a hostage.[728] At this meeting,
according to Josephus, Herod Antipas was also present. He entertained Vitellius
and Artabanus in a magnificent tent erected upon the Euphrates bridge, and
hastened, as soon as the negotiations were concluded, to communicate the
favourable result to the emperor,—a piece of officiousness which annoyed
Vitellius at him exceedingly, since he had thereby completely anticipated his
official report.[729]—Thus Josephus places this meeting in the time of Tiberius,
and considers that the quarrel arising out of this between Vitellius and Herod
Antipas was the reason why Vitellius, after the death of Tiberius, immediately
abandoned the campaign against Aretas. But Suetonius and Dio Cassius say
expressly, and the silence of Tacitus, in the sixth book of his Annals,
indirectly proves, that the meeting between Vitellius and Artabanus took place
under Caligula. Josephus therefore is certainly in one particular in error. The
only question is, in what particular. If it is correct that Herod Antipas took
part in the Parthian negotiations on the Euphrates in the time of Tiberius, then
these must have been the negotiations between Vitellius and Tiridates in the
summer of A.D. 36 (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 37). But if it is correct that he took
part in the negotiations between Vitellius and Artabanus, it cannot have been
before the time of Caligula. The latter supposition is most probably the true
account of the matter. For in summer A.D. 36 Herod was engaged in the war
against Aretas.[730] [727] Tacitus, Annals, vi. 31-37, 41-44. With respect to
the date, compare also: Annals, vi 38; Dio Cassius, lviii. 26; Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 4. 4.—The fixing of the date results from the statement of Tacitus. [728]
Suetonius, Caligula, 14, Vitellius, 2; Dio Cassius, lix. 27; Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 4. 5. Besides Josephus, Dio Cassius, lix. 17, and Suetonius, Caligula,
19, speak of Darius as present in Rome in A.D. 39 [729] Josephus, Antiq. xviii
4. 5. [730] Compare Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 568; Hausrath,
Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 209-211. Also Ussher and Tillemont (Histoire des
Empereurs, vol. i. Venise 1732, p. 139 sq., and note 4 on Caligula) express the
same opinion. Compare on the Parthian history generally: Gutschmid, Geschichte
Irans und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, and the literature referred to there on p.
171 f. A list of original documents is given in Clinton, Fasti Romani, ii. 1850,
pp. 243-263. On the relations between the Romans and Parthians, see also
Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, Bd. i.; and Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte,
Bd. v. p. 339 ff. If Antipas had his passion for Herodias to thank as the real
occasion of his defeat and damage at the hand of Aretas, the ambition of this
wife of his brought about at last the loss of his government and of his freedom.
One of the first acts of the new Emperor Caligula on his taking the reins of
government into his hands was to assign to Agrippa, the brother of Herodias,
what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, together with the title of king. Agrippa
at first remained still at Rome. But in the second year of Caligula, March A.D.
38 to March A.D. 39, he went to Palestine, and made his appearance there as
king. The success of the adventurer, whose fortunes had once been at so low an
ebb, and who had even himself sought aid at the hand of Antipas, excited the
envy of Herodias, who therefore insisted upon her husband seeking also from the
emperor the royal title. Herod Antipas was not very much disposed to go forth on
such an errand. At last, however, he was obliged to yield to the persistent
entreaty of his wife, and proceeded to Rome, accompanied by Herodias, to
prosecute his suit. But they were immediately followed by a representative of
Agrippa, Fortunatus, with a document containing charges against Herod Antipas,
in which he was accused of old and recent offences, of having made a compact
with Sejanus (who died in A.D. 31), and with the Parthian king Artabanus. In
proof of these charges, his accuser pointed to the accumulation of arms made by
Antipas. Both parties came at the same time before Caligula at Baiae. When the
emperor had heard the petition of Antipas and the accusations against him, he
asked Antipas how it was that he had made such a collection of arms. And when
Antipas could give no proper account of this, Caligula credited also the other
charges, deposed Antipas from his tetrarchy, and banished him to Lyons in Gaul.
He wished to allow Herodias, as the sister of Agrippa, to live on her private
estate. But the proud woman scorned the imperial favour, and followed her
husband into his exile. As a new proof of imperial favour, the tetrarchy was
conferred upon the accuser Agrippa.[731] Herod Antipas died in banishment. A
confused statement in DioCassius seems to imply that he was put to death by
Caligula.[732] [731] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 7. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 6.
The latter passage contains some inaccuracies, which are corrected in the
Antiquities, namely: (1) According to the Wars of the Jews, Agrippa himself
immediately followed Antipas to Rome, where, according to the Antiquities, he
sent Fortunatus; (2) According to the Wars of the Jews, Antipas was banished to
Spain; but, according to the Antiquities, to Lugdunum in Gaul. The difference in
reference to the place is not to be explained away, whether one understands by
Lugdunum the modern Lyons (which is certainly correct), or Lugdunum Convenarum,
on the northern slope of the Pyrenees, which also belonged to Gaul (so, e.g.,
Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 383). Lewin (Fasti Sacri, n. 1561)
conjectures that the definite judgment of Caligula had not been given forth
before his visit to Lyons in A.D. 40, and that Josephus confounded the place
where the sentence was given with the place of banishment,—an artificial
hypothesis which only burdens Josephus with a more grievous error in order to
exonerate him from a less serious one. The time of the deposition of Antipas is
determined partly from Antiq. xviii. 7. 1-2 compared with 6. 11, partly from
xix. 8. 2. In the latter passage it is said of Agrippa: Τέτταρας μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ
Γαΐου Καίσαρος ἐβασίλευσεν ἐνιαυτούς, τῆς Φιλίππου μὲν τετοαοχίας εἰς τριετίαν
ἄρξας, τῷ τετάρτῳ δὲ καὶ τὴν Ἡρώδου προσειληφώς. Seeing then that Caligula
reigned from March A.D. 37 till January A.D. 41, Agrippa obtained the tetrarchy
of Antipas in the beginning of A.D. 40.—But, according to Antiq. xviii. 6. 11,
Agrippa had returned to Palestine in the second year of Caligula, between March
A D. 38 and March A.D. 39, and had the benefit of the trade winds (ἐτησίαι,
Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 5, ed. Mangey, ii. 521), which from the 20th July blew
for thirty days (Pliny, Hist. Nat. ii. 47). Consequently he may, since he had on
his way paid a visit to Alexandria (Philo, l.c.), have arrived in Palestine
about the end of September A.D. 38. Seeing then that the deposition of Antipas
was closely connected with the appearance of Agrippa, it would seem that it must
have taken place, if not in A.D. 38, at least in A.D. 39. In fact, it can be
proved that it actually occurred not earlier and not later than the summer of
A.D. 39. Not earlier: for the forty-third year of Antipas, of which we have
coins extant, only began with 1st Nisan 792 A.U.C., A.D. 39. But also not later.
Caligula was absent from Rome from autumn A.D. 39 till 31st August A.D. 40 on an
expedition to Gaul, Germany, and Britain (Dio Cassius, lix. 21-25; Suetonius,
Caligula, 17, 43-49: his entry into Rome “natali suo,” i.e. 31st August, see
Suetonius, Caligula, 8). Seeing then that the deposition of Antipas took place
while Caligula was at Baiae, and seeing also, according to Josephus, Antiq. xix.
8. 2, that it cannot have occurred after the German campaign, it must have
happened before that campaign, i.e. before autumn A.D. 39. It is indeed
impossible that it should have taken place only after the German campaign, for
Agrippa, from autumn A.D. 40 till Caligula’s death, resided again near to the
emperor (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 35 ff., ed. Mangey, ii. 584 ff.; Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 8. 7 ff.; Dio Cassius, lix. 24; compare also § 17 c. and § 18 of
the present work), whereas at the time of the deposition of Antipas he was in
Palestine. It is also shown to be impossible by this other fact, that, according
to Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 41, ed. Mangey, ii. 593, Agrippa was in autumn
A.D. 40 already in possession of Galilee. Compare also Josephus, Antiq. xviii.
8. 4, from which it may be concluded that Tiberias then no longer belonged to
Herod Antipas. In A.D. 39 Caligula was twice in Campania (at Baiae and Puteoli).
The one visit is referred to in Dio Cassius, lix. 13; the other, in Dio Cassius,
lix. 17. See also Suetonius, Caligula, 19. After his second absence, however, he
was again at Rome on the occasion of his birthday, 31st August (Dio Cassius,
lix. 20; Suetonius, Caligula, 26), after which he went forth on the German
expedition. The deposition of Antipas took place at Baiae therefore before the
31st August A.D. 39. But, seeing that Agrippa only obtained the tetrarchy of
Antipas in the beginning of A.D. 40 (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2), we may fairly
assume, with Noris (Opp. ii. 622 sq.) and Wieseler (Chronologie des
Apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 130), an interval of several months to have
occurred between the deposition of Antipas and the conferring of his tetrarchy
upon Agrippa, and that this latter event did not take place until the time of
the Gallo-German campaign of Caligula.—Compare generally: Noris, De nummo
Herodis Antipae (Opera, ii. col. 646-665); Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione, pp. 307-315.—On the coins of Herod bearing what is supposed to be
the year number 44, which would require an extension of his reign down to A.D.
40, see above, vol. i. p. 466, and the present vol. pp. 20, 21. Were the
existence of this coin well established, we should be obliged, with Lewin, to
assign the deposition of Antipas, not to the period of Caligula’s residence at
Baiae, but to the period of his Gallic campaign, and so to assume a serious
error in Josephus. [732] Dio Cassius, lix. 8 (Caligula): Ἀγρίππαν τὸν τοῦ Ἡρώδου
ἔγγονον λύσας τε … καὶ τῇ τοῦ πάππου ἀρχῇ προστάξας, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἢ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν
οὐχ ὅτι τῶν πατρῴων ἀπεστέρησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατέσφαξε. Although the relationship
is not very clearly expressed, the reference can only be to Herod Antipas. To
execute those whom he banished was a common custom with Caligula, Suetonius,
Caligula, 28; Dio Cassius, lix. 18; Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 21, ed. Mangey, ii.
543; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1562.—According to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.
9. 6, Antipas died in banishment in Spain. Instead of Spain we are to read,
according to Antiq. xviii. 7. 2, Lugdunum in Gaul. For one has no right so to
combine contradictory statements of Josephus that a later removal of the
banished one from Lyons to Spain may be assumed. c. ARCHELAUS, B.C. 4-A.D. 6.
HIS TERRITORY UNDER ROMAN PROCURATORS, A.D. 6-A.D. 41 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq.
xvii. 13, xviii. 1-4. 8; Wars of the Jews, ii 7-10. PHILO, De legatione ad Cajum
(Opera, ed. Mangey, ii. 545-600). On the coins, see below. LITERATURE EWALD,
History of Israel, v. 449-457, vii. 235-257. GEIKIE, Life and Words of Christ,
i. 263-272. GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 253-271, 315-317,
341-344. HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 562 f., 573-583. HAUSRATH,
Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 287-308, ii. 199-270. KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i.
253-262, ii. 223, vi. 79, 183, 227; and art. “Archelaus” in Schenkel’s
Bibellexikon, iii. 38-40. GERLACH, Zeitschrift für luth. Theologie, 1869, pp.
30-32; Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, pp. 44-48, 53-65. WINER,
Realwörterbuch, i. 82 f. (Archelaus), and ii. 261-263 (Pilatus). BRANN, Die
Söhne des Herodes, 1873 (reprint from the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und
Wissenschaft des Judenthums), pp. 1-16. LEWIN, Fasti Sacra, ad ann., 4 B.C.-41
A.D. MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, v. 508 ff. KELLNER, Die römische Statthalter
von Syrien und Judäa. 2. Art. Die kaiserlichen Procuratoren von Judäa
(Zeitschrift für kathol. Theologie, 1888, p. 630 ff.). KELLNER, Politische und
administrative Zustände von Palästina zur Zeit Christi (Der Katholik, 1888, i.
pp. 47-63). A summary of the history during the time of Pompey. MENKE,
Bibelatlas, Bl. V. Special map of Judea and neighbouring countries in the time
of Pontius Pilate. Judea proper with Samaria and Idumea (including the large
cities of Caesarea, Samaria, Joppa, and Jerusalem, but excluding Gaza, Gadara,
and Hippos) was in the partition assigned to Archelaus, the elder[733] brother
of Antipas, not indeed, as Herod had intended, with the title of king, but only
with that of an ethnarch.[734] Yet Augustus promised him the kingdom if he
should prove himself to be worthy of it.[735] Archelaus also, like Antipas,
named himself on the coins and elsewhere by the family name of Herod.[736] [733]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 32. 7, 33. 7. [734] He is inaccurately styled
βασιλεύς in Matthew 2:22, and in Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3. [735] Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 11. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. [736] By Josephus he is never
indeed called Herod, but he is so called by Dio Cassius, Leviticus 27. That the
coins with the inscription ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΕΘΝΑΡΧΟΥ belong to him cannot be doubted, for
no other Herodian besides him bore the title of ethnarch. This was first of all
recognised by Scipio Maffeius, Antt. Gall. p. 113 (quoted by Eckhel, iii. 484).
Eckhel is at least inclined to agree with him (“Forte verior est conjectura
Scipionis Maffeii,” etc.). It is now admitted by all scholars. Compare on these
coins generally: Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 53, 57 f., ii. 32 f.; De
Saulcy, Recherches, p. 133 sq.; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, p. 73 f.;
Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 91-95; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien,
v. 25 f.; De Sauley, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 248-250; Madden, Numismatic
Chronicle, 1875, 45 sq.; Madden, Coins of the Jews, pp. 114-118. Among the sons
of Herod he procured for himself the worst reputation. His rule was violent and
tyrannical[737] He set up and removed the high priests at his pleasure.[738] He
gave special offence by his marriage with Glaphyra, daughter of the Cappadocian
king Archelaus. She had been married first to Alexander, the half-brother of
Archelaus, executed in B.C. 7. See vol. i. p. 456 of this work. After his death
she was married to Juba, king of Mauritania.[739] Upon the dissolution of this
marriage,[740] Glaphyra lived in her father’s house. There Archelaus became
acquainted with her, fell in love with her, and took her to he his wife, for he
divorced his own wife Mariamme. Seeing that Glaphyra had children by Alexander,
the marriage was unlawful, and therefore gave great offence.[741] The marriage
was not indeed of long duration, for Glaphyra died soon after her arrival in
Judea,[742] after having had a remarkable dream, in which her first husband,
Alexander, appeared to her, and made known to her her approaching death.[743]
[737] Ὠμότης καὶ τυραννίς are charged against him in Antiq. xvii. 13. 2. Compare
also Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 3. [738] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 1. [739] It is
this same one who made himself known as a writer. Reports about him and the
fragments of his writings are collected by Müller, Fragmenta Histor. Graec. iii.
465-484. Compare also Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, 2 ed. iii. 578 sq.: Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 345; Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, ii. 185
f.; La Blanchère, De rege Juba regis Jubae filio, Paris 1883, and the literature
referred to there.—Juba as a child (βρέφος, App.; κομιδῆ νήπιος;, Plut.) was led
in triumph by Caesar in B.C. 46 (Appian, ii. 101; Plutarch, Caesar, c. 55). In
B.C. 29 he obtained from Augustus his father’s kingdom of Numidia (Dio Cassius,
li. 15). Four years later, in B.C. 25, Augustus gave him instead of that the
lands of Bocchus and Boguas (Mauritania Tingitana and Caesariensis), and a part
of Gätulia (Dio Cassius, liii. 26). He was still living in A.D. 18 (Müller, iii.
466), and, as is proved by the evidence of the coins, did not die before A.D. 23
(Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. i. 278; Marquardt, Römisches Staats-verwaltung, i.
1881, p. 482; Rühl, Jahrbb. für class. Philol. 117 Bd. 1878, pp. 542-544. Rühl
succeeds in proving, in opposition to Niese in Hermes, xiii. 1878, p. 35 f.,
Anm., that Juba died in A.D. 23. Schiller in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, xv. 497
f.; Paul Meyer, Leipziger Studien zur class. Philol. ii. 1879, p. 72; Vogel,
Philologus, Bd. 41, 1882, p. 517; La Blanchère, De rege Juba, p. 85 [all in
favour of A.D. 23].—The marriage with Glaphyra occurred probably between B.C. 1
and A.D. 4, if the conjecture of Müller is correct that Juba accompanied C.
Caesar on his Oriental expedition, and on that occasion became acquainted with
Glaphyra.—An inscription at Athens, filled up as follows by Mommsen, probably
refer to Glaphyra (Ephemeris epigr. i. 277 sq.=Corp. Inscr. Attic. iii. 1, n.
549):— [740] Josephus says “after the death of Juba,” which, however, is wrong.
See previous note. [741] Compare generally Antiq. xvii. 13. 1 and 4; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 7. 4. [742] Μετʼ ὀλίγον τοῦ ἀφίξεως χρόνον, Wars of the Jews, ii. 7.
4. [743] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 7. 4. Ἡ βουλὴ καὶ
[ὁ δῆμος] βασίλισσαν [Γλαφύραν] Ἀρχελάου δυγ[ατέρα, Ἰόβα] γυναῖκα [ἀρετῆς
ἕνεκα]. It will almost go without saying that Archelaus as son of Herod engaged
upon great building enterprises. The palace at Jericho was restored in the most
magnificent style. An aqueduct was built to lead the water necessary for the
palmgroves, which he had laid out anew in the plain north of Jericho, from the
village of Neara. He also founded a city, and called it in honour of himself
Archelais.[744] [744] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 1.—On the palm-groves near
Jericho, see vol. i. p. 423; on the village of Archelais, see Div. II. vol. i.
p. 122. It lay, according to the tabula Peutinger. (ed. Konr. Miller, 1888), on
the road from Jericho to Scythopolis, 12 Roman miles north of Jericho, 12+12
Roman miles south of Scythopolis. Seeing that the actual distance between was
somewhere about 15 Roman miles, an error has somewhere crept into the figures.
If we assume that the statement of the distance between Jericho and Archelais as
12 Roman miles is correct, then Archelais must have been a little south of
Phasaelis, not north, as is generally supposed. The following fact is in favour
of such a view. Archelais, like Phasaelis, was celebrated for its palm-groves
(Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xiii. 4. 44). We may therefore
actually seek the palm-groves anew laid out by Archelaus, for which he brought
water from Neara, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Archelais founded by
him. But Neara is most probably identical with the place called by Eusebius
(Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 283) Νοοράθ, which was only 5 Roman miles distant
from Jericho. Therefore also Archelias would not be too far from it. But these
beautiful and useful undertakings could not reconcile his subjects to his
misgovernment. After tolerating his rule for more than nine years, a deputation
of the Jewish and Samaritan aristocracy set out for Rome, in order to lay their
complaints against him before Augustus. The points in their accusation must have
been very serious; for the emperor felt himself obliged to summon Archelaus to
Rome, and, after having heard him, to depose him from his government, and banish
him to Vienne in Gaul in A.D. 6. To him also, as to his wife, his fate had been
foretold by a remarkable dream.[745] [745] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 2-3; Wars
of the Jews, ii. 7. 3; Dio Cassius, Leviticus 27. Without mentioning the name of
Archelaus, Strabo, xvi. 2. 46, p. 765, says that a son of Herod ἐν φυγῇ διετέλει
παρὰ τοῖςʼ Αλλόβριξι Γαλάταις λαβὼν οἰκησιν. Vienne, south of Lyons, was the
capital of the Allobrogi.—As regards the chronology, Dio Cassius, Leviticus 27,
places the banishment of Archelaus in the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and
Lucius Arruntius, A.D. 6. With this agree the statements of Josephus, Antiq.
xvii. 13. 2, that it occurred in the tenth year, or, according to the Wars of
the Jews, ii. 7. 3, in the ninth year of Archelaus.—According to a statement of
Jerome, the grave of Archelaus was pointed out near Bethlehem (Onomasticon, ed.
Lagarde, p. 101: “scd et propter eandem Bethleem regis quondam Judaeae Archelai
tumulus ostenditur”). If this be correct, he must have died in Palestine. The
territory of Archelaus was taken under immediate Roman rule, for it was attached
to the province of Syria, but received a governor of its own from the equestrian
order.[746] In consequence of this arrangement the condition of Judea became
essentially changed. Herod the Great and his sons had in spite of all their
friendship for the Romans considerable respect for and understanding of the
national traditions and peculiarities of the Jews, so that they, apart from
individual exceptions, did not wantonly wound the most sacred sensibilities of
the people. Common prudence demanded in regard to such matters care and
consideration. The Romans, on the other hand, had scarcely any appreciation of
what was peculiar to the Jewish nationality. As the religious views of the
Pharisees and the accumulation of traditions which encompassed the daily life of
the people like a net were altogether unknown to the Romans, they could not at
all understand how a whole people would offer the most persistent resistance
even unto death, and would suffer annihilation on account of merely ceremonial
rites and what seemed matters of indifference. The Jews again saw in the
simplest rules of administration, such as the proposal of a census made at the
very beginning, an encroachment upon the most sacred rights of the people, and
from day to day the feeling more and more gained ground that the immediate
government of the Romans, which at the death of Herod they had wished for,[747]
was irreconcilable with the principles of the theocracy. Thus, even had there
been the best of intentions on both sides, the relations inevitably became
strained and ultimately hostile. But this good-will was only partially
exhibited. Those at the head of the government, with the exception of the times
of Caligula, were indeed ready on their part to make concessions and to exercise
forbearance in a very large measure. But their good intentions were always
rendered nugatory by the perversity of the procurators, not infrequently also by
gross miscarriage of justice on the part of these officials. Those subordinate
officers, like all petty governors, were usually puffed up by a consciousness of
their absolute authority, and by their insolent demeanour at last drove the
oppressed and burdened people to such a pitch of excitement that they rushed
headlong with wild fanaticism into a war that plainly involved annihilation.
[746] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5, xviii. 1. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1.
[747] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 2. Seeing that the
political affairs of Judea during the period A.D. 6-41 were in all essential
respects the same as those of Palestine generally during the period A.D. 44-66,
in the following exposition we take the two periods together, and make use of
materials from the one period as well as from the other.[748] [748] Compare
Sibranda, De statu Judaeae provinciae sub procuratoribus, Franecq. 1698 (also in
Thesaurus novus theol.-philol., edd. Hase et Iken, ii. 529 sqq.).—Krenkel, art.
“Verwaltung” in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 601 f.; Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art.
“Römer;” Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, v. 509 ff.; and generally the literature
referred to on p. 38 of this volume. Judea, and subsequently all Palestine, was
not in the strict sense of the term incorporated with the province of Syria, but
had a governor of its own of equestrian rank, who stood only to a certain extent
in dependence upon the imperial legate of Syria.[749] It therefore belonged to
the third class of imperial provinces, according to Strabo’s
classification.[750] And this third class is to be regarded as an exception to
the rule; for most of the imperial provinces were, just like the senatorial
provinces, administered by men of senatorial rank; the greater provinces, like
that of Syria, by men who had been consuls, the smaller ones, by those who had
been praetors.[751] Only a few particular provinces were in an exceptional
manner placed under governors of equestrian rank, namely, those in which, on
account of special tenacity in adhering to peculiar national customs, or on
account of the rudeness and savage state of the country, the government could
not be carried on by the usual methods. The best known example is that of Egypt.
Elsewhere there were also territories inhabited by a still semi-barbarous people
which were administered in this manner.[752] [749] Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
ii. 8. 1: τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης ἐπίτροπός τις [l.
τῆς] ἱππικῆς παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις τάξεως Κωπώνιος πέμπεται.—Antt. xviii. 1. 1: Κωπώνιος
… τάγματος τῶν ἱππέων, ἡγησόμενος Ἰουδαίων τῇ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἐξουσίᾳ. [750] Strabo,
xvii. 3. 25, p. 840: εἰς ἃς μὲν πέμπει τοὺς ἐπιμελησομένους ὑπκτικοὺς ἄνδρας,
εἰς ἃς δὲ στρατηγικούς, εἰς ἃς δὲ καὶ ἱππικούς. [751] For further details, see
vol. i. p. 347 of this work.—The designation of the imperial governor of Syria
as “proconsul,” as is done by many theologians (e.g. Gerlach, Hausrath,
Krenkel), is an offence against the very rudiments of Roman antiquities. Only
during the time of Pompey, down to B.C. 48, was Syria governed by “proconsuls.”
[752] The most important, besides Egypt, are mentioned by Tacitus, History, i.
11: “duae Mauritaniae, Raetia, Norieum, Thracia et quae aliae procuratoribus
cohibentur.” A complete list is given by Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der
Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 419-423.—Compare also, Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 554 f.; Liebenam, Beiträge zur
Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. 1886, pp. 26-30. The usual title for such an
equestrian governor was procurator, ἐπίτροπος.[753] It seems indeed that
Augustus, not only in Egypt, but elsewhere as well, preferred the title
praefactus, ἔπαρχος.[754] Very soon, however, at farthest in the time of
Claudius, except in the case of Egypt, the title procurator had become the
prevailing one. Josephus, as a rule, designates the governor of Judea ἐπίτροπος,
sometimes ἔπαρχος or ἡγεμών.[755] In the New Testament, ἡγεμών=praeses, is the
term usually employed.[756] That ἐπίτροπος (procurator) is the correct title may
be also proved by witnesses of another kind.[757] In general this title was used
for all imperial finance officers, while praefactus was more of a military
title. Such finance procurators were found also in all other provinces, in the
imperial as well as the senatorial provinces.[758] They were chosen not only
from the equestrian order, but even from among the freedmen of the emperor.[759]
Those procurators, on the other hand, who had to administer a province, on
account of the military command that was necessarily connected with such an
appointment, were chosen exclusively from the ranks of the equestrians. It was
an unheard of novelty when under Claudius the office of procurator of Judea was
given to a freedman, Felix (see below under § 19). [753] Compare generally on
the Praesidial-Procurators: Mascovius, De procuratore Caesaris, Altorf. 1724
(also in his Opuscula jurid. et philol. 1776, pp. 1-30); Rein, art. “Procurator
Caesaris” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 88-90; Winer, Biblisches
Realwörterbuch, ii. 276 ff. (art. “Procuratoren”); Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, Bd. 1, 1881, p. 554 ff.—The most comprehensive treatment of
the subject is given by Hirschfeld, Die ritterlichen Provinzialstatthalter
(Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 417-442). [754] See with
reference to this matter, Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte, 1889, pp. 425-427. [755]
Ἐπίτροπος in the following passages: Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, 9. 2, 11. 6 (in
the parallel passage, Antiq. xix. 9. 2: ἔπαρχος); Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 12. 8. ἐπιτροπεύων, Antiq. xx. 5. 1. ἐπιτροπή, Antiq. xx. 5. 1 fin.,
11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 1, 14. 1.—ἔπαρχος, Antiq. xviii. 2. 2, xix. 9.
2 (in parallel passage, Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6: ἐπίτροπος).—ἡγησόμενος,
Antiq. xviii. 1. 1. ἡγεμών, Antiq. xviii. 3. 1. προστησόμενος, Antiq. xx. 7.
1.—ἐπιμελητής, Antiq. xviii. 4. 2.—ἱππάρχης, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10 fin. [756]
Matthew 27:2; Matthew 27:11; Matthew 27:14-15; Matthew 27:21; Matthew 27:27;
Matthew 28:14; Luke 3:1; Luke 20:20; Acts 23:24; Acts 23:26; Acts 23:33; Acts
24:1; Acts 24:10; Acts 26:30.—ἡλεμών means generally praeses, and is therefore
used of governors of other orders. [757] The decree of the Emperor Claudius in
Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 2: Κουσπίῳ Φάδῳ τῷ ἐμῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ.—Tacit. Annal. xv. 44:
“Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio
adfectus erat.” Ibid. xii. 54: “praedas ad procuratores referre … jus statuendi
etiam de procuratoribus.” Cumanus and Felix are intended.—The material brought
together by Hirschfeld in Sitzungsberichte, p. 425 f., seems to me insufficient
to ground upon it the conclusion “that in Judea also in the earlier days of the
empire the title of praefactus was used,” although this may be admitted as
possible. [758] Marquardt, i. 555 f. [759] Compare on these finance procurators
(besides the literature given in note 21): Eichhorst, Quaestionum epigraphicarum
de procuratoribus imperatorum Romanorum specimen, 1861; Hirschfeld,
Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der römischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, Bd. 1, Die
kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian, 1887 (a well-informing
treatise); Liebenam, Beiträge zur Verwaltungsgeschickte des römischen
Kaiserreichs, i., Die Laufbahn der Procuratoren bis auf die Zeit Diocletians,
1886.—Much material is supplied in the Indices to the Corp. Inscr. Lat. Compare
also Corp. Inscr. Graec., Index, p. 36 (s.v. ἐπίτροπος Σεβαστοῦ). Haenel, Corpus
Legum, Index, s.v. procurator; Dirksen, Manuals latinitatis fordium iuris civ.
Rom. (1837), s.v. procurator. The procurators of Judea seem to have been
subordinate to the governor of Syria only to this extent, that it was the right
and duty of the governor to interfere in the exercise of his supreme power in
cases of necessity.[760] Writers have indeed sometimes expressed themselves as
if Judea had been incorporated into the province of Syria. But they do not
continue consistent to such a view.[761] The investing the procurator with a
military command, and with independent jurisdiction, of itself conferred upon
him a position, in virtue of which he was, in regard to ordinary transactions
within the limits of his province, as independent as the governors of other
provinces. On the other hand, the governor of Syria had the right, according to
his own discretion, to interfere if he had reason to fear revolutionary
uprisings or the appearance of other serious difficulties. He would then take
command in Judea as the superior of the procurator.[762] Whether this superior
authority went so far that he might even call the procurator to account seems
questionable, since in the two cases in which this happened, the governor
concerned had been probably entrusted with a special commission.[763] [760]
Compare Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 509, Anm.; Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte
der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 440-442. [761] Josephus says, Antiq. xvii.
fin.: τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας ὑποτελοῦς προσνεμηθείσης τῇ Σύρων. But when he also,
in Antiq. xviii. 1. 1, calls Judea a προσθήκη τῆς Συρίας, he evidently does not
mean to describe it as a properly integral part, but only as an appendix or
annex to the province of Syria. According to the Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, the
territory of Archelaus had been made into a province, therefore with the
privilege of independence, τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης. In
reference also to the state of matters after Agrippa’s death, Josephus affirms
distinctly that the governor of Syria was not set over the kingdom of Agrippa
(Antiq. xix. 9. 2), while he immediately afterwards states that this governor
had interfered in the affairs of that country (Antiq. xx. 1. 1).—Tacitus refers,
in A.D. 17, to Syria and Judea as two provinces alongside of one another
(Annals, ii. 42: “provinciae Suria atque Judaea), and says of the arrangements
after the death of King Agrippa, History, v. 9: “Claudius … Judaeam provinciam
equitibus Romanis aut libertis permisit.” When, therefore, he reports this same
fact in another place (Annals, xii. 23) in these words: “Ituraeique et Judaei
defunctis regibus, Sohaemo atque Agrippa, provinciae Suriae additi;” that word
additi is to be understood in the same way as the προσθήκη of Josephus. In no
case should any one conclude, as Bormann (see under § 18 fin.) has done, because
Tacitus introduces this statement first in A.D. 49, when he should have
previously brought it forward in A.D. 44, that affairs had undergone a change in
A.D. 49.—Suetonius also wrongly designates Judea a province (Suetonius,
Claudius, 28: “Felicem, quem cohortibus et alis provinciaeque Judaeae
praeposuit”). [762] Examples: Petronius (Antiq. xviii. 8. 2-9; Wars of the Jews,
ii. 10. 1-5), Cassius Longinus (Antiq. xx. 1. 1), Cestius Gallus (Wars of the
Jews, ii. 14. 3, 16. 1, 18. 9 ff.). [763] Of Vitellins, who deposed Pilate
(Antiq. xviii. 4. 2), Tacitus (Annals, vi. 32) says: “Cunctis quae apud orientem
parabantur L. Vitellium praefecit.” Of Ummidius Quadratus, who sent Cumanus to
Rome (Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 6), it is expressly said in
Tacitus (Annals, xii. 54): “Claudius … jus statuendi etiam de procuratoribus
dederat.” The residence of the procurator of Judea was not at Jerusalem, but at
Caesarea.[764] Since the dwelling of the commander-in-chief or governor was
called praetorium, the πραιτώριον τοῦ Ἡρώδου in Caesarea (Acts 23:35) was
nothing else than a palace built by Herod, which served as a residence for the
procurator.—On special occasions, especially during the chief Jewish feasts,
when, on account of the crowds of people that streamed into Jerusalem,
particularly careful oversight was necessary, the procurator went up to
Jerusalem, and resided then in what had been the palace of Herod.[765] The
praetorium at Jerusalem, in which Pilate was staying at the time of the trial
and condemnation of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28; John
18:33; John 19:9), is therefore just the well-known palace of Herod, on the west
side of the city.[766] It was not only a princely dwelling, but at the same time
a strong castle, in which at times (during the rebellion in B.C. 4, and again in
A.D. 66) large detachments of troops could maintain their position against the
assaults of the whole mass of the people.[767] Hence, also, during the residence
there of the procurator, the detachment of troops accompanying him had their
quarters within its walls (Mark 15:16). [764] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 1; Wars
of the Jews, ii. 9. 2 (Pilate); Antiq. xx. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 2
(Cumanus); Acts 23:23-33 (Felix); Acts 25:1-13 (Festus); Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, ii. 14. 4 fin., 15. 6 fin., 17. 1 (Florus). Tacitus, History, ii. 78:
“Caesaream … Judaeae caput.” [765] Josephns, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 8, 15. 5;
Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, sec. 38 (ed. Mangey, ii. 589 sq.). [766] Compare the
art. “Richthaue” in Winer, Realworterbuch, and Riehm, Handwörterbuch. [767]
Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 2-3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 1-4, 17. 7-8. Compare
the description, Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 3-4. With reference to the military
arrangements, it deserves specially to be remembered that the Roman army of the
days of the empire was divided into two divisions of a thoroughly distinct kind:
the legions and the auxiliaries.[768] The legions formed the proper core of the
troops, and consisted only of Romau citizens, for those provincials who served
in the legions had obtained citizen rights. Each legion formed a compact whole
of ten cohorts, or sixty centuries, altogether embracing from 5000 to 6000
men.[769] The auxiliary troops consisted of provincials who, at least in the
early days of the empire, did not as a rule possess the right of citizenship.
Their arms were lighter and less harmonious than those of the legions; often in
this they were allowed to follow their own national usages. Their infantry was
formed into cohorts, whose strength varied from 500 to 1000 men; the cavalry was
formed into aloe, of similarly varying strength.[770] Cohorts and alae were
named after the nation from which they had been recruited.[771] [768] Compare on
the composition and nature of the Roman army generally, Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, ii. 307-591. [769] Marquardt, ii. 359, 441. [770] Ibid.
453-457. [771] So, to give only a few examples from Palestine and Syria, “Cohors
Ascalonitarum, Canathenorum, Damascenorum, Ituraeorum, Sebastenorum, Tyriorum.”
Other examples in rich abundance are given in the indices to Corp. Intscr. Lat.
A collection of materials is given by Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. v. 164-200. In
regard to the provinces administered by procurators, it may, as a rule, be
assumed that in them, and under the command of the procurator, there would be
only auxiliary troops.[772] This rule is also confirmed by the history of Judea.
There were legions only in Syria; in the time of Auguetus three, from the time
of Tiberius four.[773] But in Judea, down to the time of Vespasian, there were
only auxiliary troops, and, indeed, mostly such as had been raised in the
country itself.[774] The honour and burden of this levy lay only on the
non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. The Jews were exempted from military
service. This is abundantly proved to have been the state of matters, at least,
from the time of Caesar,[775] and, from all that we positively know about the
Palestinian troops down to the days of Vespasian, may also be assumed as certain
throughout the imperial period. Remarkable as this unequal treatment of the
population may appear to us, it is in thorough correspondence with what is
otherwise known regarding the Roman procedure in the conscription. Indeed, in
regard to the use made of the inhabitants and the confidence reposed in them,
the provinces were treated in very diverse ways and varying measures in the
matter of military service.[776] [772] Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner
Akademie, 1889, pp. 431-437; Marquardt, ii. 518. [773] Three legions under
Augustus (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 10. 9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 1, 5. 1) ;
four under Tiberius (Tacitus, Annals, iv. 5). Seeing that in Egypt under
Augustus there were three legions, and under Tiberius only two, see Strabo,
xvii. 1. 12, p. 797; Tacitus, Annals, iv. 5, there was meanwhile one of the
Egyptian legions transferred to Syria (Pfitzner, p. 24, conjectures that it was
the Legio XII. Fulm.).—Of the four Syrian legions only two are known with
certainty : the Legio VI. Ferrata (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 79, 81, xiii. 38, 40,
xv. 6, 26) and the Legio X. Fretensis (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 57, xiii. 40, xv.
6). The other two were probably the Legio 111. Gallica (Tacitus, Annals, xiii.
40, xv. 6, 26 ; it had, according to Tacitus, History, iii. 24, already fought
under Mark Antony against the Parthians) and the Legio XII. Fulminata (Tacitus,
Annals, xv. 6, 7, 10, 26).—See especially Mommsen, Res gestae div. Augusti, 2
ed. 1883, p. 68, note 2. Generally: Grotefend, art. “Legio” in Pauly’s
Real-Encydopaedie, iv. 868-901; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 430
ff.; Stille, Historia legionum auxiliorumque inde ab excessu divi Augusti usque
ad Vespasiani tempora, Kiliae 1877; Pfitzner, Geschichte der römischen
Kaiserlegionen von Augustus bis Hadrianus, Leipzig 1881. [774] Compare in
reference to the garrisoning of Judea down to the time of Vespasian, Schürer,
Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, xviii. 1875, pp. 413-425; Egli,
Zeitschrift, xxvii. 1884, pp. 10-22; Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 1884, p. 217, Anm.;
Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, p. 433 f. [775]
Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 6: καὶ ὅπως μηδεὶς μήτε ἄρχων μήτε στρατηγὸς ἢ
πρεσβευτὴς ἐν τοῖς ὅροις τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐνιστᾷ [codd. ἀνιστᾷ] συμμαχίαν. Also
Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 501, Anm.—The Jews of Asia Minor were freed
from the conscription for military service of the Pompeians in B.C. 49
(Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 13, 14, 16, 18, 19), and this remission was confirmed
to them six years later, in B.C. 43, by Dolabella (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10.
11-12). Compare Div. II. vol. ii. 264. [776] Compare Mommsen, “Die
Conscriptionsordnung der römischen Kaieerzeit” (Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, pp. 1-79,
210-234). For the period A.D. 6-41 we are without any direct information about
the troops stationed in Judea. But it is highly probable that the Sebastians,
i.e. the soldiers drafted in the region of Sebaste or Samaria, whom we meet with
subsequently, constituted even then a considerable portion of the garrison. In
the struggles which followed the death of Herod in B.C. 4, the best equipped
part of the troops of Herod fought on the side of the Romans, namely, the
Σεβαστηνοὶ τρισχίλιοι, under the command of Rufus and Gratus, the former of whom
commanded the cavalry, the latter the infantry.[777] The troops thus proved
would be undoubtedly retained by Archelaus, and it is highly probable that,
after his deposition in A.D. 6, they would be taken over by the Romans, then,
from A.D. 41 to A.D. 44, by Agrippa, and after his death again by the Romans.
The following also speaks in favour of this supposition. At the death of Agrippa
in A.D. 44, the troops of the king stationed in Caesarea, which were Καισαρεῖς
καὶ Σεβαστηνοί, gave expression in a very unseemly manner to their joy at the
death of the ruler that had shown himself friendly to the Jews. In order to show
respect to the memory of Agrippa, the emperor ordered these troops, namely, τὴν
ἴλην τῶν Καισαρέων καὶ τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν καὶ τὰς πέντε σπείρας (therefore an ala of
cavalry and five cohorts), to be sent by way of punishment to Pontus. On their
presenting a petition, however, it was agreed that they should remain in Judea,
from which they were first removed by Vespasian.[778] From this it appears that
the troops of Agrippa were certainly taken over by the Romans.[779] From this it
may be inferred that in the same way they were taken over after the deposition
of Archelaus. It is also somewhat remarkable that the one ala of cavalry and
five cohorts of infantry, if we reckon the latter at 500 men, would make
together a force of 3000 men, which is the same number as is ascribed to the
Sebastian troops of B.C. 4.—During the period A.D. 44-66 these troops are often
referred to. The procurator Cumanus led the ala Sebastenorum and four cohorts of
infantry from Caesarea against the Jews.[780] During the struggles between the
Jewish and Gentile inhabitants of Caesarea, the latter boasted of the fact that
the Roman troops in Caesarea consisted in great part of Caesareans and
Sebastians.[781] Finally, in A.D. 67, Vespasian was able to draft into his army
from Caesarea five cohorts and one ala of cavalry;[782] therefore the same
detachments as were there in A.D. 44. Probably also the Sebasteni so often
referred to on the inscriptions are identical with our Sebastian troops.[783]
Also the σπεῖρα Σεβαστή, which at the time of the imprisonment of Paul, about
A.D. 60, lay in Caesarea (Acts 27:1), is undoubtedly one of the five cohorts
which we hear about from Josephus. Many theologians, however, have erroneously
come to the conclusion that the expression σπεῖρα Σεβαστή is synonymous with
σπεῖρα Σεβαστηνῶν. This is not possible. Σεβαστή is rather an exact translation
of Augusta, a title of honour very frequently bestowed upon auxiliary troops.
The cohort in question was therefore probably called cohors Augusta
Sebastenorum. In Caesarea it was called simply σπεῖρα Σεβαστή, since this
sufficed to distinguish it from others.[784]—It is, on the other hand,
remarkable, after other results we have reached, that in Caesarea, about A.D.
40, a σπεῖρα Ἰταλική should have been stationed (Acts 10:1), by which probably a
cohort of Roman citizens of Italy is to be understood.[785] Such a band would
naturally not have served in Caesarea during the period A.D. 41-44 under the
Jewish king Agrippa. But even in reference to a later period, it is after the
above made investigations not probable. The story of the centurion Cornelius
lies, therefore, in this respect under suspicion, the circumstances of a later
period having been transferred back to an earlier period. That at some time or
other a cohors Italica was in Syria is made perfectly clear by the evidence of
an inscription (see note [786] [777] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 3. 4, 4.
2-3. Compare Antiq. xvii. 10. 3 ff. [778] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1-2. [779]
Analagous cases are also known elsewhere. See Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 51, 217 f.
[780] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1: τὴν τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν ἴλην καὶ πεζῶν τέσσαρα
τάγματα; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 5: μίαν ἴλην ἱππἑων καλουμίνην Σεβαστηνῶν.
[781] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 7: μέγα φρονοῦντες ἐπὶ τῷ τοὺς πλείστους τῶν ὑπὸ
Ῥωμαίους ἐκεῖσε στρατευομένων Καισαρεῖς εἶναι καὶ Σεβαστηνούς. In the parallel
passage, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 7, “Syrians” is the word in the received
text. [782] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2. [783] We meet with: ala I.
Flavia Sabastenorum (Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 390, n. 699), ala gemina
Sebastenorum (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. viii. n. 9358, 9359), ala Sebastenorum
(Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 469, n. 1000), cohors I. Sabastenorum (Corp. Inscr. Lat.
t. iii. n. 2916, whether the figure I. is the correct reading is, according to
another copy, doubtful; see Ephemeris epigr. iv. p. 113, n. 370).—Although the
name of Sebaste was given to other cities, it is yet probable, on account of the
material afforded by Josephus, that these troops were drawn from the Palestinian
city. So also Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 217. The conjecture there ventured upon by
Mommsen, that among the five cohorts in Caesarea there were a cohors
Ascalonitarum and a cohors Canathenorum is, however, impossible, since these
five cohorts for the most part consisted of Caesareans and Sebastians. [784]
Further details on these matters will be found in the Zeitschrift für
wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, pp. 416-419.—The title of honour, Augusta,
which was borne by three legions, is rendered by the geographer Ptolemy by the
word Σεβαστή (Ptolemy, ii. 3. 30, iv. 3. 30, ii. 9. 18). It is therefore not to
be wondered at that this same title should have been similarly rendered in the
case of an auxiliary cohort.—When the ala referred to by Josephus, although it
consisted of Caesareans and Sebastians (Antiq. xix. 9. 2), is yet only called
ala Sebastenorum (Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 5), so likewise with the cohorts of
similar composition the same meaning may be assumed, therefore cohortes
Sebastenorum. The inscriptions also favour this view. [785] Compare Zeitschrift
für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, pp. 422-425.—On inscriptions we meet with
(see proofs in Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 249): “Cohors I. Italica civium
Romanorum voluntariorum” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. xiv. n. 181); “Cohors miliaria
Italica voluntariorum quae est in Syria” (Gruter, Corp. Inscr. p. 434, n. 1);
“Cohere 11 Italica” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 3528).—In a passage in Arrian
(“Acies contra Alonas” in Arriani Scripta minora, ed. Hercher, 1854) the
expression ἡ σπεῖρα ἡ Ἰταλική is interchanged with οἱ Ἰταλοί (ed. Blancard, pp.
102 and 99). According to this and according to the first-named inscription, it
is probable that a cohors Italica consisted of Roman citizens of Italy. [786]
Compare Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, pp. 422-425.—On
inscriptions we meet with (see proofs in Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 249):
“Cohors I. Italica civium Romanorum voluntariorum” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. xiv. n.
181); “Cohors miliaria Italica voluntariorum quae est in Syria” (Gruter, Corp.
Inscr. p. 434, n. 1); “Cohere 11 Italica” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 3528).—In
a passage in Arrian (“Acies contra Alonas” in Arriani Scripta minora, ed.
Hercher, 1854) the expression ἡ σπεῖρα ἡ Ἰταλική is interchanged with οἱ Ἰταλοί
(ed. Blancard, pp. 102 and 99). According to this and according to the
first-named inscription, it is probable that a cohors Italica consisted of Roman
citizens of Italy. We have hitherto become acquainted only with the state of the
garrison of Caesarea. In other cities and towns of Palestine there were also
small garrisons. At the outbreak of the Jewish war in A.D. 66, we find, for
example, a Roman garrison in the fortified castle of Jericho and in
Machärus.[787] Throughout Samaria such detachments were stationed.[788] In the
Great Plain there was a decurio;[789] in Ascalon (which, however, did not belong
to the domains of the procurator) there were a cohort and an ala.[790]
Vespasian, in the winter of A.D. 67-68, placed garrisons in all conquered
villages and towns; those in the former under the command of Decurions, those in
the latter under the command of Centurions.[791] This was indeed an
extraordinary proceeding, which we are not to regard as the rule in time of
peace. [787] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6. [788] Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, iii. 7. 32: φρουραῖς ἡ Σαμαρεῖτις ὅλη διείλητο. [789] Josephus, Life, 24:
Αἰβούτιος ὁ δεκάδαρχος ὁ τοῦ μεγάλου πεδίου τὴν προστασίαν πεπιοτευμένος. [790]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 2.1. [791] Ibid. iv. 8. 1. In Jerusalem there
was stationed only one cohort. For the χιλίαρχος, so often referred to in the
Acts of the Apostles (more exactly, Acts 21:31 : χιλίαρχος τῆς σπείρης, “One
having command of the cohort”), appears throughout as the officer holding the
chief command in Jerusalem.[792] With this also Josephus’ statement agrees, that
in the fortress of Antonia a τάγμα of the Romans regularly lay,[793] for the
τάγμα there means, not as it often does, a legion, but, as in the passage quoted
in note [794] a cohort. The fort of Antonia, which Josephus describes as the
regular quarters of the detachment, lay to the north of the temple. At two
points, stairs (καταβάσεις) led down from the fort Antonia to the court of the
temple.[795] This is just the position given it in the Acts of the Apostles. For
when Paul, during the tumult in the temple, had been taken by the soldiers for
his own safety and was being carried thence into the barracks (παρεμβολή), he
was on account of the pressure of the crowd borne by the soldiers up the steps
(τοὺς ἀναβαθμούς), and then, with the permission of the chiliarch. he made from
these steps a speech to the people (Acts 21:31-40).[796] The officer in command
at fort Antonia, who is certainly identical with the chiliarch. is also called
by Josephus φρούραρχος.[797] The direct connection between the fort and the
court of the temple was of importance, since the latter required to be under
constant supervision. At the chief feasts, guards were stationed in the
corridors which surrounded the temple.[798]—From one passage in the Acts of the
Apostles (chap. 23:23) we see that there was a detachment of cavalry along with
the Jerusalem cohort, an arrangement that very frequently existed.[799] The
precise character and position of the δεξιολάβοι (from λαβή, “the grip,”
therefore : “those who grasped their weapons by the right hand”), mentioned in
that passage (23:23) as accompanying the regular soldiers and cavalry, are
somewhat obscure. Seeing that the expression occurs elsewhere in Greek
literature only twice, and even then appears without explanation, we are no
longer in a position to explain it. This much only is certain, that it
designated a special class of light-armed soldiers (javelin-throwers or
slingers).[800] [792] Acts 21:31-37; chaps, 22:24-29, 23:10, 15-22, 24:7, 22.
[793] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8: καθῆστο γὰρ ἀεὶ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς τάγμα
Ρωμαίων. [794] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1: τὴν τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν ἴλην καὶ πεζῶν
τέσσαρα τάγματα; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 5: μίαν ἴλην ἱππἑων καλουμίνην
Σεβαστηνῶν. [795] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8. [796] The παρεμβολή,
barracks or “castle,” as in the English version, is referred to in Acts 21:34;
Acts 21:37; Acts 22:24; Acts 23:10; Acts 23:16; Acts 23:32. [797] Josephus,
Antiq. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3. [798] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8; Antiq.
xx. 5. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 1; Antiq. xx. 8. 11. [799] Accordingly
cohortes peditatae and equitatae ought to be distinguished. See Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, ii. 455. [800] What is known on these matters, or either is
not known, is well treated by Meyer in his Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles. A fanciful explanation is attempted by Egli, Zeitschrift für
wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1884, p. 21. After the great war of A.D. 66-73 the
garrison arrangements of Palestine were essentially changed. The governor was
then no longer a procurator of the equestrian order, but a legate of senatorial
rank (in the earlier period, one who had been praetor ; in the later period, one
who had been consul). On the site of the destroyed Jerusalem a legion, the legio
X. Fretensis, had its headquarters (see under § 20, toward the end). The native
troops, which for decades had formed the garrison of Caesarea, were drafted by
Vespasian to other provinces.[801] In their place were put auxiliary troops of
foreign origin, drawn in part from the farthest lands of the West.[802] [801]
Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 2. [802] On a military order of A.D. 86 (Corpus Inscr.
Lat. t. iii. p. 857, Dipl. xiv.) the veterans are referred to who had served in
Judea, and that “in alis duabus quae appellantur veterana Gaetulorum et I.
Thracum Mauretana et cohortibus quattuor I. Augusta Lusitanorum et 1. et 11.
Thracum et 11. Cantabrorum.”—Even Herod the Great had called in the aid of
Thracian troops (Antiq. xvii. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 9). Besides the
troops forming the standing army, the provincial governors sometimes organized a
militia, i.e. in special cases of need those of the people capable of bearing
arms were drafted into military service, without being permanently organized as
a part of the army. An instance of this sort occurred in the arming of the
Samaritans by Cumanus on the occasion of the war against the Jews.[803] [803]
Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1: ἀναλαβὼν τῆν τῶν Σεβαστηνῶν ἴλην καὶ πεζῶν τέσσαρα
τάγματα, τούς τε Σαμαρείτας καθοπλίσας. Other examples in Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, ii. 520 f.—With these temporary organizations the provincial
militia, met with especially in the later days of the empire, which formed a
third class of the standing army alongside of the legionaries and the
auxiliaries, should not be confounded. See with reference to that militia :
Mommsen, Hermes, xix. 1884, p. 219 if., xxii. 1887, p. 547 ff. Like the
governors of senatorial rank, the procurators also had, besides the supreme
military command, supreme judicial authority within their province.[804] This
authority was exercised by the procurators of Judea only in extraordinary cases
; for the ordinary administration of the law, both in criminal and in civil
matters, was left in the hands of the native and local courts (see Div. II. vol.
i. 184-190).[805]—The range of the procurator’s judicial jurisdiction extended
also to the right of deciding matters of life and death, jus gladii or potestas
gladii.[806] That this also is true of the governors is proved by several
inscriptions.[807] With reference to Judea, Josephus says expressly that the
procurator had μέχρι τοῦ κτείνειν ἐξουσίαν.[808] This right of the governor over
life and death down to the third century after Christ extended even to the case
of Roman citizens, with this restriction, however, that such a one had the right
of appealing against the sentence of the governor to the emperor[809] In the
earlier days of the empire, it would seem that a Roman citizen accused of an
offence constituting a capital charge had the important privilege of appealing
to the emperor, even at the beginning of the proceedings and any subsequent
stage of the trial, claiming that the investigation be carried on at Rome and
the judgment pronounced by the emperor himself.[810] The governor’s absolute
penal jurisdiction therefore applied only to provincials. It was a gross
violation of the law when Florus in Jerusalem, in A.D. 66, had the Jews
crucified who were in possession of equestrian rank.[811] But even provincials
might be sent by the governor for trial to Rome, if he wished on account of the
difficulty of the case to have the decision of the emperor.[812]—The fact known
from the Gospels, that the procurator of Judea at the feast of the Passover set
free a prisoner, was grounded indeed on a special authorization of the emperor;
for the right of remitting a sentence was not otherwise given to the
governors.[813] [804] See with reference to the procurators : Hirschfeld,
Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, pp. 437-439. [805]a On the
question as to how far what has been said applies also to the administration of
law in the provinces, see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1, p. 244: “The ordinary
criminal jurisdiction was in the provinces left in the hands of the particular
communities ; whereas the courts of the governor, like the consular courts in
Italy, are to be regarded, at least formally, as extraordinary.” [806] Digest,
i. 18. 6. 8 (from Ulpian, beginning of the third century after Christ): “Qui
universas provincias regunt, jus gladii habent et in metallum dandi poteatas eis
permissa eat.”—The technical expression jus gladii is also used in Lampridius,
Vita Alexandri Severi, c. 49 (honores juris gladii); Firmicus Maternus
Mathesius, iii. 5. 5 (ed. Basil. 1533, p. 55: “in magnis administrationibus
juris gladii decernit potestatem”), and in the passages quoted in the next note.
Something will also be found in Forcellini, Lexicon, s.v. gladius. Elsewhere
also potestas gladii occurs in Digest. i. 16. 6 pr.=L. 17. 70; ii. 1. 3 (all
from Ulpian).—The technical use of both expressions previous to the beginning of
the third century after Christ does not seem capable of proof. The Acts of
Perpetua and Felicitas belong to A.D. 201-209. See article “Perpetua” in Herzog,
Real-Encyclopaedie. Also the inscriptions scarcely reach farther back than
this.—Literature on the jus gladii may be found in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie,
articles, “gladius” and “imperium merum.” [807] See the collection of passages
in Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung i. 1881, p. 557, Anm. 3; Mommsen, Staatsrecht,
ii. 1, 1874, p. 246; Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889,
p. 438.—Only two inscriptions can properly be referred to here: Orelli, Inscr.
Lat. n. 3888=Corp. Inscr. Lat. ix. n. 5439: “proc. Alpium Atractianar(um) et
Poeninar(um) jur(e) gladii;” and Corp. Inscr. Lat. viii. n. 9367; compare
Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 461, n. 968: “praeses (scil. Mauretaniae Caesariensis)
jure gladii.”—Of another kind are the two following instances: Orelli, n.
3664=Corp. Inscr. Lat. ii. n. 484: ”proc. prov. M[oe]siae inferions, ejusdem
provinciae jus gladii;” and Corp. Inscr. Lat. iii. n. 1919: “proc. centenarius
provinciae Li[burniae jure?] gladi.” Seeing that elsewhere a governor of
superior rank is assigned to the Moerians and Liburnians, the procurators here
referred to “must undoubtedly have exercised the right of inflicting capital
sentence only as quite exceptional authority” (Hirschfeld). This at least is
perfectly plain in regard to the finance procurator of Africa, who at the time
of the martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas exercised the jus gladii as interim
occupant of the office of the deceased proconsul. See Acts of Perpetuae and
Felicitas, c. 6 (in Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, ed. 2, 1713, p. 95; also in Münter,
Primordia ecclesiae Africanae, 1829, p. 234): “Hilarianus procurator, qui tune
loco proconsulis Minuci Timiniani defuncti jus gladii acceperat.” [808]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1. [809] Compare Div. II. vol. ii. p. 278,
and the literature quoted in note 196, to which may be also added, Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, l Aufl. ii. 2, pp. 908-910; Merkel, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete
des römischen Rechts, 2 Heft: Ueber die Geschichte der klassischen Appellation,
1883 (pp. 76-81 treats of the proceedings against Paul). [810] Acts 25:10 ff.,
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.” Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. 1. 244-246.—Notwithstanding the small number of examples, the
above statement (which, in Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 278, 279, I characterized as
not quite certain) ought to admit of no doubt. The most important case is that
of the Apostle Paul. From it we may conclude that the governor was not obliged
in all circumstances to send accused Roman citizens to Rome for judgment; for
the procurator by his own authority takes up the case of Paul though he was
aware of his Roman citizenship (according to Acts 22:25 ff; Acts 23:27); and
Paul allows matters to proceed without protesting against this. Only after two
years Paul speaks the word that determines his future course: Καίσαρα
ἐπικαλοῦμαι (Acts 25:11). We must therefore suppose that the procurator could
judge even a Roman citizen, unless his prisoner lodged a protest. Only if the
accused himself made the claim to be judged in Rome, was the governor obliged to
give effect to his claim. But that the governor could himself do that is
perfectly conceivable. For he was in every respect the representative of the
emperor; even his tribunal was called “Caesar’s judgment-seat” (Acts 25:10 :
ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος Καίσαρός εἰμι). It is therefore quite conceivable that an
accused Roman citizen might voluntarily submit himself to such a tribunal as
Paul at first did; for the imperial tribunal of the governor afforded in
ordinary circumstances the same protection as the imperial tribunal at Rome, and
there could be no pleasure in merely lengthening out the proceedings by a
jouruey to Rome. Only if the accused did not trust the impartiality of the
governor, had he any interest in claiming the transference of the trial to Rome.
Paul makes use of this privilege, when he sees that the procurator is going to
judge him in accordance with Jewish ideas.—That this privilege extended only to
Roman citizens and not to all provincials may be held as certain, although Paul
in his appeal does not make mention of his citizenship (Acts 25:10 ff.).
Provincials were judged by the procurator without any right of appeal (Josephus,
Antiq. xx. 1. 1, 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2). This appears also in the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ by Pilate. [811] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14.
9. [812] Examples: Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 6
(Ummidius Quadratus sent the most distinguished of the Jews and the Samaritans
to Rome); Antiq. xx. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2 (Felix sent Eleasar and
other Zealots); Josephus, Life, 3 (Felix sent some of the Jewish priests). [813]
See Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, p. 439. On the
right of granting pardon generally: Merkel, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete des
römischen Rechts, 1 Heft, 1881. Although the governor, as sole judge, had to
give the decision, he frequently availed himself of the advice of his comites.
These were partly the higher officials of his court, partly the younger people,
who, for the sake of their own training, accompanied the governor. They
supported him, not only in administrative matters, but also assisted him in the
execution of the law as consilium, συμβούλιον (Acts 25:12).[814] [814] Caesar’s
decree nominating Hyrcanus begins (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2): Ἰούλιος Καῖσαρ
… μετὰ συμβουλίου γνώμης ἐπέκρινα.—Sueton. Tiber. 33: “magistratibus pro
tribunal! cognoscentibus plerumque so offerebat consiliarium.”—The details of a
consultation which Petronius, as governor of Syria, held with his assessores are
described by Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 33, ed. Mangey, ii. 582 sq. (sec.
33=ii. 582: ἐπεξανάστας δὲ μετὰ τῶν συνέδρων ἐβουλεύετο τὰ πρακτέα … τίνες οὖν
ἦσαν αί γνῶμαι … sec. 34 init.=ii. 583 fin.: ἀποδεξαμένων δὲ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τῶν
συνέδρων κελεύει γράφεσθαι τὰς ἐπιστολάς).—Lamprid. Vita Alexandra Severi, c.
46: “Adsessoribus salaria instituit.”—Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. ii. n. 2129: “comes
et adsessor legati ad [census accip.?], comes et adsessor procos. provinciae
Galliae [Narbon.].”—The most distinct account of the meeting of such a council
is given us in a judgment decree; the proconsul of Sardinia of A.D. 68
(contained in a bronze tablet inscription, communicated by Mommsen, Hermes ii.
1867, pp. 102-127). It also contains the following statement in the form of a
protocol: “In consilio fuerunt M. Julius Romulus leg. pro pr., T. Atilius
Sabinus q. pro pr., M. Stertinius Rufus f., Sex. Aelius Modestus, P. Lucretius
Clemens, M. Domitius Vitalis, M. Lusius Fidus, M. Stertinius Rufus.” Therefore,
besides the legate and quaestor, there were other six advisers. Compare
generally: Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses (1842), p. 243 ff.;
Mommsen, Hermes, iv. 1870, p. 123; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i.
1881, p. 531 ff.; the commentators on Acts 25:12; and the Lexicons to the New
Testament on the word συμβούλιον. The execution of the death sentence was, as a
rule, carried out by soldiers. Le Blant has, indeed, in a learned dissertation,
sought to prove that those appointed to this duty were not soldiers, but
belonging to the class of apparitores, i.e. the non-military servants of the
governor.[815] But the opposite opinion, at least with regard to capital
sentences pronounced by the imperial governors, must be considered as absolutely
certain.[816] The imperial governors were military administrators; their
judicial power therefore the outcome of their military authority.[817] It is,
however, unquestionable, and is not disputed even by Le Blant, that the death
sentences on soldiers were executed by soldiers.[818] According to Le Blant’s
view, this inference should be drawn from that fact, namely, that the governor
carried out the death sentences on soldiers by different parties than those
employed upon civilians. This, in view of the military character of his judicial
authority, is extremely improbable, and it even forms a positive proof for the
opposite theory. The many executions of distinguished men and women in the times
of Claudius and Nero were carried out by military men, some of them officers of
high rank.[819] Numerous examples of a similar kind might be cited from the
history of the following emperors.[820] Although these cases might not apply to
ordinary courts, yet this much is clear, that the carrying out of executions by
soldiers was not opposed to Roman sentiment. But further, not infrequently
speculatores are spoken of as executing the condemned.[821] These were certainly
soldiers; for (1) the speculatores are frequently described as holding a
military office;[822] and (2) in several of the passages quoted the speculatores
referred to are distinctly characterized as soldiers;[823] and so those
elsewhere spoken of under the same title, and as discharging the same functions,
will have been also soldiers. When Le Blant expressly refers to the fact that in
many passages the term speculator is interchanged with the expression lictor,
and with other words which designate non-military offices,[824] this may be said
in the first place to result from a certain laxity in the use of language. On
the contrary, one would be equally justified in saying that those expressions
are now also used for designating military persons.[825] In the New Testament
the agents entrusted with the carrying out the sentence, both at the crucifixion
of Christ and at the imprisonment of Paul, are named στρατιῶται, and are also
plainly described as such.[826] [815] Le Blant, “Recherches sur les bourreaux du
Christ et sur les agents chargés des exécutions capitales chez les Romains”
(Mêmoires des l’Académie des inscr. et belles-lettres, xxvi. 2, 1870, pp.
137-150).—On the apparitores generally, see Mommsen, “De apparitoribus
magistratuum Romanorum” (Rhein. Museum, vi. 1848, pp. 1-57); Pauley’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, article “apparitores;” Naudet, “Mémoire sur la cohorte du
préteur et le personnel administratif dans les provinces romaines” (Mémoires de
l’Acad. des inscr. xxvi. 2, pp. 499-555); Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. i.
250-293; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, i. 533.—To the class of these apparitores
belong the scribae, lictores, accensi, nomenclatures, viatores, praecones. [816]
Against Le Blant, see Naudet, “Mémoire sur cette double question: 1. thèse
particulière, Sont-ce des soldats qui ont crucifié Jesus-Christ? 2. thèse
générale, Les soldats romains prenaient-ils une part active dans les supplices?”
Mémoires de l’Acad. des inscr. xxvi. 2, 1870, pp. 151-187).—Also Geib,
Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses, p. 671 f.; Rein, in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 1046, article “sententia.” [817] Dio Cassius, liii.
13; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1. 245. [818] See, e.g., Suetonius, Caligula, 32:
“Saepe in conspectu prandentis vel comissantis … miles decollandi artifex
quibuscumque e custodia capita amputabat.”—Tertullian asks in his treatise, De
corona militis, c. 11, in order to show the incompatibility of military service
with the faith of a Christian: “et vincula et carcerem et tormenta et supplicia
administrabit, nec suarum ultor injuriarum?” The passage proves at least that
soldiers were employed at the carrying out of death sentences, even if we should
here with Le Blant refuse to believe that this implies more than their
employment at soldiers’ executions. [819] Tacitus, Annals, xi. 37 f., xii. 22,
xiv. 8, 59, xv. 59 ff., 64, 67, 69. [820] Naudet, l.c. p. 171. [821] Mark 6:27 :
ἀποττείλας ὁ βασιλεὺς σπεκουλάτορα ἐπέταξεν ἐνέγκαι τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.—Seneca,
De Ira, i. 18. 4: “Tunc centurio supplicio praepositus condere gladium
speculatorem jubet.”—Idem, De beneficiis, iii. 25: “speculatoribus occurrit
nihilque se deprecari, quominus imperata peragerent, dixit et deinde cervicein
porrexit.”—Firmicus Maternus Mathes. viii. 26 (ed. Basil. 1533, p. 234):
“spiculatores faciet, qui nudato gladio hominum amputent cervices.”—Digest.
xlviii. 20. 6 (aus Ulpian): “neque speculatores ultro sibi vindicent neque
optiones [optio in military language=the servant of a Centurio oder Decurio] ea
desiderent, quibus spoliatur, quo momento quis punitus est.” The soldiers
engaged at the executions were therefore in later times no longer allowed, as in
the times of Christ, to part the garments of the executed person among
them.—Jerome, Epist. 1 ad Innocentium, c. 8: “jam spiculator exterritus et non
credens ferro, mucromen aptabat in jugulum,” etc.—Acta Cypriani, c. 5 (see
Ruinart, Acta martyrum, ed. 2, 1713, p. 218: “cum venisset autem spiculator,”
etc.—Acta Claudii, Asterii et alior. c. 4 (Ruinart, p. 268): “Euthalius
commentariensis dixit … Archelaus spiculator dixit.” See also c. 5 s. fin.
(Ruinart, p. 269).—Acta Rogatiani et Donatiani, c. 6 (Ruinart, p. 282): “adhuc
ministris imperans, ut post expensa supplicia a spiculatore capite truncarentur.
Tunc lictoris insania … lancea militari perfossas cervices beatissimorum gladio
vibrante praecidit.”—Linus, De passione Petri et Pauli, lib. ii. s. fin.
(Bibliotheca maxima patrum Lugd. t. ii. p. 73): “Spiculator vero in altum
bracbia elevans eum tota vi percussit et caput ejus abscidit … statimque de
corpore ejus unda lactis in vestimenta militis exiluit.”—Vita Bacchi junioris
martyris, ed. Combefis. p. 114 (I give the quotation according to Du Cange,
Glossar.): Αὐστηρότερόν τε τὸν σπεκουλάτορα ὑποβλεψάμενος ἔφη. Τέμνε
τρικατάρατε.—In rabbinical literature also we often meet with ספקלטור in the
sense of “executioner.” See especially the passages quoted in extenso in Levy,
Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 573; Schoettgen, Horae hebr. ad Marc. vi. 27;
Levy, Chald. Wörterbuch, s.v.; also Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldicum, s.v.—In some
glossaries σπεκουλάτωρ is interpreted by ἀποκεφαλίζων, ἀποκεφαλιστής (Wetstein,
Novum Testamentum on Mark 6:27; Schleusner, Lexicon in N.T. s.v.).—The form
spiculator is a corruption from speculator, which is proved by many inscriptions
having the correct form. It cannot be derived from spiculum, for then we should
have expected spiculatus, according to the analogy of pilatus, lornicatus,
hastatus (Fritzsche, Evangel. Marc. p. 232 sq.). [822] Speculator means indeed
generally “spy, watcher” (e.g. Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. ii. 25: “speculatorem
vineae vel horti tui; also in Jerome’s translation of Isaiah 56:10; Jeremiah
6:17; Ezekiel 33:7; Hosea 9:8). But most frequently we meet with speculatores in
connection with military matters, as spies (Livy, xxii. 33; Caesar, Bell. Gall.
ii. 11; Suetonius, Augustus, 27) and swift messengers (Suetonius, Caligula, 44;
Tacitus, History, ii. 73). The coalescing of the two meanings is best
illustrated from Livy, xxxi. 24: “ni speculator—hemerodromos vocant Graeci,
ingens die uno cursu emetientes spatium—contemplatus regium agmen ex specula
quadam praegressus nocte media Athenas pervenisset.” It also means the bodyguard
of the emperor (Suetonius, Claudius, 35; Tacitus, History, ii. 11. 33, and is
hence rendered by Suidas, δορυφόρος. In the latter capacity they formed, down to
Vespasian’s time, a distinct corps alongside of the other praetorian cohorts
(Tacitus, History, ii. 11. 33; Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 853, Dipl. x.). In
later times each praetorian cohort seems to have had a number of speculatores
(Cauer, Ephemeris epigr. iv. 464), as then each legion had ten speculatores. On
inscriptions we frequently meet with speculatores, who served either in legions
or in the praetorian cohorts (collected by Cauer, Ephemeris Epigr. iv. 459-466).
Their employment as executioners (see the previous note) seems to have resulted
from their being bodyguards or generally custodiers of the peace. Compare
generally: Laur. Lundii Diss. de speculatore, Hafn. 1703; Joh. Wilh. Gollingii
Diss de speculatoribus veterum Romanorum praeside Chr. Gottl. Schwartzio,
Altorfii 1726 (also in Thesaurus novus theol.-philol. edd. Hase et Iken, ii.
485-412). Du Cange, Glossarium med. et infin. Lat., and Forcellini, Lex. Lat.
s.v.; Scheiffele in Pauly’s Real-Encylopaedie, vi. 1. 1364 f.; Schleusner,
Lexicon in Nov. Test. s.v. The commentators on the Gospel of Mark 6:27
(especially Wetstein, Nov. Test.; Wolf, Curae philol. in N. T.; Kuinoel,
Fritzsche); Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 560, ii. 530. [823] So not
only Seneca, De ira, i. 18. 4 (where reference is made to the execution of a
soldier), but also Acta Rogatiani et Donatiani, c. 6 (lancea militari), and
Linus, De passione Petri et Pauli, s. fin. (vestimenta militis). The optiones
and commentarienses, referred to alongside of the speculatores as the agents
employed in carrying out executions, were also not exclusively but yet most
frequently military appointments (optiones, Digest. xlviii. 20. 6;
commentariensis, Acta Claudii, Asterii et aliori, c. 4-5). See Marquardt, ii.
527, 529 f.; Cauer, Ephemeris epigr. iv. 441-452, 424 eq.—Theophylact in his
commentary on Mark 6:27 explains speculator by στρατιώτης ὃς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν
τέτακται. [824] Speculator and lictor are synonymous in Jerome, Epist 1 ad
innocentium, c. 7-8; also in Acta Rogatiani et Donatiani, c. 6 (Ruinart, p.
282). [825] The lictor was in no case a soldier, but belonged to the class of
apparitores (see the literature referred to in note 80). But he had in the
earliest times to carry out death-sentences only upon Roman citizens; and in the
days of the empire his duties in this direction did not probably extend farther.
See Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, s.v.; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. i. 301 f.
[826] στρατιῶται: Matthew 27:27; Mark 15:16; Luke 23:36; John 19:2; John 19:23
sq., John 19:32; John 19:34; Acts 21:35; Acts 23:23; Acts 27:31; Acts 27:42;
Acts 28:16.—Jesus was pierced with a spear (John 19:34).—A centurion was present
at the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 15:39; Mark 15:44 f.; Matthew 27:54; Luke
23:47); also at the scourging of Paul (Acts 20:25). Everything connected with
the imprisonment of Paul was of a military character. Hence centurions had
immediate charge of him (Acts 23:17; Acts 24:23; Acts 27:1 f.). The third chief
function of the procurator-governor, in addition to the command of the troops
and judicial authority, was the administration of the finance department. From
this, indeed, those equestrian governors got their title; for the imperial
finance officials generally were called “procurators.” Since everything that is
of consequence about the different sorts of revenue and methods of taxation will
be considered in the Excursus on the Census of Quirinius (§ 17, Excursus 1), it
is not necessary here to say more than this, that the revenue of Judea as
imperial province went, not into the treasury of the Senate, the aerarium, but
into the imperial treasury, the fiscus.[827] Judea therefore, in the strict
sense of the word, paid its taxes “to Caesar” (Matthew 22:17 ff.; Mark 12:14
ff.; Luke 20:22 ff.), which could only in a certain degree be said of the
senatorial provinces.—It was probably for the purposes of tax collection that
Judea was divided into eleven toparchies (see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 157-161). In
the gathering of the revenue the Romans seem to have made use of the Jewish
courts, as was their custom in other places (see Div. II. vol. i. p. 162).—That
the taxes were oppressive, is seen from the complaints made by the provinces of
Syria and Judea in A.D. 17.[828] [827] On the difference between the two, see
Marquardt, Römische Staats-verwaltung, ii. 292 ff.—The distinction from the
beginning undoubtedly did exist, even although, as Hirschfeld conjectures, the
centralizing of the imperial treasuries, therefore the establishment of one
central fiscus, may firet have been carried out by Claudius (Hirschfeld,
Untersuchungen, etc., Bd. 1, Die kaiterlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, 1877, p. 1
ff.). [828] Tacitus, Annals, ii. 42: “provinciae Syria atque Judaea, fessae
oneribus, deminutionem tributi orabant.” From the taxes in the proper sense are
to be distinguished the customs, i.e. duties upon articles on their being
exported from the country.[829] These were imposed in all the provinces of the
Roman empire. The great trade emporium which yielded the largest returns in this
direction was Egypt. From the days of the Ptolemies it had taken advantage of
its geographical position in order to secure the flourishing traffic between
India and Europe. But even in Palestine they were acquainted with the “custom”
as early as the Persian era (Ezra 4:13; Ezra 4:20; Ezra 7:24).—The range to
which the “custom” applied, varied certainly according to circumstances. In
general it may be assumed that every province of the Roman empire formed a
customs district by itself.[830] But also the States and Communes recognised by
the Romans as autonomous, and the number of these was very large, had the right
of independently levying duties within their own boundaries.[831] To the proofs
in regard to these matters already in earlier times acknowledged, there has now
to be added: a long inscription in Greek and Aramaic, which contains the
customs-tariff of the city of Palmyra in the time of Hadrian.[832] From this
inscription it appears that Palmyra, although it was at that time a Roman city
in the same sense as many other autonomous communes within the Roman empire,
administered independently its own customs, and enjoyed the revenues thereof. It
is therefore perfectly evident that the kings and tetrarchs “confederate” with
Rome within their own territories could levy their customs for their own behoof,
only with this restriction, that the Roman citizens (Romani ac socii nominis
Latini, as it is phrased by Livy) should be exempted from them.[833] The customs
raised at Capernaum, within the borders of Galilee, in the times of Christ
(Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) went therefore, undoubtedly, not into the
imperial fiscus, but into the treasury of Herod Antipas. On the other hand, in
Judea at that time, the customs were raised in the interests of the imperial
fiscus. We know from the Gospels that in Jericho, on the eastern borders of
Judea, there was an ἀρχιτελώνης (Luke 19:1-2). In the seaport town of Caesarea
in A.D. 66, among the influential men of the Jewish community, there John, a
τελώνης, is mentioned.[834] It is stated by Pliny that the merchants who
exported incense from Central Arabia through Gaza had to pay a high duty, not
only to the Arabians on passing through their territory, but also to the Roman
customs officers, who, it may be supposed, were stationed at Gaza.[835]—Besides
the import and export duties, it would seem as if in Judea, as well as
elsewhere, indirect duties of another sort had also to be paid, e.g. a market
toll in Jerusalem, introduced by Herod, but abolished in A.D. 36 by
Vitellius.[836] [829] Compare in regard to this: Wetstein, Nov. Test. i. 314-316
(on Matthew 5:46).—Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Portorium, publicani,
vectigal;” Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 261 ff., 289 ff.; Winer,
Real-wörterbuch, art. “Zoll; “Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie art. “Zoll”
(1 Aufl. xviii. 652 f.; 2 Aufl. xvii. 551 f.); Herzfeld, Handels-geschichte der
Juden des Alterthums (1879), pp. 159-162; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für
Bibel und Talmud, 2 Abth. art. “Zoll;” Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii.
113-115 (art. מכס, מכמא, etc.); Naquet, Des impóts indirects chez les Romains
sous la république et sous l’empire. Paris 1875 (Bursian’s Jahresberichte, Bd.
19, p. 466 if.); Cagnat, Étude historique sur les impôts indirects chez les
Romains jusqu’ aux invasions des barbares, Paris 1882 (Bursian’s Jahresberichte,
Bd. 36, p. 245 ff.); Vigié, Études sur les impôts indirects romains; des douanes
dans l’empire romain, 1884; Thibaut, Les douanes chez les Romains, Paris 1888
(Revue critique, 1889, Nr. 7).—Inscription material with reference to the
vectigalia is given in the Indices to Corp. Inscr. Lat. Other materials in
Haenel, Corpus Legum, Index, p. 271. [830] At least in regard to many of these
this can be proved. See Marquardt, ii. 263 ff. [831] Marquardt, i. (1881) p. 79;
Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1. 691.—See especially Livy, xxxviii. 41:
“senatus consultera factum est, ut Ambraciensibus suae res omnes redderentur; in
libertate essent ac legibus suis uterentur; portoria quae vellent terra marique
caperent, dum eorum inmunes Romani acs ocii nominis Latini essent.”—Plebiscite
for Termessus in Pisidia of B.C. 71 (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. 1, n. 104, col. ii.
lin. 31 sqq.): “Quam legem portorieis terrestribus maritumeisque Ter menses
majores Phisidae capiundeis intra suos fineis deixserint, ea lex ieis portorieis
capiundeis esto, dum neiquid portori ab ieis capiatur, quei publica populi
Romani vectigalia redempta habebunt. [832] The inscription was discovered in
1881 by Prince Lazarew.—The best edition of the Aramaic text is that of
Schroeder (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1884, pp. 417-436). The best
edition of the Greek text is that of Dessau, with a comprehensive and informing
commentary (Hermes, xix. 1884, pp. 486-533). Both are copied from castings made
by Euting.—Both texts, with German translation and explanation of the Aramaic
text, have also been edited by Reckendorf (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ.
Gesellschaft, 1888, pp. 370-415).—Less correct are the earlier publications of
De Vogüé (Journal asiatique, VIIIme série, t. i. 1883, pp. 231-245; t. ii. 1883,
pp. 149-183); and Sachau (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ Gesellschaft,
1883, pp. 562-571). [833] See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. 1. 691, and the
passages quoted in note 96.—The Romans sometimes made also arbitrary exceptions
in favour of others. Thus in the decree of Senate given in Josephus, Antiq. xiv.
10. 22 (applying probably to Hyrcanus I., see vol. i. p. 278), the Jews were
allowed to raise customs within their own borders, but on condition that they
should hold the king of Egypt exempt. [834] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14.
4. [835] Pliny, Historia Naturalis, xii. 63-65: “Evehi non potest nisi per
Gebanitas, itaque et horum regi penditur vectigal.… Iam quacumque iter est
aliubi pro aqua aliubi pro pabulo aut pro mansionibus variisque portoriis
pendunt, ut sumptus in singulos camelos X. DCLXXXVIII. ad nostrum litus (i.e. as
far as Gaza) colligat, iterumque imperi nostri publicanis penditur.—We also
elsewhere heard of duties being levied by uncivilised tribes. Thus the merchants
who carried on trade between Syria and Babylon were obliged to pay customs to
the tribes through whose country they passed, and indeed the σκηνῖται, i.e. the
dwellers in tents in the desert, were more reasonable in their demands than were
the φύλαρχοι on both sides of the Euphrates (Strabo, p. 748). [836]a Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 8. 4 fin., xviii. 4. 3: οὐιτέλλιος τὰ τέλη τῶν ὠνουμένων καρπῶν
ἀνίησιν εἰς τὸ πᾶν τοῖς ταύτῃ κατοικοῦσι. The collecting of the customs was not
done by officers of the State, but by lessees, the so-called publicani, who
leased the customs of a particular district for a fixed annual sum; so that
whatever in excess of that sum the revenue yielded was their gain; whereas, if
the revenue fell below it, they had to bear the loss.[837] This system was
widely prevalent throughout ancient times, and came often to be applied, not
only to the customs, but also to the taxes properly so called. Thus, e.g. during
the Ptolemaic government of Palestine the taxes of each city were annually
leased out to the highest bidder.[838] In the days of the Roman empire the
system of leasing was no longer applied to the taxes, i.e. the land-tax and
poll-tax. These were now collected by officers of State: in senatorial
provinces, by the quaestor; in imperial provinces, by an imperial procurator,
assistants to the governor;[839] in provinces like Judea, administered by an
equestrian, the governor was himself at the same time procurator. The customs,
on the other hand, were, even in the days of the empire, still commonly leased
out to publicani.[840] So, undoubtedly, it was in Judea. The contrary opinion of
Wieseler rests manifestly on a misunderstanding.[841] In the passage cited from
Pliny, in note [842] it is expressly said, that for the incense exported from
Arabia by way of Gaza a duty bad also to be paid to the Roman publicani. From
the universality of the system, it may be assumed that territorial princes like
Herod Antipas would also make use of it. Even city communes like Palmyra did not
have their customs collected by municipal officials, but rented them out to
lessees.[843]—The lessees again, as may be readily supposed, had their
subordinate officials, who would usually be chosen from the native population.
But even the principal lessees were by no means necessarily Romans. The
tax-gatherers of Jericho (Luke 19:1-2) and of Caesarea—Zaccheus and John—were
therefore Jews. Since they are described as well-to-do and respectable people,
they certainly cannot have belonged to the lowest class of publicans.[844]—The
extent to which custom might be charged was indeed prescribed by the court; but
since these tariffs, as we see from the case of Palmyra, were in early times
often very indefinite, abundant room was left for the arbitrariness and rapacity
of the tax-gatherer. The advantage taken of such opportunities, and the not
infrequent overcharges that were made by these officials, made them as a class
hated by the people. Not only in the New Testament are the terms “publican and
sinner” almost synonymous, but also in rabbinical literature tax-gatherers
(מוֹבְסִין) appear in an even less favourable light.[845]—On the other hand, the
people generally then, just as in the present day, were inventive of
contrivances of ways and means for defrauding the revenue.[846] [837] Compare
Rein, art. “Publicani,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie; Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, ii. 289 ff.; Conr. Gottfr. Dietrich, Beiträge zur Kenntniss
des römischen Staatspächtersystems, 1877; Prax, Essai sur les sociétés
vectigaliennes précédé d’un exposé sommaire du système fiscal des Romains,
Montauban 1884; Rémondière, De la levée des impôts en droit romain, Paris 1886.
[838] Josephus, Antiq. xii. 4. 3: ἔτυχε δὲ κατʼ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν πάντας
ἀναβαίνειν τοὺς ἐκ τῶν πόλεων τῶν τῆς Συρίας καὶ Φοινίκης πρώτους καὶ ἄρχοντας
ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν τελῶν ὠνήν· κατʼ ἔτος δὲ ταῦτα τοῖς δυνατοῖς τῶν ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει
ἐπίπρασκεν ὁ βασιλεύς.—Ibid. xii. 4. 4: ἐνστάσης δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας καθʼ ἣν ἔμελλε τὰ
τέλη πιπράσκεσθαι τῶν πόλεων.—Compare also xii. 4. 5. From the latter passage it
seems plain that we have here to do, not with customs, but with taxes (φόροι).
The most important of these was the poll-tax (Antiq. xii. 4. 1: τὰς ἰδίας
ἕκαστοι τῶν ἐπισήμεν ὠνοῦντο πατρίδας φορολογεῖν, καὶ συναθροίζοντες τὸ
προστεταγμένον κεφάλαιον τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἐτέλουν). But there was also yet
another class of taxes; for the Jerusalem priesthood had been freed by Antiochus
the Great (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 3): ὧν ὑπὲρ τῆς κεφαλῆς τελοῦσι καὶ τοῦ
στεφανίτου φόρου καὶ τοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων. [839] Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii.
303. [840] Ibid. ii. 302. [841] Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der
Evangelien, 1869, p. 78 f., seeks support for his theory from Josephus, Antiq.
xiv. 10. 5: μήτε ἑογολαβῶσί τινες. But here the matters referred to are not the
customs, but the revenue derived from the land-tax. Besides, these enactments of
Caesar had long been antiquated in the days of the empire by the convulsions
that had meanwhile occurred. [842] Pliny, Historia Naturalis, xii. 63-65: “Evehi
non potest nisi per Gebanitas, itaque et horum regi penditur vectigal.… Iam
quacumque iter est aliubi pro aqua aliubi pro pabulo aut pro mansionibus
variisque portoriis pendunt, ut sumptus in singulos camelos X. DCLXXXVIII. ad
nostrum litus (i.e. as far as Gaza) colligat, iterumque imperi nostri publicanis
penditur.—We also elsewhere heard of duties being levied by uncivilised tribes.
Thus the merchants who carried on trade between Syria and Babylon were obliged
to pay customs to the tribes through whose country they passed, and indeed the
σκηνῖται, i.e. the dwellers in tents in the desert, were more reasonable in
their demands than were the φύλαρχοι on both sides of the Euphrates (Strabo, p.
748). [843] In the decree of the Council of Palmyra with reference to the
customs-tariff in the time of Hadrian (Hermes, xix. 490, compare note 97), it is
said: In the older customs-tariff very many subjects were not introduced; and
so, in making the bargain with the lessee (τῇ μισθώσει), the amount of custom
which the tax-gatherer (τὸν τελωνοῦντα) ought to levy has to be determined by
tariff and use and wont. But over these questions disputes constantly arose
between the merchants and the lessees of the customs. Therefore did the council
then conclude that the courts of the city should make a list of articles
omitted, and in the next lease-contract (τῇ ἔνγιστα μισθώσει) should have them
inserted, in addition to the consuetudinary tax (so that it would thus become a
fixed sum). If this tariff be accepted by the lessee (τῷ μισθουμένῳ), then
should it, as well as the older tariff, be made generally known by being
engraved on stone tablets. But the authorities should take care that the lessee
(τὸν μισθούμενον) should exact nothing beyond the requirements of the law. [844]
The assertion of Tertullian, that all tax-gatherers were heathens (de pudicitia,
c. 9), was rightly contested as early as by Jerome (Epist. 21 ad Damasum, c. 3,
Opera, ed. Valarsi, i. 72). [845] According to Baba kamma x. 1, one should not
take payment in money from the cash-box of the tax-gatherers—should not even
receive alms from them (because their money has been gained by robbery). If,
however, tax-gatherers have taken away one ass and given another in exchange for
it, or robbers have robbed him of his garment and given him another for it, he
ought to keep what is given, because it has already ceased to be his property
(Baba kamma, x. 2).—According to Nedarim iii. 4, should one promise, in
consequence of a vow, to robbers and tax-gatherers, he may declare the thing the
property of the priests or of the king, though it be not so!—Throughout,
therefore, tax-gatherers (מוכסין) are placed in the same category as robbers.
Compare also Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evv. 1878, p. 71 f.;
Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte der Juden, p. 161 ff.; Hamburger,
Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Zoll;” Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 114.—That
by מוכסין tax-gatherers in the proper sense are to be understood, is seen from
the usage of that word (מכםא, מכסיא) in the customs-tariff of Palmyra. [846]
Kelim, xvii. 16, speaks of “a walking-stick with a secret place for pearls,”
i.e. for the purpose of defrauding the revenue.—In treating of the prohibition
against wearing garments made of a mixture of linen and wool (Leviticus 19:19;
Deuteronomy 22:11), Kilajim ix. 2, remarks, that this is allowed under no
circumstances, “not even in order to defraud the revenue” (לִגְנוֹב
הַמֶּכֶס).—In this connection, also, may be quoted the passage Shabbath viii. 2,
where, as an example of a small piece of paper which, on the Sabbath, ought not
to be carried from one place to another, a קֶשֶׁר of the tax-gatherer’s is
mentioned. The expositors understand by the word, a receipt which has been given
at one customs office so that the party might pass free at the next, say on the
other side of the river. The philological explanation is certainly beset with
difficulty, since קשר elsewhere means “binding” (e.g. a knot on a string, or a
joint in a human body). May it not mean a piece of paper, by which a
“connection” between two customs offices is established? Within the limits,
which were stated in the very regulations themselves, the Jewish people enjoyed
even yet a very considerable measure of freedom in home affairs and
self-administration.[847]—The oath of allegiance which the people had to take to
the emperor, presumably on every change of government, was, if we may judge from
analogous cases, more an oath of confederates than one of subjects, such as had
been given even so early as the times of Herod.[848]—The constitution as regards
home affairs, during the age of the procurators, is characterized by Josephus,
in opposition to the monarchial rule of Herod and Archelaus, in the words:[849]
ἀριστοκρατία μὲν ἦν ἡ πολιτεία, τὴν δὲ προστασίαν τοῦ ἔθνους οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς
ἐπεπίστευντο. He sees, therefore, in the change which took place after the
deposition of Archelaus, a transition from monarchy to aristocracy, because he,
and that not incorrectly, considers the Roman procurator only as an overseer,
but the aristocratic Sanhedrim as the real governing body. He who held the
office of high priest for the time, who also held the presidency of the
Sanhedrim, is called by Josephus προστάτης τοῦ ἔθνους. Yet certainly these very
high priests were set up and removed at the arbitrary pleasure of the overseer.
But even in this matter the Romans restrained themselves within certain limits.
Whereas during the period A.D. 6-41 the appointments had been made by the Roman
governors, either the legate of Syria or the procurator of Judea, during the the
period A.D. 44-66 the right of appointment was transferred to the Jewish
princes, Herod of Chalcis and Agrippa II., although these did not reign in
Judea. And in both periods the appointments were not made in a purely arbitrary
manner, but respect was paid to the claims of certain families (Phabi, Boethos,
Ananus, Kamith).[850] [847] Compare on what follows, Mommsen, Römische
Geschichte, v. 511 ff. [848] Compare generally, vol. i. p. 445.—We have clear
evidence of the taking of an oath on the accession of Caligula; Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 5. 3. [849] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 10 fin. [850] For the proofs, see Div.
II. vol. i. pp. 197-206, and my treatise on the ἀρχιερεῖς in the New Testament
(Studien und Kritiken, 1872, pp. 593-657).—On the presidency of the high priest
in the Sanhedrim, Div. II. vol. i. pp. 180-184. Of greater importance is the
fact that the Sanhedrim exercised to a very large extent the right of
legislating and of executing the law, to a larger extent indeed than on the
average was the case among non-autonomous communities in the Roman empire.[851]
The state of the law was in general this, that the communities recognised by
Rome as “free” or “autonomous” had expressly guaranteed to them the right of
passing and executing their own laws, in fact, even over Roman citizens dwelling
within their bounds. In the subject, non-autonomous communities, to which Judea
belonged, the practical state of matters was very nearly the same;[852] but with
this twofold restriction: (1) That this practical state of matters was not
guaranteed them; and (2) that the Roman citizens residing within their bounds
had their own law and their own judicatories. The first point was of most
importance. The Roman authorities could, in consequence of it, interfere at
pleasure in the legislation and in the administration of the law in
non-autonomous communities. In Judea this right seems to have been taken
advantage only to a very limited extent It may be assumed that the
administration of the civil law was wholly in the hands of the Sanhedrim and
native or local magistrates: Jewish courts decided according to Jewish law. But
even in the criminal law this was almost invariably the case, only with this
exception, that death sentences required to be confirmed by the Roman
procurator. In such case the procurator decided if he pleased according to the
standard of the Jewish law, as is shown in the trial of Jesus Christ.[853] Even
Roman citizens were not wholly exempt from the requirements of the Jewish law.
When, indeed, the procurator Festus proposed to judge the Apostle Paul according
to Jewish law, this was frustrated by the objection of the apostle (see above,
p. 59). But the Jewish law, that no Gentile should be allowed to enter the inner
court of the temple, was recognised by the Roman authorities, and any one who
transgressed it was punished with death, even if he were a Roman citizen.[854]
There was only one limitation to the far-reaching application of this right, and
that certainly a very important one; the procurator and his agents could at any
time interfere according to their own discretion. [851] On the position of
non-autonomous subjects, see Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1. 716-764,
especially 744 ff.—The singular position of Judea has prominence given to it in
a rather one-sided manner by Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses,
p. 485 f.: “Only one province … namely, Judea, at least in the earlier days of
the empire, formed an exception to all the arrangements hitherto described.
Whereas in the other provinces the whole criminal jurisdiction was in the hands
of the governor, and only in the most important cases had the supreme imperial
courts to decide, just as in the least important matters the municipal courts
did; the principle that applied in Judea was that at least in regard to
questions of religious offence the high priest with the Sanhedrim could
pronounce even death sentences, for the carrying out of which, however, the
confirmation of the procurator was required.”—This representation of Geib is
therefore incorrect, inasmuch as it confounds the position of Judea in the
earlier days of the empire with its general condition in the later imperial age.
Compare, on the other hand, Mommsen, l.c. [852] Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht,
iii. 1, p. 748: “In regard to the extent of application, the jurisdiction of the
native courts and judicatories among subject communities can scarcely have been
much more restricted than among the federated communities; while in
administration and in civil jurisdiction we find the same principles operative
as in legal procedure and criminal law.” [853] More details in Div. II. vol. i.
pp. 186-190. [854] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 2.4; also confirmed by the
inscription discovered by Clermont-Ganneau. Compare Div. II. vol. i. pp. 188,
265. This point is also of importance in forming an estimate of the trial of the
Apostle Paul; for a principal charge brought against him by the Jews was that he
had taken with him into the temple a “Greek,” Trophimus (Acts 21:28-29). The
endeavour was therefore made to impress the procurator with the idea that Paul
was deserving of punishment even according to the Roman law, since he had
committed an offence against a specific enactment Compare especially, Acts 24:6
: ὃς καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπιίρασεν βεβηλῶσαι. The charge was not indeed valid, since
that enact ment of the law would have affected only Trophimus, and not Paul.
Besides, it seems that Paul had not really taken Trophimus with him into the
temple. Compare, ἐνόμιζον, Acts 21:29. The Jewish worship was not only
tolerated, but, as the enactment just referred to with regard to the temple
shows, stood under State protection.[855] The cosmopolitan tendency, which
characterized the pagan piety of the time, made it quite possible for
distinguished Romans to present gifts to the Jewish temple, and even to offer
sacrifices there.[856] The oversight of the temple by the State, especially of
the administration of its large finances, seems to have been carried out during
the period A.D. 6-41 by means of the Roman authorities. During the period A.D.
44-66 it was transferred to the same Jewish princes who had also received the
right of appointing the high priests, namely, Herod of Chalcis, and then Agrippa
II.[857] A restriction in the freedom of worship, which was in itself quite
harmless, but was regarded by the Jews as oppressive, was set aside in A.D. 36.
During the period A.D. 6-36 the beautiful robe of the high priest was in the
keeping of the Roman commandant in the fort of Antonia and was only four times
in the year, at the three chief feasts and on the Day of Atonement, brought
forth for use. At the request of the Jews, in A.D. 36, Vitellius ordered that
the robe should be given up. And when the procurator Cuspius Fadius, in A.D. 44,
wished again to have the robe put under Roman control, a Jewish embassy went to
Rome and procured a rescript from the Emperor Claudius by which the order of
Vitellius was confirmed.[858] [855] This protection extended also to the
synagogue services and the Holy Scriptures. When the pagan inhabitants of Dora
had placed a statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue there, the council of
the city was ordered by the legate Petronius to deliver up the guilty parties,
and to take care that such outrages should not occur in future (Josephus, Antiq.
xix. 6. 3). A soldier, who had wantonly torn up a Thorah roll, was put to death
by the procurator Cumanus (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12.
2). [856] Even the Emperor Augustus and his wife sent brazen wine vessels to the
temple at Jerusalem, ἀκρατοφόοοι (Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 6) and other costly
presents (Philo, Legat, ad Cajum, sec. 23 and sec. 40, ed. Mangey, ii. 569
init., 592 fin.). Marcus Agrippa, on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem,
gave presents (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 37, ed. Mangey, ii. 589), and
offered as a sacrifice a hundred oxen (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1). Also
Vitellius sacrificed there (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3). Compare generally,
Div. II. vol. i. pp. 299-305. [857] Herod of Chalcis, Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 3:
τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ νεῶ καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων.—Agrippa II.: Antiq. xx. 9. 7: τὴν
ἐπιμέλειαν τοῦ ἱεροῦ.—On the administration of the finances of the temple, see
Div. II. vol. i. pp. 260-264. [858] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3, xx. 1. 1-2,
xv. 11. 4. Compare, on this beautiful robe of the high priest, Div. II. vol. i.
p. 256. On the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus it fell into the hands of the
Romans (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 8. 3). Great deference was shown to the
religious opinions of the Jews. Whereas in all other provinces the worship of
the emperor was zealously insisted upon, and was claimed as a matter of course
by the emperor as a proof of respect, no demand of this sort, except in the time
of Caligula, was ever made of the Jews. The authorities were satisfied with
requiring that twice a day in the temple at Jerusalem a sacrifice was made “for
Caesar and the Roman people.” The sacrifice for the whole day consisted in two
lambs and an ox, and, according to Philo, was provided by Augustus himself, ἐκ
τῶν ἰδίων προσόδων, whereas the opinion of Josephus is that it was made at the
cost of the Jewish people.[859] Also on extraordinary occasions the Jewish
people evidenced their loyal sentiments by a great sacrifice in honour of the
emperor.[860] In the Diaspora the emperor was remembered in the prayers of the
synagogue, which, however, cannot be proved to have been the case in
Palestine.[861] Next to the worship of the emperor, the emperor’s images on the
coins and the standards of the soldiers were specially offensive to the Jews.
But in these matters also they were treated with tolerance. It could not,
indeed, be avoided that Roman denaria with the figure of the emperor should
circulate in Judea (Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24), for silver and gold
coins were not minted in Judea. But the copper coinage restored to the country
bore, even in the time of the direct Roman rule, as well as in the times of the
Herodians, no human likeness, but only the name of the emperor and inoffensive
emblems.[862] The troops were required in Jerusalem to dispense with standards
having on them the likeness of the emperor. The wanton attempt of Pilate to
break through this custom was frustrated by the violent opposition of the
people. Pilate found himself compelled to withdraw again the imperial likenesses
from Jerusalem.[863] When Vitellius, the legate of Syria, took the field against
the Arabian king Aretas, at the urgent entreaty of the Jews, he so directed the
course of his march that the troops carrying the likeness of the emperor on
their standards should not enter Jewish territory.[864] [859] Philo, Legat. ad
Cajum, sec. 23 and sec. 40, Mangey, ii. 569, 592); Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
ii. 10. 4, 17. 2-4; Against Apion, ii. 6 fin. Further details in Div. II. vol.
i. p. 303. [860] This was done thrice over in the time of Caligula, Philo,
Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 45 (Mangey, ii. 598); compare also sec. 32 (Mangey, ii.
580: the offering presented on the occasion of his accession). [861]a Philo, In
Flaccum, sec. 7 (ed. Mangey, ii. 524): “If one robbed the Jews of the Proseuche
or synagogue, he thus made it impossible to them τὴν εἰς τοὺς εὐεργέτας
εὐσέβειαν … οὐκ ἔχοντες ἱεροὺς περιβόλους οἷς ἐνδιαθήσονται τὸ εὐχάριστον …
Thereby he gives not, but robs τοῖς κυρίοις τιμήν. For the Proseuchae are for
all Jews ὁρμητήρια τῆς εἰς τὸν σεβαστὸν οἶκον ὀσιότητος … ὧν ἡμῖν ἀναιρεθεισῶν
τίς ἕτερος ἀπολείπεται τόπος ἢ τρόπος τιμῆς;”—That this standpoint was not an
unusual one even among rabbinical Jews is shown by Aboth iii. 2; see the words
quoted in Div. II. vol. i. p. 304. Yet, so far as I know, there is no proof that
prayer was offered up for the emperor in the synagogues of Palestine. Indeed,
considering the opinions prevailing there, it is extremely improbable that such
prayers should have been offered. [862] Compare, on the coins minted in Judea in
the time of the procurators, Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 497 sq.; Mionnet,
Descript. de médailles, v. 552-555, Suppl. viii. 377; Cavedoni, Biblische
Numismatik, i. 64-73, 159-162; De Saulcy, Revue Numismatique, 1853, pp. 186-201;
De Saulcy, Recherches, etc., 1854, pp. 138-146, 149 sq., pl. viii., ix.;
Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 39-53; Mommsen, Geschichte des römischen
Münzwesens, 1860, p. 719; Levy, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, pp. 74-79;
Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 134-153; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien,
v. 27-29; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, 1874, pp. 69-78, pl.
iii.-iv.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 169-195; Madden, Coins of the
Jews, pp. 170-187; Stickel, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii.
1884, pp. 212, 213; Pick, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiv. 1887, pp.
306-308.—On the coins of Augustus with the superscription Καίσαρος, we meet with
the year numbers 33, 36, 39, 40, 41. If the number 33 is the correct reading,
then we must, as Mommsen first conjectured, assume as the starting-point of the
Augustan era the 1st of January 727 A.U.C., or B.C. 27. According to this
reckoning, the coins belong to the period 759-767 A.U.C., or A.D. 6-14, which
harmonizes perfectly with historical circumstances. As this era is otherwise
unknown, Pick, in Zeitschrift für Numismatik, xiv. 306-308, doubts as to the
existence of the coins with the number 33, and assumes the Actian era with
autumn A.U.C. 723 as its starting-point. Thus the year 36 would be A.U.C.
758-759. The existence of the coins with the number 33 seems, however, to be
well established. See especially Madden and Stickel in works quoted above. The
coins of Tiberius, with, for the most part, the name written in the abbreviated
form Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, are dated by the years of Tiberius’ reign; we have
examples of the Numbers 2, 3, 4 up to 18. On many the name of Julia occurs along
with that of Tiberius, and, indeed, this is so up to the year of Tiberius 16,
i.e. A.D. 29, the year in which Julia (Livia) died. Many coins bore only the
name of Julia. There are coins of Claudius of the 13th and 14th year of his
reign; and coins of Nero of the 5th year. On the latter stands only the name of
the emperor; on those of Claudius there is also the name of his wife, Julia
Agrippina. [863] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 2-3. In
reference to the military flags and standards, as Domaszewski has shown
(Domaszewski, Die Fahnen im römischen Heere, Abhandlungen des
archäolog.-epigraph. Seminares der Universität Wien, 5 Heft 1885), two different
classes are to be distinguished: (1) Those which were used for tactical
purposes, and (2) those which had only a symbolical significance. The former
were by far the most numerous: to the latter belonged the eagles of the legions
and the signa which bore the figure of the emperor. Mommsen indeed believes,
however, that even to them should be assigned a certain tactical significance;
see Archäologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn Jahrgang,
x. 1886, p. 1 ff. The figures of the emperor were in the form of a medallion,
and were usually attached to the signa. Among the legionaries, as well as among
the auxiliary cohorts we hear of imaginiferi (see list in Cauer, Ephemeris
epigr. iv. pp. 372-374).—The earlier procurators, therefore, had taken with them
to Jerusalem only the signa which did not bear the figure of the emperor, that
is, the common ones used for tactical purposes; but Pilato took also those
bearing the figure of the emperor. [864] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3. So far,
then, as the civil enactments and the orders of the supreme authorities were
concerned, the Jews could not complain of any want of consideration being paid
them. It was otherwise, however, with respect to the practical carrying out of
details. The average Roman official was always disposed to disregard all such
nice, delicate consideration. And the unfortunate thing was, that Judea,
especially in the last decades before the war, had had more than one governor
who had lost all sense of right and wrong. Besides this, notwithstanding the
most painstaking efforts to show indulgence to Jewish views and feelings, the
existing relations were in themselves, according to Jewish ideas, an insult to
all the lofty, divine privileges of the chosen people, who, instead of paying
tribute to Caesar, were called rather to rule over all nations of the
world.[865] [865]a This was, at least, the popular sentiment. From these
religious premisses in themselves one might, indeed, arrive at the very opposite
result, namely, that even the pagan government was of God, and that it must be
submitted to so long as God wills. But this way of considering the subject was
not in favour during the period A.D. 6-66, and, as the years went on, those who
held it were in an ever-decreasing minority. Compare generally on the political
attitude of Pharisaism, Div. II. vol. ii pp. 17-19. Their first administrative
measures which they introduced there show how hard a task the incorporation of
Judea into the empire proved to the Romans. Contemporaneously with the
appointment of Coponius, the first procurator of Judea, the emperor had sent a
new legate, Quirinius, into Syria. It was now the duty of the legate to take a
census of the population of the newly-acquired territory, in order that the
taxes might be appointed according to the Roman method. But no sooner had
Quirinius, in A.D. 6 or A.D. 7, begun to carry out his commission, than he was
met with opposition on every hand. Only the quieting representations of the high
priest Joazar, who clearly perceived that open rebellion would be of no avail,
led to the gradual abandonment of the opposition that had already begun, and
then the people with mute resignation submitted to the inevitable, so that, at
last, the census was made up.[866] It was, however, no enduring peace, but only
a truce of uncertain duration. Judas of Gamala in Gaulanitis, called the
Galilean, who is certainly identical with that Judas, son of Hezekiah, of whom
we have already learnt on p. 4, in company with a Pharisee of the name of
Sadduc, made it his task to rouse the people into opposition, and in the name of
religion to preach rebellion and revolutionary war. This movement had not,
indeed, any immediate marked success. But the revolutionists got so far as to
found now among the Pharisees a more strict fanatical party, that of the
patriotic resolutes, or, as they called themselves, the Zealots, who wished not
to remain in quiet submission till by God’s decree the Messianic hope of Israel
should be fulfilled, but would rather employ the sword in hastening its
realization, and would rush into conflict with the godless enemy.[867] It is to
their machinations that we are to ascribe the nursing of the fires of revolution
among the smouldering ashes which sixty years later burst forth in vehement
flames.[868] [866] According to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1, in. the 37th year
of the aera Actiaca, i.e. autumn, 759-760 A.U.C., or A.D. 6-7. The Actian era
begins on 2nd Sept. 723 A.U.C. or B.C. 31. [867] Ζηλωταί, compare Luke 6:15;
Acts 1:13; Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 9, 5. 1, 6. 3, vii. 8. 1.—For the
Biblico-Hebraic קַנָּא we find in later Hebrew also קַנַּאי and קַנְאָן (see
Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum; Levy, Chaldaisches Wörterbuch; Levy, Neuhebräisches
Wörterbuch). The Greek Καναναῖος is constructed out of the later form of the
word through the modification of the plural, קַנְאָנַיָא as ought to be used in
Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, instead of the received Κανανίτης.—In the Mishna,
Sanhedrin ix. 6, and Aboth derabbi Nathan c. 6, we have קנָּאּין or קַנָּאִים.
In the former passage, however, are meant, not political, but religious
zealots.—Compare generally: Oppenheim, “Die Kannaim oder Zeloten” in Fürst’s
Literaturblatt des Orients, 1849, col. 289-292; Pressel, art. “Zeloten” in
Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xviii. 485-489; Derenbourg, Histoire de la
Palestine, p. 238; Holtzmann in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 707-709; Reuss,
Geschichte der heiligen Schriften der Alten Testaments, § 560; Hamburger,
Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, 2 Abth. pp. 1286-1296; Sieffert in
Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xvii. 488-491; Wolf, Curae philol.;
Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Meyer, Bleek, and other commentators, on Matthew 10:4. [868]
Compare generally: Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1 and 6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 8.
1; Acts 5:37. Art. “Judas” in the Biblical Dictionaries. Chr. Alfr. Körner,
“Judas von Gamala” (Jahresbericht der Lausitzer Prediger-Gesellschaft zu
Leipzig, 1883-1884, pp. 5-12).—Also the descendants of Judas distinguished
themselves as Zealots. His sons James and Simon were executed by Tiberius
Alexander (Antiq. xx. 5. 2); his son Menachem (Manaim) was one of the principal
leaders at the beginning of the rebellion in A.D. 66 (Wars of the Jews, ii. 17.
8-9). A descendant of Judas and relative of Menahem of the name of Eleasar
conducted the defence of Masada in A.D. 73 (Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 9, vii. 8.
1 ff.).—A literary memorial of the views and hopes of the Zealots is the
Assumptio Mosis, which had its origin about that time (see Div. II. vol. iii.
pp. 73-80), which goes so far in the way of prophecy as to say that Israel will
tread on “the neck of the eagle,” i.e. of the Romans (10:8). Compare Div. II.
vol. ii. pp. 144, 183. Of Coponius and some of his successors little more is
known to us than their names. Altogether there were seven procurators who
administered Judea during the period A.D. 6-41: (1) Coponius, probably A.D. 6-9;
(2) Marcus Ambivius, probably A.D. 9-12; (3) Annius Rufus, probably A.D. 12-15;
(4) Valerius Gratus, A.D. 15-26; (5) Pontius Pilatus, A.D. 26-36; (6) Marcellus,
A.D. 36-37; (7) Marullus, A.D. 37-41.[869] The long period during which Valerius
Gratus and Pontius Pilate held office was owing to the general principles on
which Tiberius proceeded in his appointment of governors. In the interest of the
provinces he left them as long as possible at their posts, because he thought
that governors acted like flies upon the body of a wounded animal; if once they
were gorged, they would become more moderate in their exactions, whereas new men
began their rapacious proceedings afresh.[870] [869] Compare Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 2. 2, 4. 2, 6. 10 fin.—The period during which the first three held
office cannot be quite exactly determined. That of the two following is fixed by
the facts that Valerius Gratus was in office for eleven years (Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 2. 2) and Pontius Pilate for ten years (xviii. 4. 2). But Pilate was
deprived of his office before Vitellius was in Jerusalem for the first time,
i.e. shortly before Easter A.D. 36, as results from a comparison of Antiq.
xviii. 4. 3 with xviii. 5. 3. The period during which the last two held office
is determinedly this, that Marullus was installed immediately after the
accession of Caligula in March A.D. 37 (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 10
fin.).—Eusebius affirms (Hist. Eccl. i. 9) that Josephus sets the date of
Pilate’s entrance upon office in the twelfth year of Tiberius, A.D. 25 and 26,
which is only so far correct, that this conclusion may be deduced from Josephus.
[870] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 5.—Tiberius’ care for the provinces is also
witnessed to by Suetonius (Tiberius, 23: “praesidibus onerandas tributo
provincias suadentibus rescripsit: boni pastoris esse tondere pecus, non
deglubere”). Tacitus also, in Annals, i. 80, iv. 6, speaks of the long periods
granted to governors. For an estimate of Tiberius, compare especially Keim’s
article in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 528-535. Among those named, Pontius
Pilate is of special interest to us, not only as the judge of Jesus Christ, but
also because he is the only one of whom we have any detailed account in Josephus
and Philo.[871] Philo, or rather Agrippa I., in the letter which Philo
communicates as written by him, describes him as of an “unbending and recklessly
hard character” (τὴν φύσιν ἀκαμπὴς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ αὐθάδους ἀμείλικτος), and gives
a very bad account of his official administration. “Corruptibility, violence,
robberies, ill-treatment of the people, grievances, continuous executions
without even the form of a trial, endless and intolerable cruelties,” are
charged against him.[872] The very first act by which Pilate introduced himself
into office was characteristic of him who treated with contempt the Jewish
customs and privileges. Care had constantly been taken by the earlier
procurators that the troops entering Jerusalem should not carry flags having the
figure of the emperor, in order that the religious feelings of the Jews should
not be offended by the sight of them (see in regard to these, above, p. 78).
Pilate, on the other hand, to whom such tolerance appeared unworthy weakness,
caused the garrison soldiers of Jerusalem to enter the city by night with the
figure of the emperor on their flags. When the news spread among the people,
they flocked out in crowds to Caesarea, and besieged the procurator with
entreaties for five days and nights that the offensive articles might be
removed. At last, on the sixth day, Pilate admitted the people into the
race-course, into which at the same time he had ordered a detachment of
soldiers. When the Jews also here again repeated their complaints, he gave a
signal, upon which the soldiers surrounded the people on all sides with drawn
swords. But the Jews remained stedfast, bared their necks, and declared that
they would rather die than submit to a breach of the law. As further opposition
seemed to Pilate hazardous, he gave orders to remove the offensive images from
Jerusalem.[873] [871] Compare in regard to him, besides the literature referred
to on p. 38: Mounier, De Pontii Pilati in causa servatoris agendi ratione, Lugd.
Bat. 1825; Leyrer, art. “Pilatus” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xi.
pp. 685-687; Klöpper in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iv. 581-585; Renan, Life of
Jesus, chap. xxvii.: “Fate of the Enemies of Jesus;” Warneck, Pontius Pilatus
der Richter Jesu Christi. Ein Gemälde aus der Leidensgeschichte, Gotha 1867;
Rosières, Ponce Pilate, Paris 1883; Woltjer, Pontius Pilatus, sene studie,
Amsterdam 1888; Arnold, Die neronische Christenverfolgung, 1888, pp. 116-120 (on
the mention of Pilate in Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44); Gustav Adolf Müller, Pontius
Pilatus der fünfte Procurator von Judaea und Richter Jesu, von Nazareth,
Stuttgart 1888 (gives at pp. v-viii a list of the special literature on Pilate
from the beginning of the art of printing down to the present time, more than a
hundred names) [872] Philo, De Legatione ad Cajum, sec. 38, ed. Mangey, ii. 590:
τὰς δωροδοκιας, τὰς ἵβρεις, τὰς ἁρπαγὰς, τὰς αἰκίας, τὰς ἐπηρείας, τοὺς ἀκρίτου;
καὶ ἐπαλλήλους φόνους, τὴν ἀνήνυτον καὶ ἀργαλεωτάτην ὠμότητα. [873] Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 3. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 2-3; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii. 6.
4—According to Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, viii p. 403, this story has
also been reported by Philo in portions of his work on the persecutions of the
Jews under Tiberius and Caligula, which are no longer extant (αὐτὰ δὴ ταὺτα καὶ
ὁ Φίλων συμμαρτυρεῖ, τὰς σημαίας φάσκων τὰς βασιλικὰς τὸν Πιλάτον νύκτωρ ἐν τῷ
ἱερῷ ἀναθεῖναι). Compare in regard to this question, Div. II. vol. iii. p. 349.
A new storm burst forth when on one occasion he applied the rich treasures of
the temple to the certainly very useful purpose of building an aqueduct to
Jerusalem. Such an appropriation of the sacred treasures was no less offensive
than the introduction of the figures of the emperor. When, therefore, he once
went to Jerusalem while the building was being proceeded with, he was again
surrounded by a complaining and shrieking crowd. But he had previously obtained
information of the projected outburst, and had given orders to the soldiers to
mix among the people dressed in citizen garb armed with clubs. When the
multitude therefore began to make complaints and to present petitions, he gave
the preconcerted signal, whereupon the soldiers drew forth their clubs which
they had concealed under their upper garments, and mercilessly beat down the
helpless crowds. Many lost their lives in this melee. The opposition to the
useful undertaking was thus indeed crushed; but also the popular hatred against
Pilate was stirred up afresh.[874] [874] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 2; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 9. 4; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ii. 6. 6-7.—The length of the
aqueduct is given by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3. 2, at two hundred stadia; in
Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 4, at four hundred; so at least is it in our text of
Josephus, whereas in his rendering of the latter passage Eusebius (Hist. Eccles.
ii. 6. 6) makes it three hundred stadia. In any case, according to these
measurements, there can be no doubt that the reference is to the aqueduct from
the so-called pool of Solomon south-west of Bethlehem. From thence to Jerusalem
two aqueducts were built in ancient times, of which the ruins of the one are
discernible; the other is still preserved in comparative completeness. 1. The
former is the shorter, and runs upon a higher level; it begins south of the pool
of Solomon in the Wady Bijar, then goes through the pool, and thence without any
further deviations straight to Jerusalem. 2. The one that is still completed is
longer and lies lower; it begins still farther south in the Wady Arrub, passes
then also through the pool, and thence with great windings to Jerusalem. The
latter conduit is certainly the more modern; for, on account of the more remote
derivation of the water, the aqueduct running on the higher level could no
longer be used, and so a new one had to be built. Its length, owing to the long
windings, reaches to about 400 stadia, although the direct line would measure
much less than half that distance. When it had become dilapidated, during the
Middle Ages, earthenware pipes were placed in it. In its original form it was
probably identical with the building of Pilate. Many, however, owing to the
absence of any trace of the characteristics of Roman building, hold it to have
been still older than the time of Pilate, and suppose that Pilate only restored
it. But this theory is directly in opposition to the words of Josephus. That the
aqueduct of Pilate ran along the course taken by this water conduit, may be
regarded as highly probable.—In the Jerusalem Talmud we find the statement that
an aqueduct led from Etam to the temple (Jer. Yoma, iii. fol. 41, in Lightfoot,
Descriptio templi, c. 23, Opera, i. 612). In fact, Etam (עֵיטָם), according to 2
Chronicles 11:6, lay between Bethlehem and Tekoa, unquestionably at the spring
which is now called Ain Atan, in the immediate neighbourhood of Solomon’s pool
(compare Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. “Etam;” Schick, Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins, i. 152 f.).—The most exact description of the
present condition of the two conduits is given by Schick, “Die Wasserversorgung
der Stadt Jerusalem” (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, i. 1887, pp.
132-176, with map and plans).—Compare also: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 272 ff.;
Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 84-95 (very full in its historical
material); an anonymous article, “Water Supply of Jerusalem, ancient and modern”
(Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, new series, vol. v. 1864, pp.
133-157; Zschokke, “Die versiegelt Quelle Salomos” (Theolog. Quartalschrift,
1867, pp. 426-442); The Recovery of Jerusalem, 1871, pp. 233-267; and generally
the geographical literature mentioned in vol. i. pp. 16-20. The New Testament
also contains hints about the popular uprisings in the time of Pilate. “There
were present at that season,” so runs the narrative in Luke 13:1, “some that
told Jesus of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their
sacrifices.” This statement is to be understood as indicating that Pilate had
put to the sword a number of Galileans while they were engaged in the act of
presenting their offerings at Jerusalem. But nothing more definite as to this
incident is known. And just as little do we know about “those who had made
insurrection, and had committed murder in the insurrection” (Mark 15:7; comp.
Luke 23:19), to whom among others that Barabbas belonged, whose liberation the
Jews demanded of Pilate. Probably to the later days of Pilate belongs an
occurrence about which we are informed in the letter of Agrippa I. to Caligula,
which is communicated by Philo. Pilate had learnt from the outburst at Caesarea
that the setting up of the figures of the emperor in Jerusalem could not be
carried out against the stubborn resistance of the Jews. He thought he now, at
least, might attempt the introduction of votive shields without figures, on
which the name of the emperor was written. Such shields, richly gilt, did he set
up in what had been the palace of Herod, which Pilate himself was now wont to
occupy, “less for the honour of Tiberius than for the annoyance of the Jewish
people.” But the people would not tolerate even this. First of all, in company
with the nobles and with the four sons of Herod, who were then present in
Jerusalem attending a feast, they applied to Pilate in order to induce him to
remove the shields. When their prayer proved unsuccessful, the most
distinguished men, among whom certainly were those four sons of Herod, addressed
a petition to the emperor, asking that he should order the removal of the
offensive shields. Tiberius, who plainly perceived that it was a piece of purely
wanton bravado on the part of Pilate, ordered the governor on pain of his severe
displeasure to remove at once the shields from Jerusalem, and to have them set
up in the temple of Augustus at Caesarea. This accordingly was done. “And thus
were preserved both the honour of the emperor and the ancient customs of the
city.”[875] [875] Philo, De Legatione ad Cajum, sec. 38, ed. Mangey, ii. 589
sq.—That the incident occurred in the later years of Pilate is probable from the
decisiveness of the tone of Tiberius; for, according to Philo, Leg. ad Cajum,
sec. 34, ed. Mangey, ii. 569, Tiberius assumed a friendly attitude toward the
Jews only after the death of Sejanus in A.D. 31. Sejanus was, according to
Philo, an arch-enemy of the Jews. To his influence is ascribed both the
expulsion of the Jews from Rome in A.D. 19, and the harsh treatment of Pilate in
Judea. At last by his utter recklessness Pilate brought about his own overthrow.
It was an old belief among the Samaritans that on the mountain of Gerizim the
sacred utensils of the temple had been buried since Moses’ times.[876] A
Samaritan pseudo-prophet once promised in A.D. 35 to show these sacred things if
the people would assemble on Mount Gerizim. The light-minded multitude gave him
a hearing, and in great crowds the Samaritans gathered together armed in the
village of Tirathana at the fort of Mount Gerizim, so that from thence they
might ascend the mountain and behold the sacred spectacle. But before they could
carry out their project, they were arrested by Pilate in the village by a strong
force, a portion of them was slain, a portion hunted in flight, and again
another portion cast into prison. Of those imprisoned also Pilate had the most
powerful and the most distinguished put to death.[877] But the Samaritans were
convinced that no revolutionary intentions lay to the basis of their pilgrimage
to Gerizim, and so they complained of Pilate to Vitellius, the legate in Syria
at that time. Their complaints had actually this result, that Vitellius sent
Pilate to Rome to answer for his conduct, while he made over the administration
of Judea to Marcellus.[878] [876] Compare also: Petermann in Herzog,
Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 373; Kautzsch, Herzog, Real-Encylop. 2 Aufl.
xiii. 346, 348. [877] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 1. [878] Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 4. 2. Pilate must have taken about a year on his journey from Judea to
Rome, for he did not arrive in Rome until after the death of Tiberius (Antiq.
l.c.). His subsequent fortunes are not told by Josephus.—The Christian legend
makes Pilate either end his own life by suicide, or suffer death at the hands of
the emperor as punishment for his proceedings against Christ. 1. In regard to
the story about his suicide, Eusebius refers in his Church History to the Greek
chroniclers, who “have made a list of the Olympiads together with the
occurrences that took place in each” (Hist. Eccl. ii. 7: ἱστοροῦσιν Ἑλλήνων οἱ
τὰς Ὀλυμπιάδας ἅμα τοῖς κατὰ χρόνους πεπραγμένοις ἀνκγράψαντες). In the
Chronicle he mentions as His source “the Roman historians (Eusebius, Chronicon,
ed. Schoene, ii. 150 sq.: (a) According to the Armenian: “Pontius Pilatus in
varias calamitates implicitus sibi ipsi manus inferebat. Narrant autem qui
Romanorum res scriptis mandaverunt.” (b) According to Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i.
624: Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος ἐπὶ Γαΐον Καίσαρος ποικίλαις περιπεσὼν συμφοραῖς, ὣς φασιν
οἱ τὰ Ῥωμαίων συγγραψάμενοι, αὐτοφονευτὴς ἐαυτοῦ ἐγένετο. (c) According to
Jerome, “Pontius Pilatus in multas incidens calamitates propria se manu
interficit. Scribunt Romanorum historici”). The verbal agreement of the
Chronicle with the Church History (comp. Hist. Eccl. ii. 6: τοσαύταις περιπεσεῖν
… συμφοραῖς … αὐτοφονευτήν) shows that on both occasions Eusebius used the same
source. Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, i. 343, and Orosius, vii. 5. 8, are derived
directly or indirectly from Eusebius. The legend of Pilate’s suicide is further
expanded and adorned in the apocryphal literature, e.g. in the Mors Pilati in
Tischendorf’s Evangelia apocrypha, 1876, pp. 456-458 (the demons crowding around
his corpse utter forth dreadful shrieks, so that the body is transported from
Rome to Vienne on the Rhine, and thence to Lausanne, until at last the people of
Lausanne “a se removerunt et in quodam puteo montibus circumsepto immerserunt,
ubi adhuc … diabolicae machinationes ebullire dicuntur”).—2. According to
another form of the Christian legend, Pilate was executed by Nero. So Malalas,
ed. Dindorf, pp. 250-257; Johannes Autiochenus in Müller, Fragmenta historicorum
Graecorum, iv. 574 (also in Fabricius, Cod. apocryph. N. T. iii. 504 sq.);
Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. Νέρων; Chronicon paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 459. According
to the apocryphal Παράδοσις Πιλάτου it was Tiberius who caused Pilate to be
executed. See text in Thilo, Codex apocryph. N. T. pp. 813-816; Tischendorf,
Evang. apocryph. pp. 449-455. According to this account Pilate dies as a
penitent Christian. Compare generally on the Pilate legend, besides the
literature referred to above on p. 82, Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. 185. Soon
thereafter, at the Passover festival of A.D. 36,[879] Vitellius himself went to
Jerusalem, and won for himself on that occasion the goodwill of the inhabitants
of the capital, for he remitted the taxes on the fruits sold in the city, and
gave up for free use the high priest’s robe, which since A.D. 6 had lain in the
possession of the Romans.[880] [879] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 3, says that it
was at the time of a Passover feast. That it was the Passover of A.D. 36 may be
deduced partly from the fact that Vitellius did not arrive in Syria before the
summer or autumn of A.D. 35 (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 32), partly from the fact that
on the second visit of Vitellius to Jerusalem he received the tidings of the
death of Tiberius on 16th March A.D. 37 (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3). Between
the first and the second visit of Vitellius to Jerusalem, however, we must
suppose that a considerable time had passed. Compare especially, Keim, Jesus of
Nazara, vi. 226-230; Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu (2 Aufl. 1874), pp.
75-80; also Lewin, Fasti sacri, p. lxvii., p. 247, n. 1493; Rhoden, De
Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis, 1885, p. 33 sq. [880] Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 4. 3, xv. 11. 4 After he had meanwhile been occupied with the Parthian
expedition (see above, p. 34), the campaign against Aretas, which he had been
ordered by Tiberius in the spring of A.D. 37 to undertake, led him again to
Jerusalem (see above, p. 33). On this occasion also he again established a good
understanding by showing consideration for Jewish sentiments. The way from
Antioch to Petra had led him, together with his army, through Judea proper. But
the Roman standards, as is well known, were offensive to the Jews. They
therefore sent to Vitellius at Ptolemais an embassy, which entreated him with
tears that he should not lead his army through the Holy Land. Vitellius was so
reasonable as to perceive the grounds of their request, caused the army to march
through the Great Plain, and went himself alone to Jerusalem. On the fourth day
of his stay there he received tidings of Tiberius’ death, whereupon he led his
whole army back to Antioch.[881] [881] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3.—The
designation the “Great Plain” was plainly used for two plains in Palestine, as
has been shown in a convincing manner by Reland, Palaestina, pp. 359-370. (1)
Most frequently this designation is used for the plain which begins at Ptolemais
and stretches thence to the northern slope of Carmel in a south-easterly
direction. At its south-eastern end lies the famous battlefield of Jezreel
(יִזְרְעֵאל, also Esdraelon), after which the plain is also named. Compare
Judith i. 5, also i. 8: τὸ μέγα πεδίον Ἐσδρηλώμ; 1Ma_12:49; Josephus, Wars of
the Jews, ii. 10. 2; Ptolemais, κατὰ τὸ μέγα πεδίον ἑκτισμένη; Antiq. v. 1. 22,
viii. 2. 3, xv. 8. 5, xx. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 1, 4 1; Life, 24, 26,
62; Winer, Realwoürterbuch, i. 580 f. (art. “Jiereel”); Robinson, Biblical
Researches in Palestine, iii. 337; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 335-357;
Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 689 ff.—(2) But this same designation was also used for
the Jordan Valley between the lake of Gennezaret and the Dead Sea, Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 2: τὸ μέγα πεδίον καλεῖται, ἀπὸ κώμης Γινναβρὶν διῆκον
μέχριτῆς Ἀσφαλτίτιδος λίμνης. Ginnabrin is without doubt the same place, which
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 7, calls Sennabris, in the neighbourhood of
Tiberias. See Tuch, Quaestio de Flavii Josephi loco B. J. iv. 8. 2, Lips. 1860,
and Gust. Boettger, Topogr.-hist. Lexicon zu den Schriften des Flaviis Josephus,
1879, pp. 136, 228. Josephus, Antiq. iv. 6. 1: ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην κατὰ τὸ μέγα
πεδίον Ἱεριχοῦντος ἀντικρύ. The Jordan Valley is also intended in 1Ma_5:52
(=Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 5): εἰς τὸ πεδίον τὸ μέγα κατὰ πρόσωπον Βαιθσάν
(where Keil, against Grimm, gives the correct explanation). The Plain of Jezreel
was not reckoned down to Beth-sean or Scythopolis, but rather Mount Tabor lay,
according to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 8, “between Scythopolis and the
Great Plain.”—A third plain, namely, that of Asochis, north of Sepphoris (see
vol. i. p. 296), appears in Josephus, Life, 41 fin., to be designated too as the
“Great Plain.” But this was really attached to the Plain of Jezreel, and ought
to be reckoned along with it; for only upon this hypothesis is the very passage
referred to, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 8, intelligible.—In the case referred to
in our text the plain beginning at Ptolemais is the one intended. Vitellius
caused his army to march through it in a south-easterly direction, then
presumably across the Jordan, continuing the march on the other side farther to
the south. The reign of Caligula, A.D. 37-41, was, after the rule of Tiberius,
the enemy of the human race, joyfully greeted throughout the whole empire, and
especially among the Jews. Since Vitellius was residing in Jerusalem when the
news of the change of government reached him, the Jews were the first of the
nationalities of Syria who professed to the new emperor the oath of allegiance,
and presented sacrifices for him.[882] Also during the first eighteen months of
his reign the Jews enjoyed peace and quiet.[883] But in the autumn of A.D. 38 a
bloody persecution of the Jews broke out in Alexandria, which, though apparently
at the instance of the Alexandrian mob, was yet indirectly the work of the
emperor.[884] In his overweaning self-conceit, joined with a beclouded
intellect, he took up the idea of his divine rank with terrible earnestness.
With him the worship of the emperor was no mere form of homage which the
emperors had taken over as a heritage of the Greek kings; but he actually
believed in his divinity, and regarded the refusal to worship him as a proof of
hostility to his person.[885] During the second year of his reign this idea
seems to have obtained a complete mastery over him, and to have become known in
the provinces. The provincials developed a corresponding zeal. The Jews, who
could not follow this course, fell under suspicion of hostility to Caesar. This
was to the Jew hating populace of Alexandria a welcome excuse for giving free
expression to their hatred of the Jews; for they might well suppose that by
persecuting the Jews they would earn the favour of the emperor. The governor of
Egypt at that time, A. Avillius Flaccus, was weak enough for the sake of his own
interests to agree to the plans of the enemies of the Jews. He had been governor
of Egypt under Tiberius for five years, A.D. 32-37, and, according to the
testimony of Philo, had during that time administered his office in a faultless
manner.[886] Under Caligula he more and more lost that reputation. As an
intimate friend of Tiberius, he stood, as a matter of course, in disfavour with
Caligula. With the death of young Tiberius, grandson of the Emperor Tiberius,
and of the praetorian prefect Macro, both of whom were compelled by Caligula to
commit suicide, he completely lost every support at the court. Thenceforth he
set no other end before him than this, namely, to endeavour by all means to
secure the favour of the young emperor. This was the one principle that
determined his proceedings toward the Jews.[887] [882] Philo, De Legatione ad
Cajum, sec. 32 (Opera, ed. Mangey, ii. 580): Γαΐω παραλαβόντι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν
πρῶτοι τῶν κατὰ Συρίαν ἁπάντων ἡμεῖς συνήσθημεν, Οὐιτελλίου τότε . . ἐν τῇ πόλει
διατρίβοντος, ᾧ τὰ περὶ τούτων ἐκομίσθη γράμματα. … Πρῶτον τὸ ἡμέτερον ἱερὸν
ἐδέξατο τὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀρχῆς Γαΐου θυσίας. Compare on the sacrifices also sec. 45,
Mangey, ii. 598. On the oath: Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3. See further on this
point, vol. i. p. 445. [883] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 7. 2 fin.: Γάιος δὲ τὸν μὲν
πρῶτον ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ τὸν ἑξῆς πάνυ μεγαλοφρόνως ἐχρῆτο τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ μέτριον
παρέχων αὑτὸν εἰς εὔνοιαν προυχώρει παρά τε Ῥωμαίοις αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὑπηκόοις.
[884] Compare on the persecutions of the Jews under Caligula: Tillemont,
Histoire des empereurs, t. i. Venise 1732, pp. 434-462, 629-632; Lewin, Fasti
sacri, London 1865, ad ann. 38-41; Delaunay, Philon d’Alexandrie, écrits
historiques, influence, luttes et persécutions des juifs dans le monde romain, 2
ed. Paris 1870; Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome, New York 1876, pp. 199-222;
Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Bd. ii. 2 Aufl. pp. 225-251; Grätz,
“Präcisirung der Zeit für die, die Judäer betreffenden Vorgänge unter dem Kaiser
Caligula” (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1877,
pp. 97 ff., 145 ff., reprinted in Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. pp.
759-769); Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 515-519.—For other literature, see
Div. II. vol. iii. pp. 349-354. [885] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 11-15 (ed.
Mangey, ii. 556-561); Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 7. 2 fin., 8. 1, xix. 1. 1 ff.;
Dio Cassius, lix. 26,28; Suetonius, Caligula, 22; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche
Zeitgeschichte, ii. 225 ff. [886] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 3 init., ed. Mangey,
ii. 518: Ἑξαετίαν γὰρ τὴν ἐπικράτειαν λαβὼν πέντε μὲν ἔτη τὰ πρῶτα, ζῶντος
Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, τήν τε εἰρήνην διεφύλαξε καὶ οὕτως εὐτόνως καὶ ἐρρωμένως
ἀφηγήσατο, ὡς τοὺς πρὁ αὐτοῦ πάντας ὑπερβαλεῖν. Compare secs. 1-2, Mangey, ii.
517, 518.—The name of Flaccus is given in Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 1, as Φλάκκος
Ἀουίλλιος. So, too, by Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 150 sq. According
to Jerome, Flaccus Avilius; according to Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 626: Φλάκκος
Ἀβίλιος, corrupted in i. 615 into Φλάκκος Ἀσύλαιος. An inscription of the time
of Tiberius at Tentyra in Egypt gives the full name (Letronne, Recueil des
inscriptions gr. et lat. de l’Égypte, i. 87 sqq.= Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
4716=Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Bd. xii. Bl. 76, Inscr. Gr.
n. 27): ἐπὶ Αὔλου Ἀουιλλίου Φλάκκου ἡγεμόνος. The reading is indeed doubtful in
several places. The praenomen Αὔλου, however, seems from a facsimile by Lepsius
to be quite certain. It was so given also by Letronne; but the Corp. inscr.
Graec. reads Λυ[κίου].—Flaccus is also mentioned in Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4957,
lin. 27. [887] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 3-4, Opera, ed. Mangey, ii. 518-520.—On
the death of young Tiberius, see also Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 4-5, Mangey,
ii. 549 sq.; Dio Cassius, lix. 8; Suetonius, Caligula, 23. On the death of
Nävius Sertorius Macro (after the overthrow of Sejanus, A.D. 31, praefactus
praetorio, see Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 402); Philo, Legat. ad Cajum,
secs. 6-8, Mangey, ii. 550-554; Dio Caasius, lix. 10; Suetonius, Caligula,
26.—The death of Tiberius, according to Dio Cassius, l.c., occurred in A.D. 37;
that of Macro in A.D. 38. The presence of the Jewish king Agrippa in Alexandria
gave the ostensible occasion for the outbreak of the persecution of the Jews. He
arrived in Alexandria, on his homeward journey from Rome to Palestine, in August
A.D. 38. Although, as Philo has assured us, he avoided everything calculated to
produce a commotion, the mere appearance of a Jewish king was an offence to the
mob of Alexandria. Agrippa was first of all treated with indignity and insult in
the gymnasium, and then exposed to ridicule in the performances of a pantomime.
A man called Karabas, suffering from mental derangement, was decked in uniform
similar to the king’s dress, and was mockingly greeted as king, the people
addressing him in the Syrian as Μάριν, Lord.[888] The mob, however, once roused
to riot, was not disposed to be pacified. They now insisted upon placing statues
of the emperor in the Jewish synagogues, called by Philo simply προσευχαί.
Flaccus did not venture to oppose them, but rather agreed to all the demands of
the enemies of the Jews. These again, the more the governor seemed disposed to
yield to them, became the more extravagant in their demands. Flaccus gave
permission successively to the setting up of images in the synagogues, to the
pronouncing of the Jews, by an edict, no longer in the enjoyment of the rights
of citizens, and, finally, he gave his sanction to a general persecution of the
Jews.[889] Dreadful sufferings were now endured by the Jewish population of
Alexandria. Their houses and warehouses were plundered; the Jews were themselves
maltreated, murdered, the bodies mutilated; others publicly burned; others,
again, dragged alive through the streets. The synagogues were, some of them
destroyed, others profaned by the setting up of the image of Caligula as a god;
in the largest synagogue the image of Caligula was set up on a high damaged
Quadriga, which they had dragged thither from the gymnasium.[890] The governor
Flaccus not only let all this go on without interfering, but also himself
proceeded with severe measures against the Jews, for which, according to Philo,
he had no other reason than the refusal of the Jews to take part in the worship
of the emperor. He caused thirty-eight members of the Jewish Gerousia to be
carried bound into the theatre, and there to be scourged before the eyes of
their enemies, so that some of them died under the infliction of the lash, and
others were thrown into long and severe illnesses.[891] A centurion was
commanded to search with a select band through the houses of the Jews for arms.
Jewish women were compelled before spectators in the theatre to partake of
swine’s flesh.[892] Flaccus had even before this shown his hostility to the Jews
by failing to send to the emperor, as he had promised to do, but retaining in
his own possession, a petition from the Jewish community, in which an
explanation was given of the attitude of the Jews in reference to the honours
demanded by the emperor. This writing was first sent up by Agrippa, with a
statement of the reason of the delay.[893] [888] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 5-6,
ed. Mangey, ii. 521 sq. [889] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 6-8, ed. Mangey, ii.
523-525.—Philo distinguishes in the career of Flaccus three stages: (1) Sec. 6
fin.: ἐπιτρέπες ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀνάθησιν. (2) Sec. 8 init.: ὀλίγαις ὕστερον
ἡμέραις τίθησι πρόγραμμα, διʼ οὖ ξένους καὶ ἐπήλυδας ἡμᾶς ἀπεκάλει; (3) ibid.
εἶτα δυσὶ τοῖς προτέροις καὶ τρίτον προσέθηκεν, ἐφεὶς ὡς ἐν ἁλώσει τοῖς ἐθέλουσι
πορθεῖν Ἰουδαίους. [890] Plundering of houses: Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 8, ed.
Mangey, ii. 525; Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 18, ed. Mangey, ii. 563.—Massacre of the
Jews: Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 9, ed. Mangey, ii. 526 sq.; Legat. at Cajum, sec.
19, ed. Mangey, ii. 564,—Destruction and profanation of the synagogues or
proseuchae: Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 20, ed. Mangey. ii. 565.—The plundering,
according to Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 11, ed. Mangey, ii. 531 init., extended to
four hundred houses.—In Div. II. vol. iii. p. 349, following Mangey’s note, ii.
564, and Köstlin in Theologische Jahrbb. 1854, p. 398, I expressed myself to the
effect that the persecution described in the Legat. ad Cajum is another than
that described in the treatise In Flaccum, Subsequent examination of the facts,
however, has convinced me that the two are identical, as I had previously, with
many others, maintained in the first edition of this work. The details are so
precisely the same that their identity cannot be doubted. Compare especially, In
Flaccum, sec. 9; Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 19. Sometimes there is even a verbal
agreement, as, In Flaccum, sec. 9, ed. Mangey, 527: φρυγανα συλλέγοντες καπνῷ τὸ
πλέον ἢ πυρὶ διέφθειρον; and Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 19, ed. Mangey, ii. 564: οἱ
δὲ ἡμίφλεκτοι καπνῷ τὸ πλέον ἢ πυρὶ διεφθείροντο τῆς φρυγανώδους ὕλης. It does
not, however, give one the impression of literary dependence. The relationship
is, from a literary point of view, very free, as it would naturally be if the
same writer described at different times the same incidents. [891] Philo, In
Flaccum, sec. 10, ed. Mangey, ii. 527-529. [892] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 11, ed.
Mangey, ii. 529-531. [893] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 12, ed. Mangey, ii. 531, 532.
We are not in possession of any detailed information as to the circumstances of
the Alexandrian community after the severe persecution of the autumn of A.D. 38
down to the death of Caligula in January A.D. 41. In autumn of A.D. 38 Flaccus
was suddenly, at the command of the emperor, carried as a prisoner to Rome, and
banished to the island of Andros in the Aegean Sea, where subsequently he was,
together with other distinguished exiles, put to death by the orders of
Caligula.[894] Who his successor was is unknown.[895] It may be accepted as
highly probable that the Jews did not get back their synagogues during
Caligula’s lifetime, and that the worship of the emperor continued a burning
question, and one involving the Jews in danger. In A.D. 40, probably in spring,
in consequence of the still continuing conflicts between the heathen and Jewish
population of Alexandria, an embassy from both parties went to the emperor to
complain against one another, and seek to win over the emperor to their side.
The leader of the Jewish embassy was Philo; the leader of his opponents was the
scholar Apion. The result was unfavourable to the Jews. They were ungraciously
received by the emperor, and were obliged to return without having effected
their object. So Josephus briefly tells the story.[896] A few incidents
connected with this embassy are also told by Philo in his work about Caligula.
But it is difficult to obtain any definite information from these fragmentary
notices. Without having referred to the sending of one of the two embassies,
Philo first of all states that the ambassadors of the Alexandrians won over
completely to their interests the slave Helicon, a favourite of Caligula. When
the Jews perceived this, they made similar endeavours on their part, but in
vain.[897] They then concluded to pass on to the emperor a written statement,
which contained the main points embraced in the petition shortly before sent in
by King Agrippa. Caligula received the Jewish ambassadors first of all in the
Campus Martius at Rome, and promised to hear them at a convenient time.[898] The
ambassadors then followed the emperor to Puteoli, where, however, they were not
received.[899] Only at a later period—we know not how much later—the promised
audience took place at Rome, in the gardens of Maecenas and Lamia, at which the
emperor—while he inspected the works that were going on, and gave orders
regarding them—caused the Jews to keep moving on always behind him, throwing out
to them now and again a contemptuous remark, amid the applause of the
ambassadors of the other party, until at last he dismissed them, declaring that
they were to be regarded rather as foolish than as wicked men, since they would
not believe in his divinity.[900] [894] Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 12-21, ed.
Mangey, ii. 532-544—The chronological data for the incidents above recorded
converge upon the autumn of A.D. 38. Compare Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1534-1538.
Agrippa arrived at Alexandria favoured by the trade-winds (ἐτήσιοι, In Flaccum,
sec. 5, ed. Mangey, ii. 521), which blow from the 20th of July for the space of
thirty days (Pliny, Hist. Nat. ii. 47. 124, xviii. 28. 270). The scourging of
the thirty-eight members of the Jewish Gerousia took place on Caligula’s
birthday (In Flaccum, sec. 10, ed. Mangey, ii. 529), i.e. on the 31st August
(Suetonius, Caligula, 8). The departure of Flaccus, which occurred soon after
this, took place during the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles (In Flaccum, see. 14
init. ed. Mangey, ii. 534); therefore in September or October.—The year 38 is
obtained from the two following facts: (1) Agrippa returned from Rome to
Palestine in the second year of Caligula (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 11). (2)
The Jewish warehouses were plundered when they had been closed on account of the
mourning for Drusilla, the sister of Caligula (Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 8, ed.
Mangey, ii. 525). But she died in A.D. 38 (Dio Caesius, lix. 10-11). [895]
According to Dio Cassius, lix. 10, Caligula had appointed Macro governor of
Egypt But he, while still Flaccus was governor of Egypt, was compelled to commit
suicide (Philo, In Flaccum, secs. 3-4, ed. Mangey, ii. 519). He therefore never
actually entered upon his governorship. Compare generally on the governors of
Egypt, Corpus Inscr. Graec. t. iii. p. 310 sq. [896] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8.
1.—According to Josephus the two embassies consisted each of three men;
according to Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 46, ed. Mangey, ii. 600, the Jewish
embassy consisted of five men. [897] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 25-26, ed.
Mangey, ii 570 (Helicon); ibid. sec. 27, ed. Mangey, ii. 571 (the ambassadors of
the Alexandrians); ibid. secs. 27-28, ed. Mangey, ii. 571 sq. (how the Jewish
ambassadors vainly entreated Helicon to secure them an audience). [898] Philo,
Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 28, ed. Mangey, ii. 572 (the narrator here speaks
evidently, in the first person, of himself). [899] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec.
29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573. [900] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 44-46, ed. Mangey,
ii. 597-600.—In the narrative of Philo, it is remarkable that he speaks about
the complaints of the Alexandrian and Jewish ambassadors in Rome without having
made any mention of the sending of the embassies. Possibly there is some gap in
the text that has come down to us. So Massebieau, Le classement des oeuvres de
Philon [Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences
religieuses, vol. i. Paris 1889], p. 65 sqq. But this hypothesis seems to me
quite unnecessary; for Philo does not by any means propose to tell the history
of this embassy, as one might suppose from the false title, which was not given
by Philo himself. His theme is rather the same as that of Lactantius in his
treatise, De Mortibus Persecutorum: that the persecutors of the pious are
punished by God. So correctly Massebieau. As with Flaccus, so also with
Caligula—first of all his evil deeds are enumerated, and then the divine
retribution; only this second half of the treatise about Caligula is no longer
extant. The Jews are here, therefore, not the principal figures, but Caligula;
and so the Jewish embassy from Alexandria to Rome is quite a subordinate matter.
From this point of view, also, other difficulties are probably to be explained.
Caligula was absent from Rome on an expedition to Gaul from the autumn of A.D.
39 till the 31st August A.D. 40 (see above, p. 36). Did the twice-repeated
reception of the embassy take place before or after the expedition? According to
Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573 fin., the ambassadors made
the sea journey during the winter (χειμῶνος μέσου). Since the business on which
they were engaged had become a matter of burning interest in consequence of the
great persecution of autumn A.D. 38, we would naturally at first fix the date of
the journey in the winter of A.D. 38-39. This view is favoured by the
circumstance that the written apology which the ambassadors laid before the
emperor is said to have been of similar contents with that “shortly before” (πρὸ
ὀλίγου) sent by Agrippa, on the occasion of his visit to Alexandria (Legat. ad
Cajum, sec. 28, ed. Mangey, ii. 572), which undoubtedly refers to the same
affair as has been narrated above on p. 95. For these reasons Lewin, Fasti
sacri, n. 1539-1540, places the setting out of the embassy in the end of A.D.
38, its first reception in the Campus Martius and going down to Puteoli in the
beginning of A.D. 39, before the expedition to Gaul (ibid. n. 1551, 1557); but
the second audience, in the gardens of Maecenas and Lamia, after the Gallic
campaign, in the autumn of A.D. 40 (ibid. n. 1600). Keim, Jesus of Nasara, i.
281, reaches, as it seems, the same result. But this arrangement is really
impossible, because the ambassadors first received at Puteoli the news that
Caligula had ordered his statue to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem (Philo,
Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573). This, as the following
exposition will show, cannot have happened before the spring of A.D. 40. We are
therefore obliged to net even the first reception, and the immediately following
movement down to Puteoli, in the autumn of A.D. 40, after the Gallic campaign.
That during this period, also, Caligula was once at Puteoli may be concluded
from Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxii. 1, 4, where mention is made of Caligula’s return
“from Astura to Antium” not long before his death. The second audience, in the
gardens of Maecenas and Lamia, at any rate took place after the expedition to
Gaul; for the ambassadors there refer to the fact that the Jews had offered
sacrifices for the emperor κατὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς Γερμανικῆς νίκης (Legat. ad
Cajum, sec. 45, ed. Mangey, ii. 598). If, therefore, the audiences of the Jews
with Caligula are not to be assigned to an earlier date than autumn of A.D. 40,
the question may be raised whether their winter journey should not be referred
to the late autumn of A.D. 40? This is the opinion of Grätz, expressed in his
treatise referred to above on p. 91. This date, however, would be too late,
since it could not then be explained how the ambassadors first heard in Puteoli
of events which had occurred in Palestine as early as the beginning of summer.
It is therefore to be assumed that the ambassadors made their journey in the end
of the winter of A.D. 39-40, waited in Rome for Caligula’s return, and in autumn
were received by him. So Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, t i. p. 457;
Delaunay, Philon d’Alexandrie, p. 180; also Noris, Opera, ii. 659 sq.; and
Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, p. 313. Sanclemente opposes Noris’
opinion, that the audience described by Philo, sees. 44-45, occurred before the
going down to Puteoli referred to in sec. 29. But whether we accept this
combination or that, in any case we fail to discover in Philo’s exposition not
only an account of the sending out of the Jewish-Alexandrian embassy, but also a
full and comprehensive account of what befell it in Rome. Still more singular is
it that Philo should have communicated nothing about the state of affairs in
Alexandria itself from autumn A.D. 38 till Caligula’s death, so that it is not
explained why the embassy did not start till eighteen months after the great
persecution. But all this may be satisfactorily explained if we accept what we
said above as to the purpose of the writing. Affairs at Alexandria remained in
suspense down to the death of Caligula. One of the first acts of the new
emperor, Claudius, was to issue an edict by which all their earlier privileges
were confirmed to the Alexandrian Jews, and the unrestricted liberty to practise
their own religion was anew granted them.[901] [901] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 5. 2.
While the Alexandrian embassy to Rome waited for the imperial decision, a
serious storm burst upon the mother country of Palestine. It had its origin in
Jamnia, a town on the Philistine coast which was mainly inhabited by Jews. When
the heathen inhabitants of that place, in order to show their zeal for Caesar
and at the same time to aggravate the Jews, erected a rude altar to the emperor,
this was immediately again destroyed by the Jews. The incident was reported by
the imperial procurator of the city, Herennius Capito,[902] to the emperor, who,
in order to avenge himself upon the refractory Jews, gave orders that his statue
should be set up in the temple of Jerusalem.[903] As it was foreseen that such
an attempt would call forth violent opposition, the governor of Syria, P.
Petronius, received a command to have the one half of the army[904] stationed
“on the Euphrates,” i.e. in Syria, in readiness to proceed to Palestine, in
order by their assistance to carry out the will of the emperor. This moderate
and reasonable man obeyed the childish demand with a heavy heart during the
winter of A.D. 39-40. While he was getting the statue prepared in Sidon, he
gathered about him the heads of the Jewish people, and sought to persuade them
to yield with a good grace; but all in vain.[905] [902] He was not as Philo
names him: φόρων ἐκλογεὺς τῶν τῆς Ἰουδαίας, but only ὁ τῆς Ἰαμνείας ἐπίροπος
(Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 3). Jamnia was merely a private estate of the
emperor (Antiq. xviii. 2. 2).—Should not also in the text of Philo Ἰαμνείας be
read instead of Ἰουδαίας? [903] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 30, ed. Mangey, ii.
575 sq. [904] According to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2, two legions; according
to Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 1, three. The former statement is the correct one;
for in Syria there were four legions (see above, p. 50). When therefore Philo,
sec. 31, says “the half,” this agrees with Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2. [905]
Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 31, ed. Mangey, ii. 576-579.—The date is determined
by the fact that the negotiations following at Ptolemais took place during
harvest, therefore between Passover and Pentecost and in the year 40, as the
current report declares. But since, according to Antiq. xviii. 8. 2, Petronius
had gone into his winter quarters at Ptolemais, he must have gone there in
winter, A.D. 39-40. Josephus’ words are certainly calculated to give one the
impression that these events did not occur till the winter of A.D. 40-41. See
vol. i. p. 365. Soon the news of what was proposed spread over all Palestine,
and now the people assembled in great crowds at Ptolemais, where Petrouius had
his headquarters. “Like a cloud the multitude of the Jews covered all
Phoenicia.” Well arranged, divided into six groups—old men, able-bodied men,
boys, old women, wives and maidens, the mass deputation appeared before
Petronius. Their mournful complaints and groans made such an impression upon
Petronius that he resolved at all hazards to make the attempt to put off the
decision for a time at least.[906] The full truth, that he really wished to have
a stop put to the whole business, he dared not indeed write to the emperor. He
wrote him rather that he entreated for delay, partly because time was required
for the preparing of the statue, partly because the harvest was approaching,
which it would be advisable to see gathered in, since otherwise the exasperated
Jews might in the end destroy the whole harvest. When Caligula received that
letter, he was greatly enraged at the dilatoriness of his governor. But he did
not venture to give expression to his wrath, but wrote him a letter of
acknowledgment in which he praised his prudence, and only advised him to proceed
as quickly as possible with the preparation of the statue, since the harvest
would be already about an end.[907] [906] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 32 f.,
ed. Mangey, ii. 579-582; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10.
1-3. [907] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 33-34, ed. Mangey, ii. 582-584. This
correspondence does not occur to be identical with that spoken of by Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 8. 2; for the latter had taken place before the proceedings at
Ptolemais. Petronius, however, did not even yet proceed with any vigour in the
matter, but entered anew into negotiations with the Jews. Yea, even late in
autumn, down to the season of sowing in November, we find him at Tiberias
besieged for forty days by crowds of people to be numbered by thousands, who
besought him with tears that he would yet save the country from the threatened
horror of temple desecration. When at length Aristobulus also, the brother of
King Agrippa and other relatives of his joined their prayers to those of the
people, Petronius resolved to take the decisive step of asking the emperor to
revoke his order. He led his army back from Ptolemais to Antioch, and set before
the emperor, in a letter which he sent for this purpose to Caligula, how upon
grounds of equity and prudence it would be advisable to recall the offensive
edict.[908] [908] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 3-6; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 3-5.
The recall of the army is merely mentioned in Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 5.
Meanwhile affairs at Rome affecting matters in question had taken a more
favourable turn. King Agrippa I., who in spring of the year 40 had left
Palestine, met with Caligula in Rome or at Puteoli in autumn, when the emperor
had just returned from his German campaign.[909] He had as yet heard nothing of
what was going on in Palestine. But the glance of the emperor’s eye assured him
that he was nursing secret wrath in his heart. When he sought in vain for the
cause of such feelings, the emperor observed his embarrassment, and let him know
in a very ungracious tone what the cause of his displeasure was. The king on
hearing this was so horror-stricken that he fell into a fainting fit, from which
he did not recover till the evening of the following day.[910] On his recovery
he made it his first business to address a supplication to the emperor, in which
he endeavoured to persuade him to recall his order by showing that none of his
predecessors had ever attempted anything of that sort.[911] Contrary to all
expectation, the letter of Agrippa had the desired effect. Caligula caused a
letter to be written to Petronius, commanding that nothing should be changed in
the temple at Jerusalem. The favour was certainly not unmixed; for along with
this order there was an injunction that no one who should erect a temple or
altar to the emperor outside of Jerusalem should be hindered from doing so. A
good part of the concession that had been made was thus again withdrawn; and it
was only owing to the circumstance that no one took advantage of the right thus
granted, that new disturbances did not arise out of it. The emperor, indeed,
soon repented that he had made that concession. And so, as he made no further
use of the statue that had been prepared at Sidon, he ordered a new one to be
made in Rome which he intended himself, in his journey to Alexandria which he
had in prospect, to put ashore on the coast of Palestine as he passed, and have
it secretly brought to Jerusalem.[912] Only the death of the emperor that soon
followed prevented the carrying out of this enterprise. [909] That Agrippa had
left Palestine as early as spring may be deduced from this, that he knew nothing
of what had been going on in Palestine when he arrived in Rome. He cannot,
however, have been in company with Caligula in Gaul, as Dio Cassius, lix. 24,
conjectures, but must have gone first to Rome or Puteoli, some time after the
return of Caligula from his campaign on 31st August A.D. 40. For had Agrippa’s
intervention that was crowned with success already occurred in Gaul, it would
not have been only after Caligula’s return, and after they had followed the
emperor to Puteoli, that the Alexandrian ambassadors would have first heard the
sad news about the affairs of Palestine, as was the case (Philo, Legat. ad
Cajum, sec. 29, ed. Mangey, ii. 573). The intervention of Agrippa must therefore
have taken place after that time. It therefore follows from this that Petronius,
late in autumn, in the time of sowing, and not long before Caligula’s death,
therefore somewhere about November, petitioned for the revoking of the order. He
cannot therefore have then had in his hands Caligula’s decision in reference to
the matter; and this cannot in that case have been agreed upon in Rome earlier
than some time in September or October.—That the intervention of Agrippa took
place in A.D. 40 is made plain on general grounds from the contents of his
supplication, in which he designates himself as already in possession of Galilee
(Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 41, ed. Mangey, ii 593). [910] Philo, Legat. ad
Cajum, sec. 35, ed. Mangey, ii. 584-586. [911] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs.
36-41, ed. Mangey, ii. 586-594. [912] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 42-43, ed.
Mangey, ii. 594, 595. The projected journey to Alexandria is also mentioned in
sec. 33, ed. Mangey, ii. 583, and in Suetonius, Caligula, c. 49.—A somewhat
different account of Agrippa’s intervention is given by Josephus, Antiq. xviii.
8. 7-8. According to him, on a particular occasion when Agrippa had won the
special good will of the emperor by means of a luxurious banquet, Caligula
demanded of the Jewish king that he should ask of him any favour that he
desired, whereupon he besought the emperor for the revocation of the order to
set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem. The result, according to Josephus,
was the same, namely, that the prayer was granted. For the person of Petronius
as well as for the land of Judea the death of the emperor was a favourable
occurrence. When, further, Caligula, after he himself had arranged for the
stopping of proceedings, received the letter of Petronius expressing the wish
referred to, he fell into a furious passion about the disobedience of this
officer, and caused a command immediately to be issued, that as a punishment for
that he should take away his own life. Soon thereafter, however, Caligula was
murdered, 24th January A.D. 41; and Petronius received the news thereof
twenty-seven days before the messengers arrived with the order for
self-destruction; for these, in consequence of unfavourable weather, had been
three full months upon their way. There was now just as little idea of carrying
out the order for self-murder as there was of setting up the statue in the
temple of Jerusalem.[913] [913] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 8-9; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 10. 5.—Compare also, generally, the Jewish tradition in Derenbourg, p.
207 sq. The order of succession in time of the different incidents recorded may
be set forth in something like the following arrangement. It must be here
presupposed that the transmission of news from Rome or Gaul to Jerusalem, and
vice versâ, would ordinarily take about two months:— Winter, A.D. 39-40:
|Petronius receives orders from Caligula to set up his statue in the temple at
Jerusalem, and goes with two legions into Palestine. | April or May A.D. 40:
|When harvest was at hand, the negotiations were opened at Ptolemais. First
report of Petronius to Caligula (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, secs. 32-33; Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 8. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10.1-3). | June: |Caligula receives
Petronius’ first report, and answers him, urging him to make haste (Philo, sec.
34). | August: |Petronius receives Caligula’s answer, hut still puts off the
final decision. | End of September: |Agrippa pays a visit to Caligula at Rome or
Puteoli; learns of what had happened, and intervenes. Caligula sende to
Petronius the order to put a stop to the undertaking (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum,
secs. 35-42; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 7-8). | Beginning of November:
|Negotiations at Tiberias in time of sowing; Petronius prays the emperor to
desist from setting up the statue (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 3-6; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 10. 3-5). | End of November: |Petronius receives the order to put a
stop to the undertaking. | Beginning of January A.D. 41: |Caligula receives the
petition of Petronius to A.D. 41: desist from setting up the statue, and sends
him the order to take away his own life (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 8). | 24th
January A.D. 41: |Caligula is murdered. | Beginning of March: |Petronius
receives the news of Caligula’s death. | Beginning of April: |Petronius receives
the letter with the order for self-destruction (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 9;
Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 5). | This table may still be regarded as essentially
correct, even if in some cases the time taken for a letter to travel from Italy
or Gaul to Palestine, and vice versâ, might be somewhat shorter. On the average
the time may be put down at between one or two months. It deserves, however, to
be taken into consideration that Caligula was in summer still in Gaul, and that
in winter news travelled slowly and irregularly. The most difficult point in our
chronology is this, that Agrippa as well as the Alexandrian Jewish embassy did
not hear of Caligula’s order with reference to the temple of Jerusalem earlier
than sometime in September (see above, pp. 98 and 101); whereas, according to
Philo, the affair was already matter of common talk in Palestine in harvest
time, as early as April or May. Tillemont had for this reason given up the later
statement of Philo as unhistorical (Histoire des empereurs, t. i. Venise 1732,
p. 630 sq., Notes sur la ruine des juifs, note ix.); so also in recent times,
Grätz Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 97 ff., 145 ff.=Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4
Aufl. p. 759 ff. But the statements of Philo are on this point so definite and
detailed (Legat. ad Cajum, sec. 33, ed. Mangey, ii. 583: ἐν ἀκμῇ μὲν γὰρ τὸν τοῦ
σίτου καρπὸν εἶναι., etc., compare also sec. 34 fin., ed. Mangey, ii. 584) that
it seems very risky to have recourse to such violent measures. The new emperor,
Claudius, who had been raised to the throne by the soldiers, immediately upon
his accession gifted to Agrippa, besides the dominion which he already had
possession under Caligula, Judea and Samaria, so that now again all Palestine,
to the same extent which it formerly had under Herod the Great, was united in
the hand of a Herodian.[914] [914] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews,
ii. 11. 5. EXCURSUS I—THE VALUATION CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS, Luke 2:1-5
LITERATURE[915] [915] The most complete monographs are those marked with an
asterisk.—The earlier literature is given by Hase, Leben Jesu, § 23 b; Huschke,
1840, p. 8; Winer, Beälwöterbuch, ii. 292-294; Meyer on Luke 2:2; Gumpach,
Studien und Kritiken, 1852, p. 663 f, The more recent especially in Lecoultre,
De censu Quiriniano (1883), p. 7 sq., and Sieffert in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xiii. 455. GRESWELL, Dissertations upon the
Principles and Arrangement of a Harmony of the Gospels, 3 vols. Oxford 1830,
vol. i. pp. 443-524. By the same author, Supplementary Dissertations, Oxford
1834, p. 114 sqq. These works have not been accessible to me. FAIRBAIBN,
Hermeneutical Manual, Edinburgh 1857, pp. 461-475. [916]HUSCHKE, Ueber den zur
Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census, 1840 (125 pp.). [916] The most
complete monographs are marked with an asterisk. [917]HUSCHKE, Ueber den Census
und die Steuerverfassung der früheren römischen Kaiserzeit, 1847 (208 pp.).
[917] The most complete monographs are marked with an asterisk. [918]WIESELER,
Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Cambridge 1864 (Original, 1843), pp.
95-135. [918] The most complete monographs are marked with an asterisk. WINER,
Bealwörterbuch, arts. “Quirinius” and “Schatzung.” GUMPACH, “Die Schatzung”
(Studien und Kritiken, 1852, pp. 663-684). LICHTENSTEIN, Lebensgeschichte des
Herrn Jesu Christi, 1856, pp. 78-90. KÖHLER, art “Schatzung” in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 1860, pp. 463-467. BLEEK, Synoptische
Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien (1862), i. 66-75. GODET, Commentary on
Gospel of St. Luke , 2 vols. Edin. 1875, vol. 1. pp. 120-129. MEYER on Luke
2:1-2; also the revision by Weiss; and generally the Commentaries on Luke’s
Gospel. STRAUSS, Leben Jesu, 1864, pp. 336-340; Die Halben und die Ganzen, 1865,
pp. 70-79. ABERLE, “Ueber den Statthalter Quirinius” (Tüb. Theolog.
Quartalscrift, 1865, pp. 103-148; 1868, pp. 29-64; 1874, pp. 663-687).
HILGENFELD, “Quirinius als Statthalter Syriens” (Zeitschrift für
wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1865, pp. 408-421; 1870, pp. 151-167). GERLACH, Die
römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, 1865, pp. 22-42. LUTTEROTH, Le
récensement de Quirinius en Judée, Paris 1865 (134 pp.). RODBERTUS, “Zur
Geschichte der römischen Tributsteuern seit Augustus” (Hildebrand’s Jahrbücher
für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Bd. iv. 1865, pp. 341-427; Bd. v. 1865, pp.
135-171, 241-315; Bd. viii. 1867, pp. 81-126, 385-475. On the passage in Luke,
Bd. v. 155 ff.). EWALD, History of Israel, vi. pp. 155-157. KEIM, Jesus of
Nazara, ii. 116-123. EBRARD, Gospel History. [919]WIESELER, Beiträge zur
richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, 1869, pp. 16-107. By same author, Studien
und Kritiken, 1875, pp. 535-549. [919] The most complete monographs are marked
with an asterisk. FARRAR, Life of Christ, vol. i. p. 7, note; vol. ii. p. 450.
CASPARI, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, pp.
34-38. [920]ZUMPT, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1869, pp. 20-224. [920] The most
complete monographs are marked with an asterisk. WOOLSEY, “Historical
Credibility of Luke ii. 1-5” (New Englander, 1869, pp. 674-723. This paper has
not been accessible to me). By the same author: Review of Zumpt’s Geburtsjahr
Christi in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1870, pp. 290-336. Very carefully done.
STEINMEYER, “Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn und seiner ersten Schritte im
Leben” (Apologetische Beiträge, iv.), Berlin 1873, pp. 29-41. SEVIN, Chronologie
des Lebens Jesu (1874), pp. 20-39. SCHENKEL’S Bibellexikon, Bd. v. pp. 23-27,
art. “Quirinius” by Weizsäcker, and pp. 398-405, art “Steuern” by Kneucker).
HEHLE, Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1875, pp. 666-684; 1876, pp. 85-101 (review of
Zumpt’s Geburtsjahr Christi). MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii.
1876, pp. 198-216 (2 Aufl. revised by Dessau und Domaszewski 1884, pp. 204-223).
KEIL (1879) and SCHANZ (1883) in their Commentaries on Luke. BIESS, Das
Geburtsjahr Christi (1880), pp. 66-78.—By the same author, Nochmals das
Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi (1883), pp. 59-68. HOFMANN (J. Chr. K. von), Die
heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. viii. 1
(1878), p. 46 ff.; x. (1883) p. 64 ff. LECOULTRE, De censu Quiriniano et anno
nativitatis Christi secundum Lucam evangelistam, Lausannae 1883 (100 pp.). A
review of it in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1883, p. 481. PÖLZL, art.
“Census” in Wetzer and Weite’s Kirchenlexikon, 2 Aufl. Bd. iii. 1884, pp. 1-7.
SIEFFERT, art. “Schatzung” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xiii. 1884,
pp. 446-455. MOMMSEN, Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. 2, 1883, pp. 175-177.—By the
same author, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 1 (1874), pp. 391-394. UNGER, “De
censibus provinciarum Romanarum” (Leipziger Studien zur class. Philologie, Bd.
x. 1887, pp. 1-76). Mainly a collection of inscriptions in which tax-collectors
are mentioned. It has been mentioned above, at p. 79, that after the banishment
of Archelaus the imperial legate, Quirinius, arrived in Judea, and there, in
A.D. 6 or 7, proceeded to make a census, i.e. a list of the inhabitants, and a
reckoning of their landed property, for the purpose of apportioning the
taxation. The evangelist Luke 2:1-5, makes mention of a valuation census such as
that made by Quirinius; but he places it in the last days of Herod the Great,
that is, somewhere about ten or twelve years earlier than that census was really
made. It is a matter of debate how this story is related to the similar one
recorded by Josephus; whether there were actually two different valuations in
Judea conducted by Quirinius, or whether Luke has erroneously set down the
valuation that was made in A.D. 7 in the last years of Herod the Great. In order
that we may be in a position to form a deliberate judgment on this much-debated
question, and generally on the credibility of the narrative of Luke, it is
necessary first of all to understand, at least in its most general outlines, the
Roman system of taxation during the days of the empire. The original Roman
census, as it was drawn up during the period of the republic,[921] was strictly
confined to the enrolment of Roman citizens. It consisted of a list of Roman
citizens and their possessions, made for a double purpose: (1) The regulating of
military service, and (2) the levying of the direct taxes. The party whose
property had to be valued was obliged to present himself before the censor and
give in a statement of his possessions; but it was the custom that the father of
the family should pay taxes for himself and for the whole family. In the time of
the republic there was no one regular valuation census of the subjects of the
Roman nation. Valuations were indeed made here and there; but these had no
intimate connection or coherence with one another nor with the census of the
Roman citizens.[922] [921] Compare on the census of citizens in the time of the
republic, Bein, art. “Census” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 247-257; Zumpt,
Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 97-116; De Boor, Fasti censorii, Berol. 1873;
Mommeen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 1 (1874), pp. 304-442; E. Herzog, Geschichte
und System der römischen Staatsverfassung, Bd. i. 1884, pp. 754-797. [922]
Compare on the provincial census of the times of the republic, Zumpt,
Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 114-116; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii.
175-197 (2 Aufl. revised by Dessau und Domaszewski, pp. 180-204). In the days of
the empire, as even before in the days of the republic, the census of Roman
citizens had completely lost its original significance; for the Roman citizens,
i.e. therefore all Italy and the colonies with Italian privileges, were no
longer sufficient for military service, and also no longer paid direct
taxes.[923] When therefore Augustus, Claudius, and Vespasian still made
valuation rolls of Roman citizens, this was done only for statistical purposes,
or on account of the religious festivities associated therewith, but not for
taxation purposes. Fundamentally different was the census of the provinces, the
main purpose of which was to regulate the levying of the taxes.[924] Even in
this direction there existed in the earlier days of the empire a very great
diversity;[925] but in general even then those principles had become pretty well
established which in later juristic documents (Digest. L. 15: De censibus) are
assumed as everywhere prevailing. From these we learn that there were for the
provinces two kinds of direct taxes: (1) The property-tax on possessions in
land, tributum soli or agri, and (2) The poll-tax, tributum captis.[926] The
former was paid partly in kind, partly in money.[927] Under the latter, the
tributum capitis, there seems to have been summed up various sorts of personal
taxes, such as the income-tax, which varied according to the amount of the
income, and the poll-tax proper, which was of equal amount for every caput.[928]
In Syria, e.g., there was raised in Appian’s time a personal tax, which amounted
to one per cent. of the valuation.[929] This was therefore properly an
income-tax. When, on the other hand, Josephus reckons from the poll-tax that
Egypt, with the exclusion of Alexandria, had a population of seven and a half
millions, he is evidently referring to a tax of the same amount for every
caput.[930] At any rate, during the earlier days of the empire, the taxes levied
were of the most diverse kinds.[931] Women and slaves had also to pay the
poll-tax. Only children and old men were exempted. In Syria, e.g., men from the
age of fourteen and women from the age of twelve years, and both up to the age
of sixty-five years, were obliged to pay the poll-tax.[932] As to the valuation
census of the provinces, i.e. the preparation of lists for the sake of the
apportioning of the taxes, the same principles regulated procedure as in the
drawing up of the census of Roman citizens.[933] In regard to the one as well as
the other, the expressions were used: edere, deferre censum, profiteri; from
which it is evident that the party liable had to give in the valuation himself,
and his taxes were only controlled by the officers.[934] The taxes had to be
paid in the chief towns of the particular taxation districts;[935] and, indeed,
the landed estates had to be registered for taxation in those communes in whose
domain they lay.[936] At what intervals the valuation was repeated is not with
any certainty known. Huschke assumes a ten years’ period for the census, similar
to the five years’ period of the earlier census of Roman citizens.[937] Zumpt
contests the correctness of this assumption, and believes that by standing
taxation boards the list was kept carefully revised.[938] Many hints favour the
idea of a five years’ census period. Since the fourth century after Christ it is
well known that the fifteen year indiction period became prevalent.[939] [923]
Compare on the citizen census of the days of the empire: Zumpt, Geburtsjahr
Christi, pp. 116-129; De Boor, Fasti censorii, pp. 30-33, 96-100; Mommeen,
Römisches Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1, pp. 310-312, 391 ff.; ii. 2, p. 1012
f.—The last citizen census which was fully carried out, was that of Vespasian in
A.D. 74. [924] Compare, on the provincial census during the days of the empire,
the works and treatises referred to above by Huschke (1847), Rodbertus, Zumpt
(pp. 147-175), Marquardt, Unger; and, in addition: Rein, art. “Tributum” in
Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2, pp. 2125-2129; Zachariä von Lingenthal, “Zur
Kenntniss des römischen Steuerwesens in der Kaiserzeit” (Mémoires de l’académie
impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg, 7 série, t. vi. No. 9, Petersb.
1863); Bernh. Matthiass, Die römische Grundsteuer und das Vectigalrecht,
Erlangen 1882. The two last deal especially with the later period of the empire.
[925] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 156, 176, 187, 211 f. Compare also:
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 185-196. [926] That there were only
these two kinds of direct taxes is plain from Digest. L. 15. 8. § 7 (from Paul
in beginning of third century): “Divus Vespasianus Caesarienses colonos fecit,
non adjecto, ut et juris Italici essent; sed tributum his remisit capitis; sed
Divus Titus etiam solum immune factum interpretatus est.”—Compare Appian.
Libyca, 135: τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς φόρον ὥρισαν ὲπὶ τῇ γῇ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασιν; Dio
Cass. lxii. 3; Tertullian, Apologet. 13: “agri tributo onusti viliores, hominum
capita stipendio censa ignobiliora.” Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2126.
[927] According to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 4, “the third part of the
world,” that is, North Africa, with the exception of Egypt, yielded yearly so
much grain, that from it the needs of the city of Rome could be supplied for
eight months; and from the city of Alexandria four months. [928] Huschke, Census
der Kaiserzeit, p. 175 ff.; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 185-196.
[929] Appian. Syr. 50: Πομπήιος — τὴν μεγίστην πόλιν Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ ἁγιωτάτην
αὐτοῖς κατέσκαψεν, ἤν δὴ καὶ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ πρῶτος Αἰγύπτου βκσιλεὺς καθῃρήκει,
καὶ Οὐεσπασιανὸς αυθις οἰκισθεῖσαν κατέσκαψε, καὶ Ἁδριανὸς αὖθις ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ. Καὶ
διὰ ταῦτʼ ἐστὶν Ἰουδαίοις ἅπασιν ὁ φόρος τῶν σωμάτων βαρύτερος τῆς ἄλλης
τεριαικίας. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Σύροις καὶ Κίλιξιν ἐτήσιος, ἑκατοστὴ τοῦ τιμήματος
ἑκάστῳ.—Instead of περιοικίας (a conjecture of Musgrave adopted by Bekker) the
codd. have περ.ουσίας, which is meaningless, although it is still defended by
Huschke, Census der Kaiserzeit, p. 135. The correctness of the conjecture is
proved by the context. Appian means to say: On account of the battles under
Vespasian and Hadrian, the Jews had to pay a higher poll-tax than the other
neighbouring peoples, namely, than the Syrians and Cilicians, who pay an annual
poll-tax in the form of a percentage of the sum of the valuation. From Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6, Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7, however, we know that the
increase consisted in this, that the δίδραχμον, which had before been paid as a
temple-tax (Matthew 17:24), after the destruction of the temple had to be paid
to the Romans. [930] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 4: Αἴγυπτος —
πεντήκοντα πρὸς ταῖς έπτακοσίαις ἔχουσα μυριάδας ἀνθρώπων δίχα τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν
κατοικούντων, ὡς ἔνεστιν ἐκ τῆς καθʼ ἑκάστην κεφαλὴν εἰσφορᾶς τεκμήρασθαι. [931]
Of Northern Africa, Josephus says (Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 14): χωρὶς τῶν
ἐτησίων καρπῶν, ἳο μησὶν ὀκτὼ τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ῥώμην πλῆθος τρέφουσι, καὶ ἔξωθεν
παντοίως φορολογοῦνται, καὶ ταῖς χρείαις τῆς ἡγεμονίας παρέχευσιν ἑτοίμως τὰς
εἰσφοράς. [932] Digest. L. 15. 3 pr. (from Ulpian, beginning of the third
century): “Aetatem in censendo eignificare necesse est, quia quibusdam aetas
tribuit, ne tributo onerentur; veluti in Syriis a quatuordecim annis masculi, a
duodecim feminae usque ad sexagesimum quintum annum tributo capitis obligantur;
aetas autem spectatur censendi tempore.” [933] Compare generally: Huschke,
Census der Kaiserzeit, p. 192 ff.; Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 170-175.
[934] Huschke, Census, p. 193; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, p. 173. [935] Zumpt, Das
Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 174. [936] Digest. L. 15. 4. § 2 (from Ulpian, beginning
of the third century): “Is vero, qui agrum in alia civitate habet, in ea
civitate profiteri debet, in qua ager est; agri enim tributum in eam civitatem
debet levare, in cujue territorio possidetur.” [937] Huschke, Census der
Kaiserzeit, p. 57 ff. [938] Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 168-170, 189,
205, 206; compare Hock, Römische Geschichte, i, 2. 406. [939] Marquardt, Röm.
Staatsverwaltung, ii. 236-238 (2 Aufl. pp. 243-245). So much on the question of
valuations and taxation in general. Now, Luke says in the passage referred to,
chap. 2:1-5,[940] that about the time of the birth of Christ, therefore
certainly while Herod the Great still reigned (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1-22), a
decree (δόγμα) went out from the Emperor Augustus requiring that “all the world
should be taxed,” ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. By “all the world,” in
accordance with the well-known use of the phrase among the Romans, we can
understand nothing else than the whole Roman empire, the orbis Romanus. Strictly
taken, the phrase would include Italy as well as the provinces. Yet it would be
a pardonable inexactness in the use of the expression, even were it found to
have been employed actually to designate only a general census of the
provinces.[941] Absolutely impossible is the limitation of the phrase to
Palestine sometimes favoured by earlier expositors.[942] The verb ἀπογράφειν
means first of all only “to register,” and is therefore more general than the
definite ἀποτιμᾶν, “to value.”[943] But there is no other purpose of
registration that naturally suggests itself than that of forming a basis for
taxation (for the Jews were exempted from military service); and certainly Luke
has so understood the word, since in ver. 2 he brings this registration
(“taxing”) into connection with the well-known census of Quirinius, whether to
identify with that taxing or to distinguish it from it. He proceeds in ver. 2 to
say: αὕτη [ἡ] ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. Whether
the article is to be inserted before ἀπογραφή or not, it is difficult to say,
since important authorities may be cited in favour of both readings.[944] At any
rate the order πρώτη ἐγένετο is to be maintained over against the isolated
readings ἐγένετο πρώτη (א) and ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη (D). For the sense it is
almost indifferent whether one insert the article or not; for in the former case
it would be translated: “This taxing took place as the first;” and in the other
case: “This took place as the first taxing,”[945] while Quirinius was governor
of Syria. But it may now be asked, in what sense Luke uses the term “first.”
Does he mean to say that it was the first general imperial valuation,[946] or
the first Roman valuation in Judea,[947] or that it was the first among several
made by Quirinius?[948] The first of these explanations would make Luke assume a
number of general imperial valuations. But if, as will appear, even the one
imperial valuation census under Augustus is problematical, a frequent repetition
of such a census would be yet more problematical. We shall therefore do well in
not unnecessarily attributing this serious error to the evangelist. The first
tenable explanation then is that mentioned above in the second place. We shall
then have to stand by it, if it can be proved that Quirinius only made one
valuation census for Judea, and that also Luke intended to refer to that one.
Provisionally, therefore, we may assume this as the sense of the words, that the
general imperial valuation census ordered by Augustus for Judea was the first
which had been made there by the Romans, and that it took place while Quirinius
was governor of Syria. In this case the only point that we must still, according
to p. 111, leave undecided is, whether the valuation census was subsequently
repeated at regular intervals of time, or was kept up to date by constant
revision of the lists.—In what follows, in vv. 3-5, Luke further states that in
obedience to that decree, all (in the land of Judea) went to be taxed, every one
εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν,[949] i.e. every one who was away from the native place of
his family (his οἶκος), had now to go to that place in order to be taxed there.
And so also Joseph went from Galilee to Bethlehem, because he was of the house
of David, to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife (σὺν Μαριάμ is to be joined
with ἀπογράψασθαι, not with ἀνέβη, which is much further removed from it). [940]
Compare in explanation, besides the commentaries: Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 18-32;
Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, pp. 90-96, 188 ff.; Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, pp.
11-27. [941] So Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 20-22. [942] So Paulus, Hug, and others.
[943] Compare Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 19 f.; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, pp. 84-86 [944]
The majority of MSS. has the article: it is wanting in BD, also in א which reads
αυτην απογραφην; the article is rejected by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
ed. 8, Weiseler, Weiss, Westcott and Hort. [945] Buttmann, Grammatik des
neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, p. 105. [946] So Huschke, Ueber den zur Zeit
der Geburt Jesu Christi gehaltenen Census, p. 89; Köhler in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 466. [947] So Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 24, 27;
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift, 1870, p. 157; Höck, Römische Geschichte, i. 2. 417.
[948] So Meyer-Weiss on Luke 2:2; and Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 188-190.
[949] So it is to be read, according to אcBDLΞ (with Tischendorf, ed. 8, Weiss,
Westcott and Hort), instead of Rec. εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν. This account by Luke,
however, now calls forth the following considerations:— 1. Of a general imperial
census in the time of Augustus, history otherwise knows nothing. Apologetical:
Huschke, Census zur Zeit des Geburt Jesu Christi, pp. 2-59; Wieseler,
Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 66-82; Rodbertus, Jahrbücher für
Nationalökonomie und Statistik, v. 145 ff., 241 ff.; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi,
pp. 147-160; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 204 ff. (2 Aufl. p. 211
ff.); Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, pp. 28-41. Huschke especially has
endeavoured by a series of facts to establish the position that such an imperial
census actually did take place, but the want of demonstrative force in this
attempt is now to some extent, at least, admitted even by the most decided
upholders of the narrative of Luke. Thus Huschke refers (p. 11 ff.), and also
even Wieseler,[950] to the rationarium or breviarium totius imperii, a list of
the sources of help or supply for the whole empire, which Augustus, as a good
financier, drew up, so that he might be able to bring into order again the
seriously disturbed financial arrangements of the empire (Suetonius, Augustus,
28, 101; Dio Cassius, liii. 30, lvi. 33; Tacitus, Annals, i. 11).[951] But Zumpt
rightly remarks[952] that this, indeed, speaks for the orderly condition of the
State administration, but does not prove an imperial census.[953]—Still more
unfortunate is Huschke’s reference (pp. 37-45) to Dio Cassius, liv. 35 and
Leviticus 13; for in the former passage it is simply said that Augustus as a
private man had undertaken a census of all his property (πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά οἱ);
and in the other, the reference is only to a census of Roman
citizens.[954]—Finally, the attempt of Huschke (pp. 45-53) to call the
Monumentum Ancyranum (on which compare what is said in vol. i. p. 115) as a
witness on behalf of the general imperial census completely breaks down; and for
proof of this, it is enough to refer to Wieseler[955] and Marquardt.[956] [950]
Chronological Synopsis, p. 73 f.; Beiträge, pp. 52, 93. [951] Tacitus in that
passage describes its contents as follows: “Opes publicae continebantur, quantum
civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut
vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones. Quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat
Augustus addideratque consilium coercendi intra termines imperil, incertum metu
an per invidiam.” [952] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 154. [953] The attempt has,
indeed, been made to deduce from the statement of Tacitus a declaration that
Augustus had made valuation censuses even in the domains of reges socii. But it
will be seen that it is not once said there that the regna paid tribute, let
alone that censuses were held in their territories. [954] Compare Wieseler,
Chronological Synopsis, pp. 75-79; Beiträge, p. 57; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi,
pp. 126, 155. The passage in Dio Cassius, liv. 35, is referred also by Rodbertus
to a census of the provinces, although with a meaning somewhat different from
that of Huschke. [955] Chronological Synopsis, pp. 79-82; Beiträge, pp. 58-64.
[956] Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 205. Of the numerous witnesses whom Huschke
had called to prove the fact of the general imperial census, there remain,
therefore, only Cassiodorus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Suidas.[957] They all do,
undoubtedly, speak of a general imperial census in the time of Augustus.[958]
But their testimony loses very much of its value from the fact that they were
all three Christians, and lived in a very late period, namely, in the sixth,
seventh, and tenth centuries after Christ, which is calculated to produce an
exceedingly strong suspicion that they simply drew their information from Luke.
The confused rigmarole of the Spanish Isidore is not regarded even by
Wieseler[959] and Zumpt[960] as an independent witness. As to Suidas, his
dependence upon Luke is quite apparent. Finally, Cassiodorus has certainly used
older sources, namely, the writings of the land measurers. But who can give us
any guarantee that he did not derive his statement about the census from Luke?
At any rate, it is hazardous, considering the silence of all older sources (the
Monumentum Ancyranum, Dio Cassius, Suetonius), to accept as historical the
isolated statement of Cassiodorus.[961]—The “testimony” of Orosius, on which
Riess again lays great stress, though it had long been given up by most, rests,
undoubtedly, only upon the narrative of Luke.[962] [957] Compare Huschke,
Census, p. 3 ff.; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 68 f.; Beiträge, pp.
53-56; Rodbertus, Jahrbucher für Nationalökonomie, v. 241 ff.; Zumpt,
Geburtsjahr, pp. 149-155; Marquardt, Römische S’aatwerwaltung, ii. 205 f. [958]
The passages referred to run as follows:— [959] Chronological Synopsis, p. 69,
note 1. [960] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 151. [961] Mommsen also is of opinion that
Cassiodorus has derived his statement about the census from Luke. See his
treatise on “Die libri coloniarum” in Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser,
edited by Blume, Lachmann, and Rudorff, Bd. ii. (1852) p. 177. [962]a Orosius,
vi. 22. 6: “Eodem quoque anno [752 a. U.] tunc primum idem Caesar … censum agi
singularum ubique provinciarum et censeri omnes homines jussit, quando et Deus
homo videri et esse dignatus est. Tunc igitur natus est Christus, Romano censui
statim adscriptus ut natus est.”—Compare Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (1880),
p. 69 ff. Cassiodorus, Variarum, iii. 52: “Augusti siquidem temporibus orbis
Romanus agris divisus censuque descriptus est, ut possessio sua nulli haberetur
incerta, quam pro tributorum susceperat quantitate solvenda. Hoc auctor
Hyrummetricus [some editors read: gromaticus] redegit ad dogma conscriptum,
quatenus studiosus legendo possit agnoscere, quod deberet oculis absolute
monstrare.” Isidorus, Etymologiarum, v. 36. 4 (Opera, ed. Arevalo, iii. 229
sq.): “Era singulorum annorum constituta est a Caesare Augusto: quando primum
censura exegit, ac Romanum orbem descripsit. Dictum autem era ex eo, quod omnis
orbie aes reddeie professus est reipublicae.”—On the Spanish era of B.C. 38, the
origin of which Isidore here seeks to explain, see Ideler, Handbuch der
Chronologie, ii. 422 ff.; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 420 f.
(art. “Aera”); Heller in Sybel’s Hist. Zeitschrift, Bd. xxxi. 1874, pp. 13-32.
Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. ἀπογραφή: Ὁ δὲ Καῖσαρ Αὔγουστος ὁ μοναρχήσας εἰκοσιν
ἄνδρας τοὺς ἀρίστους τὸν βίον καὶ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιλεξάμενος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν
ὑπηκόων ἐξέπεμψε, διʼ ὧν ἀπογραφὰς ἐποιήσατο τῶν τε ἀνθρώπων καὶ οὐσιῶν, αὐτάρκη
τινὰ προστάξας τῷ δημοσίῳ μοῖραν ἐκ τούτων εἰσφέρεσθαι. Αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη
ἐγένετο τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ τοῖς κεκτημένοις τί μὴ ἀφαιρουμένων, ὡς εἶναι τοῖς
εὐπόροις δημόσιον ἔγκλημα τὸν πλοῦτον. Many think that they have found an
indirect support for the idea of an imperial census in the times of Augustus in
the so-called imperial survey of Augustus. But even this is very
problematical.[963] We know, indeed, that Agrippa, the friend of Augustus,
collected material for a map of the world, and that this map of the world after
his death was set up in marble in a corridor. These commentarii of Agrippa were
specially valuable on account of their numerous and exact measurements.[964] But
it is very doubtful whether the measurements of Agrippa rest upon a general
survey of the empire undertaken by Augustus. That such a survey was begun as
early as the times of Caesar, and was completed under Augustus, is, indeed,
affirmed by some late cosmographers, like Julius Honorius and Aethicus Ister.
But it is questionable whether this statement is derived from ancient
sources.[965] And even if Augustus had undertaken a general imperial survey,
this, evidently, had nothing to do with the census. It could only properly have
to do, as all geographicalstatistical materials of the following period show,
with geographical investigations, and, above all, with the measuring of roads,
with a statement of distances from place to place. [963] The materials relating
to this question are well summed up in a brief form in Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. pp. 200-204 (2 Aufl. revised by Dessau und
Domaszewski, 1884, pp. 207-211). In that work at p. 200 (in the 2nd ed. p. 207)
the special literature is also given, to which we may now further add: F.
Philippi, Zur Reconstruction der Weltkarte des Agrippa, 1880; Schweder, Beiträge
zur Kritik der Chorographie des Augustus, 3 Thle. 1876-1883; Detlefsen,
Untersuchungen zu den geographischen Büchern des Plinius, 1. Die Weltkarte des
M. Agrippa, Glückstadt 1884. Compare also: Hübner, Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über
die röm. Literaturgeschichte, 4 Aufl. 1878, p. 180 (a list of the literature);
Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 220. 12-13. [964] The extant statements
regarding these (especially those in Pliny) have been collected by Riese,
Geographi Latini minores (1878), pp. 1-8. Compare also his Prolegom. pp.
vii.-xvii.—The principal witness is Pliny, Hist. Nat. iii. 2. 17: “Agrippam
quidem in tanta viri diligentia praeterque in hoc opere cura, cum orbem terrarum
orbi spectandum propositurus esset, errasse quis credat? et cum eo divum
Augustum? Is namque conplexam eum porticum ex. deatinatione et commentariis M.
Agrippae a sorore ejue inchoatam peregit.”—The statements in Pliny are evidently
not taken from the map, but from Agrippa’s commentarii. See Riese, p. ix. Yet
Detlefsen still seeks to prove that they are from the map. [965] The texts of
Julius Honorius and Aethicus Ister are given in Riese, Geographi Latini minores
(1878), pp. 21-55, and 71-103. The statement about the imperial survey is made
by both at the very beginning.—Julius Honorius is older than Cassiodorus. But it
is worthy of remark that in the Cod. Parisin. 4808, saec. vi., which contains
the oldest recension of his work (in Riese distinguished as A), the statement
about the imperial survey is wanting. But even although this much is established
that, apart from Luke, there is no historical evidence of a general imperial
census by Augustus, it may still certainly be regarded as a possibility that
Luke alone has handed down to us information about that fact. But even this
possibility again would require to be stated with very important limitations.
For this reason chiefly we cannot entertain the idea of an imperial census, but
at most only a census of the provinces, because in any case Italy would have to
be excluded (compare p. 108). But even with respect to the provinces, there was
this great difference among them, that some were administered by Augustus
through his legates, others by the Senate. It is scarcely conceivable that the
shrewd Augustus, careful to avoid all encroachments on the rights of the Senate,
should have ordered by one and the same edict a census of the same sort for his
provinces and for those of the Senate.[966] Besides this, it is to be noted that
we know definitely of some provinces that in the time of Angustus no Roman
census had been made in them.[967] The conclusion which we reach the# is simply
this, that in the time of Augustus valuation censuses had been made in many
provinces.[968] And this is quite likely, since the need for such must have been
keenly felt after the confusions of the civil war, and Augustus regarded it as
his special task to restore matters to an orderly condition. Zumpt lays great
stress also upon the fact that the juristic sources from the beginning of the
third century after Christ (Digest. L. 15) already presuppose a great uniformity
in reference to the matter of the valuation census.[969] But there is nothing to
justify us in carrying that unification back to Augustus. [966] In general it
may be assumed that the emperors from the first claimed the right of arranging
for valuation censuses even in senatorial provinces. Dio Cassius, liii. 17,
reckons as a matter of course among the privileges of the emperors that they
ἀπογραφὰς ποιοῦνται. They must indeed have reserved this right to themselves,
because even the senatorial provinces were required to contribute certain dues
to the imperial fiscus, and so even in senatorial provinces there were imperial
procurators (Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 555 f.).
But, in spite of the paucity of materials, it has been regarded by Mommsen and
Hirschfeld worthy of remark that imperial financial officers have not hitherto
been met with in the senatorial provinces throughout the first century of the
imperial era. Among the instances brought together by Marquardt, ii. 2 Aufl.
1884, p. 216, and Unger (Leipziger Studien zur class. Philol. x. 1887, p. 1
ff.), we find two legati ad census accipiendos in the senatorial provinces, one
in Gallia Narbonensis (Unger, n. 1=Orelli-Henzen, Inscr. Lat. n. 1463), and one
in Macedonia (Unger, n. 6=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 1463). But the former
was the regular proconsul appointed by the Senate, and had been as such
appointed by the emperor to draw up the census; in the case of the other, who,
in the abbreviated title, is only called cens(itor) provinciae Macedoniae, his
position was probably the same (so Unger). Besides, the inscription belongs only
to the second century. An imperial procurator ad census accipiendos Macedoniae
(therefore in a senatorial province alongside of the proconsul) is met with on
an inscription at Thysdrus in Africa (Unger, n. 31=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. viii.
n. 10,500). But this one also has its origin only in the second century (Unger,
p. 58 sq.). Great weight should not indeed be laid upon these facts, for it is
possible that even to the imperial provinces the same principles apply: namely,
that in the earlier days of the empire the governors were entrusted with the
getting up of valuation returns, and only in later times were special census
officers appointed alongside of the governors for getting them up (so Unger;
compare below, note 125). The main point is, that Augustus, according to all
that we know of him, aimed at making it appear that the senatorial provinces
were independent.—Compare generally on the imperial right to making a census in
the senatorial provinces (and, at the same time, against the idea of an imperial
census under Augustus): Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1, pp.
392-394, ii. 2, p. 945 f.; Hirschfeld, Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der
römischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, Bd. i. 1887, pp. 17-19; Unger, Leipziger
Studien, x. pp. 48-59. Hirschfeld holds that it is quite probable “that in the
Augustan constitution this sovereign right had been bestowed upon the Senate in
its provinces and in Italy,” p. 17. [967] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 176 f.
[968] In all essential points Zumpt agrees with this view (compare Geburtsjahr,
pp. 147 f., 163 ff., 211 f.), only that he goes back to an edict for authority
for provincial valuations of different sorts and made at different times. So,
too, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 204 ff.; Lecoultre, De censu
Quiriniano, p. 28 sqq., and Aberle, who does not assume an edict, but only a
decree of Augustus (Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1874, p. 664 ff.). The idea of an
imperial census, which they avowedly advocate, is thus practically abandoned.
[969] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 156-160. But a further remark on the
narrative of Luke is: II. Under a Roman census, Joseph would not have been
obliged to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have required to accompany
him thither. Apologetical: Huschke, Census zur Zeit des Geburts Jesu Christi,
pp. 116-125; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 92-95; Beiträge, pp. 65-69,
46-49; Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 193-196, 203 f. In a Roman census the
landed property had to be registered for taxation in the commune in whose
territory it lay (see above, p. 111). For the rest, the person to be taxed had
to enrol his name in the census at his dwelling-place, or at the chief town of
the taxation district within which he resided. When, on the other hand, Luke
tells that Joseph travelled to Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David,
it is assumed that the preparation of the taxation lists had been made according
to tribes, generations, and families, which was by no means the Roman custom. It
is therefore usually conjectured (as is done even by Wieseler and Zumpt) that in
that census a concession had been made to the custom of the Jews. Now it is
quite correct that the Romans in measures of that kind frequently conformed to
existing institutions. But in this particular case such a concession as that
referred to would have been very remarkable, since this method of conducting the
census would be much more troublesome, and would lead to much greater
inconvenience than the Roman plan. It is also extremely questionable whether a
registration according to families and generations was any longer possible,
since in regard to many it could not now be proved whether they belonged to this
family or to that[970] It is further remarkable that Luke makes it appear as if
Mary had been obliged to travel with Joseph in order to be taxed (ver. 5:
ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριάμ). No such requirement could have been made by a Roman
census. For although women also were liable for the poll-tax (see above, p.
111), they were not accustomed to appear personally at a census,[971] since the
particulars required, as may be concluded from the analogy of the old Roman
census, could have been supplied by the father of the family. [970] See Div. II.
vol. i. p. 252. The 15th Ab, on which, according to the Mishna, Taanith iv. 5,
“those of unknown descent” brought the wood for the altar of burnt-offering, is
elsewhere designated as the day of the general wood bringing. Only particular
tribal houses brought it on epecial days. With these tribal houses are also
related the remnants of a register of generations still continued down to the
times of Christ (Div. II. vol. i. p. 219 f.). [971] As is still assumed by
Wieseler, Beiträge, pp. 46-49, and Zumpt, Gebartsjahr Chrieti, p. 203 f. III. A
Roman census could not have been made in Palestine during the time of King
Herod. Apologetical: Huschke, Census zur Zeit des Geburte Jeni Christi, pp.
99-116; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 82-92; Beiträge, pp. 79-94; Zumpt,
Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 178-186, 212 f. When Quirinius in A.D. 7 undertook to
make a census in Judea, this was quite in order; for Judea had then been
converted into a Roman province. On the other hand, Luke would have us believe
that a Roman census had been made in Palestine, at a time when Palestine, under
Herod the Great, was still an independent kingdom, though under the suzerainty
of Rome. After all that we have come to know about the position of the reges
socii toward the Romans, and especially in regard to the position of Herod, this
seems impossible. Pompey had indeed laid the land of Judea under tribute;[972]
and Caesar had rearranged the system of taxation by means of a series of
edicts.[973] Even Antony had imposed upon Herod a tribute when he appointed him
king.[974] But even granting that Herod had continued to pay this tribute under
Augustus, it could not even then be supposed that a Roman valuation census
should have been made in his country. Such an arrangement in regard to the
internal administration might indeed have been ordered in Palestine after it had
become a province, but not so long as it was the territory of a rex soeius.
[972] Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 6. [973] Jesephus,
Antiq. xiv. 10. 5. Compare also above, vol. i. p. 379. [974] Appian, Civ. v. 75:
ἵστη δέ τῃ καὶ βασιλέας, οὓς δοκιμάσειεν, ἐπὶ φόροις ἄρα τεταγμένοις, Πόντου μὲν
Δαρεῖον τὸν Φαρνάκους τοῦ Μιθριδάτου, Ἰδουμαίων δὲ καὶ Σαμαρέων Ἡρώδην, κ.τ.λ.
In order to make the matter conceivable an attempt has been made to point out
similar cases, in which presumably in the domain of a rex socius a Roman census
was made Thus reference is made to a passage in Tacitus about a census
undertaken among the Clitae;[975] Tacitus, Annals, vi. 41: “Per idem tempus
Clitarum natio Cappadoci Archelao subiecta, quia nostrum in modum deferre
census, pati tributa adigebatur, in iuga Tauri mentis abscessit locorumque
ingenio sese contra imbelles regis copias tutabatur.” But it is not here said
that in the domains of King Archelaus a Roman census had been made, but only
that Archelaus had wished to make a census according to the Roman custom
(nostrum in modum) among the Clitae who were subject to him.[976]—Zumpt is of
opinion that in the revolt of Judas of Galilee on the occasion of the census of
Quirinius in A.D. 7, he has obtained a proof that this census extended not only
over the territory of Archelaus (Judea and Samaria), then made into a province,
but also over Galilee, since that revolutionary chief must have received his
designation from the scene of his operations.[977] But Josephus mentions
expressly only the territory of Archelaus as that to which the census
applied;[978] and the designation of Judas as the Galilean is, on the contrary,
to be explained by the fact that Judas, belonging to Gamala in Gaulanitis,[979]
which may readily be reckoned to Galilee in the wider sense, organized this
revolt, not in Galilee but in Judea, and was now named by the inhabitants of
Judea after his native country, “the Galilean.”[980] [975] Huschke, Census zur
Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi, pp. 102-104; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p.
83; Beiträge, p. 94. [976] Archelaus is probably a son of the one named above in
vol. i. p. 456. Another view, but one that can scarcely be correct, is given by
Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 182-184. [977] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 191,
note.—On the designation of Judas as Galilean, see Antiq. xviii. 1. 6: ὁ
Γαλιλαῖος Ἰούδας; xx. 5. 2: Ἰούδα τοῦ Γαλιλαίου; Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1: τις
ἀνὴρ Γαλιλαῖος Ἰούδας; ii. 17.8: Ιούδα τοῦ καλουμένου Γαλιλαίου; Acts of
Apostles 5:37: Ἰούδας ο Γαλιλαῖος. [978] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1: παρῆν δὲ
καὶ Κυρήνιος εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίων, προσθήκην τῆς Συρίας γενομένην, ἀποτιμησόμενός τε
αὐτῶν τὰς οὐσίας καὶ ἀποδωσόμενος τὰ Ἀρχηλάου χρήματα.—Shortly before Josephus
says, xvii. 13. 5: πέμπεται Κυρήνιος ὑτὸ Καίσαρος, ἀνὴρ ὑπατικός, ἀποτιμησόμενος
τὰ ἐν Συρίᾳ καὶ τὸν Ἀρχελάου ἀποδωσόμενος οἶκον. In fact, Quirinius did make
valuation returns, not only in Judea, but also elsewhere in Syria, as the
inscription of Q. Aemilius Secundus, which in earlier times was erroneously
treated as spurious, proved, according to which Secundus by the order of
Quirinius made a census at Apamea. See above, vol. i. p. 357. But of the
Palestinian districts Josephus distinctly names only those that were then
included in the province.—It is also to be observed that the Pharisees who put
the question to Jesus about the tribute money are those of Judea (Matthew 22:17;
Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22). Galilee at that time paid no κῆνσος or φόρος. [979]
Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1. [980] That this is correct is made quite evident,
especially from Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, where Judas is called ἀνὴρ
Γαλιλαῖος, which can mean nothing else than a native of Galilee. In order to
prove the subject position of Herod and the consequent possibility of a Roman
census in his domains, it has been pointed out that he was not allowed
independently to declare war;[981] that he besought permission of the emperor
for the execution of his son;[982] that his subjects also had to take the oath
of allegiance to the emperor;[983] that his will required the emperor’s
confirmation;[984] yea, even the wrestling games in honour of Augustus and the
temples erected to the emperor are requisitioned to aid the proof of the
possibility of a census.[985] As if any one ever had supposed anything else but
that the Jewish vassal kings were undoubtedly dependent upon the Roman emperor.
Even from the Jewish coins Wieseler thinks that he can gather material for
the-vindication of Luke.[986] In regard to this it is eminently deserving of
notice that there are Palestinian coins of Augustus with the year numbers 33,
36, 39, 40, 41, which, reckoning according to the Actian era of A.U.C. 723,
would belong to the age of Archelaus, therefore to the time when Judea was still
under native princes. But these numbers are probably to be reckoned according to
the Augustan era of 1st January A.U.C. 727, according to which the year 33 would
correspond to A.U.C. 759.[987]—It is quite irrelevant when reference is made to
the fact that Augustus enrolled Herod among “the procurators of Syria, and
commanded that everything should be done in accordance with his judgment;”[988]
for from this it follows, not that Herod occupied the position of a
subject,[989] but, on the contrary, one of high trust on the part of his patrons
and friends. A similar explanation may also be given of the threat once uttered
by Augustus under extreme provocation when he said (Antiq. xvi. 9. 3) that
“whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his
subject,” ὅτι πάλαι χρώμενος αὐτῷ φίλῳ, νῦν ὑπηκόῳ χρήσεται. Wieseler, by a rare
style of reasoning, seeks to twist this also into a support for his theory.[990]
An exact definition of the position of Herod in the sight of the civil law is
certainly not easily given, since Josephus, where one would naturally look for
an explanation, omits all reference to the question.[991] In A.D. 30 Herod was
by a decree of the Senate anew confirmed in the possession of his kingdom.[992]
But in regard to the contents of that decree Josephus gives us no details. Even
the remark of Dio Cassius, that Augustus, when, in A.D. 20, he made definite
arrangements for regulating affairs in Syria, “arranged the subject domain
according to the Roman method, but allowed the confederate princes to rule
according to the customs of their fathers,”[993] is too general to permit any
very definite conclusion to be drawn from it. It is at least not favourable to
the idea of a Roman census in the domains of Herod. The same may be said of the
expressions with which Josephus describes the conversion of Judea into a
province. They prove satisfactorily that, in the opinion of Josephus, Judea was
then for the first time made into a Roman territory subject to the Romans.[994]
[981] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 3. [982] Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10-11, xvii. 5. 7,
xvii. 7. [983] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 2. 4. Compare on this oath, above, vol. i.
p. 445. It had, as one may conclude, according to the analogy of the oath
formula of Assus, not the form of the oath of a subject, but that of a
confederate. [984] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 8. 4,11. 4-5. [985] Wieseler,
Beiträge, pp. 90-92. [986] Beiträge, pp. 83-89. [987] Compare on these coins,
above, at p. 77, and the literature given there.—The year numbers given as 30,
31, 34, 35 are uncertain; the first two being decidedly doubtful. [988]
Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3: ἐγκαταμίγνυσι δʼ αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς ἐπιτροπεύουσι τῆς
Συρίας, ἐντειλάμενος μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης τὰ πάντα ποιεῖν. Somewhat
differently in Wars of the Jews. i. 20. 4: κατέστησε δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ Συρίκς ὅλης
ἐπίτροπον—, ὡς μηδὲν ἐξείη δίχα τῆς ἐκείνου συμβουλίας τοῖς ἐπιτρόποις
διοικεῖν.—Compare in addition what is said above in vol. i. p. 453. [989] As
Wieseler still holds in Beiträge, p. 89 f. [990] Chronological Synopsis, p. 85;
Beiträge, p. 83. [991] Compare on the position of reges socii under the civil
constitution, what is said above in vol. i. p. 448. [992] Josephus, Antiq. xv.
6. 7. Compare Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 2-3. [993] Dio Cassius, liv. 9: Ὁ δὲ
Αὔγουστος τὸ μὲν ὑπήκοον κατὰ τὰ τῶν Ρωμαίων ἔθη διῴκει, τὀ δὲ ἔνσπονδον τῷ
πατρίῳ σφίσι τρόκῳ εἴα ἄρχεσθαι. [994] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5: Τῆς
Ἀρχελάου χώρας ὑποτελοῦς προσνεμηθείσης τῇ Σύρων.—Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1:
τῆς Ἀρχελάου χώρας εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης.—Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1: τῆς
Ἀρχελάου ἐθναοχίας μεταπεσούσης εἰς ἐπαρχίαν.—Antiq. xviii. 4. 3: οὖ (Archelai)
Ῥωμαῖοι παραδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀρχήν. Beyond the range of these general remarks we
are carried by a consideration of the taxation system in the time of Herod, in
so far as we are informed by Josephus. Here we find throughout that Herod acted
independently with reference to the taxes, and there is no sign of his paying
any of the dues to the Romans. Herod remits sometimes a third,[995] sometimes a
fourth[996] of the taxes. He even frees the Jewish colony in Batanea from
payment of all taxes of every kind.[997] After his death the Jews obtain from
Archelaus a reduction of the oppressive taxation, which was therefore at the
disposal also of Archelaus;[998] and the Jewish deputation at Rome complained of
the burdensome taxes under Herod, in order to base upon this their request that
Palastine should not again be put under the rule of a Herodian. But there is no
mention of a Roman tax.[999] We have seen then that Herod dealt quite
unrestrictedly with the taxation system of Palestine. It will therefore in any
case, even if Herod should have paid tribute to the Romans, be quite correct to
affirm that a Roman census and a Roman system of taxation could not have been
introduced in his country.[1000] [995] Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 4. [996]
Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 5. [997] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 2. 1: ἀτελῆ τε τὴν
χῶραν ἐπηγγέλλετο, καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰσφορῶν ἀπηλλαγμένους ἁπασῶν. [998] Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 8. 4.—Wieseler is indeed acute enough to make the tax about which
the Jews complained into a Roman one; Chronological Synopsis, p. 90; Beiträge,
p. 98 f. [999] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 2. [1000] The question whether Herod
paid a tribute to the Romans is immaterial for the matter now under
consideration as to the possibility of a Roman census; for the payment of a lump
sum as tribute is something quite different from the direct taxation of the
individual inhabitants of the country on the part of the Romans. But even the
idea of Herod being under tribute is not probable, at least there is no proof of
it. That Antony imposed a tribute upon Herod (Appian, Civ. v. 75, see above, p.
122), proves nothing in regard to the time of Augustus. When it is said of
Caligula that he, on the reinstatement of kings in the realms of their fathers,
granted to them “the full enjoyment of the revenues and also what was due for
the intervening vacancy during which the kingdom was in abeyance” (Suetonius,
Caligula, 16: “si quibus regna restituit, adjecit et fructum omnem vectigaliorum
et reditum medii temporis”), we are not to conclude from this that always under
other rulers the contrary in both cases was the rule. For Suetonius does not
intend in this to point out a special instance of folly, but an instance of good
conduct on the part of Caligula. What was extraordinary was only indeed the
repayment of the reditus medii temporis. We see, however, from this passage that
there was in these matters no very strict rule of procedure. But seeing that
there were πόλεις αὐτόνομοί τε καὶ φόῶρν ἀτελεῖς (Appian, Civ. i. 102), it is
not probable that kings were in general placed in a worse position. Compare
generally the literature given above in vol. i. p. 448. IV. Josephus knows
nothing of a Roman census in Palestine in the time of Herod: speaks rather of
the census of A.D. 7 as something new and previously unheard of. Apologetical:
Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 86-92; Beiträge, pp. 94-104. In the
attempt to weaken the force of the argumentum e silentio drawn from Josephus,
two different courses have been taken: some have endeavoured to discover even in
Josephus traces of a Roman census in the time of Herod; others have denied that
the silence of Josephus proves anything. Wieseler is of opinion that he has
found a trace of that sort in the revolt of Judas and Matthias shortly before
the death of Herod,[1001] the cause of which is said to have been the taking of
a census; whereas Josephus as clearly as possible assigns a cause of an
altogether different kind.[1002] Another trace is supposed to be found in the
detailed reports of the large amount of the revenues of Judea, Galilee, and
Trachonitis, which are given by Josephus in his account of the partition of
Palestine among Herod’s three sons;[1003] as if in order to know the amount of
these rents it would have been necessary to have a census of the purely Roman
kind. It is a fact far more worthy of consideration that on the occasion of that
partition Augustus laid down the condition that the rate of taxation of the
Samaritans should be reduced one-fourth, since they had not taken part in the
war against Varus.[1004] This is worthy of attention, because it is the only
instance of an interference on the part of the emperor in the matter of the
taxation of Judea prior to its being made into a Roman province. But certainly
we cannot deduce from it the conclusion which Wieseler[1005] wishes to draw,
that here we have to do with a Roman tax. On the contrary, the matter treated of
throughout is only the revenues of the native princes, Archelaus, Antipas, and
Philip; and the mere absence of any reference in this place to a Roman tax
speaks strongly in favour of the idea that no such tax was then paid.—Finally,
the argumentation is particularly acute, by means of which Zumpt has discovered
in Josephus the sought for census, prior to the acknowledged one of A.D. 7. He
says[1006] that from the account of Josephus with reference to the census of
A.D. 7, it follows “that Quirinius then only taxed the property of the Jews,
therefore those who were poor and without property were not taken into
consideration.” But now since the poll-tax existing in the time of Christ
presupposes also a list of those without property, such a list must have been
drawn up previously, even under Herod. In reference to this statement there are
only three things that require to be proved: (1) that Quirinius taxed “only the
property” of the Jews; (2) that in Palestine in the time of Christ a poll-tax,
was in force even for those without property;[1007] and (3) that this poll-tax
had been introduced as early as in the time of Herod. [1001] Josephus, Antiq.
xvii. 6. 2. Compare Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 88-92; Beiträge, pp.
98-104. [1002] See above, vol. i. p. 463. [1003] Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 11. 4;
Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. Compare Wieseler, Beiträge, p. 99. [1004] Josephus,
Antiq. xvii. 4. 4: Τετάρτου μέρους οὖτοι τῶν φόρων παραλέλυντο, Καίσαρος αὐτοῖς
κούφισιν ψηφισαμένου διὰ τὸ μὴ συναποστῆναι τῇ λοιπῇ πληθύι. Compare Wars of the
Jews, ii. 6. 3. [1005] Beiträge, p. 99. [1006] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 201 f.
[1007] According to Appian, Syr. 50 (see above, p. 110), it seems rather that
the poll-tax in Syria existed only in the form of an income-tax. In reality,
then, Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in the time of Herod. We may not
indeed be inclined ordinarily to lay any weight on argumenta e silentio; but in
this case the argument is of some importance. In regard to no other period is
Josephus so well informed, in regard to none is his narrative so full, as in
regard to the last years of Herod. It is scarcely conceivable that a measure so
calculated to cut into the very marrow of the people as a Roman census of that
period should have been passed over by him, while he faithfully describes the
census of A.D. 7, which occurred in a period of which Josephus knew practically
nothing.[1008] It ought also to be remembered that a Roman census could not have
passed off without leaving any trace behind, but must have occasioned a
rebellion as well as that of A.D. 7, yea, much more, because in this case the
latter would have been nothing new. The latter argument, indeed, Zumpt thinks to
invalidate by making the census in the time of Herod into an innocent
registration (ἀπογραφή) of the people for the purpose of the poll-tax, whereas
the census of A.D. 7 was a property valuation (ἀποτίμησις), and just for that
reason was so offensive.[1009]—The poll-tax had to be paid as tribute to the
Romans, whereas the expenses of the internal government of the country had to be
met by the property-tax.[1010] But it is in contradiction of all known facts
that the tribute to be paid to the Romans should have consisted simply in a
poll-tax of equal amount in the case of each caput. Appian says expressly that
the Syrians paid a poll-tax of one per cent. of the sum of the valuation.[1011]
If, therefore, a Roman tax had been imposed throughout Palestine, it would
certainly not have been a mere poll-tax. And even were this granted, it would
still be a Roman tax. There must then have been a numbering of the people, who
would have made the imposition of this, just as much as a valuation census of
the people, the occasion of a tumult. But, finally, that distinction between the
ἀπογραφή referred to by Luke 2:2 and the ἀποτίμησις of A.D. 7 completely breaks
down before the fact that the latter which occasioned the revolt of Judas of
Galilee is referred to by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles v. 37 in the same
words as the so-called numbering of the people in the time of Herod, and the
ἀπογραφή is simply mentioned as an evident proof that he means in both passages
to refer to the same fact. [1008] Compare above, vol. i. pp. 88, 89. [1009] So
also Rodbertus as early as 1865 in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomis und
Statistik, v. p. 155 ff. [1010] Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 196-202.
Wieseler also had previously expressed a similar opinion (Chronological
Synopsis, p. 96, compare p. 84 f., p. 90 f.), whereas subsequently he reverted
to the idea of a poll- and land-tax (Beiträge, p. 98 ff.). [1011] Appian, Syr.
50 (see above, p. 110). Compare also the grain produce of Africa and Alexandria,
p. 110. The most decisive argument, however, against a census in the time of
Herod is this, that Josephus characterizes the census of A.D. 7 as something
entirely new and previously unheard of among the Jews. When we find Zumpt
attempting to represent the novelty as consisting only in the property valuation
(ἀποτίμησις), and Wieseler thinks that what was new and offensive lay merely in
the form of the valuation, namely, the judicial examination (ἡ ἀκρόασις) and the
obligation to confirm their depositions before a heathen tribunal by means of a
definitely prescribed oath,[1012] these fine distinctions, which may possibly be
spun out of the story in the Antiquities, are reduced to nothing when we turn to
the parallel account in Wars of the Jews, ii. 8. 1, where Josephus expressed
himself as follows: ἐπὶ τούτου (under Coponius) τις ἀνὴρ Γαλιλαῖος Ἰούδας ὄνομα
εἰς ἀπόστασιν ἐνῆγε τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους, κακίζων εἰ φόρον τε Ῥωμαίοις τελεῖν
ὑπομενοῦσι καὶ μετὰ τὸν θεὸν οἴσουσι θνητοὺς δεσπότας. The offensive thing,
therefore, was not the taxing of property, or the form in which it was carried
out, but the Roman taxation as such. This is also the assumption lying at the
basis of accounts elsewhere given of the rebellion. Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 1:
Ἰούδα τοῦ πείσαντος Ἰουδαίων οὐκ ὀλίγους … μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπογραφάς; ii. 17.
8: Ἰουδαίους ὀνειδίσας ὅτι Ῥωμαίοις ὑπετάσσοντο μετὰ τὸν θεόν. For the Romans at
all to raise a tax in Judea was a novum et inauditum. Also from the words
already quoted above, with which Josephus tells of the conversion of Judea into
a province, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5: τῆς δὲ Ἀρχελάου χώρας ὑποτελοῦς προσνεμηθείσης
τῇ Σύρων, if we take them exactly we shall be obliged to conclude that in the
time of Herod and Archelaus no taxes were paid to the Romans. For if it was only
after the banishment of Archelaus that Judea was made tributary, it follows that
it had not been so previously. The same conclusion may be drawn from other two
passages. The tetrarchy of Philip was after his death added by Tiberius to the
province of Syria, τοὺς μέντοι φόρους ἐκέλευσε συλλεγομένους ἐν τῇ τετραρχίᾳ τῇ
ἐκείνου γενομένῃ κατατίθεσθαι (Antiq. xviii. 4. 6). If even after the death of
Philip no taxes flowed from his tetrarchy into the Roman fiscus, much less would
this have been the case during his lifetime. But of the Jewish colony at Batanea
on which Herod conferred the privilege of being absolutely free from taxation
Josephus reports as follows, Antiq. xvii. 2. 2: Ἐγένετο ἡ χώρα σφόδρα
πολυάνθρωπος ἀδείᾳ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀτελοῦς. Ἃ παρέμεινεν αὐτοῖς Ἡρώδου ζῶντος·
Φίλιππος δὲ δεύτερος ἐκείνου παραλαβὼν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὀλίγα τε καὶ ἐπʼ ὀλίγον αὐτοὺς
ἐπράξατο. Ἀγρίππας μέντοι γε ὁ μέγας καὶ ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμώνυμος καὶ πάνυ
ἐξετρύχωσαν αὐτούς, οὐ μέντοι τὰ τῆς ἐλευθερίας κινεῖν ἠθέλησαν. Παρʼ ὧν Ῥωμαῖοι
δεξάμενοι τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ μὲν ἐλευθέρου καὶ αὐτοὶ τηροῦσι τὴν ἀξίωσιν, ἐπιβολαῖς
δὲ τῶν φόρων εἰς τὸ πάμπαν ἐπίεσαν αὐτούς. It is thus made quite evident that
the raising of a Roman tax in that district began only when it was no longer
ruled over by its own princes, whereas under Herod the Great, Philip, Agrippa
I., and Agrippa II., these taxes were raised or not raised at the pleasure of
the prince. [1012] Beiträge, pp. 95-97; Studien und Kritiken, 1875, p. 546.
Compare Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1. 1: ἐν δεινῷ φέροντες τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς ἀπογραφαῖς
ἀκρόασιν, “the judicial examination in connection with the enrolments.” Whether
this translation is correct, may be regarded as undecided. It would also be
possible to render ἀκρόασις by “obedience.” From all that we have learned, then,
the conclusion is Roman taxes could not possibly have been raised in Palestine
in the time of Herod, and with this result the Roman census as a matter of
course falls to the ground. But, finally, the main consideration that tells
against the account of Luke is: V. A census held under Quirinius could not have
occurred in the time of Herod, for Quirinius was never governor of Syria during
the lifetime of Herod. Not only Matthew 2:1 ff., but also Luke 1:5, assumes that
Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod. He therefore undoubtedly places the
census referred to by him in the period of Herod’s reign. But he also says
expressly that the census had been made ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου, which
can mean nothing else than this, that it took place “while Quirinius had the
supreme command in Syria,” i.e. when he was governor of Syria.[1013] Now we know
indeed that Quirinius arrived in Syria as governor in A.D. 6, and that he had
been in possession of the same office even earlier, in B.C. 3-2. But in the time
of Herod he cannot have been governor; for from B.C. 9-6 this office was held by
Sentius Saturninus, from B.C. 6-4 by Quinctilius Varus. The latter had to
suppress the revolt which broke out in Palestine after the death of Herod, and
was, therefore, in Syria at least half a year after Herod’s death. But the
predecessor of Saturninus was Titius.[1014] Thus during the last five or six
years of Herod, and it is only in regard to them that there can be any question
here, there is absolutely no room for Quirinius. [1013] The official title is,
legatus Augusti pro praetore. See above, vol. i. p. 348. [1014] For proofs, see
above, vol. i. p. 350. This point has caused most trouble to the vindicators of
Luke; and their opinions, which hitherto have been tolerably unanimous, now go
very far apart from one another. We pass over the older attempts at solution,
for the most part of a most arbitrary description (some even venturing upon the
boldest alterations of the text), and restrict ourselves to a statement only of
those which have their representatives in the present day.[1015] [1015] The
older views are given in Winer, Realwörterbuch, ii. 292-294; Bleek, Synopse, i.
70 ff.; Meyer, comm. on Luke, on the passage. 1. Lutteroth, in order thoroughly
to set aside the above stated exegetical facts, has devised the following
original explanation. He says:[1016] When it is said of John the Baptist in Luke
1:80, that he was in the deserts ἕως ἡμέρας ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν Ἰσραήλ, by
ἀνάδειξις is to be understood, not his public appearance as a preacher of
repentance, but his presentation before the people as a child of twelve years,
according to the custom of the law. At this point of time the following
statement falls to be inserted, that ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις was issued the
emperor’s edict about the taxing, which was carried out by Quirinius. It was
this also that led to Joseph making his journey to Bethlehem. As a subject of
Herod Antipas, he would indeed be under no obligation to do this, as the taxing
applied only to Judea; but by his voluntary appearance there he would bring into
view his Bethlehemite nativity. Luke, therefore, is perfectly correct in setting
down the taxing of Quirinius at the time when John the Baptist was twelve years
old. The conclusion of Luke 2:5 is to be translated: To be taxed with Mary, whom
he had married when already she was great with child (therefore twelve years
before the taxing). To this earlier time then ver. 6 again reverts: And just
there, in Bethlehem, were they also when Mary (twelve years before the taxing)
brought forth her first-born son, etc. The explanation belongs to the number of
those which may excite admiration for their acuteness, but stand in no need of
confutation. [1016] Le récensement de Quirinius en Judée, Paris 1865, pp. 29-44.
2. Huschke,[1017] Wieseler,[1018] Ewald,[1019] Caspari[1020] assign to the
superlative πρῶτος a practically or exclusively comparative significance, and
translate: This taxing was made when first, or before, Quirinius was governor of
Syria. Luke therefore expressly distinguishes the taxing made under Herod as an
earlier one from the later one made under Quirinius. That this translation in
case of need might be justifiable may be admitted (John 1:15; John 1:30).[1021]
But even then it is by no means proved that it is the correct translation. It is
indeed absolutely inconceivable for what purpose Luke should have made the idle
remark, that this taxing took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Why
would he not rather name the governor under whom it did take place? It may
indeed be said that he distinguishes the earlier census under Herod from the
later under Quirinius. But Luke does not really even do this, according to that
translation. He says not: “This taxing took place earlier than that made under
Quirinius” (which would have required something like this: αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη
ἐγένετο τῆς Κυρηνίου Συρίας ἡγεμονεύοντος γενομένης); but: “This taxing took
place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” So also Wieseler translates, and
the analogy of all instances adduced by him (Chronological Synopsis, pp. 102,
103; Beiträge, pp. 30-32)[1022] admits of no other translation. But no
unprejudiced person will find a suitable sense in these words. And to this it
should be added, that Luke must here have expressed himself in a manner as
involved and as likely to lead to misunderstanding as possible, whereas
elsewhere his special characteristic is just intelligibility and lucidity of
expression. No one who does not seek after hazardous explanations will be able
to understand πρώτη otherwise than as superlative, and ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας
Κυρηνίου otherwise then as genitivus absolutus: as, to name only some
authorities, Winer,[1023] Buttmann,[1024] Zumpt,[1025] Bleek,[1026] Meyer, etc.,
have declared. [1017] Census zur Zeit des Geburt Jesu Christi, p. 78 ff. [1018]
Chronological Synopsis, pp. 101-106; Beiträge, pp. 26-32; Studien und Kritiken,
1875, p. 546 ff. [1019] History of Israel, vi. 155, note 3. [1020] Chronological
and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 35. [1021] Only indeed
in case of necessity; for of all the instances which Huschke, pp. 83-85, has
brought together in favour of giving to πρῶτος a comparative sense, if we set
aside those which are clearly irrelevant, only those remain where two parallel
or analogous ideas are compared with each other, but not where, as here, two
wholly disparate ideas are before us—the taxing under Herod and the governorship
of Quirinius. [1022] Also Sophoches, Antiq. 637-658: [1023] Grammar of New
Testament Greek, 335. 4, note 1. [1024] Grammatik des neutestamentl.
Sprachgebrauchs, p. 74. [1025] Geburtsjahr Christi, p. 22. [1026] Synoptische
Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien, i 71. ἐμοὶ γὰρ οὐδεὶς άξίως ἔσται γάμος
μεῖζον φέρεσθαι σοῦ καλῶς ἡγουμένου, which is to be translated: “To me with
right no marriage will have greater value than that thou leadest me well (than
thy noble leading).” 3. Gumpach.[1027] Lichtenstein,[1028] Kohler,[1029]
Steinmeyer,[1030] J. Chr. K. von Hofmanu,[1031] emphasize ἐγένετο, and
translate: This taxing “was carried into effect” (Gumpach), or “was completed”
(Kohler, Steinmeyer, Hofmann), while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke
distinguishes the issuing of the order for the taxing under Herod, and the
execution of the decree, ten or twelve years later, under Quirinius. This
hypothesis, apparently the most simple, in reality indeed the weakest, comes
into conflict, as we shall immediately see, with the narrative of the journey of
Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, according to which it is not only the taxation
decree, but also its execution, which took place in the time of Herod. That
explanation at best could have a meaning only if one were bold enough to render
the simple ἐγένετο by “came to a conclusion, was carried to a close,” which,
however, even the above-named expositors have not ventured to do.[1032] [1027]
Studien und Kritiken, 1852, pp. 666-669. [1028] Lebensgeschichte des Herrn Jesu
Christi, p. 78 ff. [1029] Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xiii. 463 ff.
[1030] Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn, p. 36 ff. [1031] Die heilige Schrift
Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. viii. 1, p. 49; Thl. x. p. 64
ff. [1032] Compare against that view especially Wieseler, Chronological
Synopsis, pp. 100, 101; Beiträge, p. 25 f. Ebrard[1033] has advanced what he
regards as an improved explanation when he accentuates αὐτὴ ἡ ἀπογραφή and
translates: The raising of the tax itself, however, took place only when
Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke therefore does not distinguish, as those
critics before named supposed, the issuing of the order for a valuation of
property and the execution of it, but the valuation of property (and that not
only the order for it, but also the execution of it) on the one hand, and the
levying of the tax based upon that valuation on the other hand. There is thus
given to the subst. ἀπογραφή a completely different meaning from that given to
the verb ἀπογράφεσθαι, which, in the close coherence of the passage, is
absolutely impossible. The substantive and the verb alike can mean nothing else
than: enrolment, to enrol, and in the strict sense are both specially used of
the valuing and enrolment of property. The affirmation that just the census of
Quirinius is ordinarily designated by the term ἀπογραφή, and that in consequence
thereof this word has, for that particular definite case, the meaning of the
levying of a tax (pp. 136 f., 140 f.), is a purely imaginary conception, and not
once has the attempt been even made to establish it; for the reference to Acts
5:37, and Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 1 ff., cannot be regarded in this light.
Instead of αὐτὴ ἡ ἀπογραφή it would be necessary to read something like this: ἡ
δὲ τῶν φόρων ἐκλογή or εἴσπραξις. In conclusion, that view also is in
contradiction to the history; for Quirinius, in A.D. 7, levied the taxes, not
merely on the ground of an earlier valuation, but first of all, and chiefly, he
was then engaged in making an ἀποτίμησις.[1034] [1033] Ebrard, Gospel History,
Edinburgh, 1869, pp. 136-142. [1034] New and original is the discovery of Godet,
who accentuates αὐτή but expounds as follows (Commentary on St. Luke, vol. i.
pp. 128, 129): “Luke breaks off to remark that prior to the well-known
enumeration which took place under Quirinius, and which history had taken
account of under the name of the first, there had really been another, generally
lost sight of, which was the very one here in question; and thus that it was not
unadvisedly that he spoke of a census anterior to the first. In this way (1) the
intention of this parenthesis is clear; (2) the asyndeton between vers. 1 and 2
is explained quite in a natural way; and (3) the omission of the article ἡ
between ἀπογραφή and πρώτη, which has the effect of making ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη a
sort of proper name (like ἡ ἐπιστολὴ πρώτη, δευτέρα), is completely
justified.”—Cousequently Godet translates: “As to the census itself called the
first, it took place under the government of Quirinius.” 4. Seeing then that
nothing can be gained by exegetical arts, the attempt has finally been made,
even without any such, to vindicate the account of Luke as historical by having
recourse to historical combinations. Indeed, Hengstenberg, since the discovery
of the famous inscription which afforded evidence of the twice-repeated
governorship of Quirinius is Syria, thinks that every difficulty has been wholly
removed.[1035] That the inscription in reality proves nothing is quite
selfevident after the description we have given of it above (see vol. i. p.
353). But also with the twice-repeated governorship of Quirinius in Syria, which
is quite probable even apart from the inscription, nothing is gained toward the
vindication of Luke; for even the first governorship of Quirinius cannot at the
earliest have begun till at least half a year after the death of Herod (see
above, p. 133), whereas, according to Luke, Quirinius must have been governor in
the time of Herod. Zumpt[1036] and, after him, Pölzl,[1037] relying for support
on a passage in Tertullian,[1038] seek assistance by assuming that the census
was begun by Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9-6, carried on by Quinctilius Varius,
B.C. 6-4, and brought to an end by Quirinius during his first governorship. From
Quirinius, as the completer of the work, it has received the name; wherefore
also Luke says that it was made under him. So far then as Tertullian is
concerned, Zumpt himself says in another part of his work[1039] that the Church
Fathers “generally are wanting in all historical sense in the stating of the
Gospel narrative.” On their statements, therefore, nothing can with safety be
built. But in other respects Zumpt’s theory is only a falling back upon the
theory of Gumpach and others, referred to under No. 3. The matter then stands
so, in Zumpt’s opinion, that either in place of ἐγένετο we must put a verb like
ἐτελέσθη, or instead of Quirinius must be put the name of that governor in whose
term of office the fact recorded by Luke, the journey of Joseph and Mary to
Bethlehem, took place;[1040] for Luke does indeed intend by mentioning the name
simply to determine the time of which he speaks. Thus, as the words imply, the
representation that the birth of Jesus Christ took place in the time of
Quirinius is necessarily fundamental to the hypothesis, which, however, is
impossible. Above all, it is inconceivable that the ἀπογραφή, in the way in
which it is represented by Zumpt, namely, as a simple enrolment of the people
without a property valuation, should have taken three or four years, whereas the
much more difficult ἀποτίμησις of A.D. 7, which, besides, had to encounter the
opposition of the people, was completed at farthest in the course of one
year.[1041] [1035] Compare Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 1865, col 65 f., where
he expresses himself about Strauss as follows: “He is so utterly unfamiliar with
the state of matters in those times that he quite confidently repeats the old
objection against the taxing of Luke, that Quirinius had not entered upon the
governorship until several years after Herod’s death, without having any
suspicion of the fact that the question, has long ago entered upon quite another
stage by the discovery of a later inscription which affords evidence that
Quirinius was twice governor in Syria. This inscription was described as early
as 1851 by Bergmann in a special treatise, and has been reprinted in so
accessible a book as the Tacitus of; Nipperdey. But Strauss knows nothing of
it.”—And Hengstenberg, we add, seems to have known nothing of the following
facte: (1) That is 1865 the inscription had been known for a hundred years; (2)
that it had been used by as early a writer as Sanclemente, in A.D. 1793, in
vindication of Luke; (3) that it absolutely does not contain a testimony to
Quirinius having been governor twice; and (4) that even with a twice-repeated
governorship of Quirinius nothing is gained in the way of justifying Luke.
[1036] Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 207-224. [1037] Wetzer and Welte’s
Kirchenlexikon, 2 Aufl. Bd. iii. Sp. 5-7. [1038] Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, iv.
19: “Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Judaea per Sentium
Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent.” [1039] Gebursjahr
Christi, p. 189, note. Compare also: Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 99,
note 2. [1040] Therefore, according to Zumpt, Sentius Saturninus. [1041] For it
was begun after the banishment of Archelaus, at the earliest in the summer of
A.U.C. 759, and was, according to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1, completed in the
year 37 of the Actian era=autumn of A.U.C. 759-760. It is to be placed therefore
late in autumn of A.U.C. 760, i.e. in A.D. 7. Both difficulties might indeed be
overcome were we to assume, with Gerlach[1042] and Quandt,[1043] that Quirinius
had been sent to Syria along with Quinctilius Varus (B.C. 6-4) as extra-ordinary
legate, and as such had undertaken the census.[1044] In its best and most
precise form this theory was represented by Sanclemente, for he assumes that
Quirinius had been despatched to Syria as legatus ad census accipiendos, and
indeed with a higher authority than the ordinary legate of Syria of that time,
Sentius Saturninus.[1045] But this expedient is absolutely inadmissible from the
words of the evangelist, since ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου can mean
nothing else than “when Cyrenius had the supreme command (or, what is the same
thing, the office of governor) over Syria.” Luke therefore undoubtedly considers
Quirinius as the ordinary and regular legate of Syria. But this office, as is
thoroughly well established on historical grounds, was occupied in the last
years of Herod, not by Quirinius, but by Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9-6, and then
by Quinctilius Varus, B.C. 6-4.[1046] The statement of Luke then can be
indicated historically only if it could be proved that Quirinius had been
already in the times of Herod governor of Syria. But such a proof can never be
produced, since, Aberle notwithstanding, the contrary is an established
fact.[1047] [1042] Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, pp. 33-35.
[1043] Zeitordnung und Zeitbestimmungen in den Evangelien (also under the title:
Chronologisch-geographische Beiträge zum Verständniss der heiligen Schrift. i.
Chronolog. Beiträge, 1 Abthlg., Gütersloh 1872), pp. 18-25. [1044] What Gerlach
says at p. 33 f. about the possibility of two governors in one province, proves
only gross ignorance of the facts of the case. See against him, Wieseler,
Beiträge, p. 43 f.—The case is better with Quandt, who conjectures that Varus
occupied a position subordinate to Quirinius (see Zeitordnung, p. 22). But,
according to Josephus, there can be no doubt that Varus was in possession of the
supreme command in Syria. [1045] Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, iv.
6, pp. 443-448.—The materials regarding the legati and procuratores ad census
accipiendos may be found collected together in Marquardt, Röische
Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876 p. 209 (2 Aufl. von Dessen und Domaszewski
besorgt, 1884, pp. 215, 216) and Unger, “De censibus provinciarum Romanorum”
(Leipziger Studien zur class. Philol. Bd. x. 1887, pp. 1-76).—It is not yet
decided whether there were even in early imperial times special officers of this
sort besides the ordinary governors in the provinces. Unger contends against the
idea by seeking to prove that in the earlier days of the empire the governors
were themselves charged with the business of valuation and taxing, and that in
the senatorial provinces it was only in the second century, and in the imperial
provinces still later, that special officers of equestrian rank besides the
governors had control given them of taxation matters. Of both cases where the
governor held also the finance office, and again where special finance officers
were appointed, there are several unmistakable instances. The earliest case
belonging to the former class is that of Quirinius, who, according to Josephus,
as well as according to Luke, was at once governor and censor. Four other
instances are collected by Unger, p. 54 f. But the material is too scanty to
afford a certain conclusion of a general description. [1046] Compare against
that theory also Huschke, Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Jesu Christi gehaltenen
Census, p. 75 f. [1047] Aberle (Quartalschrift, 1865, p. 129 ff.; 1868, p. 29
if.), by “the perception of the great, we might almost say, official-like,
precision by which such statements in Luke are characterized” (1865, p. 148),
has been led to the discovery that Quirinius in fact was governor of Syria in
the last years of Herod, and was only detained in Rome by Augustus. Quinctilius
Varus was therefore obliged to remain at his post, so that there were at the
same time two governors: Quirinius was the governor de jure, Varus, de facto.
Luke names the former, Josephus the latter. In opposition to this acute
attempted solution it is sufficient to remark that Luke would have only been
deceiving us, if, instead of the actual governors who must have conducted the
census, he had only named the governor de jure. The words, of Luke admit of no
other explanation but that Quirinius was actual governor of Syria. Only for the
sake of completeness we should here mention the discovery of Pfitzner (Programm
des Gymnasiums zu Parchim, Easter 1873, pp. 8-13), that Varus had indeed been
governor of Syria in B.C. 6 and B.C. 4; but between these two dates, in B.C. 5,
a year passed over by Josephus (!), P. Quirinius was governor. If Pfitzner had
not only made reference to the work of Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 275, but had
also thoroughly examined it, he would on this point have learned his lesson
better. All ways of escape are closed, and there remains nothing else but to
acknowledge that the evangelist has made his statement trusting to imperfect
information, so that it is not in accordance with the facts of history. This is
the conclusion reached by Höck,[1048] Mommsen,[1049] Hase,[1050] Winer, Bleek,
De Wette,[1051] Meyer, Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Weizsäcker, Sevin, Lecoultre,
and in all essential respects also by Sieffert[1052] The contradiction of
history is twofold: (1) Luke ascribes to Augustus the order that a census should
be made throughout the whole empire. Of such an imperial census history knows
nothing. It is possible that Augustus may have held censuses in many, perhaps in
most, of the provinces, and that Luke had some vague information about these.
But these numerous provincial censuses, diverse in respect of time and form,
could not be referred back to a single edict. Luke has therefore here
generalized in a manner similar to that in which he deals with the famine in the
days of Claudius. Just as out of the various famines, which, in quite an unusual
manner, occurred in various parts of the empire during the reign of Claudius, he
makes a famine extending ἐφʼ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην (Acts 11:28, see regarding it
below under § 19); so also may the various provincial censuses of which he had
heard have become combined in his representation into one imperial census.
Should the statement about an imperial survey by Augustus be historical (see
above, p. 117), even this might have contributed to the production of his
mistake. (2) He knows further that a census in Judea under Quirinius had taken
place somewhere about the time of the birth of Jesus Christ. By means of this
census he explains the fact that the parents of Jesus travelled from Nazareth to
Bethlehem, and places it therefore exactly in the time of the birth of Christ,
under Herod, i.e. about ten or twelve years too soon. That Luke was indeed
acquainted with this taxing, and was acquainted only with it, is established by
the passage in the Acts of the Apostles (5:37), where he speaks expressly of it
as “the taxing.” [1048] Römische Geschichte, i. 2, p. 412 ff. [1049] Res gestae
divi Augusti, ed. 2, p. 175 sq. [1050] Leben Jesu, sec. 23. [1051] Exegetisches
Handbuch zu d. St. [1052] All of them in their works before referred
to.—Sieffert indeed holds fast by the theory that a census was made in Palestine
by the emperor’s orders under Herod, but admits that the two taxings, that under
Herod and that under Quirinius, are not clearly distinguished chronologically by
Luke, but are in his picture allowed to blend together. Whoever thinks that such
errors should not have been expected from Luke, needs only to be reminded of the
fact that Justin Martyr, who belonged to the educated class, regarded King
Ptolemy, at whose instance the Bible was translated into Greek, as a
contemporary of King Herod (Apol. i. c. 31). Even Luke himself cannot be
pronounced free from other errors; for Theudas, to whom he ascribes the work and
movement of Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:36 ff.), can scarcely be any other Theudas
than the well-known bearer of that name, who actually lived somewhere about
forty years later (see § 19). EXCURSUS II—THE SO-CALLED TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS TO
CHRIST, ANTIQ. XVIII. 3. 3 A list of the literature on this point is given by:
Oberthür in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graec. ed. Harles, t. v. pp. 49-56; Fürst,
Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. pp. 127-132; Hase, Leben Jesu, § 9; Winer,
Realwörterbuch, i. 558; Heinichen in his edition of Eusebii Scripta Historica,
vol. iii. (1870) p. 623 sqq.—The older treatises are printed in Havercamp’s
edition of Josephus, ii. 2, pp. 186-286.—Some controversial tracts of the time
of Richard Simon are enumerated by Bernus, Notice bibliographique sur Richard
Simon (Bâle 1882), n. 110, 230, 238, 239. From a vast number of treatises and
pamphlets we select the following of more recent times:— I. DEFENDING THE
GENUINENESS BRETSCHNEIDER, Capita theologiae Judaeorum dogmaticae e. Flavii
Josephi scriptis collecta (1812), pp. 59-66. BÖHMERT, Ueber des Flavius Josephus
Zeugniss von Christo, 1823. SCHÖDEL, Flavius Josephus de Jesu Christo testatus,
1840. MAYAUD, Le témoignage de Joseph, Strasb. 1858. LANGEN, Theologische
Quartalschrift, 1865, p. 51 ff. DANKO, Historia revelationis divinae Novi
Testamenti (1867), pp. 308-314. MENSINGA, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche
Theologie, 1889, p. 388 (genuine apart from possible modifications of the text,
which, however, have not yet been proved). II. MAINTAINING THE THEORY OF
INTERPOLATION GIESELER, Ecclesiastical History (Edin. 1846, 5 vols.), vol. i. p.
63. HASE, Leben Jesu, § 9 (“wholly or at least in part non-genuine”). EWALD,
History of Israel, vi. 138-142. PARET in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl.
vii. 27-29. HEINICHEN in his edition of Eusebii Scripta Historica, vol. iii. ed.
2, 1870, pp. 623-654. WIESELER, Des Josephus Zeugnisse über Christus und
Jakobus, den Bruder des Herrn (Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1878, p. 86
ff.). VOLKMAR, Jesus Nazarenus, 1882, pp. 335-345. RANKE, Weltgeschichte, 3 Thl.
2 Abthlg. (1883) p. 40 f. SCHOLTEN, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882, pp. 428-451
(compare the review by Van Manen in Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie,
1883, p. 608 f.). MENSINGA, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1883, pp. 145-152 (Van
Manen, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 1883, p. 618). GUST. AD.
MÜLLER, Christus bei Josephus Flavius, Innsbruck 1890 (53 pp.). EDERSHEIM in
art. in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography “Josephus. 5. The Alleged
Testimony of Josephus to Jesus Christ,” vol. iii. pp. 458-460. III. AGAINST THE
GENUINENESS EICHSTAEDT, Flaviani de Jesu Christo testimonii αὐθεντία quo jure
nuper rursus defensa sit quaest. i.-vi., Jen. 1813-1841. Quaestionibus sex super
Flaviano de Jesu Christo testimonio auctarium, i.-iv., Jen. 1841-1845. LEWITZ,
Quaestionum Flavianarum specimen, Regiomon. Pruss. 1835. REUSS, Nouvelle Revue
de Théologie, 1859, pp. 312-319. ERNST GERLACH, Die Weissagungen des Alten
Testamentes in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus und das angebliche Zeugniss
von Christo, 1863. KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. pp. 16-21. HÖHNE, Ueber das
angebliche Zeugniss von Christo bei Josephus, Zwickau 1871, Gymnasial-programme.
D’AVIS, Die Zeugnisse nichtchristlicher Autoren ges ersten Jahrhunderts über
Christus und das Christenthum, Sigmaringen 1873, Gymnasial-programme (p. 8:
“Probably the whole passage is an interpolation, or rather, perhaps, is
thoroughly corrupted by interpolations”). LOMAN, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882,
pp. 593-601 (p. 596: a genuine basis is possible, but “scarcely probable.”
Compare the review by Van Manen, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, 1883,
pp. 593-595, 614). In our manuscripts and editions of Josephus the following
passage concerning Christ is found, Antiq. xviii. 3. 3:— Τίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον
τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. Ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων
ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων· καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν
Ἰουδαίους πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. Καὶ αὐτὸν
ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρʼ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, οὐκ
ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν
πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ
εἰρηκότων. Εἰσέτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ
φῦλον. “Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as
receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and
many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, At the suggestion of
the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved
him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the
third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians so named from him
are not extinct at this day.” From the fourth century, when this passage was
quoted by Eusebius and others (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. i. 11; Demonstratio
Evangelica, iii. 3. 105-106, ed. Gaisford; Pseudo-Hegesippus, De bello Judaico,
ii. 12), through the whole of the Middle Ages, the genuineness of this paragraph
was never disputed. Indeed, it contributed not a little to exalt the reputation
of Josephus in the Christian Church. It was eagerly seized upon as a proof of
the truth of the evangelical history. It was only in the sixteenth century that
criticism first moved in the matter, and since then to the present day the
controversy, pro and con, has gone on uninterruptedly. We may surely be at least
unanimous as to this, that the words, as we have them now, were not written by
Josephus. Whatever may be advanced in their favour does not amount to much in
comparison with the unquestionable indications of spuriousness. Our manuscripts,
of which the oldest, the Ambrosianus F. 128 sup., do not go further back than
the eleventh century (see above, vol. i. p. 103),[1053] without exception have
this paragraph. But this proves only the great antiquity of the interpolation,
which besides is vouched for by Eusebius. Over against the old citations since
Eusebius stands the fact that it is extremely probable that Origen did not read
this passage in his text of Josephus; for, just where one would have expected
it, he betrays no knowledge of it.[1054] Even then, in respect of the external
evidences, objections are not altogether wanting. But the objections on internal
grounds are more decided. If reference be made to the genuinely Josephine style,
we may for that only bestow upon the interpolator the praise of having very
skilfully performed his task The similarity of style is not sufficient to
outweigh the non-Josephine character of the contents. As concerns the contents
then, it is clear that whoever wrote the words ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν was distinctly
a Christian; for that ἦν is not equivalent to ἐνομίζετο and cannot be rendered:
He was the Christ in the popular belief. On this point it is not necessary to
say more. But it is also equally certain that Josephus was not a Christian.
Ergo: the passage, to say the least of it, has interpolations in it. [1053] The
equally ancient Parisin. 1419, which Gerlach, p. 107, designates the oldest
manuscript, contains only the first ten books of the Antiquities. [1054] In
several passages where Origen speaks of James, the brother of Jesus Christ, be
mentions it as a remarkable circumstance that Josephus should have made
favourable allusion to this man, although he (Josephus) did not believe in Jesus
as the Christ. (1) Com. in Matth. tom. x. c. 17 (on Matthew 13:55): καὶ τὸ
θαυμαστόν ἐστιν, ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν οὐ καταδεξάμενος εἶναι Χριστόν, οὐδὲν ἦττον
Ἰακώβῳ δικαιοσύνην ἐμαρτύρησε τοσαύτην. (2) Contra Cels. i. 47: ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς
καίτοι γε ἀπιστῶν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὡς Χριστῳ κ.τ.λ.—It It is scarcely conceivable that
Origen would have so expressed himself, if he had known the famous passage. The
point under discussion is simply this: whether there are interpolations in the
passage or whether it is wholly spurious. Let us make the attempt to
distinguish, and cast out what is suspicious. The words εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν
χρή evidently presuppose belief in the divinity of Christ, and betray the
Christian interpolator. The following, ἦν παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, might in a
case of necessity have been said by Josephus, if it were not that they form the
fundamental support of the non-genuine words preceding them. At any rate, the
words διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων again must have come from a
Christian pen. That ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν was not written by Josephus has been
already pointed out. And just as certainly he has not written: ἐφάνη αὐτοῖς
τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία
θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων. Finally, also, the concluding words want the
necessary support so soon as the words ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν removed from the text.
If, now, we examine the passage as thus reduced we shall find that as good as
nothing remains: a couple of insignificant phrases which, in the form in which
they stand after our operation has been performed, could not have been written
by Josephus. If one therefore continues to maintain the theory of interpolation,
it cannot at any rate be in the sense of a simple insertion of Christian
additions, but, with Ewald, Paret, and others, in the sense of a complete
working up in a new form of the original text of Josephus. But if it is once
admitted as an established fact, that of the present text scarcely a couple of
words are from the hand of Josephus, is it not then more reasonable to recognise
the utter spuriousness of the passage, and assume that Josephus has throughout
been silent regarding Christ? That this hypothesis is impossible cannot be
maintained. It is known that Josephus wished to represent his people in the most
favourable light possible. Therefore he speaks as little as he can of the
Messianic Hope, since to his cultured readers it could only have appeared as
foolishness, and, besides, would have been an unwelcome subject with the
favourite of the Caesars; for in it lay the power of the opposition to Rome.
Josephus might casually refer to John the Baptist without making mention of the
Messianic Hope; but this would have been no longer possible had he introduced
Christ. He could neither represent Christ as a teacher of virtue, like the
Baptist, nor describe the Christian community as a school of philosophy, like
those of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Therefore he will be silent throughout
about this phenomenon. If, for proof of the contrary, we should refer to the
subsequent mention of James, the brother of Jesus Christ (Antiq. xx. 9. 1: τὸν
ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ), in order to draw from
it the conclusion that some previous mention of Christ must have been made, it
has to be answered, that the genuineness of this passage is also very seriously
disputed. Indeed, on the contrary, one must say: the very statements which we
have in reference to James prove that Josephus has been interpolated by
Christian hands. For Origen, in his text of Josephus, read a passage about James
which is to be found in none of our manuscripts, which therefore, without doubt,
was a single instance of a Christian interpolation not carried over into the
vulgar text of Josephus.[1055] [1055] See under § 19, in the section on Porcius
Festus, and the literature referred to there. We therefore, although absolute
certainty on such questions cannot be attained, are inclined to prefer the
theory of the utter spuriousness as simpler than that of the merely partial
spuriousness of the passage.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 37: � 18. HEROD AGRIPPA I., A.D. 37, 40, 41-44
========================================================================

§ 18. HEROD AGRIPPA I., A.D. 37, 40, 41-44 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xviii. 6,
xix. 5-9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 1; Zonares, Annales, vi. 7-11 (an Abstract of
Josephus). In the New Testament: Acts 12. Rabbinical Traditions in Derenbourg,
pp. 205-219. The coins are most completely given in Madden, Coins of the Jews
(1881), pp. 129-139. LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, vii. 236-247, 257-270.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 318-361. HITZIG, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, ii. 568-571. SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 211-215.
HAUSRATH, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 212-225, 266-283. LEWIN, Fasti sacri
(1865), ad ann. 31-44. See also the Index, p. 389 sq. WINER, Realwörterbuch, i.
484 f. KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i. 272-275. In Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii.
49-56. HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud., Abthl. ii. art.
“Agrippa.” DE SAULCY, Étude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois
juifs Agrippa I. et Agrippa II. 1869 (see above, vol. i. p. 27). GERLACH,
Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie, 1869, pp. 53-62. MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Bl.
v., Special Map of “Judea and Neighbouring Countries in the last years of King
Agrippa I.” I WHEN Agrippa I.[1056] ascended the throne of Herod the Great, he
had already passed through an eventful and adventurous career. He was born in
B.C. 10,[1057] as the son of Aristobulus, who was executed in A.D. 7, and
Berenice, a daughter of Salome and Costobar.[1058] Shortly before the death of
his grandfather he was, while a boy of scarcely six years old, sent for his
education to Rome. His mother Berenice was there treated in a friendly manner by
Antonia, the widow of the elder Drusus, while the young Agrippa himself became
attached to the younger Drusus, the son of the Emperor Tiberius. The influence
of the Roman society seems not to have been a favourable or healthy one. He was
trained up to entertain ambitious projects and in habits of extravagance, which,
especially after the death of his mother, knew no measure or bounds. He soon ran
through his means. His debts accumulated upon him. And when by the death of
Drusus, which took place in A.D. 23, he lost support and favour at court, he
found himself obliged to leave Rome and go back again to Palestine.[1059] He
betook himself to Malatha, a stronghold in Idumea,[1060] and meditated
committing suicide. When these tidings reached his wife Cypros, she wrote to
Agrippa’s sister Herodias, who was by this time married to Antipas, and
entreated her help. Herod Antipas was in this way induced to give to his
distressed brother-in-law what would be at least sufficient for the support of
his life, and gave him, in addition, the appointment of Agoranomos (overseer of
markets) in the capital, Tiberias. This new position in life did not indeed
continue long. At a banquet in tyre the two brothers-in-law once engaged in a
dispute, which ended in Agrippa resigning his situation at Tiberias, and
betaking himself to the Roman governor Flaccus in Antioch.[1061] But here, too,
his stay was not of long duration. In a dispute which broke out on one occasion
between the inhabitants of Sidon and those of Damascus, Agrippa took the side of
the Damascenes, apparently in a thoroughly disinterested manner, but really in
consequence of bribes which he had taken from them. When this came to the ears
of Flaccus, he broke off friendly relations with him; and Agrippa found himself
once again deprived of all means of subsistence. He then resolved to try his
fortune again in Rome. After he had meanwhile raised a loan in Ptolemais by the
assistance of a freedman of his mother Berenice, called Peter, and at Anthedon
had only with difficulty escaped the hands of Capito, the procurator of Jamnia,
who wished to apprehend him as a debtor of the emperor’s, and had finally in
Alexandria succeeded in raising large sums on the credit of his wife, he arrived
in Italy in the spring of A.D. 36,[1062] and on the island of Capri[1063]
presented himself before Tiberius.[1064] The emperor entrusted him with the
oversight of his grandson Tiberius. He became particularly intimate with Caius
Caligula, the grandson of his patroness Antonia, who afterwards became emperor.
But even now he could not keep himself out of debt. Yea, in order to appease his
old creditors he was obliged always to borrow new and even larger sums.[1065] It
was not therefore to be wondered at that he eagerly desired an improvement in
his circumstances; but there seemed at that time no prospect of accomplishing it
until the aged Tiberius should be succeeded on the throne by Caligula, whom he
had befriended. Unthinkingly he once expressed his wish aloud to Caligula in the
presence of his coachman Eutychus. At a later period he happened to bring a
charge of theft against this same Eutychus, and had him brought before the city
prefect Piso.[1066] Eutychus now made a declaration that he had an important
secret to communicate to the emperor. Tiberius at first gave no heed to the
matter.[1067] But when, after some time,[1068] a hearing was granted, and
Tiberius came to know what Agrippa had said, he had him immediately put in
fetters and cast into prison. Agrippa now continued in confinement for six
months, until the death of the emperor on 16th March A.D. 37.[1069] [1056] The
New Testament, Acts 12, names him simply as Herod. By Josephus, however, and on
the coins, he is always designated Agrippa. [1057] As is evident from Antiq.
xix. 8. 2, according to which he had reached at his death, in A.D. 44, the age
of fifty-four years. [1058] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4. [1059] Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 6. 1.—Wieseler, Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 168 f., places the
journey of Agrippa from Rome to Palestine in A.D. 29 or 30, which may perchance
be correct. At any rate it did not take place, as what follows shows, until
after the marriage of Herodias with Antipas. [1060] Μαλαθά or Μαλααθά also
several times referred to in the Onomasticon of Eusebius (ed. Lagarde, pp. 214,
255, 266). It lay fully 20 Roman miles south of Hebron, probably on the site of
the modern Tell-el-Milh. See Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii.
201; Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 237; Guérin, Judée, iii. 184-188; The Survey
of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. pp. 404, 415 sq.;
also Sheet xxv. of the large English Map. [1061] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 2.
[1062] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3: ἐνιαυτῷ πρότερον ἢ τελευτῆσαι
Τιβέριον.—Wieseler rejects this fact, and, on account of the Piso mentioned in
what follows, places the arrival of Agrippa in A.D. 32. Beiträge, p. 13:
“probably A.D. 31, at latest A.D. 32;” but in his article in the Beweis des
Glaubens, 1870, p. 169, he says distinctly: “not before A.D. 32.” [1063] Where
Tiberius lived almost without interruption from A.D. 27 (Tacitus, Annals, iv.
67) down to his death. [1064] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 3. [1065] Ibid. xviii.
6. 4. [1066] The Piso here referred to cannot have been the same as the one who
was dead, according to Tacitus, Annals, vi. 10, in A.D. 32, as Wieseler,
Beiträge, p. 8 ff., wishes to make out; for he is still referred to in Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 6. 10, after the death of Tiberius.—Josephus in two passages
designates him φύλαξ τῆς πόλεως. On other Greek designations of the praefectus
urbi, see Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 2. 981. [1067] Josephus, Antiq.
xviii. 6. 5. [1068] χρόνου ἐγγενομένου (Antiq. xviii. 6. 6), of which Wieseler
makes four years. See the Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 169. [1069] Josephus,
Antiq. xviii. 6. 6-7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 5. With the death of Tiberius and
the accession of Caligula began for Agrippa the period of his good fortune.
Caligula scarcely waited till the solemnities of the funeral of Tiberius were
over before he had delivered his friend from his imprisonment and conferred upon
him what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, and that also of Lysanias, with the
title of king. To this gift the Senate further added the honorary rank of a
praetor.[1070] Instead of the iron chain which he had worn, Caligula gave him a
golden chain of equal weight.[1071] But Agrippa still continued to stay in Rome
for a year and a half. It was not before autumn of A.D. 38 that he went back by
way of Alexandria to Palestine, that he might set in order the affairs of his
kingdom.[1072] [1070] Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 6, ed. Mangey, ii. 523. Compare
above, vol. i. p. 450. The loan was obtained, not through the emperor, but
through the Senate. See Philo, l.c.: βαοιλέα καὶ φίλον Καίσαρος καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς
Ρωμαίων βουλῆς τετιμημένον στρατηγικαῖς τιμαῖς. [1071] Josephus, Antiq. xviii.
6. 10; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 6; Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 5 init., ed. Mangey,
ii. 520 sq.; Dio Cassius, lix. 8.—From the inscription at El-Muschennef (in Le
Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii. n. 2211) we see
that the territories of Agrippa extended as far as what is now the Haurân.
[1072] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 11; Philo, In Flaccum, sec. 5, ed. Mangey, ii.
521. Compare above, p. 37 and p. 95. Soon afterwards, through imperial favour,
he obtained yet more important territorial additions. It has been already told
(above, at p. 36) how Herod Antipas in A.D. 39, by his own fault, had lost his
tetrarchy, and now, probably not before A.D. 40, Caligula bestowed it also upon
Agrippa. In the autumn of that same year we find Agrippa once more at Rome or
Puteoli, where he contrived by his personal intercession to prevent Caligula, at
least for a long time, from persisting in his attempt to set up his statue in
the temple of Jerusalem (see above, p. 102). He then remained in the company of
Caligula, and was still present in Rome when his patron, on 24th January A.D.
41, was murdered by Chärea, and contributed not a little to secure the
succession to the throne of the Caesars to the feeble Claudius.[1073] It may
readily be supposed that he was not the man to perform such services without
securing some personal advantage. The new emperor was obliged, in return, not
only to confirm him in the possessions which he had previously, but also to add
to these Judea and Samaria; so that Agrippa now united under his sway the whole
territory of his grandfather. Besides this, he obtained consular rank. For the
confirming of this grant, according to ancient custom, a solemn covenant was
concluded in the Forum, but the documentary deed of gift was engraved on brazen
tablets and placed in the Capitol.[1074] [1073] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 1-4; Wars
of the Jews, ii. 11. [1074] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii.
11. 5; Dio Cassius, lx. 8. Josephus expresses himself in such a manner as to
imply that the tetrarchy of Lysanias was now anew conferred upon Agrippa. But
seeing that he had already received that territory from Caligula, the statement
can only mean that now the gift was formally confirmed. It is in the highest
degree probable that Josephus found in the documents which he used the statement
that Agrippa, by the favour of Claudius, held possession of the tetrarchy of
Lysanias in addition to the whole territories of his grandfather.—The concluding
of the covenant is represented on a coin, of which the superscription is indeed
no longer perfectly legible; on which, however, at any rate there is mention of
a συμμαχία of King Agrippa with the Roman Senate and people (σύνκλητος καὶ δῆμος
Ῥωμαίων). See especially Reichardt in the Numismatische Zeitschrift of Huber and
Karabacek, iii. 1871, pp. 83-88; Mommsen, Num. Zeitschrift, iii. pp. 449 ff.;
Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 69-76; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881,
p. 136 sq. Among the six different attempted readings enumerated by Madden, the
most successful is that of Mommsen.—That Claudius was generally inclined toward
such old covenants is affirmed by Suetonius, Claudius, 25: “Cum regibus foedus
in foro icit porca caesa ac vetere fetialium praefatione adhibita.” A return
home of Agrippa I. or II. (possibly the present return of Agrippa I.) is
referred to in the inscription of El-Muschennef in Le Baa et Waddington,
Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii. n. 2211: Υπὲρ σωτηρίας κυρίου βασι-
λέως Ἀγρίππα καὶ ἐπανόδου κα- τʼ εὐχὴν Διὸς καὶ πατρίου (?) …. ….. ὁμονοίας τὸν
οἶκον ᾠκοδόμ[ησεν]. II The first act by which Agrippa celebrated his return to
Palestine was significant of the spirit and disposition with which he was to
conduct the government of his kingdom. It was an act of piety. The golden chain
which Caligula had bestowed upon him on his liberation from imprisonment “he
hung up within the limits of the temple, over the treasury, that it might be a
memorial of the severe fate he had lain under, and a testimony of his change for
the better; and that it might be a demonstration how the greatest prosperity may
have a fall, and that God sometimes raises what is fallen down.”[1075] At the
same time he presented a thank-offering, “because he would not neglect any
precept of the law;” and bore the expenses of a large number of Nazarites, in
order that they might discharge the obligation of their vow.”[1076] [1075]
Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 1.—The golden charms which, according to the Mishna,
Middoth iii. 8, were hung on the curtain of the temple court, can scarcely be
the same as are referred to here. See the contrary in Derenbourg, p. 209. [1076]
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 1. With such acts the quondam adventurer began his new
reign; and he maintained the same tone throughout the three years during which
he was allowed to live and govern. There were again golden days for Pharisaism;
a revival of the age of Alexandra. Hence Josephus and the Talmud are unanimous
in sounding forth the praises of Agrippa. “He loved to live continually at
Jerusalem, and was exactly careful in the observance of the laws of his country.
He therefore kept himself entirely pure; nor did any day pass over his head
without its appointed sacrifice.” Thus runs the eulogistic strain of
Josephus;[1077] and the Talmud relates how he as a simple Israelite with his own
hand presented the first-fruits in the temple.[1078] And not only at home, but
also abroad, he represented the interests and claims of Judaism. When on one
occasion in the Phoenician city of Dora, a mob of young people erected a statue
of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue, he used his influence with the governor
of Syria, P. Petronius, so that not only for the future was any such outrage
strictly forbidden, but also the guilty parties were called to account for their
proceedings.[1079] And when he betrothed his daughter Drusilla to Epiphanes, son
of King Antiochus of Commagene, he made him promise that he would submit to be
circumcised.[1080] By such displays of piety he gave abundant satisfaction to
the people who were under the guidance of the Pharisees. This was shown in a
very striking manner when, at the Feast of Tabernacles in A.D. 41, according to
the old custom, he read the Book of Deuteronomy,[1081] and in the passage, “Thou
mayest not set a stranger over thee that is not thy brother” (Deuteronomy
17:15), he burst forth in tears, because he felt himself referred to in it. Then
cried out the people to him, “Be not grieved, Agrippa! Thou art our brother!
Thou art our brother!”[1082] [1077] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 3: Ἡδεῖα γοῦν αὐτῷ
δίαιτα καὶ συνεχὴς ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἦν, καὶ τὰ πάτρια καθαρῶς ἐτήρει. Διὰ
πάσης γοῦν αὑτὸν ἦγεν ἁγνείας, οὐδὲ ἡμέρα τις παρώδευεν αὐτῷ χηρεύουσα θυσίας.
[1078] Mishna, Bikkurim iii. 4: When the procession with the firstlings of the
fruits of the fields reached the temple mount “every one, even King Agrippa
himself, took his basket upon his shoulder, and went up until he came into the
court,” etc.—Here, as generally throughout the rabbinical traditions, it is not,
indeed, quite certain whether Agrippa I. or II. is meant.—On the ceremonial
ritual in connection with the presentation of the first-fruits, see, especially,
Mishna, Bikkurim iii. 1-9; also Philo’s tract, de festo cophini (Opera, ed.
Richter, v. 48-50=Tischendorf, Philonea, pp. 69-71); Gratz, Monatsschrift, 1877,
p. 433 ff., and generally the literature referred to in Div. II. vol. i. p. 238.
[1079] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 3. [1080] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1.—Epiphanes
afterwards refused to fulfil his promise, and therefore the marriage was not
consummated. [1081] At the close of each Sabbatical year, i.e. in the beginning
of the eighth year, Deuteronomy had to be read at the Feast of Tabernacles
(Deuteronomy 31:10 ff.; Sota vii. 8). Seeing, then, that the year 68-69 was a
Sabbatical year (see above, vol. i. p. 41), the year 40-41 must also have been
one, and, indeed, it would be the only one occurring during the period of
Agrippa’s reign. Accordingly, this incident took place in A.D. 41. [1082]
Mishna, Sota vii. 8. The declaration of the people could also be vindicated in
accordance with strictly Pharisaic ideas; for when the Edomites (Idumeans) went
over to Judaism, their descendants in the third generation became full members
and citizens of the Israelitish commonwealth (Deuteronomy 23:8-9).—Hitzig,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 571, makes the narrative refer to Agrippa II.,
and Brann, Monatsschrift für Gcschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthumus, 1870,
pp. 541-548, gives himself great trouble in order to prove that this reference
is correct; whereas the majority of scholars (see the list given by Brann at p.
541) prefer Agrippa I. And this latter view is right; for a decided inclination
to favour the Pharisees is far more clearly proved in the case of Agrippa I.
than in that of his son. The careful observance of Pharisaic traditions, however
does not seem to have been the only ground of his popularity. We must also allow
to him a certain natural amiability. Josephus, at least, ascribes to him an
amiable disposition and unbounded benevolence.[1083] That he was grateful for
service that had been rendered him is proved by his appointment of Silas, a
faithful companion who had shared his adventures, to the supreme command of his
troops.[1084] He must, indeed, have had many unpleasant experiences with this
Silas, for he was frequently reminded by him in a rude, rough way of his earlier
troubles, and the service which he had rendered him. In order to rid himself of
this troublesome prattler, Agrippa was obliged to cast him into prison. But it
was a new proof of his goodheartedness that on the next celebration of his
birthday he caused the prisoner to be called, so that he might share in the
enjoyments of the banquet. This kindly offer, however, had no effect, for Silas
would take nothing as a matter of favour, and so was obliged to remain in
prison.[1085] Agrippa on one occasion exhibited his clemency towards Simon the
Pharisee,[1086] who in the king’s absence had excited a popular tumult in
Jerusalem, and had charged the king with transgression of the law. Agrippa
obtained information of these proceedings at Caesarea, summoned Simon to his
presence, caused him to be seated alongside of himself in the theatre, and said
to him in a gentle and kindly tone: “Tell me now, what was done here contrary to
the law?” Overcome with shame the learned scribe could give no answer, and was
dismissed by the king with presents.[1087] [1083] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 3:
Πραῢς ὁ τρόπος Ἀγριππᾳ, καὶ πρὸς πάντας τὸ εὐεργετικὸν ὅμοιον. [1084] Josephus,
Antiq. xix. 6. 3. [1085] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 1. [1086] Frankel,
Darke-ha-Mishna, p. 58 sq., regards him as identical with Simon, the reputed son
of Hillel and father of Gamaliel I. But the existence of this Simon is more than
questionable (see Div. II. vol. i. p. 363). Besides, the chronology does not
rightly fit in, since Gamaliel I. was already head of the school before the time
of Agrippa (Acts 5:34). [1087] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 4. To a
Pharisaic-national policy belonged also emancipation from a position of
dependence upon Rome. And even in this direction Agrippa made, at least, two
rather shy and timid attempts. In order to strengthen the fortifications of
Jerusalem, the capital, he began to build on the north of the city a powerful
new wall, which, according to Josephus’ account, would, if it had been
completed, have made the city impregnable. But, unfortunately, before the work
could be carried out, the emperor, at the instigation of Marsus, the governor of
Syria, issued an injunction against the continuance of it.[1088] Of yet greater
significance for Rome was the conference of princes assembled by Agrippa soon
after this at Tiberias. No fewer than five Roman vassal kings: Antiochus of
Commagene, Sampsigeram[1089] of Emesa, Cotys of Lesser Armenia, Polemon of
Pontus, and Herod of Chalcis, answered the invitation of Agrippa. But this
enterprise also was broken up by Marsus. The Syrian governor himself put in an
appearance at Tiberias, and ordered the other guests without delay to return
home.[1090] [1088] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6, v.
4. 2. Compare also Derenbourg, p. 218 f. The original forbearance of the emperor
toward the building of the wall seems to have been purchased by Agrippa through
the bribing of the imperial councillors. Compare Tacitus, History, v. 12: “per
avaritiam Claudianorum temporum empto jure muniendi struxere muros in pace
tamquam ad bellum.” [1089] Aramic שמשגרם in De Vogüé, Syrie Centrale,
Inscriptions, p. 54 (n. 75).—On an inscription at Emesa, of the Seleucid year
390=A.D. 78-79, one Σαμσιγέραμος is referred to, probably a member of the royal
family (Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2567. In the Corpus
Inscr. Graec. n. 4511, the date is wanting). At a later period, too, the name
Σαμσιγέραμος is found also in that region (Waddington, n. 2564, of the Seleucid
year 494=A.D. 182-183). [1090] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 1.—Compare in general,
on the above-named vassal kings, the paragraphs referring thereto in Kuhn, Die
städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs, Bd. ii.; Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1881 (p. 398 f.; Commagene; p. 403 f.:
Emesa; p. 369: Lesser Armenia; p. 359 f.: Pontus; p. 400 f.: Chalcis); also
Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1662. On the dynasty of Commagene see especially:
Mommsen, “Die Dynastie von Commagene” in Mittheilungen des deutschen
archaeologischen Institutes in Athen, Bd. i. 1876, pp. 27-29. (See vol. i. pp.
184, 185, of the present work.) On the kings of Pontus, the treatises of Sallet
and Waddington named by Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 360, note 7. On
Herod of Chalcis, see Appendix I. Finally, it was a further consequence of his
Jewish policy that the otherwise good-natured king should become the persecutor
of the young Christian community, especially of the apostles. James the elder,
son of Zebedee, was put by him to a martyr’s death; and Peter escaped his hand
only by the intervention of a miracle.[1091]—Moreover, he was an enemy not of
the Christians only. The heathen cities also within his territories hated him on
account of his Jewish policy, as is proved by the unconcealed jubilation with
which the news of his death was received by the Caesareans and Sebasteans.[1092]
[1091] Acts 12:1-19. [1092] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1.—The Σεβαστηνοί are
soldiers of Samaria (Sebaste), who lay in garrison in Caesarea. Compare above,
p. 53. That Agrippa’s Pharisaic piety was a real conviction of the heart is, in
view of his earlier life, not in the least probable. He who had spent fifteen
years in gaiety and debauchery is not one of whom it could be expected that in
the evening of his days he should from hearty conviction assume the Pharisaic
yoke. Besides this, we have the most certain proofs that the king’s Jewish piety
was maintained only within the limits of the Holy Land. When he went abroad he
was, like his grandfather, a liberal latitudinarian patron of Greek culture.
Thus, for example, Berytus had much to tell of the pagan magnificence which he
there cultivated. He had erected there at his own expense a beautiful theatre,
an amphitheatre, baths, and piazzas. At the opening of the building, games and
sports of all sorts were performed, and among the rest in the amphitheatre there
was a gladiatorial combat, at which 1400 malefactors were made to slaughter one
another.[1093] Also at Caesarea he caused games to be performed.[1094] There
also statues of his daughters were erected.[1095] So, too, the coins which were
stamped during Agrippa’s reign are in thorough agreement with the description of
the state of matters now given. Only those stamped in Jerusalem had on them no
image, while of those that were minted in other cities some had the image of
Agrippa, others that of the emperor.[1096] The official title of Agrippa is the
same as that of the other Roman vassal kings of that time. From an inscription
we know that his family had been adopted into the gens Julia;[1097] and from
another that he bore the title βασιλεὺς μέγας φιλόκαισαρ εὐσεβὴς καὶ
φιλορώμαιος.[1098] From a survey of all the facts it is evident that his
concessions to Pharisaism were purely matters of policy. Upon the whole he was a
careful imitator of the old Herod, “only milder in disposition and somewhat more
sly.”[1099] Yet even the grandfather felt himself obliged to make concessions to
the Pharisees. Agrippa was in this matter only consistently following out his
general lines of policy, for he very well knew that the peace which he loved
could be secured in no other way. [1093] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7.5.—The favour
shown to Berytus is explained by the circumstance that it was a Roman colony.
Compare above, vol. i. p. 460. [1094] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2. [1095]
Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1. [1096] Compare on the coins of Agrippa generally:
Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 491 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 567-569;
Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p. 126 sq. pl. lx. n. 3-7; Cavedoni,
Biblische Numismatik, i. 53 f., 61-64 (ascribes all to Agrippa II.); De Saulcy,
Recherches, p. 147 sq.; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 35-37; Levy,
Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, p. 80 f.; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage,
pp. 103-111; De Saulcy, Étude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois
juifs Agrippa I. et Agrippa II. 1869 (compare above, vol. i. p. 27); Reichardt
in the Wiener Numismatische Zeitschrift, Bd. iii. 1871, p. 83 ff.; Mommsen,
Wiener Num. Zeitschr. iii. 1871, p. 449 ff.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875,
pp. 58-80; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 129-139; Stickel, Zeitschrift
des deutschen Pälestina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p. 213.—Those of most frequent
occurrence among the coins of Agrippa are those without an image, with merely
emblems (sunshade? and three ears of corn), which almost all have the
year-number VI. and the simple inscription βασιλεωσαγριπα. They were by the
older numismatists ascribed to Agrippa II., but since De Saulcy have been
rightly assigned to Agrippa I., in consequence of their having been minted at
Jerusalem. The existence of examples with other year-numbers (V., VII., VIII.,
IX.) is very questionable. Compare especially De Saulcy, Numismatic Chronicle,
1871, p. 255: “J’ai encore recueilli un très-grand nombre de monnaies d’Agrippa
au parasol, cent au moins! Toutes sans exception sont datées de l’an VI. Je
persiste donc plus que jamais à me méfier des autres dates qui ont été
signalées.”—Besides those coins properly so called of Agrippa I., there were
also stamped during his reign: (1) In Caesarea by the sea (Καισαρια η προς
Σεβαστω λιμενι), coins with the image of Agrippa and the superscription Βασιλευς
μεγας Αγριππας Φιλοκαισαρ. (2) In Caesarea Panias, coins with the image of
Caligula and the (more or less defective) name of the emperor, or without his
name. (3) In Tiberias, coins with the image of Claudius, and on the reverse: επι
βασιλε. Αγριπ. Τιβεριεων. (4) And besides these we have the coins referred to in
the above, note 19, in remembrance of the “covenant” between Agrippa and the
Roman people. On the so-called Agrippa coin in Anthedon, see Div. II. vol. i.
pp. 73-74, and Imhoof-Blumer in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiii.
1885, p. 139 f. [1097] On the inscription at Athens, Corpus Inscr. Graec. n.
361=Corpus Inscr. Atticarum, iii. 1, n. 556, his daughter Berenice is called
Ἰουλία Βερενείκη βασίλισσα μεγάλη, Ἰουλίου Ἀγρίππα βασιλέως θυγατήρ.—There is
also evidence of other members of the Herodian family bearing the Gentile name
of the Julians; by Agrippa II., from the inscription given by Le Bas et
Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2112. Agrippa I. had a son-in-law called
Ἰούλιος Ἀρχέλαος (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1; Against Apion, i. 9). Probably
also the Γάϊος Ἰούλιος βασιλέως Ἀλεξάνδοου υἱὸς Ἀγρίππας ταμίας καὶ
ἀντιστράτηγος τῆς Ἀσίας (Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, Inscriptions from the
Great Theatre, p. 50, note 5), referred to in an inscription at Ephesus,
belonged to the Herodian family.—Compare, generally, on the frequent occurrence
of the Gentile name of the Julians among the Roman vassal kings of the days of
the empire: Renan, Mission de Phénicie, p. 310; Bohn, Qua condicione juris reges
socii populi Romani fuerint, Berol. 1877, p. 25 sq.—It should be observed that
the name Julius, as well as the consular rank which Agrippa enjoyed, implied the
possession of Roman citizenship, which had been conferred upon the Herodian
family as early as in the days of Antipater, the father of Herod the Great. See
first vol. of this work, p. 378. [1098] The most complete form of the titles of
Agrippa I. and Agrippa II. has been given us in the interesting inscriptions
which Waddington found at Sîʿa, half a league from Kanawât, on the western base
of the Haurân (Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines, t. iii.
n. 2365). It runs as follows:— [1099] Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 55.
Ἐπὶ βασιλέως μεγάλου Ἀγριππα φιλοκαισαρος εὐσεβοῦς καὶ φιλορωμα[ί-] ου, τοῦ ἐκ
βασιλέως μεγάλου Ἀγρίππα φιλοκαίσαρος εὐσεβοῦς καὶ [φι-] λορωμαίου, Ἀφαρεὺς
ἀπελεύθερος καὶ Ἀγρίππας υἱὸς ἀνέθηκαν. The titles φιλόκαισαρ and φιλορώμαιος
occur very frequently during that period. Numerous examples are given in the
Index of the Corpus Inscr. Graec. p. 165. Compare also Bohn, Qua condicione
juris reges, p. 14.—Most precisely and perfectly in accordance with the titles
of the two Agrippas are those of King Sauromates of Bosporus, Corpus Inscr.
Graec. n. 2123 and 2124: βασιλέα βασιλέων μέγαν Τιβέριον Ἰούλιον Σαυρομάτην
Φιλοκαίσαρα καὶ Φιλορώμαιον εὐσεβῆ. Compare also, in reference to him, Wilmanns,
Exempla Inscr. Lat. n. 2689. The country did not long enjoy his rule. After he
had reigned little more than three years, if we reckon from A.D. 41, he died at
Caesarea very suddenly in A.D. 44.[1100] The two accounts of his death which we
have, in Acts 12:19-23, and Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2, with many variations,
are yet in thorough and detailed agreement on the principal points.[1101] The
Acts of the Apostles relates that in Caesarea, sitting on the judgment-seat
(βῆμα) dressed in his royal robes, he delivered an oration to the ambassadors
representing the citizens of Tyre and Sidon, with whom, we know not why, he had
been displeased. While he was speaking the people called out: It is the voice of
a god, and not of a man. Immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he
gave not God the glory; and he was eaten up of worms, and gave up the ghost.
According to Josephus, he was present at Caesarea while games were being
celebrated there in honour of the emperor. On the second day he appeared in the
theatre in a robe which was made wholly of silver. When the robe sparkled in the
sun, the flatterers cried out to him declaring that he was a god (θεὸν
προσαγορεύοντες), and entreating that he would have mercy upon them. The king
allowed himself to be carried away by their flattery. Soon thereafter he saw an
owl sitting upon a rope, which at once he accepted as a presage of a speedy
death.[1102] He then knew that his hour had come. Immediately a most severe pain
arose in his bowels. He had to be carried into the house, and in five days was a
corpse.—It thus appears that the principal points: Caeserea as the scene of the
incident, the brilliant robe, the flattering shout, the sudden death—are common
to both narratives, although the details have been somewhat diversified in the
course of transmission. [1100] The date of Agrippa’s death is discussed in the
most complete manner by Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp.
129-136. Agrippa died after he had reigned three full years over all Palestine
(Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2: τρίτον δὲ ἔτος αὐτῷ βασιλεύοντι τῆς ὅλης Ἰουδαίας
πεπλήρωτο), consequently in A.D. 44, and indeed, soon after the feast of the
Passover (Acts 12:3 ff.), while the games were being celebrated at Caesarea in
honour of the emperor (εἰς τὴν Καίσαρος τιμήν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας,
Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2). By these games Wieseler understands those regular
wrestling matches at Caesarea founded by Herod the Great, which were celebrated
every fourth year. Upon the hypothesis, therefore, that they began on the 12th
August, he places the death of Agrippa on the 6th August. But this hypothesis
that the games began on 1st August is quite an arbitrary assumption. Indeed, the
words of Josephus (ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας) plainly show that no regular games
are here intended, but some extraordinary entertainments, and point to games
which were celebrated at Rome in honour of Claudius’ return from Britain in the
spring of A.D. 44 (Dio Cassius, lx. 23), and afterwards also in the provinces.
Such also is the opinion of Anger, De temporum in act. ap. ratione, p. 40;
Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 278 f.; Lewin, Fasti
sacri, p. 279 sq. n. 1674. The regular games of Caesarea celebrated every
fourth, not every fifth year (see vol. i. of present work, p. 439), would come
round, not in A.D. 44, but in A.D. 43, since, according to Josephus, Antiq. xvi.
5. 1, they were instituted in the 28th year of Herod=A.U.C. 744, and so would
come round in A.U.C. 796= A.D. 43. [1101] The rendering of the story of
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 10, is in all essential points in thorough agreement
with that of Acts and Josephus, although he changes the owl of Josephus into an
angel. Compare also Ranisch, De Lucae et Josephi in morte Herodis Agrippae
consensu., Lips. 1745. In recent times: Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth.
Theologie, 1869, pp. 57-62.—On the changing of the owl into an angel, Heinichen,
Eusebii Scripta historica, iii. 654-656. [1102] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 7.—On
the owl as a bird of evil omen, see Pliny, Hist. Nat. x. 12. 34-35. Agrippa
left, besides his three daughters (Berenice, Mariamme, and Drusilla), only one
son, then in his seventeenth year, whose name also was Agrippa. The Emperor
Claudius had been disposed to give over to him the kingdom of his father; but
his advisers restrained him from carrying out his intentions. And so again the
whole of Palestine, as formerly Judea and Samaria had been, was taken possession
of as Roman territory, and its administration given over to a procurator under
the supervision of the governor of Syria.[1103] The younger Agrippa continued
meanwhile to live in retirement. [1103] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 1-2; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 11. 6.—Bormann (De Syriae provinciae Romanae partibus capita
nonnulla, 1865, pp. 3-5) assumes that Palestine during the period A.D. 44-49 was
administered by a procurator independent of the legate of Syria; but in A.D. 49
was attached to the province of Syria, because, forsooth, Tacitus, Annals, xii.
23, begins his narrative of the events of the year 49 with the words: “Ituraei
et Judaei defunctis regibus, Sohaemo atque Agrippa, provinciae Suriae additi.”
But it is evident that the narrative of Tacitus is very summary, and brings
together things that in point of time lay quite apart from one another. Hence
such a conclusion cannot be based upon his statement. Just in A.D. 44 or A.D.
45, immediately after the death of Agrippa I., the legate of Syria, Cassius
Longinus, did interfere in the affairs of Judea. The independence of the
procurator of Judea was therefore no greater then than it was subsequently, and
it was subsequently no less than it was then. Compare generally above, p. 47;
and especially against Bormann, Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2
Aufl. 1881, p. 411, note 11.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 38: � 19. THE ROMAN PROCURATORS, A.D. 44-66
========================================================================

§ 19. THE ROMAN PROCURATORS, A.D. 44-66 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xx. 1 and 5-11;
Wars of the Jews, ii. 11-14 ZONARAS, Annales, vi. 12-17 (summary from Josephus).
LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, vii. 412-426, 479-485. GRÄTZ, Geschichte
der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 361 ff., 426 ff., 724 ff. HITZIG, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, ii. 588-594. SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 215-224.
HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. ii. 362 ff., iii. 331-374,
423-426. LEWIN, Fasti sacri, 1865, ad. ann. 44-46. GERLACH, Die Römischen
Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa, 1865, p. 67 ff. GRÄTZ, “Chronologische
Präcisirung der Reihenfolge der letzten römischen Landpfleger in Judäa,” etc.
(Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums), 1877, pp. 401
ff., 443 ff.). Compare, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. p. 724 ff., where the
treatise from the Monatsschrift is almost entirely reproduced. ROHDEN, De
Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis quaestiones selectae, Berol. 1885, pp.
34-36. KELLNER, “Die römischen Statthalter von Syrien und Judäa zur Zeit Christi
und der Apostel.” Zweiter Artikel. “Die kaiserlichen Procuratoren von Judäa”
(Zeitschrift für katholischen Theologie, 1888, p. 630 ff.). MENKE’S Bibelatlas,
Bl. V. Special Map of “Judea and neighbouring countries in the time of Felix and
Festus.” WHEN we glance over the history of the Roman procurators, to whom once
more the government of Palestine was entrusted, we might readily suppose that
all of them, as if by secret arrangement, so conducted themselves as most
certainly to arouse the people to revolt. Even the best among them, to say
nothing at all of the others who trampled right and law under foot, had no
appreciation of the fact that a people like the Jews required, in a permanent
degree, consideration for their prejudices and peculiarities. Instead of
exercising mildness and toleration, they had only applied themselves with
inexorable strictness to suppress any movement of the popular life.—As compared
with those who followed, the words of Josephus are true regarding the first two
procurators, that, “making no alterations of the ancient laws and customs, they
kept the nation in tranquillity.”[1104] [1104] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.
11. 6. 1. The first procurator whom Claudius sent to Palestine was Cuspius Fadus
(A.D. 44-?).[1105] Immediately after he had entered upon his office he had an
opportunity for affirming his determination to maintain order. When he arrived
in Palestine the inhabitants of Perea were in a state of open war with the city
of Philadelphia.[1106] The conflict had arisen over disputes about the
boundaries of their respective territories. Inasmuch as the Pereans were the
parties at fault, Fadus caused one of the three leaders of the party to be
executed and the other two to be banished from the country.—But that Fadus with
all his uprightness and love of justice had no appreciation of the peculiar
characteristics of the Jewish people, is proved by his demand that the beautiful
robe of the high priest, which in earlier times, A.D. 6-36, had laid under Roman
keeping, and had been afterwards given up by Vitellius (see above, p. 88),
should again be committed to the charge of the Romans.[1107] Thus, without any
occasion whatever, by petty annoyances, the feelings of the people, which were
most sensitive in matters of this sort, were outraged. Fortunately, Fadus and
the governor of Syria, Cassius Longinus, who on account of this important affair
had gone up to Jerusalem, were considerate enough as to at least allow a Jewish
embassy to proceed to Rome, which by the mediation of the younger Agrippa
obtained an order from Claudius that in the matter of the garments things should
continue as they had been.[1108] [1105] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 2. [1106] On
Philadelphia, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 119-121. [1107] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1.
1. [1108] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1-2. Compare xv. 11. 4.—The rescript of
Claudius to the officials of Jerusalem, in which this decision of the emperor is
communicated to them (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 2), bears date of 28th June A.D.
45, Claud. tribunic. potest. V., in the consulship of Rufus and Pompeius
Silvanus. On these Consules suffecti, see Klein, Fasti consulares, p.
33.—Compare also: Kindlmann, “Utrum litterae, quae ad Claudium Tiberium
imperatorem apud Josephum referuntur, ad eum referendae sint necne, quaeritur.
Mährisch-Neustadt, Progr. 1884. This treatise I have had no opportunity of
examining. More serious than this conflict was one which occurred at a later
period, and led to open war and shedding of blood. One who pretended to be a
prophet, Theudas by name, gathered a large multitude of followers after him,
with whom he marched down to the Jordan, giving them the assurance that he by
his mere word would part the stream and lead them across on dry land. This,
indeed, was only to be a proof of his divine mission, and what he had mainly in
view, the contest with Rome, would follow. At any rate this was how the matter
was regarded by Fadus. He sent a detachment of horsemen against Theudas, which
completely defeated him and slew a portion of his followers or took them
prisoners; and when Theudas himself had been apprehended, they struck off his
head and carried it to Jerusalem as a sign of their victory.[1109] [1109]
Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 1=Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 11.—The name Theudas is met
with also elsewhere (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2684, 3563, 3920, 5698; Wetstein,
Nov. Test. on Acts 5:36; Pape-Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen,
s.v.). Θευδᾶς is a contraction for Θεοδόσιος, Θεόδοτος, Θεόδωρος, or such like
name derived from θεός. The contraction for εο into ευ is very frequent in
proper names connected with θεός and κλέος. Even in rabbinical works we find
תודוס (Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, col. 2565 sq.; Lightfoot, Opera, ii. 704;
Schoettgen, Horae hebraicae, i. 423). But the name of the physician תידוס,
Mishna, Bechoroth iv. 4, reads according to the best manuscripts תודרוס (as in
the Cambridge manuscript and cod. de Rossi, 138).—Our rebel chief Theudas is
well known from the reference made to him in Acts 5:36, where the allusion to
him occurs in a speech of Gamaliel delivered a considerable time before the
actual appearance of Theudas. Indeed, according to the representation of the
narrative of the Acts, the appearance of Theudas is placed before that of Judas
of Galilee in A.D. 6. But as many are unwilling that so serious an error should
be attributed to the author of the Acts of the Apostles, several theologians
have assumed the existence of two different rebels of the name of Theudas. But
such an assumption is not justified in consideration of the slight authority of
the Acts in such matters. Compare on the pro and con of this controversy:
Sonntag, “Theudas der Anfrührer” (Studien und Kritiken, 1837, p. 622 ff.);
Zuschlag, Theudas, Anführer eines 750 R. in Palästina erregten Aufstandes,
Cassel 1849; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 90 f.; Beiträge zur richtigen
Würdigung der Evangelier, p. 101 ff.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, ii. 609 f.; Keim in
Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, v. 510-513; Köhler in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 1
Aufl. xvi. 39-41; K. Schmidt in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xv. 553-557;
Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1854, pp. 132-137; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 903,
933, 1469. The Commentaries on Acts by Kuinoel, De Wette, Meyer, Overbeck,
Wendt, Nösgen, and others. The older literature is given in Wolf, Curae philol.
in Nov. Test. on Acts 5:36. 2. The successor of Fadus was Tiberius Alexander,
down to A.D. 48, descended from one of the most illustrious Jewish families of
Alexandria, a son of the Alabarch Alexander, and nephew of the philosopher
Philo.[1110] He had abandoned the religion of his fathers and taken service
under the Romans. During the period of his government Palestine was visited by a
sore famine.[1111] The one fact of any importance that is recorded about him is
that he caused James and Simon, the sons of Judas of Galilee, to be crucified,
ostensibly because they were entertaining schemes similar to those of their
father.[1112] [1110] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 2, xviii. 8. 1—On the office of
Alabarch, see Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 280, 281. [1111] Compare in regard to this
famine, besides Antiq. xx. 5. 2, also Antiq. iii. 15. 3, xx. 2. 6; Acts
11:28-30; Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione (1833), pp. 41-49;
Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 156-161; Karl Schmidt,
Die Apostelgeschichte, Bd. i. 1882, pp. 157-164.—Josephus refers the famine to
the time of Tiberius Alexander, but states that it had its beginning in the days
of his predecessor: ἐπὶ τούτοις δὴ καὶ τὸν μέγαν λιμὸν κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν συνέβη
γενέσθαι. The reading ἐπὶ τούτοις is confirmed by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 12.
1. In the connection in which it occurs, however, it is certainly not to be
rendered propter haec (as Credner, Einleitung, p. 330, does), nor even by ad
haec nor post haec (as Keim does in his Aus dem Urchristenthum, p. 19, note),
but by horum temporibus. On this incorrect use of ἐπί with the dative instead of
the genitive, see Wahl, Clavis librorum V. T. apocryph. s.v. ἐπί. The narrative
of the Acts is in agreement with this when it refers the famine to somewhere
about the time of Agrippa’s death in A.D. 44.—In all the three passages Josephus
names Judea only as the district affected by the famine (xx. 5. 2: τὴν Ἰουδαίαν;
iii. 15. 3: τὴν χώραν ἡμῶν; xx. 2. 6: τὴν πόλιν). The author of the Acts of the
Apostles describes it as extending over the whole world (11:28: ἐφʼ ὅλην τὴν
οἰκουμένην), which is a generalization quite as unhistorical as that about the
census of Quirinias. Certainly the reign of Claudius had been remarked by
assiduae sterilitates (Suetonius, Claudius, 18). Besides the famine that
occurred in Palestine we are told of the following: (1) A famine in Rome in the
beginning of his reign (Dio Cassius, lx. 11; Aurel., Victor Caesar, 4; Coins in
Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vi. 238 sq.); (2) Another famine in Greece in the 8th or 9th
year of his reign (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 152 sq., in the
Armenian and according to Jerome); and (3) yet another famine in Rome in the
11th year of his reign, according to Tacitus, Annals, xii. 43, or according to
Eusebius, Chronicon, in the 10th or 9th year; Orosius also, vii. 6. 17, giving
the 10th year as the date. But a famine that extended over the whole world is as
improbable in itself as it is unsupported by the statement of any authority.
[1112] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 2.—Tiberius Alexander served at a late period
under Corbulo against the Parthians (Tacitus, Annals, xv. 28), was then made
governor of Egypt (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 1, 18. 7, iv. 10. 6;
Tacitus, History, i. 11, ii. 74, 79; Suetonius, Vespasian, 6), and was the most
distinguished and trusted counsellor of Titus at the siege of Jerusalem (Wars of
the Jews, v. 1. 6, vi. 4. 3). His full name is given in an edict which he issued
as governor of Egypt: “Tiberius Julius Alexander” (Corpus Inscr. Graec. n.
4957).—The conjecture of Bernays, that it is to him that the pseudo-Aristotelian
treatise περὶ κόσμου is dedicated, is highly improbable, although it has been
accepted as an established fact by Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 494, 566.
According to Zeller, that work is actually a production of Aristotle, and he to
whom it is dedicated is Alexander the Great. See the literature given above in
vol. i. p. 63.—On Tiberius Alexander compare generally: Rudorff, “Das Edict des
Tiberius Julius Alexander” (Rhein Museum, 1828, pp. 64-84, 133-190); Franz,
Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 4957; Haakh in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2 (1852),
p. 1943 f.; Renier in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, t. xxvi. 1 (1867), pp. 294-302; Lumbroso, Recherches sur
l’économie politique de l’Égypte sous les Lagides (Turin 1870), p. 216 sq.—The
family of Tiberius Alexander continued also in later times in the service of the
Romans. A Julius Alexander, perhaps a son or grandson of the one of whom we have
been speaking, served as legate under Trajan in the Parthian war (Dio Cassius,
lxviii. 30), was consul in A.D. 117, and member of the priestly College of the
Arvales, A.D. 118-119. The Acts of the Arvales give his full name as Tiberius
Julius Alexander Julianus (Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 2078, 2079; compare
also, Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium, Index, p. 188). One Τιβέριος Ἰούλιος
Ἀλέξανδρος, commander of cohors I Flavia and agoranomos over the second city
district of Alexandria, in the 21st year of Antoninus Pius, erected a statue to
the great goddess Isis (Annali dell’ Instituto di corrisp. archeolog. 1875, p.
15). Although even the days of those first procurators did not pass without
troubles and upheaval, these came to be regarded as altogether insignificant in
comparison with the excitement and turmoil that followed. Even under the
governorship of the next procurator Cumanus popular tumults, not without faults
on both sides, broke out in far more formidable proportions. 3. The first
rebellion against which Ventidius Cumanus, A.D. 48-52,[1113] had to contend was
occasioned by the coarse insolence of a Roman soldier. This man had the
presumption at the feast of the Passover, when to maintain order and preserve
the peace a detachment of soldiers was always situated in the court of the
temple,[1114] to insult the festive gathering by assuming an indecent posture.
The enraged multitude demanded satisfaction from the procurator. As Cumanus,
however, attempted first of all to hush up the matter, he too was assailed with
reproachful speeches, until at length he called for the intervention of the
armed forces. The excited crowds were utterly routed; and their overthrow was so
complete that, according to Josephus’ estimate, in the crush which took place in
the streets in consequence of their flight, 20,000 (!) men lost their
lives.[1115] [1113] Ventidius, according to Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54; in
Josephus called only Cumanus.—The date of Cumanus’ entrance upon office may be
discovered, though only approximately, from this, that Josephus at the same time
reports the death of Herod of Chalcis in the 8th year of Claudius=A.D. 48
(Antiq. xx. 5. 2). Without sufficient ground Wieseler, Chronologie des
apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 68, 126 f., fixes the date of Cumanus’ entrance
upon his office as late as A.D. 50; whereas, on the other hand, Anger, De
temporum in actis apostolorum ratione, p. 44; Gerlach, Die römische Statthalter,
p. 71; Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 415; Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
ii. 589; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 1719; Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1877, pp.
402-408=Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp. 725-728; Rohden, De Palaestina,
p. 35, assume the date A.D. 48. [1114] Compare Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 8; Antiq.
xx. 8. 11. [1115] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 1. The
fault in this case lay with the Romans, but in the next upheaval the occasion
was given by the Jewish people themselves. An imperial official called Stephanus
was attacked on a public road not far from Jerusalem, and robbed of all his
belongings. As a punishment for this the villages which lay in the neighbourhood
of the spot where the deed was committed were subjected to a general pillage. It
was through a pure mischance that out of this pillage further mischief was very
nearly occasioned; for a soldier, before the eyes of all, amid contumelious and
reproachful speeches tore up a Thorah roll which he had found. In order to
obtain revenge and satisfaction for such profanity, a mass deputation visited
Cumanus at Caesarea, demanding the punishment of the offender. This time the
procurator saw it to be advisable to give way, and so sentenced the offender to
be put to death.[1116] [1116] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii.
12. 2. Far more bitter and bloody was a third collision with the people under
Cumanus, which though it did not indeed cost him his life, yet led to his loss
of office. Certain Galilean Jews, who on their way to the feast at Jerusalem had
to pass through Samaria, had been murdered in a Samaritan village. When Cumanus,
who had been bribed by the Samaritans, took no steps to secure the punishment of
the guilty, the Jewish people took upon themselves the duty of revenge. Under
the leadership of two Zealots, Eleasar and Alexander, a great multitude of armed
men made an attack upon Samaria, hewed down old men, women, and children, and
laid waste the villages. But then Cumanus with a portion of his military force
fell upon the Zealots; many were slain, others were taken prisoners. Meanwhile
ambassadors from the Samaritans appeared before Ummidius Quadratus, governor of
Syria, and lodged a complaint with him about the robber raid of the Jews. At the
same time, however, a Jewish embassy also came to Quadratus, and accused the
Samaritans and Cumanus, who had accepted bribe from them. Quadratus, therefore,
went himself to Samaria and made a strict investigation. All the revolutionists
taken prisoners by Cumanus were crucified; five Jews, who were proved to have
taken a prominent part in the struggle, were beheaded; but the ringleaders both
of the Jews and of the Samaritans were sent along with Cumanus to Rome in order
to answer for their conduct there. The Jews were indebted to the intercession of
the younger Agrippa, who happened then to be in Rome, for their success in their
securing their rights. The decision of Claudius was to this effect, that the
ringleaders of the Samaritans, who had been discovered by him to be the guilty
parties, should be executed, while Cumanus was to be deprived of his office and
sent into banishment.[1117] [1117] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1-3; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 12. 3-7.—There is a divergence in regard to essential points between
this representation of Josephus and that given by Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54.
According to the Roman historian, Cumanus was only procurator of Galilee, while
during the same period Felix had the administration of Samaria, and indeed of
Judea also (Felix … jam pridem Judaeae impositus … aemulo ad deterrima Ventidio
Cumano, cui pars provinciae habebatur, ita divisae, ut huic Galilaeorum natio,
Felici Samaritae parerent). Felix and Cumanus were equally to blame for the
bloody conflicts that took place. But Quadratus condemned only Cumanus, and even
allowed Felix to take part in the trial as judge.—It is really impossible to do
away with the contradiction between Tacitus and Josephus; for Josephus leaves no
doubt of this, that, according to his understanding of the matter, Cumanus was
the only governor in the territory of the Jews, and that Felix only went to
Palestine as his successor Compare especially the definite statement that the
high priest Jonathan, who was in Rome at the time of the deposition of Cumanus,
had besought the emperor that he should send Felix (see note 15). But it seems a
matter scarcely to be questioned that the very detailed narrative of Josephus
deserves to be preferred to the indeterminate remarks made by Tacitus. So also
thinks Wurm, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1833, 1 Heft, pp. 14-21; Anger,
De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione, pp. 88-90; Wieseler, Chronologie des
apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 67; Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Felix;” Lewin,
Fasti sacri, n. 1777.—In favour essentially of Tacitus: Nipperdey, Anmerkungen
zu Tacitus Annales, xii. 54; Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 403 ff.=Geschichte
der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. pp. 725-728; Rohden, De Palaestina et Arabia, p. 35;
Kellner, Zeitschrift für katholischen Theologie, 1888, p. 639 f. 4. At the
request of the high priest Jonathan, one of the Jewish aristocracy whom
Quadratus had sent to Rome,[1118] the Emperor Claudius transferred the
administration of Palestine to one of his favourites, the brother of the
influential Pallas, whose name was Felix (A.D. 52-60).[1119] This man’s term of
office constitutes probably the turning-point in the drama which had opened with
A.D. 44 and reached its close in the bloody conflicts of A.D. 70. During the
days of the first two procurators things had continued relatively quiet; under
Cumanus, indeed, there were more serious uprisings of the people; yet even then
they were only isolated and called forth by particular occurrences; under Felix
rebellion became permanent. [1118] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 6.
Compare Antiq. xx. 8. 5: Αἰτησάμενος ἐκεῖνον παρὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος πεμφθῆναι τῆς
Ἰουδαίας ἐπίτροπον. [1119] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12.
8; Suetonius, Claudius, 28.—That Felix entered upon his office in A.D. 52 is
probable for this reason, that Josephus immediately after making that statement
mentions that Claudius after the completion of his twelfth year (τῆς ἀρχῆς
δωδέκατον ἔτος ἤδη πεπληρωκώς), i.e. after the 24th January A.D. 53, bestowed
upon Agrippa II., Batanea and Trachonitis (Antiq. xx. 7. 1). This indeed leaves
the year 53 open as a possible date, which some actually adopt. But in favour of
52 is the fact that Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54, relates the deposition of Cumanus
among the events of this year; no doubt with the assumption that Felix had been
already before this, contemporary with Cumanus, carrying on the government of a
portion of Palestine. Although, indeed, this assumption can scarcely be regarded
as correct (see note 14), yet the year 52 must be firmly adhered to as the time
of the deposition of Cumanus. Compare on Felix generally: C. W. F. Walch, De
Felice, Judaeae procuratore, Jenae 1747; Haakh in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie,
iii. 443 f.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 368 f.; Paret in Herzog’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. iv. 354 f.; K. Schmidt, Herzog, 2 Aufl. iv. 518 f.;
Kellner in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, 2 Aufl. iv. 1311 ff.; Overbeck to
Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, ii. 263 ff. He was, like his brother Pallas, a freedman
of the imperial family,[1120]—a freedman probably of Antonia the mother of
Claudius, and having therefore as his full name, Antonius Felix.[1121] The
conferring of a procuratorship with military command upon a freedman was
something unheard of, and is only to be accounted for by the influence which the
freedmen had at the court of Claudius.[1122] As procurator of Palestine Felix
proved worthy of his descent. “With all manner of cruelty and lust he exercised
royal functions in the spirit of a slave;” in these words Tacitus sums up his
estimate of the man.[1123] [1120] Tacitus, History, v. 9; Suetonius, Claudius,
28. [1121] Antonius Felix, according to Tacitus, History, v. 9.—This name and
the circumstance that Pallas, the brother of Felix, was a freedman of Antonia
(Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 6), favours the hypothesis that Felix also was a
freedman, not of Claudius, but of his mother Antonia (see Nipperdey on Tacitus,
Annals, xi. 29 and xii. 54).—That Felix also bore the name Claudius (so e.g.
Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Felix,” and Rohden, De Palaestina et Arabia, p. 35)
cannot be proved from the original documents; for in Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1,
as well as in Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. Κλαύδιος, instead of Κλαύδιον Φήλικα we
should read Κλαύδιος Φήλικα (scil. πέμπει, resp. ἐπέστησεν). The reading of the
manuscript in the Suidas passage is indeed Κλαύδιον; but the conjecture Κλαύδιος
is rightly favoured by Bernhardy, and has been adopted by Bekker into the text.
Compare in general on the name of Felix, Walch, De Felice, pp. 2-7. [1122]
Suetonius, Claudius, 28, gives prominence to it as something unusual: “Felicem,
quem cohortibus et alis provinciaeque Judaeae praeposuit.” Compare in addition,
Hirschfeld, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1889, p. 423.—Besides the
freedman it is well known that in the latter years of the reign of Claudius,
A.D. 49-54, his wife Agrippina also exercised an unwholesome influence. The
Palestinian coins also of the 13th and 14th years of Claudius afford evidence of
his powerful influence, since on them her name (Ἰουλια Ἀγριππινα) appears
alongside of that of her husband (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 498; Mionnet,
Description de médailles, v. 554; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 66, ii. 52;
De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, p. 149; Madden, History of
Jewish Coinage, p. 151 sq.; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 76
sq.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, p. 190 sq.; Madden, Coins of the Jews,
p. 184 sq.; Stickel, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p.
213).—Probably also a town on the east of the Jordan is named after her, namely,
one lying between the Mount Sartaba and the Hauran: Agrippina, אגריפינא. This is
the reading of the Mishna, Rosh-Hashana ii. 4, according to the Cambridge
manuscript edited by Lowe. A Hamburg manuscript and the editio princeps have
Agropina; the Jerusalem Talmud and the cod. de Rossi, 138: Gripina the common
printed text: Gropina. The place is named only in that one passage in the
Mishna. The Greek form would be Αγριππινας, after the pattern of Τιβεριας from
טבריא. [1123] History, v. 9: “per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium
servili ingenio exercuit.” Felix was three times married. All the three wives,
of whom two are known to us, belonged to royal families.[1124] The one was a
granddaughter of the triumvir Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and by this marriage
Felix was brought into relationship with the Emperor Claudius.[1125] The other
was the Jewish princess Drusilla, the daughter of Agrippa I. and sister of
Agrippa II.; and the way in which the marriage with her was brought about serves
to confirm the estimate of Tacitus quoted above. Drusilla at the time when Felix
entered upon his office was fourteen years of age.[1126] Soon after this she was
married by her brother Agrippa II. to Azizus, king of Emesa, after the marriage
with the son of King Antiochus of Commagene, to whom she had been before
betrothed, had been broken off because he refused to submit to
circumcision.[1127] Soon after her marriage Felix saw the beautiful queen,
became inflamed with passion, and determined to possess her. By the help of a
magician of Cyprus called Simon, he prevailed on her to marry him. In defiance
of the law, which strictly forbade the marriage of a Jewess with a pagan,
Drusilla gave her hand to the Roman procurator.[1128] [1124] Suetonius,
Claudius, 28, calls him trium reginarum maritum. [1125] Tacitus, History, v. 9:
“Drusilla Cleopatrae et Aatonii nepts matrimonium accepta, ut ejusdem Antonii
Felix progener, Claudius nepos esset.”—The name Drusilla is introduced through a
confusion with the other wife of Felix. [1126] As appears evidently from Antiq.
xix. 9. 1, according to which Drusilla, the youngest of the daughters of Agrippa
I., was six years old at the time of his death. [1127] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7.
1. [1128] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 2. Compare Acts of the Apostles 24:24. Since
Azizus died in the first year of Nero (Antiq. xx. 8. 4), the marriage with Felix
must have taken place in the time of Claudius, in A.D. 53 or 54. Compare
Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 80 f.—Drusilla bore a son
to Felix called Agrippa, who, “together with his wife” (σὺν τῇ γυναικί, it is
certainly not Drusilla, but the wife of Agrippa that is meant), perished in an
irruption of Vesuvius (Antiq. xx. 7. 2).—Compare on Drusilla, besides the
articles in Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel, also Gerlach, Zeitschrift für luth.
Theologie, 1869, p. 68 f. The public career of Felix was no better than his
private life. As brother of the powerful and highly favoured Pallas, “he
believed that he might commit all sorts of enormities with impunity.”[1129]—It
can be easily understood how under such a government as this the bitter feeling
against Rome grew rapidly, and the various stages of its development were
plainly carried out to the utmost extent under Felix and by his fault.[1130]
[1129] Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54: “Cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus tanta
potentia subnixo.” [1130] This appears most distinctly from the account given in
Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2-6, which is much more lucid and clear than that
given in the Antiq. xx. 8. 5-6. First of all, on account of his misgovernment
the Zealots, who entertained so fanatical a hatred of the Romans, won more and
more sympathy among the ranks of the citizens. How far Josephus had grounds for
styling them simply robbers may remain undetermined. In any case, as their
following from among the people shows, they were not robbers of the common sort;
and their pillaging was confined wholly to the property of their political
opponents. Felix, who was not very scrupulous about the means he used, contrived
to get Eleasar, the head of the party, into his hands by means of treachery, and
sent him, together with those of his adherents whom he had already in prison, to
Rome. “But the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified was
incalculable, as also that of the citizens whom he arrested and punished as
having been in league with them.”[1131] [1131] Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2;
Antiq. xx. 8. 5. Such preposterous severity and cruelty only gave occasion to
still further troubles.[1132] In the place of the robbers of whom Felix had rid
the country, the Sicarii made their appearance, a still more fanatical faction
of the patriots, who deliberately adopted as their special task the removal of
their political opponents by assassination. Armed with short daggers (sicae),
from which they received their name,[1133] they mixed among the crowds
especially during the festival seasons, and unobserved in the press stabbed
their opponents (τοὺς διαφόρους, i.e. the friends of the Romans), and feigning
deep sorrow when the deed was done, succeeded in thereby drawing away suspicion
from themselves. These political murders were so frequent that soon no one any
longer felt safe in Jerusalem. Among others who fell victims to the daggers of
the Sicarii was Jonathan the high priest, who, as a man of moderate sentiments,
was hated by the Sicarii as well as by the procurator Felix, whom he often
exhorted to act more worthily in the administration of his office, lest he
(Jonathan) should be blamed by the people for having recommended the emperor to
appoint him governor. Felix wished to have the troublesome exhorter put out of
the way, and found that this could be most simply accomplished by means of
assassination, to which the Sicarii, although otherwise the deadly foes of
Felix, readily lent themselves.[1134] [1132] Tacitus, Annals, xii. 54:
“intempestivis remediis delicta accandebat.” [1133] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 10.
[1134] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 3; Antiq. xx. 8. 5.—The Sicarii are
also referred to during the war, when they had in their possession the fortress
of Masada. See Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 6, iv. 7. 2, 9. 5, vii. 8. 1 ff., 10.
1, 11. 1. The author of the Acts of the Apostles was also aware of their
existence as a political party (Acts 21:38 : τοὺς τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας τῶν
σικαρίων).—In Latin sicarius is the common designation for a murderer. Thus, for
example, the law passed under Sulla against murderers is called “lex Cornelia de
Sicariis” (Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 969, and generally the article
“Sicarius” in the same Encyclopaedie, vi. 1. 1153 f.). It also occurs in the
Mishna in this same general sense: Bikkurim i. 2, ii. 3; Gittin v. 6; Machshirin
i. 6. In none of these passages is the term Sicarii used to designate a
political party. In the passage Machshirin i. 6 the story told is this, that on
one occasion the inhabitants of Jerusalem hid their fig-cakes in water from fear
of the סיקרים. In the other passages a case is supposed in which a
robber-murderer has violently appropriated to himself a piece of land. It is
asked what is to be done in this case with reference to the taxes (Bikkurim i.
2, ii. 3), and whether one would be able by process of law to buy from the
robber-murderer such a piece of land (Gittin v. 6). In reference to this last
point it is said that since the war, which here clearly means the war of
Hadrian, it had been decreed that the purchase would be valid only when the
property had been first obtained from the lawful possessors and then from the
robber who had taken it by force, but not when it had been bought first from the
robber and then from the legal owners. Here we are to understand by the Sicarii
rather non-Jewish than Jewish robber-murderers. Compare generally: Grätz,
Geschichte der Juden, iv. 422 f., who wrongly makes the Sicarii a Jewish
political party; Derenbourg, Historie de la Palestine, pp. 280, 475 sqq.; Levy,
Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, iii. 518.—The correct form סיקרים=sicarii, is found
in Machshirin i. 6 (e.g. in the Cambridge manuscript edited by Lowe). But it is
deserving of remark that in the other passages the best texts, e.g. the
Cambridge manuscript, constantly have סיקריקון, sicaricon, and that indeed as a
mas. sing.=“the murderer.” With these political fanatics there were associated
religious fanatics “not so impure in their deeds, but still more wicked in their
intentions.” Advancing the claim of a divine mission, they roused the people to
a wild enthusiasm, and led the credulous multitude in crowds out into the
wilderness, in order that there they might show them “the tokens foreshadowing
freedom” (σημεῖα ἐλευθερίας)—that freedom which consisted in casting off the
Roman yoke and setting up the kingdom of God, or, to use the language of
Josephus, in innovation and revolution. Since religious fanaticism is always the
most powerful and the most persistent, Josephus is certainly right when he says
that those fanatics and deceivers contributed no less than the “robbers” to the
overthrow of the city. Felix also recognised clearly enough the dangerous
tendency of the movement, and invariably broke in upon all such undertakings
with the sword.[1135]—The most celebrated enterprise of this sort was the
exploit of that Egyptian to whom Acts 21:38 refers. An Egyptian Jew who gave
himself out for a prophet, gathered around him in the wilderness a great crowd
of people, numbering, according to Acts, 4000, according to Josephus, 30,000,
with whom he wished to ascend the Mount of Olives, because he promised that at
his word the walls of Jerusalem would fall down and give them free entrance into
the city. Then they would get the Roman garrison into their power and secure to
themselves the government. Felix did not give the prophet time to perform his
miracle, but attacked him with his troops, slew and scattered his followers or
took them prisoners. But the Egyptian himself escaped from the slaughter and
disappeared.[1136] [1135] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 4; Antiq. xx. 8.
6. [1136] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 5; Antiq. xx. 8. 6: ὁ δὲ Αἰγύκτιος
αὐτὸς διαδρὰς ἐκ τῆς μάχης ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο. Undoubtedly the people believed in a
wonderful deliverance and escape, and hoped for a return, to which even Acts
21:38 contains a reference.—Compare also Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 21. The
result of this unfortunate undertaking was temporary strengthening of the
anti-Roman party. The religious and the political fanatics (οἱ γόητες καὶ
λῃστρικοί) united together for a common enterprise. “They persuaded the Jews to
revolt, and exhorted them to assert their liberty, inflicting death on those
that continued in obedience to the Roman government, and saying that such as
willingly chose slavery ought to be forced from such their desired inclinations;
for they parted themselves into different bodies, and lay in wait up and down
the country, and plundered the houses of the great men, and slew the men
themselves, and set the villages on fire; and this till all Judea was filled
with their madness.”[1137] [1137] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 6; Antiq.
xx. 8. 6. Thus did the misgovernment of Felix in the end bring about this
result, that a large portion of the people from this time forth became
thoroughly roused, under the constant strain of this wild reign of terror, to
wage war against Rome, and rested not until at last the end was reached. Besides
these wild movements of the popular agitators, internal strifes and rivalries
among the priests themselves led to the increase of confusion. The high priests
were at feud with the other priests, and in consequence of the illegal
arrangements which prevailed in Palestine under Felix’ government, they could
even go the length of sending their servants to the threshing-floor, and
carrying away by force the tithes which belonged to the other priests, so that
many of these unfortunate priests actually died for want.[1138] [1138] Josephus,
Antiq. xx, 8. 8. In the last two years of Felix occurred also the imprisonment
of the Apostle Paul at Caesarea, of which an account is given in Acts 23, 24. We
are familiar with the story of the personal interview which the apostle had with
the Roman procurator and his wife Drusilla, at which the apostle did not fail to
speak to both of that which it was specially fit that they should hear: “of
righteousness and of temperance, and of judgment to come.”[1139] [1139] Acts of
the Apostles, 24:24 f. While Paul lay a prisoner at Caesarea, a conflict arose
there between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants of the city over the question of
equality in citizen rights (ἰσοπολιτεία), The Jews laid claim to the possession
of certain advantages and privileges, since Herod was the founder of the city.
The Syrians were naturally unwilling that any such preference should be given to
the Jews. For a long tims both parties fought with one another in riots on the
public streets. At last on one occasion, when the Jews had obtained an
advantage, Felix stepped in, reduced the Jews to order by military force, and
gave up some of their houses to be plundered by the soldiers. But when,
nevertheless, the disorders still continued, Felix sent the most prominent of
both parties to Rome, in order that the question of law might be decided by the
emperor.[1140] Before, however, the matter had been settled, Felix, probably in
A.D. 60, was recalled by Nero.[1141] [1140] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 7; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 13. 7. [1141] On the date of the recall of Felix and of Festus’
entrance upon office, see the thoroughgoing researches of Wurm, Tübinger
Theologische Zeitschrift, 1883, 1 Heft, pp. 8-25; Anger, De temporum in actis
apostolorum ratione, pp. 88-106; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen
Zeitalters, pp. 66-99; Wieseler in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. xxi.
553-558; Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, pp. 322-328; Wieseler,
Zur Geschichte der neutestamentlichen Schrift (1880), p. 93 ff.; an anonymous
paper, “St. Paul and Josephus,” in the Journal of Sacred Literature, new series,
vol. vi. 1854, pp. 166-183; Lehmann, Studien und Kritiken, 1858, pp. 313-330;
Lewin, Fasti sacri, p. 72 sqq.; J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift neuen
Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. v. 1873, pp. 13-16; Grätz,
Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 443 ff.=Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. p. 729 ff.;
Aberle, Zur Chronologie der Gefangenschaft Pauli (Theologische Quartalschrift,
1883, pp. 553-572; Kellner, art. “Felix” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, 2
Aufl. iv. 1311 ff. (1886); Kellner in the Katholik, 1867, 1 Hälfte, pp. 146-151;
Kellner, Zeitschrift für Katholisch-Theologie, 1888, pp. 640-646; Schanz, “Das
Jahr der Gefangennahme des heiligen Apostels Paulus” (Historisches Jahrbuch der
Görres-Gesellschaft, 1887, pp. 199-222, with supplement by Kellner, pp. 222-224;
Wandel, Zeitschrift für kirchlichen Wissenschaft und kirchlichen Leben, 1888, p.
169 ff.; V. Weber, Kritische Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Kapitels des
Römerbriefes, 1889, pp. 177-197.—An exact and certain determination of the year
in which Felix was recalled is clearly impossible. Most of recent investigators
assume A.D. 60 as the most probable date (so Wurm, Anger, Wieseler, the
anonymous writer in the Journal of Sacred Literature, Lewin, Hoffmann, Aberle,
Schanz, Wandel). Some go a year or two farther back (Grätz, A.D. 59; Lehmann,
A.D. 58). Only Kellner and V. Weber, after the example of some earlier scholars
(Bengel, Süskind, Rettig, on whom see Wieseler, Chronologie des apostol.
Zeitalters, p. 72), place the recall of Felix in the very beginning of Nero’s
reign: Kellner in November A.D. 54, Weber in the summer of A.D. 55. The grounds
for this last hypothesis are: (1) In the Chronicle of Eusebius, according to the
Armenian text, it is said that the recall of Felix took place in the last year
of Claudius, A.D. 54 (Euseb. Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 152); in the Chronicle
of Jerome it is placed in the second year of Nero (Euseb. Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, ii. 155). (2) When Felix after his recall was accused in Rome by the
Jews, Pallas secured his acquittal (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 9). Pallas had
therefore at this time still great influence; but he had clearly fallen into
disfavour in the beginning of Nero s reign, in A.D. 55 (Tacitus, Annals, xiii.
14). (3) The office of the procurators came to an end with the death of the
emperor unless it were renewed by his successor. In answer to these statements
it is to be remarked: (1) The statements in the Chronicle of Eusebius are often
quite arbitrary, and so prove nothing. Moreover, the Armenian translation of the
Chronicle can hardly contain the original text of Eusebius, since Eusebius
himself in his Ecclesiastical History represents Felix as officiating under Nero
(ii. 20. 1, 22. 1). (2) Josephus puts almost everything that he relates of the
proceedings of Felix under the reign of Nero (Antiq. xx. 8. 1-9; Wars of the
Jews, ii. 12. 8-14, 1). Felix must therefore have exercised his office for at
least some years under Nero. If, therefore, Pallas was in favour with Nero at
the time of Felix’ deposition, he must then have been restored to favour. There
is no difficulty in making such an assumption, since we also know from Tacitus
that before the expiry of A.D. 55 he had been found not guilty of charges that
had been brought against him (Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 23). (3) The third argument
made use of by Kellner falls to the ground before the statement of Josephus,
that Felix officiated as procurator for a long while under Nero, and must
therefore have been confirmed by him in office.—We can only fix with any degree
of certainty upon the terminus ad quem of Felix’ recall. It occurred at any rate
in the summer, since the Apostle Paul, who, not long after the departure of
Felix, was sent by ship to Rome, arrived in Crete about the time of the Great
Day of Atonement in October (Acts 27:9). But this summer cannot well have been
later than that of A.D. 60. Seeing that the second successor of Felix, Albinus,
arrived in Palestine late in the summer of A.D. 62, were we to assume that Felix
left early in the summer of A.D. 61, we should be able to assign only one year
to Festus, which in consideration of the incidents recorded as occurring in his
time (Antiq. xx. 8. 9-11) is evidently too short. Very strange indeed is the
argument in favour of A.D. 61 drawn from Antiq. xx. 8. 11. Because, forsooth,
there in connection with an incident that occurred some time after Festus’
entrance upon office, Poppea is spoken of as the wife of Nero, who was not
married to her before A.D. 62 (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 60), it has been maintained
that Festus’ entrance upon office cannot be placed earlier than A.D. 61. But
there is nothing to prevent us from setting down that occurrence to a period
more than a year after Festus’ entrance upon office. Moreover, the marriage of
Nero with Poppea did not take place till somewhere about the time of Festus’
death, perhaps even somewhat later. Although that event had not occurred during
Festus’ lifetime, we can quite understand Josephus proleptically describing
Nero’s concubine as his wife.—Should we then accept the year 60 as the terminus
ad quem, it is, on the other hand, not advisable to go much further back; for
two years before the departure of Felix the imprisonment of Paul begins. But at
the time of Paul’s apprehension Felix is described as already in possession of
his office ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν (Acts 24:10). If we place the apprehension of Paul in
the year 58, Felix was then already six years in office. Much less it could not
have been. Also the chronology of the life of Paul in other particulars does not
require that we place the apprehension of the apostle earlier. There is at least
a possibility of assuming the year 57, and so it is evidently possible to assign
the removal of Felix to A.D. 59. It is most correct to say with Wurm, at the
earliest in A.D. 58, at the latest in A.D. 61, most probably in A.D. 60. 5. As
successor of Felix, Nero sent Porcius Festus, A.D. 60-62,[1142] a man who,
though disposed to act righteously, found himself utterly unable to undo the
mischief wrought by the misdeeds of his predecessor. [1142] Josephus, Antiq. xx.
8. 9; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1.—Compare on Festus: Winer, Realwörterbuch, i.
372 f.; Klaiber in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. iv. 394; Overbeck in
Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, ii. 275 ff. Soon after Festus’ entrance upon office the
dispute between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea was decided in
favour of the Syrians by means of an imperial rescript. The Jewish ambassadors
at Rome had not been able to press their charges against Felix, because Pallas
took the side of his brother. On the other hand, the two Syrian ambassadors
succeeded by bribery in winning over to their interests a certain man called
Beryllus, who was Nero’s secretary for his Greek correspondence,[1143] and by
this means obtained an imperial rescript, by which even that equality with the
Syrians, with which before they had not been satisfied, was now taken away from
the Jews, and the “Hellenes” declared to be the lords of the city. The
embittered feelings excited by this decision among the Jews of Caesarea burst
forth a few years later, in A.D. 66, in violent revolutionary movements, which
Josephus regards as the beginning of the great war.[1144] [1143] Instead of the
name Beryllus given by all the manuscripts of Antiq. xx. 8. 9, the editions of
Josephus since those of Hudson and Havercamp read Burrus. This conjecture, upon
which some have built important chronological conclusions, is particularly
foolish, for this reason, that the description given (παιδαγωγὸς δὲ οὗτος ἦν τοῦ
Νέρωνος, τάξιν τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἐπιστολῶν πεπιστευμένος) does not suit
Burrus, the well-known praefectus praetorio, with whom Josephus is quite well
acquainted as such (Antiq. xx. 8. 2). [1144] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 9; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 14. 4.—The two representations of Josephus are inconsistent with
one another in certain particulars. According to Antiq. xx. 8. 9, the
ambassadors of the Jews of Caesarea did not go to Rome to make their complaint
against Felix until after the entrance of Festus upon his office. According to
Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 7 fin., however, the ambassadors of both parties had
been sent by Felix himself to Rome, which is probable for this reason, that even
according to Antiq. xx. 8. 9 the ambassadors of the Syrians were also in
Rome.—According to Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4, it would seem as if the decision
of the emperor had not been given before A.D. 66. But this is not possible,
since Pallas, who died in A.D. 62 (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 65), played an
important part in the proceedings. Festus, after repeated hearings, caused the
Apostle Paul, whom Felix had left in prison (Acts 24:27), at the apostle’s own
demand as a Roman citizen to be judged before the emperor, to be sent to Rome
(Acts 25:26; Acts 27:1-2; compare also, in addition, pp. 59, 74 of the present
work). The trouble in connection with the Sicarii continued under Festus just as
great as it had been under Felix. During his government also a deceiver, so at
least Josephus designates him, led the people into the wilderness, promising
redemption and emancipation from all evils to those who should follow him.
Festus proceeded against him with the utmost severity, but was unable to secure
any lasting success.[1145] [1145] Josephus, Antiq. xx, 8. 10; Wars of the Jews,
ii. 14. 1. Details in regard to a conflict between the priests and King Agrippa
II., in which Festus took the side of Agrippa, will be given under the section
that treats of the history of that king. After he had held office for a period
of scarcely two years, Festus died while administering his procuratorship, and
two men succeeded him, one after the other, who, like genuine successors of
Felix, contributed, as far as it lay in their power to intensify the bitterness
of the conflict, and hurry on its final bloody conclusion. In the interval
between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor, in A.D. 62, utter
anarchy prevailed in Jerusalem, which was turned to account by the high priest
Ananus, a son of that elder Ananus or Annas who is well known in connection with
the history of Christ’s death, in order to secure in a tumultuous gathering the
condemnation of his enemies, and to have them stoned. His arbitrary government
was not indeed of long duration, for King Agrippa, even before the arrival of
the new procurator, again deposed him after he had held office only for three
months.[1146] James, the brother of Jesus Christ (ὁ ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου
Χριστοῦ), is said to have been among those executed by Ananus. So at least the
words run in our present text of Josephus; and the words had been read even by
Eusebius in his copy of Josephus precisely as they occur in our
manuscripts.[1147] There is considerable ground, however, for suspicion of
Christian interpolation, especially as Origen read in Josephus another passage
regarding the death of James, in which the destruction of Jerusalem and the
temple is described as a divine judgment in consequence of the execution of
James. This passage occurs in some of our manuscripts of Josephus, and ought
therefore certainly to be regarded as a Christian interpolation which has been
excluded from our common text.[1148] Also in the account given by Hegesippus of
the execution of James it is brought into close connection with the destruction
of Jerusalem. The year 62 cannot by any means be accepted as the date of his
death.[1149] [1146] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1. [1147] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii.
23. 21-24; literally the same as Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1. [1148] Origen makes
reference three times to that passage in Josephus:- (1) Comment. in Matth. tom.
x. c. 17 (on Matthew 13:55): “So high was the reputation of this James among the
people for his righteousness, that Josephus in his Antiquities, when he is
explaining the cause of the destruction of the temple, says, κατὰ μῆνιν θεοῦ
ταῦτα αὐτοῖς ἀπηντηκέναι, διὰ τὰ εἰς Ἰάκωβον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου.
χριστοῦ, ὑπʼ αὐτῶν τετολμημένα. … Λέγει δὲ, ὅτι καὶ ὁ λαὸς ταῦτα ἐνόμιζε διὰ τὸν
Ἰάκωβον πεπονθέναι.” (2) Contra Celsum, i. 47: Ὁ δʼ αὐτὸς … ζητῶν τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς
τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων πτώσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ ναοῦ καθαιρέσεως … Φησὶ ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι
τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κατʼ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὺς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ
λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν. (3) Contra
Celsum, ii. 13 fin.: Τίτος καθεῖλε τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ· ὡς μὲν Ἰώσηπος γράφει, διὰ
Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ.—In the same style
as Origen, contra Celsus, i. 47, and presumably following him, the passage is
quoted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 23. 20. From Eusebius are derived the short
statements in Jerome, De viris illustr. c. 2 and 13; adversus Jovinianum, i. 39
(Opera, ed. Vallarsi, ii. 301). The Greek translation of Jerome, De viris
illustr., is reproduced by Suidas, Lexicon, s.v. Ἰώσηπος.—Hilgenfeld, Einleitung
in das N. T. p. 526, regards this passage of Josephus as genuine, after the
example of some older critics! [1149] Eusebius has preserved for us (Hist. eccl.
ii. 23. 11-18) a literal transcript of the account given by Hegesippus.
According to him, James was cast down from the pinnacle of the temple, then
stoned, and at last beaten to death by a fuller (γναθεύς) with a fuller’s club.
The narrative concludes with these words: Καὶ εὐθὺς Οὐεσπασιανὸς πολιορκεῖ
αὐτούς. Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ii. 1. 4, and
Epiphanius, Haer. 78. 14, base their statements upon Hegesippus. The close
connection in time between the execution of James and the destruction of
Jerusalem is also emphasized by Eusebius in his own exposition (Hist. eccl. iii.
11. 1): μετὰ τὴν Ἰακώβου μαρτυραν καὶ τὴν αὐτίκα γενομένην ἅλωσιν τῆς
Ἱερουσαλήμ. Though much that is legendary is contained in the narrative of
Hegesippus, it is nevertheless, from a chronological point of view, at least as
deserving of consideration as the passage in Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1, which is
open to the suspicion of interpolation.—It should, however, be remarked, that
the casting down from a height before the stoning, is a regular injunction of
the Jewish law (Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 4).—Compare generally on the year of the
death of James, and on the genuineness of the statement in Josephus, Antiq. xx.
9. 1; Clericus, Ars critica, p. iii. sec. 1, c. 14; Credner, Einleitung in das
Neue Testament, pp. 580-582 (against the genuineness); Rothe, Die Anfänge der
christliche Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, pp. 274-276 (similar to Credner);
Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. (Edin. 1846) pp. 95-98; Koessing,
Dissertatio de anno quo mortem obierit Jacobus frater Domini, Heidelb. 1857;
Gust. Boettger, Die Zeugnisse des Flavius Josephus von Johannes dem Täufer, von
Jesu Christo und von Jakobus, dem Bruder des Herrn, Dresden 1863; Gerlach, Die
Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus, 1863,
p. 117 ff.; Ebben, Genuinum esse Flavii Josephi de Jacobo fratre Jesu
testimonum, Cleve 1864; J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift neuen
Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Thl. vii. 3 Abth. 1876, p. 4 f.;
Wieseler, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1878, pp. 99-109; Volkmar, Jesus
Nazarenus, 1882, pp. 345-348; Wandel, Zeitschrift für kirchlichen Wissenschaft
und kirchlichen Leben, 1888, pp. 142-144; Kellner, “Der wahre Todestag [und das
Todesjahr] Jakobus des Alphäiden” (Katholik, 1888, erste Hälfte, pp. 394-399).
6. The testimony of Josephus in regard to the new procurator Albinus, A.D.
62-64,[1150] is to the effect that there was no sort of wickedness that could be
mentioned which he had not a hand in. The leading principle of his procedure
seems however, to have been: To get money from whomsoever he might obtain it.
Public as well as private treasures were subjected to his plunderings, and the
whole people had to suffer oppression under his exactions.[1151] But he also
found it to his advantage to seek money as bribes for his favour from both
political parties in the country, from the friends of the Romans, as well as
from their opponents. From the high priest Ananias, inclined to favour the
Romans, as well as from his enemies, the Sicarii, he accepted presents, and then
allowed both of them without restraint to do as they liked. He made, indeed, a
pretence of opposing the Sicarii; but for money any one who might be taken
prisoner could secure his release. “Nobody remained in prison as a malefactor,
but he who gave him nothing.”[1152] The Sicarii, indeed, found out another means
for securing the liberation of those of their party who had been taken
prisoners. They were in the habit of seizing upon adherents of the opposite
party only. Then at the wish of the Roman party, by whom also he was bribed,
Albinus would set free as many of the Sicarii as they would of their opponents.
Once on a time the Sicarii seized the secretary of the ruler of the temple,
Eleasar, a son of Ananias,[1153] and in return for the liberation of the
secretary they secured the restoration of ten of their own comrades.[1154] Under
such a government the anti-Roman party gained footing more and more, or, as
Josephus puts it, “the boldness of those desirous of change became more and more
obtrusive.”[1155] And seeing that, on the other hand, their opponents also had
full scope, utter anarchy soon prevailed in Jerusalem. It was a war of all
against all. Ananias, the high priest, behaved in the most outrageous manner. He
allowed his servants quite openly to take away from the threshing-floors the
tithes of the priests, and those who opposed them were beaten.[1156] Two noble
relatives of King Agrippa, called Costobar and Saul, also tried their hand at
the robber business,[1157] and with them was associated the man who had
committed to him the maintaining of law and order, even the procurator Albinus
himself.[1158] In such times it was indeed nothing calculated to excite surprise
when on one occasion a high priest, Jesus, son of Damnäos, engaged in pitched
battle in the streets with his successor, Jesus, son of Gamaliel, because he had
no wish to give up to him the sacred office.[1159] [1150] The date of Albinus’
entrance upon his office may be discovered from Wars of the Jews, vi. 5. 3.
According to the statement given there Albinus was already procurator when, at
the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, four years before the outbreak of the war,
and more than seven years and five months before the destruction of the city, a
certain mas Jesus, son of Ananos, made his appearance, prophesying misfortune.
These two indications of time carry us to the Feast of Tabernacles A.D. 62.
Hence Albinus entered upon his office, at the latest, in the summer of A.D.
62.—Our Albinus is very probably identical with Lucceius Albinus, who, under
Nero, Galba, and Otho, was procurator of Mauritania, and, during the conflicts
between Otho and Vitellius, was, in A.D. 69, put to death by Vitellius’ party
(Tacitus, History, ii. 58-69). Compare Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 1158;
Rohden, De Palaestina at Arabia, p. 36. [1151] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.
14. 1. [1152] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1. [1153]
Instead of Ἀνάνου we should undoubtedly read Ἀνανίου. Compare Wars of the Jews,
ii. 17. 2, 20. 4; Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 248, note 1. [1154]
Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 3. [1155] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1. [1156]
Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 2. [1157] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 4. [1158] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 1. [1159] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 4. When Albinus was
recalled, in order to do a pleasure to the inhabitants of the capital, and also
to make the work of his successor as heavy as possible, he left all the prisons
empty, having executed the ordinary malefactors, and set at liberty all the
other prisoners. “Thus the prisons were left empty of prisoners, but the country
full of robbers.”[1160] [1160] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 5. 7. The last
procurator, Gessius Florus, A.D. 64-66,[1161] was at the same time also the
worst. He belonged to Clazomenae, and had through the influence of his wife
Cleopatra, who was a friend of the Empress Poppea, obtained the procuratorship
of Judea. For the utter baseness which characterized his administration of his
office, Josephus can scarcely find words sufficiently strong to express his
feelings. In comparison with him, he thinks that even Albinus was
extraordinarily law honouring (δικαιότατος). So unbounded was his tyranny, that
in view of it the Jews praised Albinus as a benefactor. Whereas Albinus wrought
his wickednesses at least in secret, Florus was impudent enough to parade them
openly. The robbing of individuals seemed to him quite too small. He plundered
whole cities, and ruined whole communities. If only the robbers would share
their spoil with him, they would be allowed to carry on their operations
unchecked.[1162] [1161] Seeing that Florus, according to Antiq. xx. 11. 1, had
entered upon the second year of his administration. when, in May A.D. 66 (Wars
of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), the war broke out, he must have entered upon his office
in A.D. 64.—The name Gessius Florus is also attested by Tacitus, History, v. 10.
In the Chronicle of Eusebius it is corrupted into Γέστιος Φλῶρος (the Greek form
as given in Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 637; in the Latin rendering of Jerome
[Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 157], Cestius Florus); in the Armenian
translation it is further converted into Cestius filius Flori (Euseb. Chronicon,
ed. Schoene, ii. 156, on the 14th year of Nero). [1162] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 11.
1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 2. By such outrages the measure which the people
could endure was at last filled up to the brim. The combustible materials which
had been gathering for years had now grown into a vast heap. It needed only a
spark, and an explosion would follow of fearful and most destructive force.
SUPPLEMENT. AGRIPPA II., A.D. 50-100 LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, vii.
273, 421, 422, 432, and elsewhere; viii. 18. LEWIN, Fasti sacri, ad ann. 44-69
(see in the same work, Index, p. 390). WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 485. KEIM in
SCHENKEL’S Bibellexikon, iii. 56-65. DERENBOURG, Histoire de la Palestine, pp.
252-254. HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie, Abth. ii. artikel “Agrippa.” DE SAULCY,
Etude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois juifs Agrippa I. et
Agrippa II. 1869 (see vol. i. of the work, p. 27). GERLACH, Zeitschrift für
lutherischen Theologie, 1869, pp. 62-68. BRANN, “Biographie Agrippa’s II.”
(Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, xix. 1870, pp.
433-444, 529-548; xx. 1871, pp. 13-28). BAERWALD, Josephus in Galiläa, sein
Verhältniss zu den Parteien insbesondere zu Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II.,
Breslau 1877. GRÄTZ, “Das Lebensende des Königs Agrippa II.” u.s.w.
(Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 337 ff.); “Agrippa II. und der Zustand Judäa’s nach dem
Untergange Jerusalems” (Monatsschrift, 1881, p. 481 ff.). The inscriptions
referring to Agrippa II. are collected from Waddington in the Zeitschrift für
Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1873, pp. 248-255. On an addition to this list see
vol. i. of this work, p. 30. Agrippa II, son of Agrippa I., whose full name, as
given on coins and inscriptions, was Marcus Julius Agrippa,[1163] seems like
almost all the members of the Herodian family, to have been educated and brought
up in Rome. There, at least, we find him at the time of his father’s death in
A.D. 44, when Claudius wished to appoint him as successor to hif father.[1164]
That the emperor, at the instigation of his counsellors on the plea of Agrippa’s
youth, did not carry out this purpose has been already narrated above. The youth
remained for a while at Rome, and found there abundant opportunities of being
useful to his countrymen by making use of his influence and connections with the
court. Notable instances of his successful intervention are those of the dispute
about the high priest’s robe[1165] and the conflict waged during the time of
Cumanus.[1166] To him also it was mainly due that Cumanus did not escape the
punishment he deserved. With this last-mentioned incident we are already brought
down to A.D. 52. But even before this there had been bestowed upon him by
Claudius, in compensation for the loss of his father’s territories, another
kingdom, though, indeed, a smaller one. After the death of his uncle, Herod of
Chalcis, whose life and history are given in detail in Appendix I., he obtained,
though not probably just at once, but only in A.D. 50, his kingdom in the
Lebanon, and, at the same time, what that prince also had had, the oversight of
the temple and the right to appoint the high priests.[1167] Of this latter right
he frequently available himself by repeated depositions and nominations of high
priests down to the outbreak of the war in A.D. 66. Probably after this gift had
been bestowed upon him Agrippa continued still to reside for a while in Rome,
where we meet with him in A.D. 52, and only after this date actually entered
upon the government of his kingdom. [1163] Compare on the coins of Agrippa
generally: Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 493-496; Mionnet, Description de médailles,
v. 570-676; Supplem. viii. 280 sq.; Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, pp.
127-130, pl. lx.-lxii.; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, i. 53 f., 61-64, ii. 38
f.; Levy, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, p. 82; Madden, History of Jewish
Coinage, pp. 113-133; De Saulcy, Etude chronologique, 1869 (see above in the
general list of literature); Reichardt in the Wierter Numismatische Zeitschrift,
Bd. iii. 1871, p. 83 ff.; Mommsen, Weiner Num. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 449 ff.;
Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 101-139; Madden, Coins of the Jews,
1881, pp. 139-169 (containing the most complete list). The name Marcus on a coin
of the time of Nero: Βασιλέος (sic) Μάρκον Ἀγριππου (Madden, Coins of the Jews,
p. 146). In accordance with this, probably an inscription at Helbon, not far
from Abila, of Lysanias, may be filled out in the following manner: Ἐπὶ βασιλέος
μεγάλου Μάρκο[υ … Ἀγρίππα φιλο]καίσαρος καὶ φιλορωμαίων (sic), Le Bas et
Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2552. The name Julius on an inscription at
El-Hit, north of the Hauran: Ἐπὶ βασιλέω[ς … Ἰου]λίου Ἀγρίππα, Le Bas et
Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2112. The reference of the inscription to
Agrippa II. is not indeed certain, but it is highly probable. See Zeitschrift
für wissenschafliche Theologie, 1873, p. 250. Even without this witness the name
Julius might à priori be assumed for Agrippa II., since the whole family had
borne it. See above, p. 162. [1164] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 9. 2. [1165] Josephus,
Antiq. xx. 1. 2; xv. 11. 4. Compare above, p. 167. [1166] Josephus, Antiq. xx.
6. 3. Compare above, p. 173. [1167] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews,
ii. 12. 1. Compare Antiq. xx. 9. 7: Ἐπεπίστευτο ὑπὸ Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος τὴν
ἐπιμέλειαν τοῦ ἱεροῦ. There is indeed no mention of the conferring of the right
of appointing the high priests, but only of the practical exercise of that
right. Compare below, § 23. IV. That the gift of the kingdom was not made before
A.D. 50, may be concluded from Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4, according to which
Agrippa had reached the seventeenth year of his reign when, in the month
Artemisios (Ijjar) of A.D. 66, the war broke out. His seventeenth year therefore
began, if we count the reign of Agrippa II. as Jewish king, according to Mishna,
Rosh-hashana i. 1, from 1st Nisan to 1st Nisan, on the 1st Nisan of A.D. 66, and
his first year at the earliest on 1st Nisan A.D. 50, but probably somewhat
later. Compare Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, p. 48, note 2; Chronologie des
Apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 68. He can only seldom, or perhaps not even once,
have revisited Palestine, when, in A.D. 53, in the thirteenth year of Claudius,
in return for the relinquishment of the small kingdom of Chalcis, he received a
larger territory, namely, the tetrarchy of Philip, including Batanea,
Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis, and the tetrarchy of Lysanias, consisting of Abila
and the domains of Varus.[1168] This territory, after the death of Claudius, was
still further enlarged, through Nero’e favour for him, by the addition of
important parts of Galilee and Perea, namely, the cities of Tiberias and
Tarichea, together with the lands around belonging to them, and the city Julias,
together with fourteen surrounding villages.[1169] [1168] Josephus, Antiq. xx.
7. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8. To the tetrarchy of Lysanias undoubtedly
belongs also Helbon, not far from Abila Lysanias, where the inscription referred
to in note 1 was found. Of the ἐπαρχία Οὐάρου Josephus gives us an explanation
in his Life, c. xi.; for the Varus there referred to, the Noarus of Wars of the
Jews, ii. 18. 6, whom Josephus describes as ἔκγονος Σοέμου τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον
τεταρχοῦντος, is most probably to be identified with our Varus. Then, again, his
father Soemus will be no other than the Soemus who, at the end of A.D. 38,
obtained from Caligula τὴν τῶν Ἰτυραίων τῶν Ἀράβων (Dio Cassius, lix. 12), which
territory he governed till his death in A.D. 49, when it was incorporated in the
province of Syria (Tacitus, Annals, xii. 23). It may therefore be assumed that
to his son Varus a portion of the territory on the Lebanon had been left for a
time, and that this is the ἐπαρχία Οὐάρου which Claudius bestowed upon
Agrippa.—Seeing then that Agrippa obtained the new territory in the thirteenth
year of Claudius (that year including from 24th January A.D. 53 till the same
day in A.D. 54), after he had ruled over Chalcis for four years (δυναστεύσας
ταύτης ἔτη τέσσαρα), and seeing that further his fourth year, according to the
reckoning we have accepted above, began on 1st Nisan A.D. 53, the gift must have
been bestowed toward the end of A.D. 53. [1169] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 4; Wars
of the Jews, ii. 13. 2. In the latter passage Abila is spoken of as still in
Perea. Compare on this point Div. II. vol. i. p. 105.—At what time this gift was
bestowed cannot be with any certainty determined. On the later coins of Agrippa
the years of his reign are reckoned according to an era which begins with A.D.
61. It is possible that this era has its distinctive basis in this, that Agrippa
had in that year obtained the enlarged territory from Nero. This is the view of
Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 58; but Wieseler opposes it in Chronologie
des Apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 90-92. Then the abstraction of portions of
Galilee and Perea spoken of have taken place immediately after the removal of
Felix and Festus’ entrance upon office. This perhaps is the meaning of a passing
allusion in Josephus, according to which Tiberias remained under Roman rule
μέχρι Φήλικος προϊσταμένου τῆς Ἰονδαίας (Life, ix.). Yet this μέχρι does not of
itself mean “down to the end of Felix’s term of office.” The hypothesis is
therefore uncertain that it also marks an era of Agrippa beginning in A.D. 56.
We might also take as the basis for this the enlargement of territory by Nero.
This is the opinion of Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1877, pp. 344-349. He assumes as
the basis of this era of A.D. 61 the rebuilding of Caesarea Philippi under the
name of Neronias; which, however, is improbable, for this reason, that this
incident might have been the beginning of a new system of chronology for the
city Neronias but not for Agrippa. The era of A.D. 61 can be determined with
certainty according to certain coins on which the 26th year of Agrippa is made
to synchronize with the 12th consulship of Domitian, Dom. Cos. xii. (in Madden,
Coins of the Jews, p. 157 sq.), and according to another, on which the 25th year
of Agrippa is also made to synchronize with the 12th consulship of Domitian (in
Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 157). De Saulcy believes indeed that it is not the
25th and 26th years of Agrippa that are there meant, but the 25th and 26th years
of an era belonging to the city of Caesarea Philippi. See Étude chronologique,
1869, and Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 315. But the date is given thus:
επι βα. Αγρ. ετ. κεʹ, which can only mean, under King Agrippa in his 25th year,
etc. Seeing then that the 12th consulship of Domitian belongs to A.D. 86, the
26th year of Agrippa began also in that year, and consequently the era,
according to which he reckons, began in A.D. 61.—An era beginning five years
earlier is witnessed to by two coins and an inscription. The two coins bear the
date ἔτους αί τοῦ καὶ (the figure which represents the number VI.). See Madden,
Coins of the Jews, p. 146. The eleventh year of the reign of Agrippa, according
to the one era, is therefore identical with the sixth year according to the
other era. Both of these eras are made use of upon an inscription found at
Sanamen on the Hauran: ἔτους λζʹ τοῦ καὶ λβʹ βασιλέως Ἀγρίππα (Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p. 121 f.=Archäol.-epigr. Mittheilungen
aus Oesterreich, viii. 1884, p. 189 f.). There, too, the one era begins five
years before the other. Seeing then that we may there fairly assume that among
the various eras of Agrippa the latest was, in later times, the one most
commonly used, and seeing that, also according to the coins of A.D. 86, the era
usually employed is that of A.D. 61, the one era must have begun in A.D. 56 and
the other in A.D. 61. Of Agrippa’s private life there is not much that is
favourable to report. His sister Berenice,[1170] who, from the time of the death
of Herod of Chalcis in A.D. 48, was a widow (see under Appendix I.), lived from
that date in the house of her brother, and soon had the weak man completely
caught in the meshes of her net, so that regarding her, the mother of two
children, the vilest stories became current. When the scandal became public,
Berenice, in order to cut away occasion for all evil reports, resolved to marry
Polemon of Cilicia, who, for this purpose, was obliged to submit to be
circumcised. She did not, however, continue long with him, but came back again
to her brother, and seems to have resumed her old relations with him. At least
this somewhat later came to be the common talk of Rome.[1171] [1170] Compare on
Agrippa and Berenice, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 2352;
Hausrath in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, i. 396-399. [1171] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7.
3; Juvenal, Satires, vi. 156-160:— “…… adamas notissimus et Berenices In digito
factus pretiosior; hunc dedit olim Barbaras incestae, dedit hunc Agrippa sorori,
Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges, Et vetus indulget senibus clementia
porcis.” In the matter of public policy Agrippa was obliged to give up even the
little measure of independence which his father sought to secure, and had
unconditionally to subordinate himself to the Roman government. He provided
auxiliary troops for the Parthian campaign of A.D. 54;[1172] and when, in A.D.
60, the new procurator Festus arrived in Palestine, he hastened, along with his
sister Berenice, surrounded with great pomp (μετὰ πολλῆς φαντασίας), to offer
him a welcome.[1173] His capital Caesarea Philippi was named by him Neronias in
honour of the emperor, and the city of Berytus, which his father had adorned
with magnificent specimens of pagan art, was still further indebted to his
liberality.[1174] His coins, almost without exception, bear the names and images
of the reigning emperor: of Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Like his
father, he also caused himself to be styled βασιλεὺς μέγας φιλόκαισαρ εὐσεβὴς
καὶ φιλορώμαιος.[1175] [1172] Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 7. [1173] Acts of the
Apostles 25:13, 23. [1174] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 4. The name of the city
Neronias is also on the coins (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 343; Mionnet,
Description de médailles, v. 315; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 116,
117; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 316, 318; Madden, Coins of
the Jews, pp. 145, 146. That the capital was not Tiberias, therefore, certainly
Neronias, is quite clear from Josephus, Life, c. ix. [1175] He is so named in an
inscription given by Waddington, n. 2365 (see above, p. 162); also compare n.
2552. That upon the whole he was attached to the Roman rather than to the Jewish
side is made very evident from an incident which, in yet another direction, is
characteristic of his indolence and general feebleness. When he paid a visit to
Jerusalem, he was wont to occupy the house that had formerly been the palace of
the Asmoneans.[1176] This building, lofty even in its original form, he caused
to be considerably heightened by the addition of a tower, in order that from it
he might overlook the citadel and the temple, and to observe in his idle hours
the sacred proceedings in the temple. This lazy onlooker was obnoxious to the
priests, and they thwarted his scheme by building a high wall to shut off his
view. Agrippa then applied for assistance to his friend, the procurator Festus,
and he was very willing to give him any help he could. But a Jewish deputation,
which went on its own authority about the business to Rome, managed by means of
the mediation of the Empress Poppea to obtain permission to keep up the wall, so
that Agrippa was obliged forthwith to abandon his favourite diversion.[1177]
[1176] This palace lay, according to Antiq. xx. 8. 11 and Wars of the Jews, ii.
16. 3, on the so-called Xystus, an open plain, from which a bridge led directly
to the temple (Wars of the Jews, vi. 6, 2). [1177] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 11.
Notwithstanding his unconditional submission to Rome, Agrippa yet sought also to
keep on good terms with the friends of Judaism. His brothers-in-law, Azizus of
Emesa and Polemon of Cilicia, were required on their marriage with his sisters
to submit to circumcision.[1178] The rabbinical tradition tells of questions
pertaining to the law which were put by Agrippa’s minister or by the king
himself to the famous scribe Rabbi Elieser.[1179] Yea on one occasion we find
even Berenice, a bigot as well as a wanton, a Nazarite in Jerusalem.[1180]
Judaism was indeed as little a matter of heart conviction with Agrippa as it had
been with his father. The difference was only this, that as a matter of policy
the father took up decidedly the side of the Pharisees, whereas the son with
less disguise exhibited his utter indifference. When it is told in the Acts of
the Apostles how Agrippa and Berenice desired out of curiosity to see and hear
the Apostle Paul, while the king could make no other reply to the apostle’s
enthusiastic testimony on behalf of Christ than: “With little wouldest thou win
me over to be a Christian,” and therewith allows the matter to pass away from
his mind, we can see not only that he was free from all fanaticism, but also
that he had no interest whatever in the deeper religious questions of the
time.[1181] [1178] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1, 3. [1179] Derenbourg, Histoire de
la Palestine, pp. 252-254; Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1881, pp. 483-493. Tradition
names sometimes Agrippa’s minister, sometimes Agrippa himself as the party in
question. [1180] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 1. [1181] On the meaning of
the words of Agrippa in Acts 26:28, see especially Overbeck on the passage. They
were certainly not used ironically, but in thorough earnest. “The king confesses
that with the few words that he had spoken Paul had made him feel inclined to
become a Christian.” But then his indifference is shown in this, that he does
nothing further in the matter.—It should not indeed be left unrecorded that
instead of γενέσθαι very good manuscripts (אAB) read ποιῆσαι, and instead of
πείθεις one manuscript (A) has πείθῃ, which would give the translation: “With
little thinkest thou to make me a Christian.” But πείθῃ is too weakly supported,
and unless we could adopt that reading the ποιῆσαι would be untranslatable. His
interest in Judaism extended only to external matters, and, indeed, only to
merely trifling and insignificant points. In order to support the temple when
its foundations had begun to sink, and to raise the buildings twenty cubits
higher, he caused, at great expense, wood of immense size and fine quality to be
imported from the Lebanon. But the wood, owing to the outbreak of the war in the
meantime, was never put to that use, and subsequently served for the manufacture
of engines of war.[1182] He allowed the psalm-singing Levites, when they made
the request of him, to wear the linen garments which previously had been a
distinctive badge of the priests. For such an offence against the law, the war,
as Josephus thinks, was a just punishment.[1183] When, in the time of Albinus,
the building of the temple of Herod was completed, in order to secure employment
for the multitudes of builders, Agrippa had the city paved with white
marble.[1184] “And thus at least as costume maker, wood-cutter, pavier, and
practical inspector of the temple, did he render his services to the sinking
Jerusalem.”[1185] [1182] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 5; Antiq. xv. 11. 3.
[1183] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 6.—The combinations which Grätz (Monatsschrift,
1886, p. 97 f.) makes in this connection are more than doubtful. [1184]
Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 7. [1185] Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iii. 59.
When, in the spring of A.D. 66, the revolution broke out, Agrippa was in
Alexandria, where he had gone to pay his respects to the governor of that place,
Tiberius Alexander, while his sister Berenice remained in Jerusalem in
consequence of a Nazarite vow.[1186] Agrippa then immediately hasted back, and
both brother and sister did all in their power to avert the threatening storm.
But all in vain. Open hostilities were now begun in Jerusalem between the war
and the peace parties, and the king’s troops, which he had sent to help, fought
on the side of the peace party. When this latter party had been defeated, and
among other buildings, the palaces of Agrippa and Berenice had fallen victims to
the popular fury,[1187] he became the decided choice of that party.
Unhesitatingly throughout the whole war he stood on the side of the Romans. Even
when Cestius Gallus undertook his unfortunate expedition against Jerusalem, King
Agrippa was found in his following with a considerable number of auxiliary
troops.[1188] As the further course of the revolt proved favourable to the Jews
he lost a great part of his territory. The cities Tiberias, Tarichea, and Gamala
joined the revolutionary party; but the king remained unflinchingly faithful to
the Roman cause.[1189] After the conquest of Jotapata, in the summer of A.D. 67,
he entertained the commander-in-chief Vespasian in the most magnificent manner
in his capital of Caesarea Philippi,[1190] and was able soon, after he had been
slightly wounded at the siege of Gamala,[1191] to take possession again of his
kingdom; for at the end of the year 67 the whole of the north of Palestine was
again subject to the Romans. [1186] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 1.
[1187] Ibid. ii. 17. 6. [1188] Ibid. ii. 18. 9, 19. 3. [1189] Further details
regarding Agrippa’s conduct during the war are given in Keim, Bibellexikon, iii.
60-63.—Agrippa was not present in Palestine during the interval between the
defeat of Cestius Gallus and the advance of Vespasian. He gave over the
administration of his kingdom to a certain Noarus or Varus, and, when this man
began to indulge in the most despotic and high-handed procedure, to a certain
Aequus Modius (Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6; Life, c. xi. and xxxvi., compare
also xxiv.).—Of the three cities named (Tiberias, Tarichea, Gamala), Gamala was
of special importance as a strong fortress. It was at first held faithfully for
the king by Philip, an officer of Agrippa (Life, c. xi.). But when Philip was
recalled by Agrippa the city went over to the side of the rebels (Life,
xxxv.-xxxvii.; Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 4, 6, ii. 21. 7). Agrippa then ordered
Aequus Modius to recapture Gamala (Life, xxiv.). But even a seven months’ siege
failed to secure this end (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 2). Another officer of
Agrippa fought against Josephus (Life, lxxi.-lxxiii.).—Agrippa remained in
Berytus till the spring of A.D. 67 (Life, xxxvi., lxv., ed. Bekker, p. 342, 32),
then waited in Antioch along with his troops the arrival of Vespasian’s army
(Wars of the Jews, iii. 2. 4), advanced with Vespasian to Tyre (Life, lxxiv.)
and Ptolemais (Life, lxv., ed. Bekker, p. 340, 19-25, and c. lxxiv.), and seems
now to have taken up his quarters more generally in Vespasian’s camp (Wars of
the Jews, iii. 4. 2, 9. 7-8, 10. 10, iv. 1. 3). [1190] Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, iii. 9. 7. [1191] Ibid. iv. 1. 3. When, after the death of Nero, which
occurred on 9th June A.D. 68, Titus went to Rome to pay his respects to the new
emperor Galba, he took Agrippa with him also for the same purpose. On the way
they received tidings of Galba’s murder, which took place on 15th January A.D.
69. While Titus now returned with as great speed as possible to his father,
Agrippa continued his journey to Rome, where for a time he continued to
reside.[1192] But after Vespasian had been, on 30th July A.D. 69, elected
emperor by the Egyptian and Syrian legions, Berenice, who had been throughout a
hearty supporter of the Flavian party, urged her brother to return without delay
to Palestine to take the oath of allegiance to the new emperor.[1193] From this
time forward Agrippa is to be found in the company of Titus, to whom Vespasian
had entrusted the continued prosecution of the war.[1194] When Titus, after the
conquest of Jerusalem, gave magnificent and costly games at Caesarea Philippi,
King Agrippa was undoubtedly present, and as a Roman joined in the rejoicings
over the destruction of his people.[1195] [1192] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv.
9. 2; Tacitus, History, ii. 1-2. [1193] Tacitus, History, ii. 81. [1194] Ibid.
v. 1. [1195] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 2. 1. After the war had been
brought to an end Agrippa, as a faithful partizan of Vespasian, was not only
confirmed in the possession of the kingdom which he had previously governed, but
had also considerable additions made to his territories, though we have no more
detailed account of the precise boundaries of his domains.[1196] Josephus
mentions only incidentally that Arcaia (Arca, at the north end of the Lebanon,
north-east of Tripolis) belonged to the kingdom of Agrippa.[1197] We are
therefore obliged to conclude that his new possessions stretched very far to the
north. The omission on the part of Josephus in Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 5, to
refer to these northern possessions, can be accounted for only by the hypothesis
that at the time of the composition of that work this extension of territory had
not yet taken place. As a matter of fact, Josephus does not refer to them there,
because in that passage he does not propose to describe the whole kingdom of
Agrippa, but only those districts which were inhabited more or less by Jews
(compare Div. II. vol. i. p. 2). Of the southern possessions certain portions
seem at a later period to have been taken away from Agrippa. At least, at the
time when Josephus wrote his Antiquities, i.e. in A.D. 93-94, the Jewish colony
of Bathyra in Batanea no longer belonged to the territory of Agrippa.[1198]
[1196] Photius in his Bibliotheca, cod. 33, gives the following extract about
Agrippa from Justus of Tiberias: παρέλαβε μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, ηὐξήθη δὲ
ἐπὶ Νέρωνος καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ, τελευτᾷ δὲ ἔτει τρίτῳ Τραϊανοῦ.
[1197] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 1. Josephus there tells how that
Titus, on the march from Berytus to Antioch, came upon the so-called
Sabbath-river, which flows μέσος Ἀρκαίας τῆς Ἀγρίππα βασιλείας καὶ Ῥαφαναίας. A
city therefore is intended which lay north of Berytus, and so undoubtedly the
same Arcae which according to the old itineraries lay between Tripolis and
Antaradus, 16 or 18 Roman miles north of Tripolis and 32 Roman miles south of
Antaradus (18 mil. pass.: Itinerarium Antonini, edd. Parthey et Pinder, 1848, p.
68; 16 mil. pass.: Itinerarium Burdigalense, edd. Parthey et Pinder, p.
275=Itinera Hierosolymitana, edd. Tobler et Molinier, i. 1879, p. 14; they agree
in giving the distance from Antaradus at 32 mil. pass.). The name is retained to
the present day in that of a village at the north end of the Lebanon on the spot
indicated in the itineraries. In ancient times the city was very well known. The
Arkites are named in the list of peoples in Genesis 10:17 (עַרְקִי). Josephus,
Antiq. i. 6. 2, calls it: Ἄρκην τὴν ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ. Quite distinct from this is
the Arce mentioned in Antiq. v. 1. 22, which lay much farther south. In Antiq.
viii. 2. 3, Niese reads, indeed, Ἀκή; but for this Antiq. ix. 14. 2 has Ἄρκη.
Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 18. 74, and Ptolemy, v. 15. 21, simply mention the name.
Stephen of Byzantium remarks: Ἄρκη, πόλις Φοινίκης, ἡ νῦν Ἄρκαι καλουμένη.
Jerome explains Genesis 10:17 thus: “Aracaeus, qui Arcas condidit, oppidum
contra Tripolim in radicibus Libani situm” (Quaest. Hebr. in Genesin, Opera, ed.
Vallarsi, iii. 321). In the days of the empire, Arca was specially known as the
birthplace of Alexander Severus (Lamprid. Alexander Severus, c. 1, 5, 13; Aurel.
Victor, Caesar, c. 24). It was there also called Caesarea (Lamprid. Alexander
Severus, c. 13: “Apud Aream Caesaream;” Aurel. Victor, Caesar, c. 24: “Cui
duplex, Caesarea et Arca, nomen est”). On coins this name occurs as early as the
time of Marcus Aurelius (Καισαρεων των εν τω Λιβανω or Καισαρειας Λιβανου). From
the time of Heliogabalus, if not even earlier, it is ranked on the coins as a
Roman colony: “Col. Caesaria Lib(ani).” An inscription, found by Renan in the
neighbourhood of Botrys, refers to a dispute about a boundary between the
Caesarians and the Gigartenians, Corp. Inscr. Lat. iii. n. 183=Renan, Mission de
Phénicie, p. 149: “Fines positi inter Caesarenses ad Libanum et Gigartenos de
vico Sidonior[um] jussu …). From this, however, it should not be concluded that
their regular frontiers touched one another. See Mommsen’s remarks in Corp.
Inscr. Lat., and those of Renan in his work referred to. The situation of
Gigarta may be determined from the order of enumeration in Pliny, Hist. Nat. v.
78: “Botrys, Gigarta, Trieris, Calamos, Tripolis.” The plural form Ἄρκαι, used
by Stephen of Byzantium, is also confirmed by the itineraries, by Jerome,
Socrates (Hist. eccl. vii. 36), and Hierocles (Synecdemus, ed. Parthey, p.
43).—Compare generally, Belley, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et
belles-lettres, first series, vol. xxxii. 1768, pp. 685-694; Ritter, Erdkunde,
xvii. 1. 808 ff., 842; Robinson, Later Researches in Palestine; Forbiger,
Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii. 672; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2
Aufl. p. 1423 f.; Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen
Reichs, ii. 331 f.; Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1073; Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 86;
Baudissin, art. “Arkiter” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 645 f.;
Knobel, Die Völkertafel der Genesis, 1850, p. 327 f.; Renan, Mission de
Phénicie, p. 115 sq.; Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, viii.
1885, p. 18; Neubauer, La géographie du Talmud, p. 299.—On the coins: Belley,
Mémoires de l’Académie, xxxii. (1768); Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 360-362;
Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 356-358; Suppl. viii. 255-257; De Saulcy,
Annuaire de la Société francaise de Num. et d’Archéologie, iii. 2, 1869, pp.
270-275; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 117-120. [1198]
Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 2. 2. In the Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 5, Batanea is
reckoned as still belonging to the territory of Agrippa. In A.D. 75 the brother
and sister, Agrippa and Berenice, arrived in Rome, and there those intimate
relations begun in Palestine between Berenice and Titus were resumed, which soon
became a public scandal.[1199] The Jewish queen lived with Titus on the
Palatine, while her brother was raised to the rank of a praetor. It was
generally expected that there would soon be a formal marriage, which it is said
that Titus had indeed promised her. But the dissatisfaction over the matter in
Rome was so great that Titus found himself under the necessity of sending his
beloved one away.[1200] After the death of Vespasian, on 23rd June A.D. 79, she
returned once more to Rome; but Titus had come to see that love intrigues were
not compatible with the dignity of an emperor, and so left her unnoticed.[1201]
When she found herself thus deceived she returned again to Palestine. [1199]
Even Titus’ return to Palestine on receiving intelligence of Galba’s death was
ascribed by his defamers to his longing for the society of Berenice (Tacitus,
History, ii. 2). [1200] Dio Cassius, lxvi. 15; Suetonius, Titus, 7: “Insignem
reginae Berenices amorem cui etiam nuptias poilicitus ferebatur.”—Berenice had
even already publicly assumed the name of Titus’ wife (πάντα ἤδη ὡς καὶ γυνὴ
αὐτοῦ οὖσα ἐποίει, Dio Cassius, lxvi. 15). Any suspected of having intercourse
with her were rigorously punished by Titus. Aurel. Victor, Epit. 10: “Caecinam
consularem adhibitum coenae, vixdum triclinio egressum, ob suspicionem stupratae
Berenices uxoris suae, jugulari jusait.”—Compare also Hausrath,
Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. iv. 52-55. [1201] Dio Cassius, lvi.
18; Aurel. Victor, Epit. 10: “Ut subiit pondus regium, Berenicen nuptias suas
sperantem regredi domum … praecepit.” Suetonius, Titus, 7: “Berenicen statim ab
urbe dimisit, invitus invitam.”—Aurelius Victor and Suetonius speak only of a
dismissal of Berenice after the enthronement of Titus; for even in Suetonius
“statim” can be understood only in this sense. But Dio Cassius clearly makes a
distinction between the two occurrences: the involuntary dismissal before his
succession to the throne, and the non-recognition of Berenice after that
event.—On her travels between Palestine and Borne, Berenice seems to have gained
for herself a certain position in Athens which the council and people of the
Athenians have made memorable by the following inscription (Corp. Inscr. Graec.
n. 361=Corp. Inscr. Atticarum, iii. 1, n. 556; on the name Julia, see above, p.
162):— Ἡ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ Αρείου πάγου καὶ ἡ βουλὴ τῶν χʼ καὶ ὁ δῆμος Ιου- λίαν
Βερενείκην βασίλισσαν μεγάλην, Ἰουλίου Ἀγρίππα βασι λέως θυγατέρα καὶ μεγάλων
βασιλέων εὐεργετῶν τῆς πό- λεως ἔκγονον … Of her later life, as well as of that
of Agrippa, we know practically nothing. We know indeed only this, that Agrippa
corresponded with Josephus about his History of the Jewish War, praised it for
its accuracy and reliability, and purchased a copy of it.[1202] [1202] Josephus,
Life, lxv.; Against Apion, i. 9. Numerous coins of Agrippa confirm the idea that
his reign continued to the end of that of Domitian. The many inaccuracies which
are found on these coins with reference to the imperial title have caused much
trouble to numismatists. Yet, in reality, these inaccuracies are in various
directions highly instructive.[1203] [1203] For the literature on the coins, see
above, p. 192.—The real facts of the case are as follows. Besides the coins of
the time of Nero (see in regard to them above, pp. 193-194) there are coins of
Agrippa—(1) of the years of his reign, 14, 18, 26, 27, 29, with the inscription,
Αὐτοκρά(τορι) Οὐεσπασι(ανῷ) Καίσαρι Σεβαστῷ; (2) of the years of Agrippa, 14,
18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, with the inscription, Αὐτοκρ(άτωρ) Τίτος Καῖσαρ
Σεβασ(τός); (3) of the years of Agrippa, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 35,
with the name of Domitian, and indeed down to the year 23 inclusive, only
Δομιτιανὸς Καῖσαρ, in the year 24 with the addition Γερμανικός, in the year 35:
Αὐτοκρά(τορα) Δομιτια(νον) Καίσαρα Γερμανι(κόν). For the fullest exhibition of
the evidence, see Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 148-159.—The agreement in
the year numbers on the coins of all the three Flavians puts it beyond doubt
that on all these coins the same era is employed. Hence Agrippa in his
fourteenth year has had coins stamped at the same time bearing the name of
Vespasian, Titus, Domitian. But the era used can only be that of A.D. 61, which
is employed on the bilingual coins of Agrippa of the 25th and 26th years of his
reign (= Domitian. Cos. xii., i.e. A.D. 86). Compare what is said above at p.
194. From these data the following results may be deduced: (1) The coins of the
years 26, 27, and 29 were stamped after the deaths of Vespasian and Titus;
nevertheless, in the title of both emperors the term “divus” is wanting,
suppressed probably on religious grounds. (2) The coins of the years 14 and 18
were stamped while Vespasian was still living; nevertheless Titus is already
called Σεβαστός. Thus, incorrect as it is, it indicates in a striking manner how
Titus had already gained in the East a supreme position. He was regarded even
then as practically co-regent. (3) The title given to Domitian is so far
correct, since he is called on the coins of the years 14-19 only Καῖσαρ, and on
the coins of the year 24 (= A.D. 84) bears the title Γερμανικός, which, as a
matter of fact, he did receive in A.D. 84. On the other hand, it was a great
mistake to omit the title of Σεβαστός, and in some instances also the title
Αὐτοκράτωρ from the coins of the years 23-25, which all belong to the period of
Domitian’s reign, A.D. 83-95. The coins therefore show “that in Galilee they
were not altogether en rapport with the mighty empire of this world” (Mommsen).
Only the bilingual coins of the year 26 have the correct Latin title:
“Imp(erator) Caes(ar) divi Vesp. f(ilius) Domitian(us) Au(gustus)
Ger(manicus).”—Several numismatists, especially De Saulcy and Madden, partly at
least in order to get rid of these results, have, in the most extremely
arbitrary manner, assumed for these coins from three to four different eras. The
correct point of view has in the most convincing manner been indicated by
Mommsen (Wiener Numismatuche Zeitichrift, iii. 1871, pp. 451-457). According to
the testimony of Justus of Tiberias,[1204] Agrippa died in the third year of
Trajan, in A.D. 100; and there is no reason for doubting the correctness of this
statement, as Tillemont and many modern writers have done.[1205] Agrippa, it
would appear, left no children.[1206] His kingdom was undoubtedly incorporated
in the province of Syria. [1204] On Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 33, see vol. i.
of this present work, pp. 68-69. [1205] Tillemont, Historie des empereurs, t. i.
(Venise 1732) pp. 646-648, note xli.; Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten, Bd. ii.,
Anhang, p. 103 f.; Brann, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judenthums, 1871, pp. 26-28; Grätz, Monatsschrift für Gesch. u. Wissensch. des
Jude. 1877, pp. 337-352; Brüll, Jahrbücher für jüdisch. Geschichte und
Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 51-53.—The reason why some would reject altogether the
report of Justus as given by Photius, while others would improve it by an
alteration or modification of the text, is simply this, that it had been assumed
that the Autobiography of Josephus was written immediately after his
Antiquities, in A.D. 93 or 94. In that case then Agrippa must have died before
the year 93; for when Josephus wrote his Autobiography, Agrippa was already dead
(Life, lxv.). But that assumption is altogether untenable, since Josephus, at
the end of the Antiquities, expresses his intention of continuing the work in
another way than he afterwards actually did by appending the Life. On this
question see vol. i. of this work, pp. 90-92.—The coins of Agrippa of the year
35 of his reign prove that, at least in A.D. 95, he was still alive. Compare in
regard to the reckoning of the date, what is said in note 41. The inscription
with the date ἔτους λζʹ τοῦ καὶ λβʹ βασιλέως Ἀγρίππα, if we fix the latter date
at A.D. 61 (compare above at note 7), will bring us to A.D. 92-93. [1206]
Whether he was married or not, we do not know. In the Talmud (bab. Succa 27a)
the story is told of the steward of Agrippa putting a question to R. Elieser,
which seems to imply that the questioner had two wives. Founding upon this, many
assign to Agrippa two wives, asauming that the steward put the question in the
name of the king. So, for instance, Derenbourg, Historie de la Palestine, pp.
252-254, and Brann, Monatsschrift, 1871, p. 13 f. There is, however, no
sufficient foundation for such an assumption. See Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1881, p.
483 f.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 39: � 20. THE GREAT WAR WITH ROME, A.D. 66-73
========================================================================

§ 20. THE GREAT WAR WITH ROME, A.D. 66-73 SOURCES JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews,
ii. 14-vii.; Life, c. iv.-lxxiv. ZONARAS, Annales, vi. 18-29 (summary from
Josephus).—On the so-called Hegesippus, see above, vol. i. pp. 100-102. On the
non-extant works of Vespasian, Antonius Julianus, and Justus of Tiberias, see
above, vol. i. pp. 63-69. Rabbinical traditions in DERENBOURG, pp. 255-295. On
the coins which possibly date from the period of this war, see Appendix IV.
LITERATURE EWALD, History of Israel, vii. 486-616. MILMAN, History of the Jews,
books xiv., xv., xvi., xvii. GRĀTZ, Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. pp.
448-557. HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 594-629. HAUSRATH,
Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. iii. 421-477. RENAN, Antichrist.
PRESSENSÉ, The Early Years of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 399-406. London 1879.
SCHILLER, Geschichte des römischen Kaiserreiches unter der Regierung des Nero
(1872), pp. 205-261.—Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 1883, pp.
381-400. MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, Bd. v. 1885, pp. 529-540. LEWIN, The
Siege of Jerusalem by Titus. With Journal of a recent Visit to the Holy City,
and a general Sketch of the Topography of Jerusalem from the earliest Times down
to the Siege. London 1863.—Compare Gött. gel. Anzeiger, 1864, p. 721 ff.—Also,
Lewin, Fasti sacri, London 1865, pp. 338-362. MORRISON, The Jews under the
Romans. In “History of the Nations” series. London 1890. CHAMPAGNT, Rome et la
Judée au temps de la chute de Néron (ans 66-72 après Jésus-Christ), 2 éd. Paris
1865, t. i. pp. 195-254; t. ii. pp. 55-200. DE SAULCY, Les derniers jours de
Jérusalem. Paris 1886. Compare, Gött. gel. Anzeiger, 1868, p. 899 ff. 1. THE
OUTBREAK AND TRIUMPH OF THE REVOLUTION, A.D. 66 THE ostensible occasion for the
outbreak of the long threatened revolt was given by a deed of Floras which was
not in itself any worse than many others committed by him, but to the people
proved more intolerable because it was at the same time an outrage upon their
religious sensibilities. Whereas before he had visited only the citizens with
his plunderings, he now ventured to lay his hands upon the treasury of the
temple, and to abstract from it seventeen talents. The people’s patience was
thus tried beyond endurance. They now rose in a great tumult; a couple of
sarcastic wits hit upon a plan for throwing contempt upon the greedy procurator
by sending round baskets and collecting gifts for the poor and unfortunate
Florus. When the governor heard of this he immediately resolved to take bloody
vengeance upon those who had thus insulted him. With a detachment of soldiers he
marched to Jerusalem, and in spite of the weeping entreaties of the high priests
and the principal inhabitantants, he gave over a portion of the city to be
plundered by his soldiers. A large number of citizens, including among them even
Roman knights of Jewish descent, were seized at random, put in fetters, and then
crucified. Even the humble pleadings of Queen Berenice, who happened to be
present in Jerusalem at that time, had no effect in moderating the fury of the
procurator and his soldiers.[1207] [1207] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 14.
6-9, 15. 1. This outrage was committed on the 16th Artemisios (Ijjar, May) of
the year 66.[1208] [1208] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 2; comp. ii. 14.
4; Antiq. xx. 11. 1 (in the twelfth year of Nero). Though Josephus uses the
Macedonian names of the months we are really to understand by them the Jewish
months, which only approximately correspond to the months of the Julian
calendar. See further details in Appendix III. On the day following Florus
expressed the wish that the citizens should go out to give a formal greeting to
the two cohorts which were to enter the city from Caesarea, in order thereby to
give a public proof of their submissiveness and of their penitent disposition.
Although the people were not by any means inclined to do so, the high priests
persuaded them to submit to this indignity lest something worse should befall
them. In solemn procession the people went out to meet the two cohorts, and gave
them a friendly greeting. But the soldiers, evidently guided by the instructions
of Florus, refused to return their greeting. Then began the people to murmur,
and to utter reproaches against Florus. The soldiers then seized their swords,
and drove the people back amid incessant slaughter into the city. Then in the
streets a violent conflict raged, in which the people succeeded in securing
possession of the temple mount, and in cutting off the connection between it and
the castle of Antonia. Florus could easily see that he was not strong enough to
subdue the multitude by violence. He therefore withdrew to Caesarea, leaving
behind only one cohort in Jerusalem, and announcing that he would hold the chief
men of the city responsible for the quiet and order of the people.[1209] [1209]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 3-6. King Agrippa was at this time in
Alexandria. When he heard of the disturbances he hastened to Jerusalem, summoned
the people to an assembly on the Xystus, an open space in front of the palace of
the Asmoneans, in which Agrippa resided, and from his palace addressed the
people in a long and impressive speech, in order to urge them to abandon the
utterly hopeless, and therefore unreasonable and disastrous struggle on which
they were entering.[1210] The people declared themselves ready to return to
their allegiance to the emperor They began again to build up the galleries
between the temple mount and the Antonia, which they had torn down, and they
collected the outstanding taxes. But when Agrippa insisted that they should
again yield obedience to Florus, this was more than the people could endure. His
proposals were rejected with contempt and scorn, and he was obliged to withdraw
without accomplishing his purpose in his kingdom.[1211] [1210] Josephus, Wars of
the Jews, ii. 16. 1-5; comp. 15. 1.—The statistical details about the Roman
empire which Josephus has woven into this speech of Agrippa, were probably
borrowed from an official publication. Compare Friedländer, De fonte quo
Jonephus B. J. ii. 16. 4 usus sit. Regimonti (Index lectionum), 1873. [1211]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 1. Meanwhile the rebels had succeeded in
gaining possession of the fortress of Masada. At the instigation of Eleasar, son
of the high priest Ananias, it was now also resolved to discontinue the daily
offering for the emperor, and no longer to admit of any offering by those who
were not Jews. The refusal to offer a sacrifice for the emperor was equivalent
to an open declaration of revolt against the Romans. All attempts of the
principal men, among the chief priests as well as among the Pharisees, to induce
the people to recall this foolhardy resolution were in vain. They firmly adhered
to the decision to which they had come.[1212] [1212] Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
ii. 17. 2-4.—On the fortress of Masada, see below at the end of this section.—On
the daily sacrifice offered for the emperor, see the Second Division of the
present work, vol. i. pp 302-304. When the members of the peace party, to which,
as might be expected, all discerning and judicious men belonged,—the high
priests, the most distinguished of the Pharisees, those related to the house of
Herod,—perceived that they were incapable of accomplishing any good, they
resolved to have recourse to violent measures. They accordingly made application
for assistance to King Agrippa. He sent a detachment of 3000 cavalry under the
command of Darius and Philip, by whose help the peace party gained possession of
the upper city, while the rebels continued to hold the temple mount and the
lower city. A bitter strife now arose between the two parties; but the royal
troops were not strong enough to withstand the violent rage of the multitude,
and were obliged to evacuate the upper city. In order to take vengeance upon
their opponents, the rebels set fire to the palaces of the high priest Ananias,
of King Agrippa, and Berenice.[1213] [1213] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17.
4-6.—The troops sent by Agrippa were ὑπὀ Δαρείῳ μὲν ἱππάρχῳ, στρατηγῷ δὲ τῷ
Ἰακίμου Φιλίππῳ (Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 4 fin.) Philip was therefore the
commander-in-chief. He was grandson of the Babylonian Zamaris, who in the time
of Herod the Great had founded a Jewish colony in Batanea (Antiq. xvii. 2. 3).
Compere on him also, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 1, iv. 1. 10; Life, xi., xxxv.,
xxxvi., lxxiv.—On an inscription communicated by Waddington mention is made of a
Δομήδης [Δ]αρήιος ἔπαρχος βασιλέως μεγάλου Ἀγρίππα (Le Bas et Waddington,
Inscriptions, iii. n. 2135), who is probably identical with our Derius. A few
days after this, in the month Loos, that is, Ab or August, they also succeeded
in storming the citadel of Antonia, and then they began to lay siege to the
upper palace, that of Herod, in which the troops of the peace party had taken
refuge. Here, too, it was impossible for the besieged to offer any effectual
resistance. Consequently the troops of Agrippa were only too glad to submit on
the condition of being allowed to pass out unhurt. The Roman cohorts had betaken
themselves to the three strong towers of the palace, known respectively by the
names Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme, while all the rest of the palace was, on
6th Gorpiaios, that is, Elul or September, set on fire by the rebels.[1214] On
the following day the high priest Ananias, who had hitherto kept himself
concealed, was apprehended in his hiding-place and put to death.[1215] The
solitary feeble support which still remained to the peace party, was that of the
Roman cohorts besieged in the three towers of the palace of Herod. These, too,
were obliged at last to yield to the superior power of the people. Upon laying
down their arms they were allowed to walk out uninjured. But the rebels, who
were now masters of the whole city, celebrated their victory by general
slaughter. The Roman soldiers were scarcely gone, leaving their weapons behind
them, when they were treacherously fallen upon by the Jews, and were cut down to
the last man.[1216] [1214] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 7-8; comp. v. 4.
4.—The leader of Agrippa’s troops, Philip, was subsequently called to account
for his conduct (Josephus, Life, lxxiv.). [1215] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.
17. 9. [1216] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 10. Compare Megillath Taanith,
§ 14: “On the 17th Elul the Romans withdrew from Judea and Jerusalem”
(Derenbourg, pp. 443, 445; Hitzig, ii. p. 600). While thus the triumph of the
revolution in Jerusalem was decided, bloody conflicts took place also in many
other cities, where Jews and Gentiles dwelt together, especially within the
borders of Palestine. Wherever the Jews were in the majority, they cut down
their Gentile fellow-townsmen; and where the Gentiles predominated, they fell
upon the Jews. The influence of the revolt in the mother country spread even as
far as Alexandria.[1217] [1217] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 1-8; Life,
vi. At last, after long delay and preparation, Cestius Gallus, the governor of
Syria, entered upon negotiations for the quieting of the disturbances in Judea.
With the twelfth legion, 2000 chosen men from other legions, six cohorts, and
four alae of cavalry, besides numerous auxiliary troops which the friendly
kings, including Agrippa, had been obliged to place at his disposal, he started
from Antioch, marched through Ptolemais, Caesarea, Antipatris, Lydda, where he
arrived at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles in the month Tizri or October,
and finally through Beth-horon to Gabao or Gibeon, 50 stadia from Jerusalem, and
there pitched his camp.[1218] A sally made by the Jews from Jerusalem put the
Roman army into a position of great danger, but was at last driven back.[1219]
Cestius then advanced nearer to the city, and laid siege to the so-called
Scopus, 7 stadia from Jerusalem. Four days later, on the 30th Hyperberetaios,
that is, Tizri or October, he took possession unopposed of the northern suburb
Bezetha, and set it on fire.[1220] But when he ventured upon the bolder task of
storming the temple mount his enterprise failed. He thereupon desisted from all
further attempts, and began to withdraw without accomplishing his object.[1221]
Josephus is unable to explain the causes of this procedure. Probably Cestius
perceived that his forces were insufficient for making an attack with any hope
of success upon the well fortified and courageously defended city. With what
determination and with what dauntless resolution the struggle was carried
forward on the part of the Jews, was now to be proved to the Roman governor on
his retreat In a ravine near Beth-horon, through which he was pursuing his
journey, he found himself surrounded on every side by the Jews, and attacked
with such force, that his homeward march was turned into a flight. Only by
leaving behind him a great part of his baggage, including much valuable war
material, which subsequently proved of great service to the Jews, did he succeed
in reaching Antioch with a fragment of his army. Amid great rejoicings the
returning conquerors entered Jerusalem on the 8th Dios, that is, Marchesvan or
November.[1222] [1218] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 9-10, 19. 1.—Γαβαώ is
the Gibeon often referred to in the Old Testament, identified with El-Jeb
north-west of Jerusalem. See Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Gibeon;” Robinson,
Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. pp. 136-138; Guérin, Judee, i.
385-391. [1219] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 2. [1220] Josephus, Wars of
the Jews, ii. 19. 4.—Scopus is also referred to in Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 7,
v. 2. 3, 3. 2; Antiq. xi. 8. 5: εἰς τόπον τινὰ Σαφὶν [so the best manuscripts
read] λεγόμενον· τὸ δὲ ὄνομα τοῦτο μεταφερόμενον εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν γλῶτταν
Σκοπὸν [so the best manuscripts] σημαίνει. צָפִין is the Aramaic form for
צוֹפִים, as the place is called in Mishna, Pesachim iii, 8. Compare also
Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 42 (Opera, ii. 202). From this point
a beautiful view of the city was obtained (Antiq. xi. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, v.
2. 3).—The suburb Bezetha is also referred to in Wars of the Jews, ii. 15. 5, v.
4. 2, 5. 8. It is the most northerly suburb included by the so-called wall of
Agrippa (Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 2). [1221] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 19.
5-7. [1222] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 19. 7-9. In presence of the
excitement caused by victory which now prevailed in Jerusalem all peace counsels
were forcibly silenced. After such decisive successes no proposals of compromise
would be listened to. Even those inclined to oppose were driven along by the
course of events. Those who were inalienably attached to the Romans left the
city. All the rest were drawn into their own ranks by the rebels, partly by
force, partly by persuasion (τοὺς μὲν βίᾳ τοὺς δὲ πειθοῖ).[1223] They now set
about organizing the rebellion in a regular methodical fashion, and made
preparations for the expected onslaught of the Romans. It is distinctively
characteristic of the later period of the war that the men who now had the power
in their hands belonged exclusively to the higher ranks. The chief priests, the
most distinguished of the Pharisees, were those who directed the organization of
the land defences. An assembly of the people, which was held in the temple, made
choice of commanders for the provinces. Two men, Joseph, son of Gorion, and the
high priest Ananus, were entrusted with the defence of the capital. To Idumea
they sent Jesus, son of Sapphias, and Eleasar, son of Ananias, both belonging to
the high priestly family. Nearly all the eleven toparchies into which Judea was
divided had their own commanders. Finally, to Galilee was sent Josephus, son of
Matthias, the future historian.[1224] [1223] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.
20.1-3. [1224] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 3-4; Life, vii. In the latter
passage Josephus is impudent enough to declare that the purpose for which he was
sent was to pacify Galilee (compare also, Life, xiv.).—As had been already
shown, the conduct of the revolt was in the hands of the people of Jerusalem (τὸ
κοινὸν τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν, Life, xii., xiii., xxxviii., xlix., lii., lx., lxv.,
lxx.), and as their representative the Sanhedrim (τὸ συνέὸριον τῶν
Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν, Life, xii.). There is no doubt but that the youthful Josephus had
thus one of the most difficult and most responsible positions assigned to him,
for it was just in Galilee that the first attack of the Romans might be
expected. Great results could scarcely be looked for in the conducting of
warlike operations from a young man only thirty years of age; and he owed his
appointment certainly less to his military capacities than to his friendship
with the most distinguished personages. It was indeed a strange proceeding to
send a young man, who in addition to his natural ability could at most only
point to his rabbinical learning, to enlist an army with all haste from among
the peaceful inhabitants of Galilee, and with it to hold his ground against the
attack of veteran legions and circumvent the tactics of experienced generals! If
we are to believe his own account, he set himself at least with zeal to the
solving of the insoluble problem. For the governing of Galilee he appointed, in
imitation of the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, a council of seventy men, which had to
decide on difficult points of law; while for less important disputes he
established in every city a council of seven men.[1225] He intended to prove his
zeal for the law by destroying the palace of Tiberias, which, contrary to the
law, was adorned with animal images; but in this he was anticipated by the
revolutionary party.[1226] The military part of his task he endeavoured to carry
out specially by strengthening the fortifications of the cities. All the more
important cities of Galilee, Jotapata, Tarichea, Tiberias, Sepphoris, Gischala,
Mount Tabor, also Gamala in Gaulanitis, and many smaller towns were put more or
less in a condition of defence.[1227] But with special pride he boasts of his
labours in organizing the army, He sought to bring together no less than 100,000
men, and to have them drilled after the Roman style.[1228] [1225] Josephus, Wars
of the Jews, ii. 20. 5; Life, xiv. [1226] Josephus, Life, xii. [1227] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 6; Life, xxxvii. Compare in addition: Ritter,
Erdkunde, xvi. 757-771; Robinson, Biblical Researches, vol.ii. p. 387.—Among the
above-named seven important places Sepphoris never took the side of the
revolution, but, so long as it was without Roman protection, assumed a
vacillating position, hence even expending care on its fortifications; and then,
so soon as Roman troops were available, taking sides with them. For further
details, see Div. II., vol. i. p. 136.—Of the other six cities or fortresses,
three, Tarichea, Tiberias, and Gamala, belonged to the territory of King
Agrippa, and in part also joined the side of the revolution only after internal
conflicts. See particularly on Tiberias, Div. II. vol. i. p. 143 f.; on Gamala,
the present vol. p. 200.—Gischala took up a distinct position of its own, for
there, John, son of Levi, the celebrated revolutionary hero of a later period,
assumed to himself the government. He was dissatisfied with the lukewarm
attitude of Josephus, and so refused to make over to him the fortress of the
city, but took the command of it himself (Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 6; Life, x.,
xxxviii.). See especially on the attitude of Gischala, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21.
7. 10; Life, x., xiii., xvi.-xviii., xx., xxv., xxxviii.—All the seven places
here mentioned will be again referred to in the history of the rearrangement of
Galilee by the Romans. See references to them also in geographical works. [1228]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 6-8. While Josephus thus prepared for war
with the Romans, a violent opposition arose against him in his own province,
which even went the length of openly drawing the sword upon him. The soul of
this hostile movement was John of Gischala, a bold, reckless party leader, who
was filled with glowing hatred toward the Romans, and had resolved to carry on
the struggle against them to the uttermost. But while he had sworn death and
destruction to the tyrants, he was himself no less of a tyrant within his own
circle. It was intolerable to him to brook the idea of having others over him.
Least of all could he yield obedience to Josephus, whose tame method of
conducting the war seemed to him no better than friendship for the Romans. Hence
he used every endeavour to get the man so hateful to him set aside, and to
withdraw the allegiance of the people of Galilee from him.[1229] His suspicion
of Josephus was indeed not altogether without foundation. Josephus knew the
Romans too well to entertain the notion that the rebellion could be really and
finally successful. He was therefore necessarily only half-hearted in the
business which he had undertaken, and sometimes unwittingly allowed this to
appear. On one occasion certain youths from the village of Dabaritta had robbed
an official of King Agrippa, and taken rich spoil. Josephus caused them to hand
back what they had taken, and intended, if we may believe his own account of the
affair, to restore them to the king on the first favourable opportunity. When
the people perceived that this was his intention, the suspicion which John of
Gischala had insinuated against him was increased, and now broke out into open
rebellion. In Tarichea, where Josephus had his residence, a great tumult was
made. They threatened the life of the traitor. Only by the most miserable and
degrading self-humiliation and the exercise of low cunning could Josephus ward
off the threatened danger.[1230] Some time later at Tiberias, he escaped the
assassins sent against him by John of Gischala only by precipitate flight.[1231]
At last John carried matters so far that he was able to obtain in Jerusalem a
resolution to recall Josephus. Four of the most distinguished men were sent for
this purpose to Galilee, accompanied by a detachment of soldiers numbering 2500
men, in order to carry out this decision by force if necessary. But Josephus
knew how to frustrate the execution of this decree, and the four ambassadors
were again recalled. When they refused compliance with that summons, he had them
apprehended and sent them back to Jerusalem. The inhabitants of Tiberias who
continued in revolt were subjugated by force, and thus for the time peace was
restored.[1232] When, a few days later, the inhabitants of Tiberias again rose
in revolt,—now, indeed, in favour of Agrippa and the Romans,—they were overcome
once more by craft.[1233] [1229] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21.1-2; Life,
xiii. [1230] Josephus, Wars of the Jews ii. 21. 3-5; Life, xxvi.-xxx. [1231]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii, 21. 6; Life, xvi.-xviii. [1232] Josephus, Wars
of the Jews, ii. 21. 7; Life, xxxviii.-lxiv., especially xxxviii.-xl., lx.-lxiv
[1233] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 8-10; Life, xxxii.-xxxiv.—In his
autobiography (lxviii.-lxix.), Josephus relates that the πρῶτοι τῆς βουλῆς of
Tiberias once at a later period sent entreating Agrippa for a
garrison.—Tiberias, as might be expected from its mixed population, and as is
expressly declared in the Life, ix., was in its sympathies partly Roman, partly
anti-Roman, so that it is found sometimes in league with King Agrippa, sometimes
in league with John of Gischala. On its precise position, however, it is
difficult to say anything with confidence, since the statements in Josephus’
autobiography are all made with a purpose. On the general question, see Div. I.
vol. i. 143; and on Justus of Tiberias, see present work, vol. i. pp. 65-69.
Meanwhile in Jerusalem they were by no means inactive. There, too, they were
making preparations for meeting the Romans. The walls were strengthened, war
material of all sorts was collected, the youth were exercised in the use of
arms.[1234] [1234] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 22. 1. Amid such preparations
the spring of A.D. 67 came round, and with it the time when the attack of the
Romans was expected, and the young republic would have to pass through its fiery
ordeal. 2. THE WAR IN GALILEE, A.D. 67 The Emperor Nero had received in Achaia
the news of the defeat of Cestius.[1235] Since the continuance of the war could
not have been committed to the defeated general,—he seems indeed soon afterwards
to have died,[1236]—the difficult task of putting down the Jewish rebellion was
made over to the well-proved hands of Vespasian. During winter Vespasian still
pushed forward the preparations for the campaign. While he himself went to
Antioch and there marshalled his army, he sent his son Titus to Alexandria, in
order that he might bring to him from thence the fifteenth legion.[1237] So soon
as the season of the year allowed, he marched from Antioch and advanced to
Ptolemais, where he meant to await the arrival of Titus. But before Titus
reached that place, ambassadors from the Galilean city of Sepphoris appeared
before Vespasian and besought him to give them a Roman garrison.[1238] Vespasian
hasted to comply with their request. A detachment of 6000 men under the
leadership of Placidus was sent as a garrison to the city. Thus were the Romans,
without drawing a sword, in possession of one of the most important and one of
the strongest points in Galilee.[1239] Soon after this Titus arrived with his
one legion. The army now at the disposal of Vespasian consisted of 3 distinct
legions, the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth, 23 auxiliary cohorts, 6 alae of
cavalry, besides the auxiliary troops of King Agrippa, of King Antiochus of
Commagene, of Soemus of Emesa, and of Malchus of Arabia: in all comprising
somewhere about 60,000 men.[1240] [1235] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 1,
iii. 1. 1. [1236] “Fato aut taedio occidit,” says Tacitus, Hist. v. 10.—In the
winter of A.D. 66-67, Cestius Gallus was still in the province. See Josephus,
Life, viii., xliii., lxv., lxvii., lxxi. [1237] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii.
1. 2-3.—According to the common text of Wars of the Jews, iii. 1. 3, Titus was
to have brought two legions from Alexandria, τό τε πέμπτον καὶ τὸ δέκατον. But
of the return of Titus to Vespasian it is said, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2: καὶ
ἐκεῖ (supply “to Ptolemais”) καταλαβὼν τὸν πατέρα, δυσὶ τοῖς ἅμα αὐτῷ τάγμασιν,
ἦν δὲ τὰ ἐπισημότατα τὸ πέμπτον καὶ τὸ δέκατον, ζεύγνυσι καὶ τὸ ἀχθὲν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ
πεντεκαιδέκατον. This can only mean that to the two legions which he found with
his father, the 5th and the 10th, he added the 15th, which was with him. With
this also agrees the fact that Titus, according to Suetonius, Tit. iv., was
during the war commander of one legion (legioni praepositus), that is, of the
15th. Accordingly the corrected reading in Wars of the Jews, iii. 1. 3 will be:
τὸ πεντεκαιδέκατον. So Renier, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscript. et
belles-lettres, t. xxvi. 1, p. 298, note 8.—Mommsen insists (Römische
Geschichte, v. 533) that the Alexandria referred to here is not the celebrated
Egyptian city, but the Alexandria situated on the Gulf of Isaus. So, too, Pick
in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, xiii. 1885, p. 200. Mominsen’s chief
argument is “because the land march from Alexandria on the Nile to Ptolemais
through the revolted district in the beginning of the Jewish war could not he
that intended by Josephus.” But of the coast cities only Joppa was among the
insurgents, and even the case of Azotus and Jamnia is doubtful. See Div. II.
vol. i. pp. 76-79. To march along by such a course was by no means so dangerous
for a Roman army that Josephus would have been obliged to call attention to
this. On the other hand, the “Alexandria” of the Wars of the Jews, iii. 1. 3, 4.
2, is quite evidently the Egyptian. Any other Alexandria would have been more
particularly distinguished by some epithet. [1238] Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
iii. 2. 4.—Sepphoris had even before the arrival of Vespasian possessed a Roman
garrison (Life, lxxi.; Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 4). Whether this garrison had
meanwhile been withdrawn, or was now only relieved or strengthened, is not quite
clear. Compare Div. II. vol i. p. 136. [1239] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii.
4. 1; Life, lxxiv.—On Placidus, who had been in Galilee previous to the arrival
of Veapasian, see also Life, xliii. [1240] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4.
2. When all arrangements had been made, Vespasian advanced from Ptolemais and
pitched his camp on the borders of Galilee. Josephus had before this set his
camp at the village of Garis, twenty stadia from Sepphoris (Life, lxxi.), in
order that he might there wait the attack of the Romans. The warlike qualities
of his army were soon shown in a very doubtful light. When it became known that
Vespasian was approaching, the majority of the Jewish troops became utterly
dispirited, even before they had so much as come face to face with the Romans;
they fled hither and thither; and Josephus found himself obliged to hasten with
the remnant to Tiberias.[1241] Without drawing a sword, Vespasian had thus
obtained possession of the lowlands of Galilee. Only the strongholds now
remained for him to take. [1241] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 6. 2-3.
Josephus soon held communication with Jerusalem, and insisted that if they
wished the war to be carried on they should send an army able to cope with the
Romans, a petition which now indeed came too late.[1242] The most of the army of
Josephus had taken refuge in the strong fortress of Jotapata.[1243] Even he
himself entered that stronghold on the 21st (?) Artemisios, that is, Ijjar or
May, so as to conduct the defence in his own person.[1244] On the evening of the
immediately following day, Vespasian with his army appeared before the city; and
then began the celebrated siege of the certainly not unimportant stronghold,
described with a self-glorifying amplitude of details by Josephus. The first
attack led to no result. It was found necessary to have recourse to a regular
siege. An obstinate struggle made the issue for some time doubtful. What on the
one side was accomplished by art and the experience of war, was accomplished on
the other by the courage of despair and the skill of the commander-in-chief. For
although Josephus was indeed no general in the proper sense of the word, he was
a past master in little tricks and stratagem. With profound satisfaction the
vain man tells how he deceived the Roman generals as to the scarcity of water in
the city by making his soldiers hang their clothes dripping with water over the
battlements. He also tells how he managed to procure supplies of food by sending
his men out by night clothed in the skins of beasts, so that they might pass by
the Roman sentinels. He further relates how he broke the force of the
battering-ram upon the wall by throwing out bags filled with chaff; how he had
boiling oil thrown upon the soldiers, or boiling fenugreek poured on the boards
of the scaling ladders, so that those advancing on them slipped and fell back.
But neither by such arts nor by the boldness of the sallies, in one of which
Vespasian himself was wounded, could the fate of the city be averted. After the
besieged had endured the utmost extremity of suffering, a deserter betrayed the
secret, that in consequence of fatigue the very sentinels could no longer keep
themselves awake till the morning. The Romans made use of this information. With
perfect stillness, Titus one morning with a small detachment scaled the wall,
cut down the sleeping watch, and pressed into the city. The legions followed in
his track, and the outwitted garrison were aware of the entrance of the Romans
only when they no longer had power to drive them back. All without exception who
fell into the hands of the Romans, armed and unarmed, men and women, were
ruthlessly slain or carried off as slaves; the city and its fortifications were
levelled with the dust. It was on the 1st of the month Panemos, that is, Thamuz
or July, A.D. 67, when this most important fortress of Galilee fell into the
hands of the Romans.[1245] [1242] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 2. [1243]
Jotapata appears in the Mishna in the form יודפת (Arachin ix. 6; the Cambridge
manuscript has ירפת with Resh, but the editio princeps and the cod. de Rossi,
138: יודפת, Jodaphath, also Aruch ירפת with Daleth). It is there spoken of as an
ancient city, which had been, even in Joshua’s time, surrounded with walls.
Compare also: Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 203 sq.—Its situation has been
again discovered in 1847 by E. G. Schultz, in the modern Jefat, due north of
Sepphoris. See E. G. Schultz, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ.
Gesellschaft, Bd. iii. 1849, pp. 49 ff., 59 ff.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 764-768;
Robinson, Biblical Researches, iii. p. 105; Guérin, Galilée, i. 476-487; The
Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 289, 311-313;
and also Sheet V. of the Large English Map. On the siege, compare also: Parent,
Siège de Jotapata, 1866 (quoted by Renan Der Antichrist, p. 220). [1244]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 3.—Since, according to Wars of the Jews,
iii. 7. 33 and 8. 9, the siege lasted forty-seven days, and according to Wars of
the Jews, iii. 7. 36, it ended on the let of Panemos, the date 21st Artemisios
cannot be correct. [1245] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 4-36. Josephus
with forty companions had taken refuge in a well which discharged itself into a
cave. When he was discovered there, he was willing to surrender to the Romans,
but was prevented doing so by his companions. These only offered him the choice
of dying along with them, either by their hand or by his own. By some sort of
stratagem, having persuaded them that they should fall upon one another in the
order determined by the lot, and having by the fortune of the lot been himself
reserved to the last, Josephus managed to extricate himself from their hands,
and having made his escape, surrendered himself to the Romans.[1246] When he was
brought before Vespasian, he assumed the role of a prophet, and prophesied to
the general his future elevation as emperor. This had for him at least this
result, that although kept prisoner, he was dealt with in a generous
manner.[1247] [1246] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 1-8. [1247] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 9; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 1; Suetonius, Vespasian, c. 5.
According to Zonaras, Annales, xi. 16, Appian also in the twenty-second book of
his Roman History tells of the saying of the Jewish oracle with reference to
Vespasian.—Our older scholars have earnestly investigated the story of Josephus’
prophetic gift. Compare Olearius, Fl. Josephi de Vespasianis ad summum imperii
fastigium advehendis vaticinium, 1699; Strohbach, de Josepho Vespasiano imperium
praedicente, Lips. 1748. There may be some truth in the story. Probably Josephus
has wittingly construed a couple of general phrases into a formal prophecy. It
is noteworthy the rabbinical tradition ascribes this same prophecy to Rabbi
Jochanan ben Saccai. See Derenbourg, p. 282.—Upon this Holwerda (Verslagen en
Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde,
Tweede Reeks deel, ii. 1872, p. 137 sq.) has made the remark that similar
oracles were addressed to Titus and Vespasian by heathen priests. Thus
Sostratus, the priest of Aphrodite at Paphos in Cyprus, revealed the future to
Titus in secret conference when he inquired of the oracle there and sought for
favourable omens (Tacitus, Hist. ii. 4: “petito secreto futura aperit.” Still
more distinctly, Suetonius, Titus, c. 6: “aditoque Paphiae Veneris oraculo, dum
de navigatione consulit, etiam de imperii spe confirmatus est”). The priest
Basilides on Carmel declared to Vespasian on the ground of the sacrificial
signs: “quidquid est, Vespasiane, quod paras, seu domum extruere seu prolatare
agros sive ampliare servitia, datur tibi magna sedes, ingentes termini, multum
hominum” (Tacitus, Hist. ii. 78. Compare Suetonius, Vespasian, c. 5: “Apud
Judaeam Carmeli dei oraculum consulentem ita confirmavere sortes, ut quidquid
cogitaret volveretque animo quamlibet magnum, id esse proventurum
pollicerentur”). These heathen oracles, however, belong to a later period than
the one referred to by Josephus. On the fourth day of Panemos, Vespasian
advanced from Jotapata and marched next past Ptolemais to Caesarea, where he
allowed the troops some rest.[1248] While the soldiers were refreshing
themselves after the exertions of the siege, the general paid a visit to the
friendly King Agrippa at Caesarea Philippi, and took part there in extravagant
festivities lasting for twenty days. He then sent the legions by Titus from
Caesarea by the sea and marched against Tiberias, where, at the sight of the
Roman army, the people of their own accord opened their gates, and for Agrippa’s
sake received honourable treatment.[1249] From this point Vespasian pursued his
way onward to Tarichea.[1250] By a bold stroke of Titus, this city also fell
into the hands of the Romans in the beginning of the month Gorpiaios, that is,
Elul or September.[1251] [1248] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 1. [1249]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 7-8. [1250] Ταριχέαι or Ταριχέα (both forms
of spelling are met with) had its name from the curing of fish which was carried
on there (Strabo, xvi. 2. 45, p. 764). It is first mentioned in the time of
Cassius, who, during this first administration of Syria in B.C. 52-51, took the
city by force of arms (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 9),
and, during his second administration, again visited it. He wrote to Cicero in
B.C. 43, “ex castris Taricheis,” Cicero ad Familieres, xii. 11.—According to
Josephus, Life, xxxii., it lay thirty stadia from Tiberias; according to Wars of
the Jews, iii. 10. 1, it was situated upon the lake of Gennezaret at the foot of
a hill (ὑπώρειος); according to Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 15. 11, it lay at the south
end of the lake (a meridie Tarichea). It is therefore to be sought on the site
or in the neighbourhood of the present Kerak where the Jordan emerges from the
lake. Thus Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 387; Ritter,
Erdkunde, xv. 1. 344 ff.; Cless in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2, 1602 ff.;
Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p.
78; Conder, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statements, 1878, pp. 190-192;
Guérin, Galilée, i. 275-280; Kasteren, Zeitschrift des DPV. xi. 1888, pp. 215
ff., 241 ff.—Many recent writers are of opinion that the statements of Josephus
require us to seek Tarichea to the north of Tiberias, somewhere about the site
of the present Mejdel. So Quandt, Judäa und die Nachbarschaft, 1873, p. 107 f.;
Wilson, Quarterly Statements, 1877,10-13; Kitchener, Quarterly Statements, 1878,
p. 79; Furrer, Zeitschrift des DPV. ii. 1879, pp. 55-57, xii. 1889, pp. 145-148;
Grätz, Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1880, pp.
484-487; Spiess, Zeitschrift des DPV. viii. 1885, pp. 95-89; Frei, Zeitschrift
des DPV. ix. 1886, pp. 103-108; Öhlmann, Die Fortschritte der Ortskunde von
Palästina, 1 Thl. (Norden 1887, Progr.) pp. 12-14. But the course of Vespasian’s
march described by Josephus by no means proves that Tarichea lay to the north of
Tiberias. Vespasian, evidently went from Scythopolis, therefore from the south,
to Tiberias (Wars of the Jews, iii. 9. 7). But there is no ground for supposing
that he continued his march from thence still in a northerly direction. Rather
after occupying Tiberias, he pitched his camp at Emmaus “between Tiberias and
Tarichea,” as appears from a comparison of Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 3 with iii.
10. 1. But seeing that the warm springs of Emmaus to this day lie south of
Tiberias, it is evident that Vespasian, after the occupation of Tiberias, again
turned toward the south. It is thus really established by the statements of
Josephus that Tarichea lay to the south of Tiberias. Those who place Tarichea to
the north of Tiberias must also place Emmaus north of Tiberias, and then in
consistency they must deny the identity of the Emmaus referred to by Josephus
and the modern Hammam, which must nevertheless be regarded as a certain fact.
[1251] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 10. Suetonius, Titus, 4, ascribes to
Titus the conquest of Tarichea and Gamala; the latter incorrectly.—After
Tarichea had been taken by surprise, a portion of the inhabitants endeavoured to
make their escape in a boat out upon the lake. Vespasian caused them to be
pursued on rafts, and the fugitives all met their death, either by the sword or
in the water. It has been conjectured that this is the “Victoria navalis,” which
was celebrated by coins or medals, and in the triumphal procession was made
noticeable by a ship (Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 5: πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ νῆες εἵποντο).
Compare Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vi. 330; Stange, De Titi imperat. vita (1870), p.
22. On the medals, see Cohen, Médailles impérailes, ed. 2, t. i. 1880, p. 417
sq., n. 632-639 (Vespasianus), p. 460, n. 386-390 (Titus) p. 522 sq. n. 636-638
(Domitian); Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 223. In Galilee there now remained in
the hands of the rebels only Gischala and Mount Tabor (Itabyrion), and in
Gaulanitis the important and strongly fortified Gamala.[1252] To the last-named
place Vespasian next directed his attention. The siege appeared soon to be
successful. The Romans succeeded in storming the walls and forcing an entrance
into the city. But there they encountered such bitter resistance that they were
forced to retire with very heavy loss. The repulse was so severe that it
required all Vespasian’s influence and reputation to restore again the courage
of the soldiers. At last, on the 23rd Hyperberetaios, that is, Tizri or October,
the Romans again forced their way into the city, and were this time successful
in making themselves complete masters of the situation.[1253] During the siege
of Gamala the Mount Tabor (Itabyrion) was also taken by a detachment sent
thither.[1254] [1252] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1.—Gamala (גַמְלָא) is
mentioned in the Mishna, Arachin ix. 6, among the cities which are said to have
been surrounded with walls from the days of Joshua. Its existence is
historically demonstrable from the time of Alexander Jannaeus (Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 15. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 8). According to the Wars of the Jews, iv.
1. 1, it lay opposite Tarichea in Lower Gaulanitis, therefore east of the Lake
of Gennezaret. But any more particular determination of its site cannot now be
given. The conjecture that it is identical with el-Hösn is not quite certain,
still less can the notion recently favoured by many be maintained, that it was
situated farther to the north. Furrer’s conjecture is also improbable, that it
is to be sought in the present Jamli on the eastern bank of the Nahr er-rukkad,
a day’s journey east of the Lake of Gennezaret. Compare Schumacher’s map of
Golan in the Zeitschrift des DPV. ix. 1886. If it lay at such a distance from
the lake, Josephus would not have been able to describe it as a πόλις Ταριχεῶν
ἄντικρυς ὑπὲρ τὴν λίμνην κειμένη (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 1). Compare
generally: Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina- Vereins, ii. 1879, pp.
70-72, xii. 1889, pp. 148-151; Guérin, Galilée, i. 317-321; Merrill, East of the
Jordan, 1881, pp. 161, 164, 168; Gildemeister, Zeitschrift des DPV. viii. 242
f., and with it, ix. 358-360; Frei, Zeitschrift des DPV ix. 120 ff.; Kasteren,
Zeitschrift des DPV. xi. 220-225. The position of el-Hösn is minutely described;
Schumacher, Zeitschrift da DPV. ix. 327 ff., with plan and map. [1253] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 2-10. [1254] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 8.—On
the position of Tabor and its history, see Robinson, Biblical Researches in
Palestine, iii. 223, 224; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 391-404; Winer,
Realwörterbuch, art “Thabor;” Guérin, Galilée, i. 143-163; The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 358 ff., 388 ff. (with plan, i.
388); together with Sheet VI. of the large English Map. Vespasian gave over the
reducing of Gischala to Titus with a detachment of 1000 cavalry. He himself led
the 5th and 15th legions into winter quarters at Caesarea, while he placed the
10th at Scythopolis.[1255] Titus made light work of Gischala. On the second day
after his appearing before the walls of the city, the citizens of their own
accord opened the gates to him, John having secretly, during the previous night,
with his Zealot comrades quitted the city and fled to Jerusalem.[1256] [1255]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 2.1. [1256] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 2.
2-5.—Gischala is in the Hebrew Gush-Chalab, נרש חלב, and is also mentioned in
the Mishna among the cities which from the time of Joshua were surrounded with
walls (Arachin ix. 6). Its name signifies “fat or rich clod.” In fact, it
yielded abundance of oil (Josephus, Life, xiii.; Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 2;
Tosefta Menachoth ix. 5; Bab. Menachoth 85b; Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p.
230 sq.). In the Jewish traditions of the Middle Ages it was famous for its
graves of Rabbis and its ancient synagogue (Carmoly, Itinéraires de la
Terre-Sainte, 1847, pp. 133 sq., 166, 184, 262, 380, 452 sq.).—It lay in the
neigbourhood of the territory of Tyre (Wars of the Jews, iv. 2. 3 fin.), and is
undoubtedly to be identified with the present Eljish in Northern Galilee,
somewhere about the same geographical latitude with the southern end of the
Merom lake. Of the ancient synagogue there are still ruins to be found there.
See generally: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 770 f.; Renan, Mission de Phénicie, pp.
778-780; Guérin, Galilée, ii. 94-100; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs
by Conder and Kitchener, i. 198, 224-226, and with it Sheet IV. of the large
English Map. Thus by the end of A.D. 67 was the whole of the north of Palestine
brought again into subjection to the Romans. 3. FROM THE SUBJUGATION OF GALILEE
TO THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM, A.D. 68-69 The unfortunate results of the first year
of the war determined the fate of the leaders of the rebellion. On the part of
the fanatical section of the people, and not without cause, the unfavourable
turn that events had taken was attributed to the lack of energy in the mode of
conducting the war hitherto. The men of the people therefore set themselves with
all their might to get the reins into their own hands, and to set aside those
who had been in command. And since these would not of their own accord withdraw,
a fearfully bloody civil war, accompanied by acts of horrid cruelty, broke out
during the winter of A.D. 67-68 in Jerusalem, which in its atrocities can only
be compared to the first French revolution. The head of the fanatical popular
party, or, as they called themselves, the Zealots, was John of Gischala. After
he had escaped the hands of Titus by flight, he went with his followers, in the
beginning of November A.D. 67, to Jerusalem, and sought to win over the people
to himself and to rekindle in their breasts a determination to continue the war
in a bolder and more resolute spirit. He readily succeeded in gaining over the
youth to his side. And since now on all hands the war-loving rabble from the
country poured into the city, the party of the Zealots was soon in the
ascendency.[1257] They next proceeded to set aside those who were suspected of
friendship for the Romans. Several of the most distinguished men, among them
Antipas, who belonged to the family of Herod, were put under arrest, and were
murdered in prison.[1258] Their next proceeding was to choose a new high priest
by lot, for those who had held the office up to this time all belonged to the
aristocratic party. The newly-elected high priest, Phannias of Aphtha, was not
indeed in the least degree acquainted with the duties of the high priest’s
office. But he was a man of the people, and that was the main thing.[1259]
[1257] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 1-3. [1258] Ibid. iv. 3. 4-5. [1259]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 6-8. Compare Derenbourg, p. 269. The men of
order, Gorion, son of Joseph,[1260] the famous Pharisee Simon, son of
Gamaliel,[1261] the two high priests, Ananus, son of Ananus, and Jesus, son of
Gamaliel, sought on their part to resist the Zealots by force. They exhorted the
people to put a stop to the wild schemes of that faction.[1262] A discourse
which Ananus delivered with this end in view[1263] had indeed this result, that
a section of the populace declared open hostilities against the Zealots. These
enthusiasts were in the minority, and were obliged to retreat before the
superior force of their opponents, and to take refuge in the inner court of the
temple, where for a time they were carefully guarded, as the people would not
violently attack the sacred gates.[1264] [1260] So Josephus names him here. But
he is probably identical with the Joseph, son of Gorion, mentioned above at p.
214. So also Derenbourg, p. 270. [1261] Compare on him also: Josephus, Life,
xxxviii., xxxix., xliv., lx.; Derenbourg, pp. 270-272, 474 sq. [1262] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, iv. 3. 9. [1263] Ibid. iv. 3. 10. [1264] Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, iv. 3. 12. In order to obtain support the Zealots secretly sent messengers
to the war-loving Idumeans, and besought of them that they would form a
confederacy on the pretext that the dominant party in Jerusalem had fallen away
to Romans. The Idumeans appeared before the walls of the city, but were not
admitted, for no one knew of their alliance with the Zealots.[1265] On the night
after their arrival a terrible hurricane burst forth. The storm raged, and the
rain fell in torrents. Under shelter of this storm the Zealots succeeded in
secretly opening the gates to their confederates and letting them in
unobserved.[1266] Scarcely had the Idumeans obtained a firm footing in the city,
when they began the work of murder and robbery, in which the Zealots afforded
them ready aid. The party of order was too weak to withstand the attack. The
victory of the reign of terror in Jerusalem was complete. The rage of the
Zealots and of the Idumeans in league with them was directly mainly against the
distinguished, respectable, and well-to-do. All those who had previously been
leaders of the revolution were now made away with as suspected friends of the
Romans. Conspicuous above all the other victims of their murderous zeal were the
high priests Ananus and Jesus.[1267] In order to lend to their wild scheme the
semblance of legal sanction, the comedy of a formal process at law was on one
occasion enacted. But when the court of justice convened for that purpose
pronounced the accused, Zacharias, son of Baruch, innocent, he was cut down by a
couple of Zealots with the scornful declaration: “Here hast thou also our
voices.”[1268] [1265] Ibid. iv. 4. 1-4. [1266] Ibid. iv. 4. 5-7. [1267] Ibid.
iv. 5. 1-3. [1268] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 5. 4.—Some have sought
wrongly to identify this Zacharias with the one mentioned in Matthew 23:35 and
Luke 11:51. When the Idumeans had been satiated with murder, and had, besides,
observed that what had been styled threatened treason was only a calumnious
charge trumped up against order-loving citizens, they would have no more
partnership with the Zealots, and so took their departure.[1269] All the more
unrestrainedly did the Zealots now pursue their rule of terror. Gorion also now
fell under their lash. The party of the well-doing and order-loving had been by
this time so sadly thinned that there could no longer be any thought of
resistance. John of Gischala was supreme potentate in the city.[1270] [1269]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 5. 5, 6. 1. [1270] Ibid. iv. 6. 1. At this
period, if not even earlier than this, occurred the flight of the Christian
community from Jerusalem. The Christians left the city “in consequence of a
divine admonition,” and migrated to the city of Pella in Perea, which is a
heathen city was undisturbed by the war.[1271] [1271] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iii.
6. 2-3; Epiphanius, Haer. 29. 7; de mensuris et ponderibus, § 15. The migration
took place κατά τινα χρητμὸν τοῖς αὐτόθι δοκίμοις διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐκδοθέντα
κ.τ.λ. (Euseb. Hist. eccl. iii. 5. 3).—On Pella, see Div. II. vol. i. pp.
113-115. Vespasian’s generals were of the opinion that they should take
advantage of these circumstances, and that now was the time to begin the attack
upon the capital. They thought that in consequence of the internal conflicts
within the city the task before them would be easily accomplished. Not so
Vespasian. He regarded it as more prudent to allow his enemies to waste their
strength in the civil strife, and to consume one another.[1272] In order that
the inhabitants of the capital might have time to carry out their work of
self-destruction, he directed his attention meanwhile to Perea. Even before the
favourable season had arrived, he marched from Caesarea on the 4th Dystros, that
is, Adar or March, of A.D. 68, invested Gadara, in order to guard against the
elements in the city hostile to the Romans, left there a garrison, and then
turned back again to Caesarea.[1273] A detachment of 3000 infantry and 500
cavalry, which he left behind him under the command of Placidus, completed the
subjugation of all Perea as far as Machärus.[1274] When the more suitable season
came round,[1275] Vespasian advanced with the greater part of his army from
Caesarea and invested Antipatris, took Lydda and Jamnia, drew up the 5th legion
before Emmaus, made a successful raid through Idumea, then turned again
northward upon Emmaus, pressed through Samaria to Neapolis (Shechem), and thence
past Corea, where he arrived on 2 Daisios, that is Sivan or June, to
Jericho.[1276] At Jericho and Adida he left Roman garrisons, while Gerasa(?) was
taken and then destroyed by a detachment sent against it under Lucius
Annius.[1277] [1272] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 6. 2-3. [1273] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, iv. 7. 3. 4.—On Gadara, see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 100-104.
[1274] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 7. 4-6. [1275] ὑπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ἔαρος,
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1. [1276] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8.
1.—On Corea, see present work, vol. i. p. 320. The other cities are well known.
[1277] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 1.—On Adida, see present work, vol. i.
p. 252.—Gerasa cannot be the celebrated Hellenistic city of Decapolis, for it
certainly continued faithful on the side of the Romans. The country was now so
far subdued that it only remained to begin the siege of the capital. Vespasian
therefore turned back to Caesarea, and was actually busying himself with
preparations for the siege of Jerusalem when the news reached him of the death
of Nero, which had taken place on 9th June A.D. 68. By this event the whole
situation was suddenly changed. The future of the empire as a whole was
uncertain. Vespasian therefore suspended all warlike undertakings, and concluded
to wait for the further development of affairs. When the news of Galba’s
elevation to the throne arrived, which was not till the middle of the winter of
A.D, 68-69, he sent his son Titus to Rome in order to convey his greetings to
the new emperor, and to receive from him his commands. But Titus had proceeded
no farther than Corinth when he received tidings of the murder of Galba, which
occurred on 15th January A.D. 69, whereupon he returned to Caesarea to his
father. Vespasian was now inclined to wait without committing himself to see how
things would go.[1278] [1278] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 2.—See further
details regarding the journey of Titus in Tacitus, Hist. ii. 1-4. Circumstances,
however, soon obliged him again to take decisive action. A certain Simon
Bar-Giora, that is, son of the proselyte,[1279] a man of like spirit to John of
Gischala, inspired by an equally wild enthusiasm for freedom, and just as little
able to brook the presence of any one over himself, had taken advantage of the
cessation of hostilities to gather around himself a crowd of supporters, with
which he overran the southern parts of Palestine, robbing and plundering
wherever he went. Everywhere the course which he and his horde had taken was
marked by devastation. Among other successes he managed to surprise Hebron, and
to carry off from it abundant spoil.[1280] [1279] Josephus always designates him
υἱὸς Γιώρα. The form Βαργιορᾶς, Bargiora, occurs in Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7, and
Tacitus, Hist. v. 12. Tacitus erroneously ascribes this cognomen to John.
גִיוֹרָא is the Aramaic form for גֵר, the proselyte. See Div. II. vol. ii. p.
316 f. [1280] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 3-8. Vespasian therefore found
it necessary to secure possession of Judea in a more thorough manner than had
hitherto been accomplished. On the 5th Daisios, that is, Sivan or June, of the
year 69, after a whole year had passed without armed interference, he again
advanced from Caesarea, subdued the districts of Gophna and Acrabata, the cities
of Bethel and Ephraim, and arrived in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, while his
tribune Cerealis conquered and destroyed the city of Hebron, which had offered
opposition. With the exception of Jerusalem and the fortresses of Herodium,
Masada, and Machärus, all Palestine was now subject to the Romans.[1281] [1281]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 9.—On Gophna and Acrabata, see Div. II. vol.
i. p. 158. On Bethel and Ephraim, see present work, vol. i. p. 236 and p. 246.
Even before Simon found himself prevented by this expedition of Vespasian from
continuing his robber raids through Idumea, the gate of the capital had been
flung open to receive him. Up to the spring of A.D. 69, John of Gischala had
there played the part of the omnipotent tyrant. Of the ruinous confusion and
lawlessness that prevailed in Jerusalem under his rule Josephus has given a
thrilling and horrible description.[1282] The inhabitants, who had long desired
to be rid of his supremacy, looked with favour upon the arrival of Simon
Bar-Giora as a means of freeing them from him who now acted the tyrant over
them. On the suggestion of the high priest Matthias, Simon was invited to come
into the city. He most readily accepted the invitation, and made his public
entrance into Jerusalem in the month Xanthicus, that is, Nisan or April, of the
year 69. But, although the hope had been entertained that he would free them
from the tyranny of John, it was now found that they rather had two tyrants in
the city who fought against one another, both regarding the resident citizens as
their common enemies.[1283] [1282] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 10. [1283]
Ibid. iv. 9. 11-12. Compare v. 13. 1. Vespasian had scarcely returned back to
Caesarea when the news came that Vitellius had been raised to the throne as
emperor. The idea then took possession of the legions in Egypt, Palestine, and
Syria that they had as much right to nominate the emperor as had their comrades
in the West, and that Vespasian was more worthy of the throne than the glutton
Vitellius. On 1st July A.D. 69, Vespasian was proclaimed emperor in Egypt. A few
days afterwards the Palestinian and Syrian legions made the same proclamation.
Before the middle of July, Vespasian was acknowledged as emperor throughout the
whole East.[1284] [1284] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 2-6; Tacitus, Hist.
ii. 79-81; Suetonius, Vespasian, 6. That the Egyptian legions were the first to
proclaim Vespasian emperor is stated by Tacitus and Suetonius; according to
Josephus, the Palestinian legions had the precedence. The proclamation, in any
case, was made in Palestine, according to Tacitus, “quintum Nonas Julias;”
according to Suetonius, “V. Idus Jul.”—After his appointment as emperor he gave
to Josephus a free pardon in thankful remembrance of his prophecy (Wars of the
Jews, iv. 10. 7). He had now something else to engage his attention than the
prosecution of the war against the rebellious Jews. After he had received at
Berytus the embassies from various Syrian and other cities, he marched on to
Antioch, and from thence sent to Rome by road Mucianus with an army.[1285] He
then went himself to Alexandria. During his residence there he obtained the
intelligence that his interests had prevailed in Rome, and that Vitellius had
been murdered on 20th December A.D. 69. He himself still remained in Alexandria
till the beginning of the summer of A.D. 70;[1286] while his son Titus, to whom
he had committed the continuing of the Jewish war, marched at the head of the
army to Palestine.[1287] [1285] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 6, 11. 1;
Tacitue, Hist. ii. 81-83. [1286] According to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv.
11. 5, Vespasian wished to march to Rome λήξαντος τοῦ χειμῶνος. According to
Tacitus, he waited in Alexandria till the time of the summer winds, and till he
had assurance of being able to make the voyage by sea (Hist. iv. 81: “statos
aestivis flatibus dies et certa maris opperiebatur”). On the route of his
journey, see especially Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 2. 1. He did not,
however, reach Rome until after the middle of the year 70. See Schiller,
Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 500; Chambalu, “Wann ist Vespasian im J. 70,
Titus im J. 71 aus dem Orient nach Rom zurückgekehrt?” (Philologus, Bd. xliv.
1885, pp. 502-517). Chambalu holds that Vespasian did not leave Alexandria
before August, and that he arrived in Rome in October A.D. 70. This latter
statement must certainly be adopted, since Titus did not obtain word of
Vespasian’s happy arrival in Italy until November, when he was celebrating his
father’s birthday (17th November) in Berytus (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii.
3. 1; compare 4. 1). [1287] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 5.—On the legal
position of Titus daring the war, see Pick, “Der Imperatortitel des Titus,” in
Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiii. 1885, pp. 190-238. Pick deals
with the time preceding Titus’ appointment as emperor. In Jerusalem, by this
time, the internal feuds had advanced one step further. Instead of the two
parties of John and Simon there were now three, for from the party of John a new
section had broken off under Eleasar, son of Simon. Simon had in his power the
upper city and a great part of the lower city, John held the Temple Mount, and
Eleasar the inner Court of the Temple. All three continued incessantly at war
with one another, so that the city from day to day presented the aspect of a
battlefield. In their mutual hatred of one another they became so foolish that
they destroyed by fire the immense store of grain which had been gathered up in
the city, lest their rivals should profit by it, without considering that
thereby they robbed themselves of the means of sustaining a siege.[1288] While
thus Jerusalem was tearing its own flesh, Titus was carrying on the preparations
for his attack. [1288] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 1-5; Tacitus, Hist. v.
12. See also Rabbinical traditions about the destruction of the collection of
grain in Derenbourg, p. 281. 4. THE SIEGE AND CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, A.D. [1289]
[1289] Compare, in regard to what follows, the monographs on Titus: Stange, De
Titi imperatoris vita, part i. Breslau 1870; Double, Vie de l’empereur Titus,
Paris 1876 (reviewed in the Revue archéol. n. s. xxxiii. 1677, pp. 279-282;
Steinwenter, Titus Flavius Vespasianus mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Zerstörung Jerusalems, Graz 1876 (reviewed in the Zeitschrift für die
oesterreich. Gymn. xxviii. 1877, p. 70); Otto Adalb. Hoffmann, De imperatoris
Titi temporibus recte definiendis, Marburg 1883. Against Hoffmann’s view, that
the months used as dates in Josephus are to be taken from the Julian calendar,
see Appendix III. The army which Titus had at his disposal consisted of four
legions. Besides the three legions of his father, the 5th, 10th, and 15th, he
had also the 12th, which had already been in Syria under Cestius, and had so
unfortunately begun the war. In addition to these, he had also the numerous
auxiliary troops of the confederate kings.[1290] The commanders of the legions
were—Sextus Cerealis over the 5th legion, Larcius Lepidus over the 10th, Tittius
Frugi over the 15th. The commander of the 12th legion is not named. As principal
adviser, we would call him Chief of the Staff, Tiberius Alexander, afterwards
procurator of Judea, accompanied Titus.[1291] While a part of the army received
orders to push on to meet him before Jerusalem, Titus himself advanced with the
main body of his forces from Caesarea,[1292] and a few days before the Passover,
14th Nisan or April, of A.D. 70, arrived before the walls of the Holy
City.[1293] [1290] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 6; Tacitus, Hist. v. 1.
[1291] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3. On the generals here named, see
Léon Renier, “Mémoire sur les officiers qui assistèrent au conseil de guerre
tenu par Titus, avant de livrer l’assaut du temple de Jérusalem” (in the
Mémoires de l’Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,
t. xxvi. pt. i. 1867, pp. 269-321).—The commander of the 15th legion is called,
not Titus Frugi, as our editions of the text of Josephus give it, but M. Tittius
Frugi. See Léon Renier, p. 314.—Renier’s remarks on Cerealis are to be corrected
by reference to Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraph. iv. 499, and Rohden, De Palaestina
et Arabia provinces Romanis, 1885, p. 37. Renier confounds two of the name of
Cerealis with one another. Our Cerealis is mentioned also in Inscript. Regni
Neap. n. 4636=Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. x. n. 4862.—Tiberius Julius Alexander is
described by Josephus as τῶν στρατευμάτων ἄρχων (Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 6),
πάντων τῶν στρατευμάτων ἐπάρχων (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3). In accordance with
this, Mommsen fills up the gaps in the inscription of Aradus, Corpus Inscript.
Graec. t. iii. p. 1178, n. 4536f.=Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, p. 644: Τιβερίο]υ
Ἰουλίου Ἀλ[εξάνδρου ἐπ]άρχου τοῦ Ἰουδαι[κοῦ στρατοῦ]. Tiberius Julius Alexander
was therefore “chief of the staff of the general.” The position of this officer
of equestrian rank, in an army commanded by a senatorian general, was similar to
that of the praefectus prastorio in the army commanded by the emperor himself.
See Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, t. v. p. 578, at n. 1344; Mommsen, Hermes,
Bd. xix. 1884, p. 644 ff.; Pick in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd.
xiii. 1885, p. 207 f. [1292] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 6. [1293] As
appears from v. 3. 1 compared with v. 13. 7.—The elder Pliny held a position in
the army of Titus, and was indeed ἀντεπίτροπος of Tiberius Julius Alexander,
according to Mommsen’s skilful rendering of the inscription of Aradus, Corpus
Inscript. Graec. t. iii. p. 1178, n. 4536f. With reference to this, Pliny, in
the dedication of his Natural History to Titus, says: “nobis quidem qualis in
castrensi contubernio.” See for further particulars, Mommsen, Hermes, Bd. xix.
1884, pp. 644-648. Titus had hurried on in advance of the legions with 600
cavalry in order to obtain information about the country by spies, and had in
this got so far ahead of the main body, that he exposed himself most seriously
to the danger of being fallen upon by the Jews, and, indeed, owed his safety
wholly to his own personal bravery.[1294] The Romans, from the moment of their
arrival, had painful experience of the daring spirit of their opponents. While
the 10th legion, which had advanced from Jericho to Jerusalem, was still
occupied with the strengthening of its camp on the Mount of Olives, it was
attacked with such violence that it had well-nigh suffered an utter defeat. Only
by the personal interference of Titus was the yielding legion brought again to a
stand, and enabled to ward off the attack.[1295] [1294] Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, v. 2. 1-2. [1295] Ibid. v. 2. 4-5. The conflict of parties within the
city, however, was not even yet by any means abated. Even when the Romans were
lying before the gates, during the Passover festival, a carnage of one party by
the other was going on within the city. The faction of Eleasar had opened the
gate of the temple court for those who had gone up to attend the feast. John of
Gischala took advantage of this in order to smuggle in his people with concealed
weapons, and to fall on Eleasar and his followers when least expected. Those who
were thus taken by surprise were not strong enough to sustain the conflict, and
were obliged to admit John’s adherents into the court. From this time forward
there were again two parties in Jerusalem, that of John and that of Simon.[1296]
[1296] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 1; Tacitus, Hist. v. 12 fin. In order
to understand the siege operations that followed, it is necessary to form for
oneself at least a general idea of the situation of the city,[1297] Jerusalem
lay upon two hills, a higher one to the west and a smaller one to the east,
which were separated by a deep ravine running from north to south, the so-called
Tyropoeon. On the larger western hill lay the upper city, on the smaller eastern
hill the lower city. The latter was also called Acra, because there in former
days down to the times of the Maccabees the citadel or castle of Jerusalem had
been placed.[1298] North of the Acra lay the site of the temple, the area of
which had been considerably enlarged by Herod. Attached to the temple site on
its northern side was the castle of Antonia. The temple site was surrounded on
all its four sides by a strong wall, and thus even by itself n lone formed a
little fortress. The upper and the lower cities were surrounded by a common wall
which was attached to the western wall of the temple site ; it then ran on to
the west, stretched in a great curve southward over the upper and lower cities,
and finally ended at the south-eastmost corner of the temple site. But, further,
the upper city must have been separated from the lower city by a wall running
from north to south reaching to the Tyropoeon. For Titus was obliged, after he
had gained possession of the lower city, to direct an attack against the wall of
the upper city.—On the west, south, and east, the walls stood upon the edge of
lofty precipices; only on the north did the ground run down tolerably low. Thus
was there with a northern curve a second wall which enclosed the older suburb;
and then in a still wider curve to the north, a third wall, which had been begun
by Agrippa I., but was completed only when found urgently needed during the
rebellion. This third wall enclosed the so-called new city or suburb of
Bezetha.[1299] [1297] Compare the designation in Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v.
4.—Of the almost incalculable literature on the topography of Jerusalem the more
important works are referred to in vol. i. p. 19. The hypotheses of recent
investigators about the old topography are shown in a special map in Menke’s
Bibelatlas, Sheet V., and still more completely by Zimmermann, Karten und Pläne
zur Topographie des Alten Jerusalem, Basel 1876. The best plans of modern
Jerusalem are those of Zimmermann-Socin and Wilson. See vol. i. p. 19. [1298]
The situation of the Acra and the lower city is the one point most disputed in
the topography of Jerusalem. By a careful expression and estimation of the
sources, however, it seems to me that the above statement may be accepted with
certainty. Compare vol. i. p. 206. The history of the siege by Titus confirms
this. For Titus, who pressed on from the north, came into possession of the
lower city only after he had taken the site of the temple, and so the lower city
must have lain south of this. It reached as far as Silonh (Wars of the Jews, vi.
7. 2). [1299] On Bezetha, compare also this point, vol. ii. p. 213.—Josephus
says in Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 2: Βεζεθὰ, ὃ μεθερμηνευόμενον Ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ
καινὴ λέγοιτʼ ἂν πόλις. That is impossible. For Βεζεθά can be nothing else but
בית זיתא, “Place of Olives.” In the statement of Josephus therefore this much
may be correct, that Bezetha was also called the New City. As the very situation
of the city demanded, Titus directed his attack against the north side, hence
first of all against the third wall, or to speak from the standpoint of the
besiegers, the first. It was only now, when the battering-ram began their work
at three points, the civil war was stilled. Then the two factions, those of John
of Gischala and of Simon Bar-Giora, banded together to make a common attack. In
one of these onslaughts they fought with such success that the preservation of
the engines of war were wholly due to the interference of Titus, who with his
own hand cut down twelve of the enemy.[1300] After fifteen days’ work one of the
most powerful of the battering-rams had made a breach in the wall, the Romans
pressed in, and on the 7th Artemisios, that is, Ijjar or May, were masters of
the first wall.[1301] [1300] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 6. 2-5; Suetonius,
Titus 5: “duodecim propugnatores totidem sagittarum confecit ictibus.” [1301]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 7. 2. The attack was now directed against the
second wall. Five days after the taking of the first this one also had to yield
before the blow of the Roman battering-rams. Titus pressed in with a chosen
band, but was driven back again by the Jews. Four days afterwards, however, he
once more secured his position, and this time succeeded in maintaining it
permanently.[1302] [1302] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 7. 3-4, 8. 1-2. He now
raised earthworks at one and the same time against the upper city and against
the Antonia, two against the one, and two against the other; each of the four
legions had to build one. Simon Bar-Giora conducted the defence of the upper
city; John of Gischala that of the Antonia.[1303] While the works were in
progress, Josephus, apparently without success, was made to summon the city to
surrender.[1304] The want of the means of support was already beginning to be
felt, and in consequence of this many of the poorer inhabitants went out of the
city in search of victuals. Whenever any of them fell into the hands of the
Romans, he was crucified in sight of the city, in order to strike terror into
the heart of the besieged, or was sent back with his members mutilated.[1305]
[1303] Ibid. v. 9. 2; comp. 11. 4. [1304] Ibid. v. 9. 3-4. [1305] Ibid. v. 10.
2-5, 11. 1-2. On the 29th Artemisios, that is, Ijjar or May, the four ramparts
were completed. Simon and John had only wished their completion, in order that
they might direct all their energies to destroy again the works produced by
incredible exertion and wearisome toil. Those over against the Antonia were
destroyed by John of Gischala in this way: he dug a subterranean passage under
them, supported it with pillars and then set fire to the supports, so that the
ramparts fell in and were consumed in the fire. Two days later Simon Bar-Giora
destroyed by fire those directed against the upper city.[1306] [1306] Ibid. v.
11. 4-6. Before Titus attempted the building of a new rampart, he made use of
another device. He caused the whole city to be surrounded with a continuous
stone wall (τεῖχος), in order to out off all escape and to reduce the city by
famine. With marvellous smartness this work was finished in three days. Numerous
armed watchmen guarded it so that no one could pass it.[1307] In consequence of
this the famine reached a terrible height in the city; and if even but the half
is true which the inventive imagination of Josephus has recorded, it must
certainly have been horrible enough.[1308] That under such circumstances John of
Gischala should have applied the sacred oil and the sacred wine to profane uses,
can be regarded only by a Josephus as a reproach to him.[1309] [1307] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, v. 12. 1-2; Luke 19:43. Similar circumvallations are often
spoken of. The most celebrated is that of Alesia by Caesar (Bell. Gall. vii. 69:
“fossamque et maceriam sex in altitudinem pedum praeduxerant; ejus munitionis,
quae ab Romanis instituebatur, circuitus XI milium passuum tenebat.” Also before
an attempt was made to attack it, Masada was surrounded by such a wall
(Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 2). Large remnants of it are to be seen to
this day. It was erected of unhewn stones without the use of mortar. See Survey
of Western Palestine, Memoirs, iii. 421, and generally the literature mentioned
in note 133. Compare also Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876, p.
509. [1308] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 12. 3, 13. 7, vi. 3. 3. Compare Aboth
derabbi Nathan c. 6 (in Derenbourg, p. 285). Well known is the tragical history
of that Mary of Beth-Esôb, who was driven by hunger to devour her own child. See
Wars of the Jews, vi. 3. 4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iii. 6; Hieronymus, ad Joelem,
i. 9 ff. (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, vi. 178); and the passages from the Talmud and
Midrash in Grätz, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. p. 537 (2 Aufl. p. 401).—A mother’s devouring
of her own child belongs to the traditional and customary descriptions of the
horrors of war, as well in threatenings: Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53,
Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:10, as in history: 2 Kings 6:28-29; Lamentations 2:20;
Lamentations 4:10; Bar_2:3. [1309] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 6.
Meanwhile Titus caused ramparts again to be built, and this time four against
the Antonia. The wood used in their construction, owing to the complete
devastation of all the district around, had to be carried a distance of 90
stadia (four and a half days’ journey).[1310] After twenty-one day’ work they
were completed. An attempt which John of Giechals made to destroy them on 1st
Panemos, that is, Thammuz or July, was unsuccessful, since it was not carried
out with the earlier energy, while the Romans had redoubled their
vigilance.[1311] Scarcely had the Jews retired back again, when the
battering-rams began to beat against the walls. At first they had no
considerable success. The walls, however, were so shattered by the blows, that
soon they sank of themselves at the points where the wall-breakers had been at
work. But even yet the storming of the city was a work of difficulty, since John
of Gischala had already managed to erect a second behind it. After an
encouraging speech of Titus on the 3rd Panemos, that is, Thammuz or July, a
Syrian soldier named Sabinus, with eleven comrades, made the attempt to scale
the walls, but fell in the struggle with three of his companions.[1312] Two days
afterwards, on the 5th Panemos, some twenty or thirty others banded together to
renew the attempt. They mounted the wall secretly by night and cut down the
first sentinels. Titus pressed as quickly as possible after them, and drove the
Jews back as far as the temple site. Thence the Romans were indeed beaten back
again, but they held the Antonis, which was soon razed to the ground.[1313]
[1310] Joseplius, Wars of the Jews, v. 12. 4. [1311] Ibid. vi. 1. 1-3. [1312]
Ibid. vi. 1. 3-6. [1313] Ibid. vi. 1. 7-8, 2. 1. In spite of war and famine the
daily morning and evening sacrifices had up to this time been regularly offered.
On the 17th Panemos, that is, Thammuz or July, these had to be at last
discontinued; but even then not so much on account of the famine, but rather
“from the want of men.”[1314] Seeing that a renewed summons to surrender by
Josephus proved again unsuccessfnl, and an attack by night of a select
detachment of the army on the temple site proved a failure,[1315] Titus now made
preparations for a regular siege so as to take the temple by storm. The temple
site formed a pretty regular square, which was completely surrounded by strong
walls, along which on the inside ran a series of corridors. On the inside of
this great space the inner court, surrounded on all sides by strong walls,
formed a second position capable of being defended, which afforded to the
besieged even after the loss of the outer space a place of safety. Titus was
obliged first of all to make himself master of the outer wall. Again four
ramparts were erected, for which he was now obliged to carry the material from a
distance of 100 stadia (five hours’ journey).[1316] While they were working at
these, a number of Romans met with their death on the 27th Panemos in this way:
they allowed themselves to be deceived by the withdrawal of the Jews from the
heights of the western corridors into scaling those heights. But they had been
beforehand filled by the Jews with inflammable materials. So soon then as the
Romans had reached the top the Jews set fire to the vaults, and the fire spread
with such rapidity that the soldiers could not escape, but were enveloped in the
flames.[1317] [1314] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 1; Mishna, Taanith iv.
6: בּשׁכְעָה עָשָׂר בְּתַמּוּז בָּטַל הַתָּמִיד. Compare on the daily morning
and evening sacrifices, Div. II. vol. i. pp. 273 ff. and 278 ff. [1315]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 2.1-6. [1316] Ibid. vi. 2. 7. [1317] Ibid. vi.
3. 1-2. When the ramparts were completed on the 8th Loos, that is, Ab or August,
the rams were again set to work, and the siege operations began. But on the
immense walls they could make no impression. In order to obtain his end Titus
caused fire to be placed at the gates, and so opened up the entrance to the
outer temple space.[1318] On the next day, the 9th Ab, when the gates had been
completely burnt down, Titus held a council of war, at which it was resolved
that the temple should be spared.[1319] But when on the day following, the 10th
Ab, the Jews made two onslaughts rapidly one after the other from the inner
court, and on the second occasion were driven back by the soldiers who were
occupied with the quenching of the flames in the corridors, a soldier cast a
blazing brand into one of the chambers of the temple proper.[1320] When this was
reported to Titus he hasted to the spot, followed by the generals and the
legions. Titus gave orders to quench the fire; but in the wild conflict that now
raged around the spot his commands were not heard, and the fire got ever a
firmer hold upon the edifice. Even yet Titus hoped to save at least the inner
court of the temple, and renewed his orders to quench the flames; but the
soldiers in their excitement no longer listened to his commands. Instead of
quenching the flames, they threw in new firebrands, and the whole noble work
became a prey to the flames beyond redemption. Titus managed to inspect the
inner court before the fire reached it.[1321] [1318] Ibid. vi. 4. 1-2. [1319]
Ibid. vi. 4. 3. [1320] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 4-5. [1321] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 6-7.—According to the account given above, the burning
of the temple took place on the 10th Loss=Ab, as also Josephus in Wars of the
Jews, vi. 4. 5, expressly states. The Rabbinical tradition places the
destruction of the temple on the 9th Ab (Mishna, Taanith iv. 6: בְּתִשְׁעָה
בּאָב חָרַב הַבַּיִת בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשּׁנִיָּה), and indeed early on the
evening before that day (b. Taanith 29a: ערב תשעה באב, Derenbourg, p. 291); that
is, in our way of reckoning, on the 8th Ab. It therefore regards as the day of
destruction the day on which Titus caused fire to be laid to the gates.
According to Rabbinical tradition it was Sabbath evening, מוצאי שבת, when the
temple was destroyed. See vol. i. p. 41, and Derenbourg, p. 291. According to
Dio Cassius, Jerusalem was destroyed ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου ἡμέρᾳ. According to
the representation of Josephus, which we have followed, Titus had expressed a
wish to spare the temple proper (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3). Divergent from
this is the narrative of Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon, ii. 30: “Fertur Titus
adhibito consilio prius deliberasse, an templum tanti opens everteret. Etenim
nonnullis videbatur, aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem non oportere
deleri, quae lervata modestiae Romanae testimonium, diruta perennem crudelitatis
notam praeberet. At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in primis templum
censebant, quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur: quippe has
religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus profectas;
Christianes ex Judaeis extitisse: radice sublata stirpem facile pcrituram.”
Orosius, vii. 9. 5-6, from a somewhat different point of view, ascribes the
destruction to Titus. Seeing that Sulpicius Severus, as Bernays has proved,
elsewhere bases his statements on Tacitus, Bernays has concluded that on this
point also his statement rests on the history of Tacitus, which for this period
is no longer extant, and served as model for Josephus, who wishes to free Titus
from the nota crudelitatis (Bernays, Ueber die Chronik des Sulpicius Sevens,
1861, pp. 48-61, in his Gesammelte Werke, ii. 159-181). The following also agree
with Bernays: Stange, De Titi imperatoris vita, P. 1, 1870, pp. 39-43; Schiller,
Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 399; Thiaucourt, Revue des études juives, t.
xix. 1889, p. 65 sqq. The following vacillate: Renan, Der Antichrist, pp.
405-410; and Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 538 f. Against Bernays: Grätz,
Geschichte der Juden, 4 Aufl. iii. p. 538 f., and Hausrath, Zeitgeschichte, 2
Aufl. iii. 474. Only general assertion without reference to original sources is
given by Illhardt, Titus und der jüdische Tempel (Philologus, Bd. xl. 1881, pp.
189-196). Titus, he says, had intended to preserve the temple for a time until
he had seen it and plundered it, and then to destroy.—It is in fact probable
that Sulpicius Severus drew upon Tacitus; but that does not prove that it was
the model according to which Josephus constructed his account. This remains a
mere possibility. Even the former supposition is rendered suspicious by its
being based upon an alleged resolution impossible in the mouth of Titus. While
the Romans slaughtered indiscriminately all that fell into their hands, children
and old men, priests and people, and intentionally fanned the terrible
conflagration, so that nothing escaped the flames, John of Gischala succeeded,
along with his Zealot following, to escape into the upper city. Even before the
temple had been burnt down, the legions planted their standards in the temple
court, and greeted their general as Imperator.[1322] [1322] Josephus, Wars of
the Jews, vi. 5. 1-2. The greeting of Titus as Imperator: Wars of the Jews, vi.
6. 1; Suetonius, Titus, 5; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7; Orosius, vii. 9. 6. On the
significance of this procedure, see especially Suetonius, l.c. Titus was
suspected of having fallen away from Vespasian, and of having wished to set up
as an independent ruler of the East.—Further details by Teuffel in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2490; Mommsen, Imperatortitel des Titus (Wiener
Numismat. Zeitschrift, Bd. iii 1871, pp. 458-478); F. J. Hoffmann, Quomodo
quando Titus imperator factut sit, Bonnae 1883; Chambalu, Der Verfassungsstreit
swischen Titus und Vespasian (Philologus, Bd. xliv. 1885, pp. 123-131); Pick,
“Der Imperatortitel dee Titus,” in Sallet’e Zeitschrift für Numimatik, Bd. xiii.
1885, pp. 109-238. Add to these: Schiller in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, Bd. lii.
pp. 17-25; Mommsen, “Zu den Münzen dee Titus,” in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für
Nwmismatik, Bd. xiv. 1887, pp. 31-35. The work of the conqueror, however, was by
no means completed with the overthrow of the temple. The upper city, the last
refuge of the besieged, had yet to be taken. Titus once again called upon Simon
and John to surrender. But the besieged wished to stipulate for liberty to go
forth untouched, which would not be granted them.[1323] By order of Titus the
parts of the city now in the possession of the Romans—the Ophla, the depository
of the archives, the council house, the lower city down to Siloah—were set on
fire, while at the same time the tyrants in the upper city continued their work
of murder and plunder.[1324] [1323] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 6. 2-3.
[1324] Ibid. vi. 6. 3, 7. 2-3. Seeing then that there was no hope of securing
the voluntary surrender of the besieged, it was necessary once more to resort to
the erection of ramparts. They were constructed partly at the north-western
corner of the upper city near the palace of Herod, partly at the north-eastern
corner, in the neighbourhood of the so-called Xystus. On the 20th Loos (Ab,
August) the buildings were begun; on the 7th Gorpiaeus (Elul, September) they
were finished. The battering-rams soon made a breach in the walls, through which
the soldiers with little difficulty forced their way, because the besieged in
their despondent condition could no longer offer a vigorous and determined
opposition.[1325] One portion of them made the attempt to break away through the
besiegers’ lines and to force through the cordon which surrounded them at
Siloah; but they were driven back, and rushed again into their subterranean
hiding-places. Meanwhile the whole of the upper city was taken possession of by
the Romans. The military standards were planted and the song of victory was
sung. The soldiers passed through the city murdering, burning, and plundering.
After a five months’ siege, after having been obliged laboriously to press on
step by step, gaining one position after another, the whole city at last, on 8th
Gorpiaeus (Elul, September), fell into the hands of the conquerors.[1326] [1325]
Ibid. vi. 8. 1-5. [1326] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 8. 5, 10. 1. Those of
the inhabitants who had not already fallen victims to the famine or the sword
were now put to death, or sent to labour in the mines, or reserved for the
gladiatorial combats. The handsomest and most powerful of the men were spared to
grace the triumph. Among the fugitives who were driven by hunger to go forth out
of their subterranean hiding-places was John of Gischala. When he begged for
mercy he was granted his life, but was sentenced to life-long confinement in
prison. It was not, however, until a considerably later period that Simon Bar
Giora was apprehended. He was reserved as a victim for the triumph.[1327] The
city was then razed to the ground. Only the three gates of the palace of
Herod—Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme—and a portion of the wall were left
standing; the former as monuments of the original strength of the city, the
latter as a protection for the garrison that was left in charge. The victory,
won by hard fighting, and at the cost of many victims, was celebrated by Titus
in an address of thanks to the army, the distribution of rewards to those who
had distinguished themselves in battle, the presenting sacrifices of
thanksgiving, and a festive banquet.[1328] [1327] Ibid. vi. 9. 2, 4, vii. 2.
1-2. [1328] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 1. 1-3.—Of the three gates of the
palace of Herod, only one is preserved to the present day under the name of
“David’s Tower,” commonly identified with Hippicus, but by Schick with Phasael.
A minute description is given by Schick in Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, i. 226 if. Illustrations of it may be seen in Riehm’s
Handwörterbuch, i. 210, in art. “Burg,” and in Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, Bd.
i. p. 9. 5. THE CONCLUSION OF THE WAR, A.D. 71-73 Leaving behind him the tenth
legion as a garrison in Jerusalem, Titus proceeded with the rest of his army to
Caesarea-on-the-Sea, where the spoil was deposited, and the prisoners consigned
to safe keeping.[1329] Thence Titus marched to Caesarea Philippi, where a
portion of the prisoners were forced to engage in combat with wild animals, and
to take part in the gladiatorial shows.[1330] At Caesarea-on-the-Sea, to which
he returned, he celebrated the birthday of his brother Domitian, 24th October,
with games on a magnificent scale. At Berytua also he celebrated in a similar
manner the birthday of his father Vespasian, on 17th November. After a
lengthened stay in Berytus,[1331] Titus proceeded to Antioch, giving public
entertainments in the cities through which he passed, at which the Jewish
prisoners were set to slay one another in gladiatorial contests. After a short
stay in Antioch, he passed on to Zeugma on the Euphrates; and from thence he
returned again to Antioch, and from thence proceeded to Egypt. At Alexandria he
disbanded the legions. Of the prisoners there were 700 specially distinguished
by their handsome appearance; and these, together with the rebel leaders John
and Simon, were reserved for the triumph.[1332] Titus now sailed for Rome,[1333]
was received by his father and by the people with joyful demonstrations, and in
common with his father and brother celebrated, in A.D. 71, one triumph, though
the Senate had assigned one separately to each of them.[1334] During the triumph
Simon Bar Giora, the rebel leader, was in accordance with an old custom carried
away from the festal procession to prison and executed there.[1335] [1329]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 1. 2-3.—The tenth legion in the time of Dio
Cassius, in the beginning of the third century after Christ, still remained in
Judea, Dio Cassius, Leviticus 23. Not until the time of Eusebius is it spoken of
as the garrison at Aela on the Red Sea (Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p.
210). Inscriptions, in which it is referred to, have been found recently in
considerable numbers in Jerusalem. (1) A short and fragmentary one is described
in full detail by Clermont-Ganueau, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’année, 1872, pp. 163-170. The same is also
given in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 1871, 103; Ephemeris
epigraphica, ii. p. 292, n. 345; The Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem, p.
427. (2) Another, somewhat more complete, is particularly treated by
Zangemeister, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, x. 1887, pp. 49-53,
xi. 1888, p. 138. The same is also given in Merrill, Quarterly Statements, 1886,
73. (3) Also seals with the impression upon them, Leg. X. Fretensis, have been
brought to light from under the heaps of rubbish. See Clermont-Ganneau, Comptes
rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1872, pp. 158-163;
Ephemeris epigraphica, ii. p. 293, n. 346, v. p. 618, n. 1441; Guthe,
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 1882, Taf. x. fig. A; Merrill,
Quarterly Statements, 1885, 133. In modern tombs “numerous relics of the tenth
legion” have been found (Merrill, Quarterly Statements, 1886, 72). The richest
contribution has been made by a large, catacomb-like series of tombs on the
Mount of Olives, in which numerous seals have been found with the impression LXF
or LXFre, which were used as a covering for particular graves. See Schick,
Zeitschrift des deutsehen Palästina-Vereins, xii. 1889, pp. 198, 199. (4) On a
medal of the L. X. F., which was found in Jerusalem, see De Saulcy, Revue
archéologique, nouv. série, t xx. 1869, pp. 251-260; Numismatique de la Terre
Sainte, p. 83, sq. pl. v. n. 3. [1330] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 2. 1.
[1331] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 3. 1: χρονιωτέραν ἐποιήσατο τὴν
ἐπιδημίαν. [1332] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 1-3. [1333] The arrival of
Titus in Rome is set down “somewhere about the middle of June A.D. 71” by
Chambalu, Philologus, xliv. 1885, pp. 507-517. [1334] Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, vii. 5. 3-7; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7. The Jewish spoils which were borne
along in the triumphal procession are to be seen to the present day on the
relief work on the Arch of Titus. Compare Reland, De spoliis templi
Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano Romae conspicuis, Ultraj. 1716. New edition by
Schulze 1775. Also in Ugolini, Thesaurus, t. ix. An engraving and a description
of the Arch of Titus, which was not erected divo Tito until after the death of
Titus, is given by many; among others, by Reber, Die Ruinen Roms und der
Campagna, 1863, pp. 397-400. On the relief, see Philippi, “Ueber die römischen
Triumphalreliefe und ihre Stellung in der Kunstgeschichte” (Abhandlungen der
philol.-hist. Classe der sächs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. Bd. vi. 1874, pp.
245-306; with illustrations: Tafel ii.-iii.).—In the inscription on the Arch of
Titus (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. vi. n. 945) no mention is made of the
Jewish war. But another Arch of Titus, destroyed in the fourteenth or fifteenth
century, which had stood in the Circus Maximus, bore the following pompous and,
so far as it deals with the earlier history of Jerusalem, untrue inscription,
bearing date A.D. 81, preserved in a manuscript at Einsiedeln: “Senatus
populusque Romanus imp. Tito Caesari divi Vespasiani f. Vespasiano Augusto …
quod praeceptis patri(is) consiliisque et auspiciis gentem Judaeorum domuit et
urbem Hierusolymam omnibus ante se ducibus regibus gentibus aut frustra petitam
aut omnino intemptatam delovit” (Piper, Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1876, pp.
52-54; Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 944; Darmesteter, Revue des études juives, t.
i. 1880, p. 35 sq.; on its genuineness: Mommsen, Berichte der sächs. Gesellsch.
der Wissensch. philol.-hist. Cl. 1850, p. 303).—The coins of Vespasian, Titus,
and Domitian with the superscription: Ιουδαιας εαλωκυιας, Judaea evicta, Judaea
capta, and such like, are given most fully in Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881,
pp. 207-229. Compare also De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, p.
155 sq.; Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 79 sq.; Madden, Numismatic
Chronicle, 1876, pp. 45-55; History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 183-197. [1335]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 6; Dio Cassius, lxvi. 7.—Simon was dragged
to the place over against the Forum (Wars of the Jews, vii. 5. 6: εἰς τὸν ἐπὶ
τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἐσύρετο τόπον). Upon this statement Havercamp correctly remarks:
“scil. carcerem, quem Livius dicit Foro imminere.” The carcer Mamertinus lay
near the Forum. There, and indeed in its lower part, the Tullianum, were, e.g.,
Jugurtha and the Catilinian conspirators put to death. It was the common
practice to put prisoners of war to death there by strangling. Trebellius
Pollio, Tyranni triginta, c. 22 (in: “Scriptores Historiae Augustae, ed. Peter):
“strangulatus in carcere captivorum veterum more.” On the Carcer, see also
Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Tullianum,” and Gsell-Fels, Rom. (1 Aufl.) ii.
200 if. The conquest of the capital had certainly given to Titus the right to
the celebration of the triumph. The whole of Palestine, however, was not yet by
any means subdued. The strongholds of Herodium, Machärus, and Masada were still
in the hands of the rebels. The reduction of these fortresses was the work of
the governor of Palestine at that time, Lucilius Bassus. In regard to the
Herodium, this seems to have been accomplished by him without difficulty.[1336]
The siege of Machärus occupied a longer time.[1337] Yet even this strong hald,
before it was taken by storm, yielded by a voluntary surrender. The decision to
surrender was finally taken in consequence of the apprehension of a youth called
Eleasar, who had particularly distinguished himself in the defence. Bassus
threatened to crucify him in view of the city, and in order to prevent this the
Jews gave over the fortress.[1338] In the meantime Lucilius Bassus died. To his
successor, Flavius Silva, fell the task of taking Masada.[1339] In that fortress
the Sicarii, under the leadership of Eleasar, the son of Jairi, and a descendant
of Judas of Galilee,[1340] had established themselves at the commencement of the
war, and had continued to maintain their position. The siege proved a very
difficult business, since the rock upon which the fortress was built rose on all
sides so high and steep that it was almost impossible to bring the engines of
destruction near. Only at one point, and even there only by means of difficult
and ingenious preparatory operations, was it possible to secure a place for a
batteringram. But by the time that this machine had made a breach in the wall,
the besieged had already erected behind that wall another bulwark of wood and
earth, which, owing to its elasticity, could not be destroyed by the
battering-ram. The enemy, however, by the use of fire succeeded in setting this
obstacle also aside. When Eleasar saw that there was no longer any hope of
resisting the attack, he held a council with the garrison, in which he urged
that they should first of all slay the members of their own families, and then
put one another to death. This, therefore, was done. When the Romans entered,
they beheld with horror that no more work was left for them to do. Thus was the
very last stronghold of the rebellion conquered in April A.D. 73.[1341] [1336]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 1.—On the situation of the Herodium, see
vol. i. of this work, p. 435. [1337] Machärus in Greek: Μαχαιροῦς (so Josephus,
Strabo, xvi. 2. 40, p. 763; Stephanus Byzant. s.v.) is in the Semitic languages
Mechawar, מכוור or מכבא. In the Mishna, Tamid iii. 8, the editio princeps, the
Cambridge Manuscript, and cod. de Rossi, 138, have מכוור; Aruch has מכבר. Both
forms also occur elsewhere, but מכוור is more common. The pointing of the word
מְכַוַור, Mechawar, as in cod. de Rossi, 138, is confirmed by the reading
מכאוור, which a Munich Manuscript, Joma 39a, has. See Levy, Neuhebräisches
Wörterbuch, iii. 111 f. Also generally: Lightfoot, Opera, ii. 582. Besides this
Semitic form, we have the following: Μαχαβέρως (Parthey, Hieroclis Synecdemus et
Notitiae graecae episcopatuum, 1866, p. 93) and Machaveron, as an accusative
form, Tobler and Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana, 1879, p. 326.—According to
Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 2, Machärus had been fortified as early as in the days
of Alexander Jannäus. Gabinius demolished the fortress (Antiq. xiv. 5. 4; Wars
of the Jews, i. 8. 5). Herod the Great fortified it anew (Wars of the Jews, vii.
6. 2). On its importance, see Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 16. 72: “Machaerus secunda
quondam arx Judaeae ab Hierosolymis.”—It lay on the southern border of Peraea
(Wars of the Jews, iii. 3. 3), and in the time of Herod Antipas is said to have
belonged to the king of Arabia (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1). Undoubtedly it is the
modern Mkaur, east of the Dead Sea. See Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, ii. 330
ff., iv. 378 ff.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 577 f.; Raumer, Palästina, p. 264;
Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 335 ff.; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte,
2 Aufl. i. 329 f.; Parent, Machaerous, Paris 1868; Tristram, The Land of Moab,
2nd ed. 1874, p. 253 sqq.; Duc de Luynes, Voyage d’Exploration à la mer morte, à
Petra et sur la rive gauche du Jourdain, Paris, s. a. [1874], Atlas, Sheets
36-39; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 317. [1338] Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
vii. 6. 1, 4. [1339] On Masada, i.e. מְצָדָה, mountain stronghold, in Strabo,
xvi. 2. 44, p. 764, corrupted into Μοασάδα, see especially the comprehensive
monograph of Tuch, Masada, die herodianische Felsenfeste, nach Fl. Josephus und
neueren Beobachtungen, Leipzig 1863, p. 4.—It had indeed been fortified even by
the high priest Jonathan (Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3), and was spoken of M an
important stronghold as far back as the time of Hyrcanus II. about B.C. 42
(Antiq. xiv. 11. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 1), and during the invasion of
Palestine by the Parthiane served as a safe retreat for the members of the
family of Herod (Antiq. xiv. 13. 8 f., 14. 6, 15. 1 f.; Wars of the Jews, i. 13.
7 f., 15. 1, 15. 3 f.). Herod the Great fortified it anew (Wars of the Jews,
vii. 8. 3).—According to Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3, it lay near to the western
bank of the Dead Sea; according to Wars of the Jews, iv. 7. 2, it was not far
from Engedi. So, too, Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 17. 73: “Inde (scil. ‘from Engedi’)
Masada castellum in rupe et ipsum haut procul Asphaltite.” According to this,
and according to the description which Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 3,
gives of the locality, there can be no doubt that it is to be identified with
the modern Sebbeh on the western bank of the Dead Sea south of Engedi, as Smith
and Robinson were the first to recognise. The siege works of the Romans of A.D.
73 are still to be distinctly seen in that place. See generally: Robinson,
Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii. 241 ff.; Wolcott and Tipping in the
Bibliotheca sacra, New York 1843; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 1, p. 655 ff.; De
Saulcy, Voyage autour de la mer morte, Paris 1853, Bd. i. p. 199 ff., with
atlas, pl. xi.-xiii.; Rey, Voyage dans le Haouran et aux bords de la mer morte
exécuté pendant les années, 1857 et 1858, Paris; atlas, pl. xxv.-xxvi.; Tuch,
Masada; Sepp, Jerusalem und das heilige Land, 2 Aufl. Bd. i. 1873, p. 821 ff.,
with plans and illustrations; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, pp. 298-300, with plan;
The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 418-421,
with two plans and an illustration; and therewith Sheet xxvi. of the large
English Map. [1340] Josephue, Wars of the Jews, ii. 17. 9, vii. 8. 1 [1341]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 8. 1-7, 9. 1-2.—According to vii. 9. 1, the
self-slaughter of the garrison of Masada took place on the 15th Xanthicus
(Nisan, April). The year is not mentioned. But since in an earlier passage, vii.
7. 1, the fourth year of Vespasian is mentioned, which began on 1st July A.D. 72
(comp. Tacitus, Hist. ii. 79), the conquest of Masada must have occurred in the
spring of A.D. 73. Compare Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 614. After the fall of
Masada disturbances were made by the Jews in Alexandria and in Cyrene, which in
the former place resulted in the closing of the temple of Onias at
Leontopolis.[1342] But these after-vibrations of the great revolution in the
mother country are scarcely worthy of being mentioned along-side of the original
movement, The fate of Palestine was sealed by the overthrow of Masada. Vespasian
retained the country as a private possession, and the taxes levied went into his
own purse.[1343] Only to 800 veterans did he distribute grants of land at Emmaus
near Jerusalem.[1344] The former temple-tax of two drachmas was henceforth
exacted of all Jews for the temple, Jupiter Capitolinns.[1345] The inhabitants
of Palestine became impoverished, and by the seven years’ war their numbers had
been terribly reduced. A Jewish magistracy, of the kind formerly possessed, no
longer existed. The one gathering point which still remained for the people was
the law. Around this they gathered now with anxious and scrupulous faithfulness,
and with the indomitable hope that some day, under an established civil
government, and even among the nations of the world, it would come again to have
a recognised place and practical authority. [1342] Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
vii. 10-11; Life, lxxvi. [1343] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6: κελεύων
πᾶσαν γῆν ἀποδόσθαι τῶν Ἰουδαίων· οὐ γὰρ κατῴκισεν ἐκεῖ πόλιν, ἰδίαν αὑτῷ τὴν
χώραν φυλάττων. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 539 f. note, discovers in those
words a contradiction. But such there would be only if we were to take ἀποδόσθαι
in the sense of “to sell.” It means, however, also “to farm out.” The country
immediately surrounding Jerusalem had been given over to the tenth legion
(Josephus, Life, lxxvi.). [1344] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6:
ὀκτακοσίοις δὲ μόνοις ἀπὸ τῆς στρατιᾶς διαφειμένοις χωρίον ἔδωκεν εἰς
κατοίκησιν, ὃ καλεῖται μὲν Ἀμμαοῦς, ἀπέχει δὲ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων σταδίους
τριάκοντα. The reading here vacillates between τριάκοντα and ἑξήκοντα. Since the
two best manuscripts have τριάκοντα, and since ἑξήκοντα is evidently an
emendation in accordance with Luke 24:13, the former is to be regarded as the
correct reading. Accordingly our Emmaus cannot be the same as that Emmaus
otherwise known, situated somewhere about 20 or 21 miles from Jerusalem, which,
from the time of Julius Africanus, in the beginning of the third century after
Christ, was called Nicopolis. On it see Div. II. vol. i. p. 159; Henderson,
Handbook on Palestine, pp. 165-167; Gelzer, Julius Africanus, i. 5-7. Sozomen
distinctly declares that the latter: μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ τὴν κατὰ
τῶν Ἰουδαίων νίκην, had the name of Nicopolis (Hist. eccl. v. 21); and the coins
of Emmaus-Nicopolis are supposed to have an era from about A.D. 70. See, with
reference to this point, Belley in the Mémoires de l’Acad. des inscr. et
belles-lettres, alte serie, Bd. xxx. 1764, pp. 294-306; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii.
454; Mionnet, Description de médailles ant. v. 550 sq., Suppl. viii. 376; De
Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 172-175, 406, pl. vi. 3-5: De
Saulcy in Annuaire de la Société française de Num. et d’Archéol. t. iii. 2,
1869, pp. 275-278; De Saulcy in Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 147
sq. For this reason, in spite of the indication of distance in Josephus, the
military colony of Vespasian is by many identified with Emmaus-Nicopolis. So
e.g. Kuhn, Die Städt. und bürgerl. Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 356 f.;
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 428; Gelzer,
Julius Africanus, i. 5-7; with hesitation: Grotefend in Pauly’s
Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 115. But the assertion of Sozomen, who only casually
throws out this suggestion, and probably hastily draws this conclusion only from
the name Nicopolis, is confronted by the definite and positive statement of
Eusebius and other chroniclers, according to which Nicopolis had not been
founded earlier than the time of Julius Africanus, and only then received this
name. According to Eusebius, Chronicon. ad ann. Abr. 2237, ed. Schoene, ii. 178
sq.=Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 499, in the time of Helesgabalus;
according to Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 676, in the time of Alexander Severus.
Compare also generally: Jerome, De viris illustriis, c. 63=Opera, ed. Vallarai,
ii. 903, and an anonymous writing, probably from the Church history of Philip of
Side, dating about A.D. 430, which De Boor has edited according to a Codex
Baroccianus [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur, edited by Gebhardt and Harnack, v. 2,1888, pp. 169,174f.]. Yet
another is given in Reland, Palaestina, p. 759. The chief passage in Eusebius,
Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 178 sq., runs as follows in the Armenian: “In
Palestina antiqua Emmaus restaurata est Nicopolisque vocata cura [praefectura]
et interpellatione Julii Africani chronographi ad regem;” according to Jerome:
“In Palaestina Nicopolis quae prius Emmaus vocabatur urbs condita est,
legationis industriam pro ea suscipiente Julio Africano scribtore temporuin;”
according to the Chronicon Paschale: Παλαιστίνης Νικόπολις ἡ πρότερον Ἐμμαοῦς
ἐκτίσθη πόλις, πρεσβεύοντος ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς καὶ προϊσταμένου Ἰουλίου Ἀφρικανοῦ τοῦ τὰ
χρονικὰ συγγραψαμένου. That this is correct, and that the statement of Sozomen
is false, is further proved by this, that writers before Heliogabulus are
acquainted only with the name Emmaus. So Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 14. 70; Ptolemy,
v. 16. 7. In the Itinerarium Antonini it is not met with at all. Also Josephus,
who frequently mentions this Emmaus, never makes the remark that it is now
called Nicopolis, whereas elsewhere he does not omit such notices. The existence
of coins of the Palestinian Nicopolis before Heliogabulus, and with an era from
about A.D. 70, is, however, very questionable indeed. See the critical remarks
by De Saulcy in Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 172-175, and Mommsen,
Ephemeris epigraphica, t. v. 1884, p. 619. The coin described by De Saulcy in
the Appendix, p. 406, is very uncertain as to reading. In the Mélanges de
Numismatique, ii. 147 sq., De Saulcy reports that he had received from Jerusalem
a copy of the coin described by Belley of the year 72 aer. Nicop., which was
minted after the death of Faustina, who died A.D. 141. But the place of its
discovery being Jerusalem, does not prove that the coin belonged to the
Palestinian Nicopolis. It may, e.g., have belonged to the Egyptian city of that
name. It may even be matter of question whether we should not read PO=170,
instead of BO=72, according to the era of Augustus. We have therefore no
dependable testimony of the founding of an Emmaus-Nicopolis about A.D. 70.
Against the identification of the military colony of Vespasian with this
Emmaus-Nicopolis, it may be alleged, besides Josephus’ account of its distance,
that the military colony of Vespasian is not called Nicopolis by Josephus, and
that, on the other hand, every characteristic feature of a colony is wanting in
Emmaus-Nicopolis. Our Emmaus (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6) is most probably
rather to be identified with the New Testament Emmaus, Luke 24:13, although the
distance in the two cases, respectively 30 and 60 furlongs, are only
approximately correct. It has been shrewdly conjectured that our Emmaus, in
which Vespasian founded a Roman colony, is identical with the modern Culonie
near Jerusalem. So Sepp, Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. i. 54-73; Ewald, History of Isral,
vii. 553, 612; Hitzig, Geschichte, ii. 623; Caspuri, Chronological and
Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 242; Keim, Jesus of Nazara,
vi. 306; Furrer in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, ii. 107 if.; Fr. W. Schultz in
Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. xi. 771. In an inscription found at
Emmaus-Nicopolis mention indeed is made of a mil(es) [leg. V.] Mac, Ephemeris
epigraphica, t. v. p. 620, n. 1446. But the designation as miles, instead of as
veteranus, is against the conjecture that it can refer to one of the veterans
settled by Vespasian. In A.D. 68 a fortified camp of the fifth legion was placed
at Emmaus, and remained a long time, probably until A.D. 70 (Wars of the Jews,
iv. 8. 1, v. 1. 6.). [1345] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 6; Dio Cassius,
iv. 8. 1. Compare Div. II. vol. i. p. 251.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 40: � 21. FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM TO THE OVERTHROW OF BAR-COCHBA
========================================================================

§ 21. FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM TO THE OVERTHROW OF BAR-COCHBA 1. THE
STATE OF AFFAIRS IN PALESTINE FROM VESPASIAN TO HADRIAN THE separation of Judea
from the province of Syria, which had been resolved upon at the time when
Vespasian was sent thither (see above, vol. i. p. 369), continued in force also
after the conclusion of the war. Judea—and indeed under that very name—formed
from this time forth an independent province.[1346] Since it had as a garrison
only one legion, the legio X. Fretensis (see above, p. 248), alongside of which
were only auxiliary troops (see above, p. 56), the commander of that legion was
at the same time governor of the province. It appears that, as a rule, the
position was held by men of praetorian rank. It was only at a later period that
the province came to be administered by men of consular rank, probably after the
time of Hadrian, since even then the legio VI. Ferrata was stationed in Judea,
and the governor was not of an order superior to the commander of a
legion.[1347] [1346] The name Judaea occurs, e.g., on the military diploma of
A.D. 86 (Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 857, Dipl. xiv.), on the inscription of
Julius Severus (Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 2830), on the coin which
celebrates Hadrian’s visit to Judea (adventui Aug. Judaeae, in Madden, Coins of
the Jews, 1881, p. 231), on the inscription of an otherwise unknown
“proc(urator) Aug(usti) provincia(e) Jud(aeae) v(ices) a(gens) l(egati)” in
Corpus Inscr. Lat. iii. n. 5776, and elsewhere. At a later date, somewhere after
Hadrian, the prevailing designation is Syria Palaestina, which occurs even as
early as in Herodotus (see Division II. vol. ii. p. 193. Yet even then the name
Judea had not altogether passed out of use. The geographer Ptolemy sets both
alongside of each other (Ptolemy, v. 16.1). Compare Marquardt, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 421, note 2; P. von Rohden, De
Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis qúaestiones selectae, 1885, pp. 1-3.
[1347] Proofs of what is said above are given by von Rohden, De Palaestina et
Arabia provinciis Romanis, p. 30 sq. On an inscription found recently in
Jerusalem, dating from the time of Caracalla, one M. Junius Maximus “leg(atus)
Augg. (i.e. duorum Augustorum) leg(ionis) X. Fr(etensis)” is mentioned. Seeing
that he is designated as leg. Augg., Zangemeister had assumed on his first
examination of the inscription (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, x.
1887, pp. 49-53) that this commander of the legion was also governor. But he has
himself rightly, in his appendix to that article (Zeitschrift, xi. 138),
correctly observed that in that case the designation pro praetore would not have
been wanting. The person referred to was therefore only commander of the legion.
From the series of governors only certain names are now known to us.[1348] The
first of these who exercised their functions during the war of A.D. 70-73 have
already been briefly referred to:— [1348] Compare the collection of passages in:
Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des Röm. Reichs, ii. 184 f.;
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. p. 419 f.; von Rohden, De
Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis, 1885, pp. 36-42; Liebenam, Forschungen
zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des röm. Kaiserreichs, Bd. i. 1888, pp.
239-244.—Grätz, “Die römischen Legaten in Judäa unter Domitian und Trajan und
ihre Beziehung zu Juden und Christen” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenth. 1885, pp. 17-34), gives only rabbinical legends. 1. Sex. Vettulenus
Cerialis, who at the siege of Jerusalem commanded the fifth legion (see above,
p. 236). He remained after the departure of Titus as commander of the garrison
troops, that is, of the tenth legion and of the detachments joined with it, and
gave them over to Lucilius Bassus (Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 1). His full name
is given in an inscription (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. x. n. 4862). 2.
Lucilius Bassus, who took the strongholds of Herodium and Machärus (Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, vii. 6. 1-6). He died as governor (Wars of the Jews, vii. 8.
1). The procurator serving under him, L. Laberius (not Λιβέροις) Maximus (Wars
of the Jews, vii. 6. 6), is also mentioned in the Acts of the Arval priesthood:
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. vi. n. 2059, and in the military diploma of
A.D. 83 (Ephemeris epigraphica, v. p. 612 sq.). According to the latter
authority, he was the governor of Egypt. 3. L. Flavius Silva, the conqueror of
Masada (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 8-9). He was consul in A.D. 81. His
full name is given as L. Flavius Silva Nonius Bassus in the Acta Arvalium,
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. vi. n. 2059. Compare Henzen, Acta Arvalium
Index, p. 186. 4. M. Salvidenus, about A.D. 80, is witnessed to by a Palestinian
coin of Titus, with the superscription ΕΠΙ Μ. ΣΑΛΟΥΙΔΗΝ(ΟΥ), Madden, Coins of
the Jews, p. 218. He is certainly identical with the M. Salvidenus, who,
according to a coin of Domitian, was proconsul of Bithynia (Mionnet, Supplement,
v. p. 2). 5. Cn. Pompeius Longinus, A.D. 86. In a military diploma of Domitian
of A.D. 86 the veterans of two alae and four cohorts are referred to “qui … sunt
in Judaea sub Cn. Pompeio Longino” (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, iii. p. 857,
Dipl. xiv.). We have no other information with reference to these governors of
Judea.—From some statements of the diploma Henzen thought himself justified in
drawing the conclusion, that at that time warlike operations were being carried
on in Judea. The premises, however, do not by any means sustain such a
conclusion.[1349] [1349] Henzen, Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden
im Rheinlande, xiii. 1848, pp. 34-37. He is followed by: Darmesteter, Revue des
études juives, i. 1880, pp. 37-41; Schiller, Geschickte der römischen
Kaiserzeit, i. 532. Against this view: Rohden, De Palaestina et Arabia, p. 38
(in accordance with a communication from Mommsen).—Henzen’s reasons are: (1) The
cohors I. Augustana Lusitanorum, mentioned on the diploma, was shortly before
stationed in Pannonia. It must therefore have been sent for from thence in order
to strengthen the garrison of Judea. (2) The veterans, according to the diploma,
received indeed the rank of citizens, but not a full discharge (honesta missio).
It was therefore thought that they might still be needed. The latter argument is
not decisive, and the cohors I. Augusta Lusitanorum mentioned on the
inscription, is demonstrably different from the cohors I. Lusitanorum settled in
Pannonia in A.D. 85. 6. Atticus, about A.D. 107. In two fragments of Hegesippus,
which are quoted by Eusebius, it is reported that Simeon, said to be the second
bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, died a martyr’s death “under the Emperor
Trajan and the governor Atticus” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iii. 32. 3: ἐπὶ Τραϊανοῦ
Καίσαρος καὶ ὑπατικοῦ Ἀττικοῦ; iii. 32. 6: ἐπὶ Ἀττικοῦ τοῦ ὑπατικοῦ). In the
Chronicle of Eusebius this event is placed in the tenth year of Trajan, A.D. 107
(Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. p. 162 sq.); in the Chronicon Paschale,
ed. Dindorf, i. 471, in the consulship of Candidus and Quadratus, A.D. 105.
Neither of these statements, indeed, has the value of traditional testimonies,
least of all the statement in the Chronicon Paschale, which has only the
authority of Eusebius. Our Atticus is supposed to be identical with the
similarly named father of Herod Atticus. The designation of ὑπατικός is
remarkable, since other governors of Judea had held this office before their
consulship.—Compare generally: Waddington, Fastes des provinces asiatiques, p.
192 sq.; Dittenberger, Hermes, xiii. 1878, pp. 67-89. 7. Pompeius Falco, about
A.D. 107 and onwards. The inscription in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. x.
n. 6321, gives the cursus honorum of this man, who is known from the letters of
the younger Pliny. According to this document he was also “leg(atus) Aug(usti)
pr(o) pr(aetore) provinc(iae) [Judaeae] et leg(ionis) X. Fret(ensis).” The
supplied word Judaeae is warranted here by the fact that the command of the
tenth legion was attached to the governorship. According to Pliny, Epist. vii.
22, this governorship dates probably from A.D. 107 to A.D. 110, for in the
letter written about that time Pliny commends a friend to Falco for the place of
a tribune. But this, according to the other date of the cursus honorum, could
only have happened during the period of his governorship of Judea.—The epistles
addressed by Pliny to Pompeius Falco are Pliny, Epist. i. 23, iv. 27, vii. 22,
ix. 15. Compare generally: Mommsen, Hermes, iii. 1869, p. 51; Pliny, Epist. ed.
Keil, p. 422 (Index by Mommsen); Waddington, Fastes des provinces asiatiques,
pp. 202-204; Rohden, p. 39; Liebenam, Forschungen, i. 94 ff.; Petersen and
Luschan, Reisen in Lykien (1889), p. 123. 8. Tiberianus, about A.D. 114.—In
Joannes Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 273, the express language of a writing is
quoted, which Tiberianus, the governor of Palaestina prima, addressed to Trajan
during his stay in Antioch, A.D. 114 (ἐν τῷ δὲ διατρίβειν τὸν αὐτὸν Τραϊανὸν
Βασιλέα ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τῆς Συρίας βουλευόμενον τὰ περὶ τοῦ πολέμου ἐμήνυσεν αὐτὸν
Τιβεριανός, ἡγεμὼν τοῦ Παλαιστίνων ἔθνους, ταῦτα). In it Tiberianus calls the
attention of the emperor to the fact that the Christians in a foolish manner
deliver themselves up to martyrdom, and desires directions as to how he should
proceed. In reply Trajan commanded him and all other magistrates throughout the
whole empire to suspend the persecutions. This same story is told in a somewhat
different way by John of Antioch (in Müller, Fragmenta hist. graec. iv. 580, n.
111). The statement of the latter is literally reproduced by Suidas in his
Lexicon, s.v. Τραϊανός. Both stories, which are in thorough agreement on all
essential points, are in respect of contents highly suspicious. Even the
partition of Palestine into Palaestina prima and secunda did not take place
before the end of the fourth century. Against the historicity of the narrative,
see Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, i. 1, 4 Aufl. p. 129; Overbeck, Studien zur
Geschichte der alten Kirche, i. 122; Görres, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl.
Theologie, 1878, p. 38 f.; Keim, Rom und das Christenthum, 1881, p. 526 f. In
favour of it: Wieseler, Die Christenverfolgungen der Caesaren, 1878, p. 126 ff.
The stories of Malalas and John of Antioch in this and in many other instances
have so much that is common, that evidently the one must have borrowed from the
other. Since both probably wrote about the beginning of the seventh century, it
is a question to whom the priority belongs. The style of the particular passage
before us speaks in favour of the view now prevalent, that Malalas was the
older, for Malalas communicates the letter of Tiberianus in the very words of
the writer, whereas John of Antioch only describes its contents.[1350] [1350]
Compare: C. Müller, Fragmenta Hist. Graec. iv. 536, in favour of the priority of
John of Antioch.—Gutschmid, Grenzboten, 22 Jahrg. 1863, 1 Semester, 1 Bd. p. 345
f., in favour of the priority of Malalas.—Mommsen, Hermes, vi. 1872, pp.
323-383; Nicolai, Griech. Literaturgeschichte, iii. 56 f., 96 f.; Stokes in
Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, iii. 787 sq.; Gelzer, Julius
Africanus, i. 74, 228 ff., ii. 129, in favour of the priority of Malalas;
Sotiriadis, “Zur Kritik des Johannes von Antiocha,” in Jahrbücher für class.
Philol., 16 Supplementbd. 1888, pp. 1-126, especially pp. 68-83, going back
again to the idea that John of Antioch is the older. 9. Lusius Quietus, about
A.D. 117.—This distinguished general, after he had put down the outbreak of the
Jews in Mesopotamia, was appointed governor of Judea (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv.
2. 5: Ἰουδαίας ἡγεμὼν ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος ἀνεδείχθη. Eusebius, Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, ii. 164; in Greek, in Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 657, at the 18th year
of Trajan [2131 Abr.]: ἡγεμὼν τῆς Ἰουδαίας διὰ τοῦτο καθίσταται). Dio Cassius
merely says that he administered the government of Palestine after his
consulship of A.D. 115 (Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32: ὑπατεῦσαι τῆς τε Παλαιστίνης
ἄρξαι). That Trajan sent to Palestine a consular legate, not merely one of
praetorian rank, was occasioned by the peculiarly difficult condition of affairs
at that time.—By Hadrian, Lusius Quietus was recalled (Spartian. vita Hadriana,
c. 5: “Lusium Quietum … exarmavit”), and soon thereafter put to death (ibid. c.
7; Dio Cassius, lxix. 2).—Compare generally: Borghesi, Oeuvres, i. 500 sq. 10.
Tineius Rufus, A.D. 132.—When the revolution of Barcochba broke out, one Rufus
was governor of Judea (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6. 1: Ῥοῦφος ἐπάρχων τῆς
Ἰουδαίας). In the Chronicle of Eusebius he is called Tineiua Rufus (Eusebius,
Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 166 sq. ad. ann. Abr. 2148; in Greek, in Syncellus,
ed. Dindorf, i. 660: ἡγεῖτο δὲ τῆς Ἰουδαίας Τίννιος Ῥοῦφος; in Latin, in Jerome:
“tenente provinciam Tinnio Rufo”). In Jerome on Daniel c. 9, s. fin. ed.
Vallarsi, v. 695: Timo Rufo; on Zechariah viii. 16 sqq. ed. Vallarsi, vi. 852:
T. Annio Rufo (so the earlier editions; the reading Turannio Rufo is only a
conjecture of Vallarsi). Undoubtedly the correct form is Tineius Rufus, as is
proved by Borghesi. For one Q. Tineius Rufus, who was consul under Commodus, is
referred to on several inscriptions. He may have been son or grandson of one
Rufus. See Borghesi, Oeuvres, iii. 62-64, viii. 189 sq.; Renan, L’église
chrétienne, p. 192 sq.; and also Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. vi. n. 1978.
In order to suppress the rebellion, Publicius Marcellus, who up to that time had
been governor of Syria, was also sent into Judea (Corpus Inscriptionum
Graecorum, n. 4033=Archäolog.-epigr. Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn Jahrg.
ix. 1885, p. 118: ἡνίκα Πουβλκιος Μάρκελλος διὰ τὴν κίνησιν τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν
μεταβεβήκει ἀπὸ Συρίας; the same statement also is found in Corpus Inscript.
Graec. n. 4034). This strengthening of the fighting forces in Judea is also
referred to by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. iv. 6. 1: στρατιωτικῆς αὐτῷ συμμαχίας ὑπὸ
βασιλέως πεμφθείσης. Compare Chronicon ad. ann. Abr. 2148). 11. Julius Severus,
A.D. 135.—The suppression of the Jewish revolution was thoroughly completed only
by Julius Severus, who was sent to Judea from Britain, where he had been up to
that time governor (Dio Cassius, lxix. 13). The cursus honorum of this man is
given in the inscription, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum, t. iii. n. 2830, where
the higher offices are enumerated in the following order: “leg(ato) pr(o)
pr(aetore) imp(eratoris) Traiani Hadriani Aug(usti) provinciae Daciae, cos. leg.
pr. pr. provinciae Moesiae inferioris, leg. pr. pr. provinciae Brittaniae, leg.
pr. pr. provinciae Judeae, leg. pr. pr. provinciae Suriae.” This therefore
confirms the statement of Dio Cassius that he came from Britain to Judea. On the
other hand, the statement of Dio Cassius, or rather that of his unskilful
epitomizer Xiphilinus, that after the conclusion of the Jewish revolt he was
made governor of Bithynia (Dio Cassius, lxix. 14), is the result of a confusion
between him and another Severus. Our Julius Severus, who was consul in A.D. 127,
was called Sextus Julius Severus (Corpus Inscript. Lat. iii. p. 874, Dipl.
xxxi.), but the governor of Bithynia was Τι. Σεουῆρος (Corpus Inscript. Graec.
n. 4033 and 4034), or, according to a more recent copy of one of these
inscriptions, Π. Σεουῆρος (Archäolog.-epigr. Mittheilungen aus
Oesterreich-Ungarn, ix. 118=Corpus Inscript. Graec. n. 4033). Compare,
Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 353; Rohden, p.
42.[1351] [1351] In the list of governors of Judea we also find one Cl(audius)
Pater(nus) Clement(ianus), who, according to an inscription (Corpus Inscr. Lat.
t. iii. n. 5776), was “proc(urator) Aug(usti) provincia(e) Jud(aeae) v(ices)
a(gens) l(egati),” therefore procurator or administrator in place of the
deceased or recalled governor. The date of this inscription, however, is
altogether unknown. For from the circumstance that the province is named, not
Syria Palästina, but Judea, it cannot with certainty be concluded that the
inscription is earlier than the time of Hadrian, as Rohden, p. 41, thinks he may
conclude.—Just as little explanation is obtained from the rabbinical legends
about a Roman ἡγεμών, who is said to have proposed captious questions to
Jochanan ben Saccai, at the end of the first century after Christ For the
corrupt condition of the text makes it impossible even to determine his name
with certainty. He is called, jer. Sanhedrin 196 (Cracow edition), אגנטוס,
Agnitos (Egnatius?), 19 c. Antoninus, and at 19a, Antigonus. In other places we
also find other forms. The Hegemon Agnitos (אגניטוס הגמון) who, according to
Sifre on Deut. § 351, is said to have put a similar question to Gamaliel II. in
the beginning of the second century after Christ, is certainly the same Agnitos.
See generally: Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 316 sq.; Levy,
Neuhebraïsches Wörterbuch, i. 104b, 108a (“art.” אנגטוס and אנטונינוס); Bacher,
Die Agada der Tannaiten, i. 1884, p. 39 f.=Monatschrift für Geschichte und
Wissenschaft der Judenthums, 1882, p. 159 f.; Gratz, Monatsschrift, 1885, p. 17
ff. The residence of the imperial governor, as in earlier times that of the
procurators had also been, was not Jerusalem, but Caesarea, the important coast
town built by Herod the Great.[1352] It was formed by Vespasian into a Roman
colony, and bore the official name col(onia) prima Fl(avia) Aug(usta)
Caesarensis or Caesarea.[1353] Jerusalem had been so completely razed to the
ground “that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it
had ever been inhabited.”[1354] It was first of all only a Roman camp, in which,
if not the whole of the tenth legion, yet at least the chief portion of it, had
its headquarters, together with its baggage and followers.[1355] [1352] After
Flavius Silva had conquered Masada he went back again to Caesarea (Wars of the
Jews, vii. 10. 1).—Tacitus also describes Caesarea as Judaeae caput (Tacitus,
Hist. ii. 78). [1353] For further particulars, see Div. II. vol. i. p. 84.
[1354] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 1. 1: τὸν δʼ ἄλλον ἅπαντα τῆς πόλεως
πεοίβολον οὕτως ὲξωμάλισαν οἱ κατασκάπτοντες ὡς μηδὲ πώποτʼ οἰκηθῆναι πίστιν ἄν
ἔτι παρασχεῖν τοῖς προσελθοῦσι. [1355] Compare the details as given by
Gregorovius, Sitzungsberichte der philosoph.-philol. und hist. Classe der
Münchener Akademie, 1883, p. 477 ff. In regard to the other changes made upon
the organization of the Palestinian city communities we have only scattered
notices. To what extent Vespasian held the country as a private possession
cannot be very clearly understood from the indefinite statements of Josephus
(see above, p. 253). His private possessions seem to have extended not merely to
the town domains of Jerusalem, but to all Judea—that term being understood in
its proper and more restricted sense (πᾶσαν γῆν τῶν Ἰουδαίων). The only new town
which Vespasian here founded was the military colony of Emmaus (see above, p.
253). In Samaria, Flavia Neapolis, which rapidly grew and flourished, was then
founded. For that its founding belongs to the time of Vespasian is proved not
only by its name and by the reference in Pliny, but also by the era of the city,
the starting-point of which is to be reckoned about A.D. 72.[1356] It lay upon
the site of a place which was previously called Mabortha or Mamortha, in the
immediate vicinity of Shechem, so that it soon came to be identified with
Shechem.[1357] In the later days of the empire it was one of the most important
cities of Palestine.[1358] The inhabitants were wholly or predominantly pagan,
as their modes of worship witnessed to by coins prove. Upon not a few of these
coins, later than the time of Hadrian, Gerizim is represented, and on its top a
temple which was dedicated, according to Damascius, to Ζεὺς ὕψιστος.[1359] The
festive games of Neapolis during the second century, and certainly even at a
later date, were regarded as amongst the most important in Palestine.[1360]—The
founding of Capitolias in Decapolis belongs to the time of Nerva or Trajan; its
era begins in A.D. 97 or 98.[1361] Hadrian founded Aelia on the site of
Jerusalem, the history of which is given below in the account of the war. Other
new foundings of Palestinian cities belong to a period later than that of which
we treat, such as that of Diocaesarea=Sepphoris (known under its new name from
the time of Antonius Pius, see Div. II. vol. i. p. 136), Diospolis=Lydda,
Eleutheropolis (both under Septimius Severus),[1362] Nicopolis=Emmaus (under
Heliogabulus). [1356] The full name in Justin Martyr’s Apology, i. c. 1: ἀπὸ
Φλαουΐας Νέας πολεως τῆς Συρίας Παλαιστίνης. Similarly: Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
iv. 12. So, too, on the coins. On the coins and on the era, see Noris, Annus et
epochae Syromacedonum, v. 5. 2 (ed. Lips. pp. 537-552); Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii.
433-438; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 499-511, Supplem. viii. 344-355;
De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 244-274. pl. xii.-xiv. [1357]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1: παρὰ τὴν Νεάπολιν καλουμένην, Μαβορθὰ δὲ
ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων.—Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 13. 69: Neapolis quod antea Mamortha
dicebatur.—Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 290: Συχὲμ ἡ καὶ Σίκιμα ἢ καὶ
Σαλήμ· πόλις Ἰακὼβ νῦν ἔρημος· δείκνυται δὲ ὁ τόπος ἐν προαστείοις Νέας πόλεως.
Ibid. p. 274, s.v. Λουζά· παρακειμένη Συχὲμ ἀπὸ θʹ σημείου Νέας πόλεως; instead
of which Jerome gives in his text more correctly: in tertio lapide Neapoleos;
Epiphanius, Haer. 72. 23: ἐν Σικίμοις τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ Νεαπόλει. So, too, Haer.
80. 1.—Jerome, “Peregr. Paulae,” in Tobler, Palaestinae descriptiones, p. 23
(=Jerome, Opp. ed. Vallarsi, i. 703): “Sichem, non ut plerique errantes legunt
Sichar, quae nunc Neapolis appellatur.”—Compare generally: Reland, Palaestina,
pp. 1004-1010; Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii. 95-136; Williams
in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, ii. 411, 412; Ritter,
Erdkunde, xvi. 637-658; Kühn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm.
Reichs, ii. 56, 355, 356, 364; Sepp, Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. ii. 37-66; Guérin,
Samarie, i. 390-424; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 342 ff.; The Survey of
Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 203-210, and Sheet xi.
of the large English Map.—The articles on Shechem in the Bible dictionaries of
Smith, Kitto, and Fairbairn; and “Sichem” in those of Winer, Schenkel, and
Riehm. [1358] By Septimius Severus it was deprived of the jus civitatis
(Spartian. vita Severi, c. 9), but the same emperor at a later period again
restored to it that privilege (Spartian. vita Severi, c. 14: “Palaestinis poenam
remisit quam ob causam Nigri meruerant”). Under Philip the Arabian, according to
the evidence of the coins, it was made into a Roman colony. Ammianus Marcellnus
designates it as one of the greatest of the cities of Palestine (Ammian. xiv. 8.
11). [1359]a On the numerous extant coins, from Domitian down to the middle of
the third century, we meet with Serapis, Apollo, the Ephesian Diana, and other
deities. In regard to the temple on Gerizim, see “Damascius” in Photius,
Bibliotheca, cod. 242, ed. Bekker, p. 345b): ἐν ᾦ Διὸς ὑψίστου ἁγιώτατον ἱερόν.
Renan, L’église chrétienne, p. 222. On the earlier and later history of the
worship on Gerizim, see Eckhel, Docr. Num. iii. 434.—The flourishing condition
of Hellenistic culture and religion in Neapolia is also proved by a marble basis
of a tripod recently found there. On the relief of this marble are represented
the battles of the gods and the heroes, especially of Theseus and Hercules.
According to an inscription discovered there, the tripod, probably also the
marble basis, had been brought by the founder from Athens. See Zeitschrift des
deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vi. 230 f., vii. 136 f. [1360]b See the inscription
of the time of Marcus Aurelius in Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii.
2, n. 1620b, communicated literally and in full in Div. II. vol. i. p. 24.
[1361] Eckhel, Doer. Num. iii. 328 sq.—For the literature on Capitolias, which
possibly may be identical with Raphana, see Div. II. vol. i. p. 106.—Capitolias
is mentioned in Ptolemy, v. 16. 22; Itinerarium Antonini, ed. Wesseling, pp. 196
sq., 198; Tabula Peuting. Hieroclis Synecdem. ed. Wesseling, p. 720; Geogr.
Ravennas, ed. Finder et Parthey, p. 84; Acts of Councils in Le Quien, Oriens
christianus, iii. 715 sq.; Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 941=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. vi.
n. 210; ibid. t. x. n. 532; Ephemeris epigraphica, t. iv. p. 331 (D II.), t. v.
pp. 211-398; coins from Marcus Aurelius down to Macrinus.—Many (e.g. Kuhn, Die
städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung, u. 372) erroneously refer to our
Capitolias the notice of the jurist Paulus in Digest. 1. 15. 8. 7: similes his
Capitulenses esse videntur, i.e. like Caesarea, which, as a colony, had not the
full jus Italicum. Capitolias was, according to the coins, αὐτόνομος, and
therefore not a Roman colony. Paulus means Aelia Capitolina, that is, Jerusalem,
M the parallel passage in Ulpian (Digest, 1. 15. 1. 6) proves: “In Palestina
duae fuerunt coloniae, Caesariensis et Aelia Capitolina, sed neutra jus Italicum
habet.” The correct view is given in Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, iii.
9. 4, ed. Lips. 326; Deyling, Observationes sacrae, v. 475; but Deyling
erroneously names Noris as maintaining the contrary opinion. [1362] Stark, Gaza
und die philistäisohe Küste, p. 553. The destruction of Jerusalem brought about
a violent revolution in the inner life of the Jewish people. No longer a
Sanhedrim and no longer a sacrificial service,—the loss of those two great
institutions was of itself sufficient to produce a profound change in the
conditions of Jewish life. But it has first of all to be established that the
sacrificial service actually did cease.[1363] Not only the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the date of the composition of which is uncertain, but also Clement of
Rome and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, who undoubtedly wrote after the
destruction of Jerusalem, speak as if in their time the Jewish sacrificial
worship was still maintained.[1364] And Josephus also expresses himself quite to
the same effect. Not only where he describes the Jewish sacrificial worship in
accordance with the Old Testament,[1365] but also where he apparently speaks of
the customs and practices of his own time, he employs the present tense.[1366]
It is indeed the fact that when speaking of the sacrifices for the Roman people
and for the Roman emperor he makes use of this mode of expression, although this
was purely a later custom, and was not a prescription of the Old
Testament.[1367] Besides this, we have also scattered allusions in the
rabbinical literature, which seem to indicate the continuance of the sacrificial
service after A.D. 70.[1368] It is not to be wondered at that many on the basis
of such material should have maintained the continuance of the sacrificial
worship. In itself this was quite a possible thing. In an interesting passage in
the Mishna,[1369] R. Joshua testifies: “I have heard that one ought to present
sacrifice even if there be no temple; that one should eat that which is
sanctified [on this see Division II. vol. i. p. 236], even though there be no
wall around the court; that one may eat what is holy in a lower degree [see on
this Division II. vol. i. p. 240] and the second tithe, even if there should be
no wall around Jerusalem; for the first consecration has sanctified, not only
for its own time, but for all future time.” It was not therefore in utter
opposition to the views of the Rabbis that men should continue after the
destruction of the temple to offer sacrifices in holy places. But as a matter of
fact this was not done. In the enumeration of the unfortunate days of Israel it
is distinctly said that on 17th Thammuz the daily sacrifice was abolished
(בָּטַל הַתָּמִיד),[1370] while there is nowhere any reference made to its
restoration, In the description of the Passover in the Mishna, the enumeration
of the dishes that had to be set upon the table is concluded with the remark:
“During the time that the temple was standing the Paseover offering also was
served.[1371] This implies that after the destruction of the temple it was no
longer offered. In speaking of the legal enactments for determining the new moon
it is said: “So long as the temple remained standing those who had seen the new
moon were allowed to violate the Sabbath by going to Jerusalem, in order to
testify thereto, for the sake of the observance of the sacrifice on the festival
of the new moon.”[1372] The harmonious testimony of those passages of the Mishna
is confirmed by others in the Babylonian Talmud of a character yet more direct,
if that were possible, which assume even in regard to the times of Rabban
Jochanan ben Saccai, Rabban Gamaliel II. and R Ishmael, i.e. the first decade
after the destruction of the temple, that the whole sacrificial worship had
ceased.[1373] Finally, Justin also appears as a witness on behalf of this view.
He says to his opponent Trypho: “God never appointed the Passover to be offered
except in the place where His name was to be called upon, knowing that after the
passion of Christ the days would come, when even Jerusalem would be given over
to our enemies, and all sacrifices should cease.”[1374] And in another passage
Trypho himself says in answer to Justin’s question as to whether it was not then
still possible to observe all the commands of Moses: “By no means, for we know
well that it is not allowable to slay the paschal lamb nor the goats for the Day
of Atonement, nor generally to present any of the other offerings in any other
place”[1375]—If, then, Christian writers and Josephus, even long after the
destruction of the temple, still speak of the presenting of sacrifices in the
present tense, they only describe thereby what is still allowable, but a right
that was no longer actually exercised. Precisely the same view is presented in
the Mishna from the first page to the last, for all institutions that are
legally correct are described as existing customs, even although their
observance owing to the circumstances of the time was impossible.[1376] [1363]
Compare the careful demonstration in Friedmann and Gräts, “Die angebliche
Fortdauer des jüdischen Opfercultus nach der Zerstörung de zweiten Tempels”
(Theol. Jahrbücher, 1848, pp. 338-371).—Against them: Friedenthal in Fürst’s
Literaturblatt des Orients, 1849, col. 328-322.—Against him again: Friedmann in
Literaturblatt, 401, 433, 465, 534, 548.—In reply: Friedenthal, Literaturblatt,
492, 524, 573, 702.—Derenbourg. Historie de la Palestine, pp. 480-483. [1364]
Clemens Romanus, c. 41; Epist. ad Diognetum, c. 3. [1365] Josephus, Antiq. iii.
9-10. [1366] Josephus, Treatise against Apion, ii. 23. [1367] Josephus, Treatise
against Apion, ii. 6, s. fin.: “facimus autem pro eis continua eacrificia; et
non solum quotidianis diebus ex impensa communi omnium Judaeorum talia
celebramus, verum.… solis imperatoribus hunc honorem praecipuum pariter
exhiberuus.” [1368] The most deserving of attention is Pesachim vii. 2, where
the question is discussed whether one should roast the paschal lamb on a
gridiron. “R. Zadok said: Once Rabban Gamaliel spoke to his slave Tabi: Go and
roast us the paschal lamb on the gridiron.” Since a slave Tabi is elsewhere
named as servant of Gamaliel the second, about A.D. 90-110 (Berachoth ii. 7;
Succa ii. 1), it would seem that this later Gamaliel is the one intended in this
place. [1369] Edujoth viii. 6. [1370] Taanith iv. 6. Compare what is said above,
p. 242. [1371] Pesachim x. 3. [1372] Rosh hashana i. 4. [1373] Rosh hashana 31b,
Pesachim 72b, Sebachim 60b, in Friedmann and Giätz, Theol. Jahrbücher, 1848, p.
349 ff. [1374] Justin, Dialogus cum Trypho, c. 40: εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι
μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν τὸν Χριστόν, ὅτε καὶ ὁ τόπος τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοῖς ἑχθροῖς ὑμῶν
παραδοθήσεται καὶ παύσονται ἅπασαι ἁπλῶς προσφοραι γινομεναι. [1375] Justin,
Dialogus cum Trypho, c. 46: Οὐ· γνωρίζομεν γὰρ ὅτι, ὡς ἔφης, οὔτε πρόβατον τοῦ
πάσχα ἀλλαχόσε θύειν δυνατὸν οὔτε τοὺς τῇ νηστείᾳ κελευσθέντας προσφέρεσθαι
χιμάρους οὔτε τὰς ἄλλας ἁπλῶς ἁπάσας προσφοράς. [1376] In the statement about
Gamaliel and his slave Tabi it is indeed Gamaliel I. that is intended, and the
name of Tabi has crept in by mistake. It may, however, be conjectured that Tabi
as a youth had served the grandfather and as an old man the grandson (so
Derenbourg), or that the name Tabi had come to be hereditary in the family of
the slave just as Gamaliel in the family of the master (so Friedmann and Grätz).
Two facts, therefore, of the highest importance and most widely influential are
well established: the abolition of the Sanhedrim and the cessation of the
sacrificial worship.[1377] In the Sanhedrim there had been embodied the last
remnant of the political independence of Judaism, and consequently also the last
remnant of the power of the Sadducean nobles. The influence of the Sadducean
nobility even since the times of Alexandra had been waning before the advancing
strength of the Pharisees. They still managed, however, to exert a very
considerable influence so long as the Sanhedrim continued to exist. For the
jurisdiction of that aristocratic senate of Judea was down to the time of the
procurators pretty extensive, and at its head stood the Sadducean high priest.
With the destruction of Jerusalem this Jewish council was immediately brought to
an end; the Roman provincial constitution was enforced in a stricter form. With
the disappearance of the Sanhedrim, Sadduceanism also disappears from
history.—The overthrow of the city, however, led also to the suppression of the
sacrificial worship, and therewith the gradual recession of the priesthood from
public life. This was only carried out by degrees. It could not for a long time
be believed that the disastrous circumstances in which the people were placed
were to continue. It seemed to be only a question of the time when the priests
should be able again to resume their services. Naturally, all dues were exacted
after as well as before the catastrophe. Only the taxes which had been
contributed directly for the maintenance of the temple and of the public
sacrifices were declared by the Rabbins to be suspended. The contribution
devoted to the personal support of the priests continued after as Well as before
a duty according to the law, and where there were priests, were given over
directly to them.[1378] But notwithstanding all this, the priesthood, now that
it could no longer perform its service, lost its importance. It was a memorial
of a past age, which indeed, as time went on, sank more and more into obscurity
and decay. [1377] On the suppression of the Sanhedrim, see also Sota ix. 11,
quoted literally in Div. II. vol. i. p. 173. [1378] Shekalim viii. 8: “The
Shekalim or tax of two drachmas and the Bikkurim or first-fruits of the produce
of the fields were presented only while the temple stood, but the tithe of the
grain and the tithe of the cattle and the first-born were presented all the
same, whether the temple stood or not.”—These three imposts are here mentioned
only by way of example as the most important. There remained in force, e.g. also
the Teruma (Bikkurim ii. 3) and the tax of the three pieces of the slaughtered
victims, namely, the right fore-leg, the cheeks, and the stomach (Chullin x. 1).
Further details on all these imposts are given in Div. II. vol. i. pp.
230-236.—The priest’s due of the right shoulder is witnessed to as a custom of
his time by the Emperor Julian in Cyrill. adv. Julian, p. 306 A: καὶ τὸν δεξιὁν
ὦμον διδόασιν ἀπαρχὰς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν, where it is not to be a trans lated as by
Neumann (Kaiser Julians Bücher gegen die Christen, 1880, p. 30) “the right
shoulder,” but “the right fore-leg,” for it reste not upon Leviticus 7:32, but
upon Deuteronomy 18:3. Compare also Friedmann and Grätz, Theol. Jahrbücher,
1848, p. 369 ff. The Pharisees and the Rabbis now entered into the heritage of
the Sadducees and priests. They had an admirable preparation for entering upon
this heritage. During two centuries they had been making steady progress toward
dominant power. And now for a time they entered upon the enjoyment of absolute
sovereignty. The overthrow of Jerusalem means nothing more or less than the
passing over of the people to Pharisaism and the Rabbis; for the factors which
had hitherto stood in opposition to these had now sunk into utter
insignificance. After the overthrow of Jerusalem, Jamnia (Jabne) seems in a
special way to have become a centre of literary activity. There, during the
first decade after the destruction of the temple, wrought Rabban Jochanan ben
Saccai, and, at the end of the first and beginning of the second century, Rabban
Gamaliel II., gathering around them a whole band of scholars. The most
celebrated of the contemporaries of Gamaliel were R. Josua ben Chananja and R.
Elieser ben Hyrcanus, the latter of whom had his residence at Lydda. Younger
contemporaries and pupils of these men were R. Ishmael, R. Akiba, and R.
Tarphon. See in regard to all these scholars and their contemporaries, Div. II.
vol. i. pp. 366-379. By these men and by their numerous colleagues and scholars,
the interpretation of the law was carried on with greater zeal than ever. It was
as though, after the political overthrow, the whole strength of the nation had
concentrated itself upon the care of the law as its own highest and proper task.
Everything pertaining to it, the criminal and the civil law, and the manifold
religious statutes and ordinances, were dealt with by these scholars with
painful particularity, and drilled into the memories of the scholars by their
teachers. It did not matter in the least whether the circumstances of the time
allowed these ordinances to be put in practice or not. All the minutiae of the
temple service, the entire ritual of the sacrificial worship, were discussed as
diligently and as earnestly as the laws of purifying, the Sabbath commandment,
and other religious duties, the observance of which was still possible. There is
nothing so fitted to produce before us a lively picture of the faith of the
people in their future as the conscientiousness with which the prescriptions
about the temple service and the sacrificial worship were treated by the
guardians of the law. The time of desolation might continue for a longer or
shorter period, but once again the day of restoration would surely dawn. And
hence, in the cataloguing by the scribes in the second century of the Jewish law
in the corpus juris or Mishna, there are included a topography of the temple in
the tract Middoth and a description of the distribution of the priests in the
daily service in the tract Tamid. Their descendants, to whom was to be granted
the privilege of a restored worship, were to be told how it had previously been
conducted in the days of the fathers. The scholars who after this fashion cared
for the highest interests of Israel formed now even more exclusively and
unrestrictedly than before the rank of the highest authorities among the people.
The priests, who had previously been the most influential in the direction and
practice of religious duties, were now relegated to a condition of inactivity.
All the energies of the pious had now to be restricted to the doing of that
which the Rabbins prescribed to them. There was no need of any external
compulsion. Whatever the most distinguished teachers had laid down was regarded
by the pious without any further question as obligatory. Indeed, they were not
only recognised as lawgivers in spiritual and temporal things, but in all
matters of dispute they were appealed to as judges, even in questions of meum
and tuum. During this period it was indeed no uncommon occurrence to see, e.g.,
R. Akiba, purely by means of his spiritual authority, condemning a man to pay
400 denarii compensation, because he had on the street uncovered his head to a
woman.[1379] [1379] Baba kamma viii. 6. The court of law at Jamnia enjoyed the
highest reputation toward the end of the first and in the beginning of the
second century after Christ, a college of learned men, which can scarcely have
had any formal recognition from the Roman authorities, but yet actually stepped
into the place of the old Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, as the supreme court of law
for Israel. The enactments passed by Rabban Jochanan ben Saccai in Jamnia after
the destruction of the temple, in order to adapt certain legal requirements to
the altered circumstance of the times, were regarded as binding.[1380] Rabban
Gamaliel II. and his court of justice watched over the correct reckoning of the
contents of the calendar. To its decisions the elder R. Josua submitted, even if
he considered them to be erroneous.[1381] As a rule the decisions on points of
law issuing from Jamnia were treated as constituting the authoritative
standard.[1382] Indeed, the succession of Jamnia to the privileges of Jerusalem
was so generally acquiesced in, that where this was not the case, it was pointed
to as an exception to the rule.[1383] Even in regard to the number of members,
they seem to have copied the pattern of the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem. At least
there occurs in one place a statement to the effect that “the seventy-two
elders” appointed as president R. Eleasar ben Asariah.[1384]—We may assume that
this court of justice at Jamnia was voluntarily accepted by the Jewish people as
authoritative, not only in the domain of the ceremonial law, but also in the
domain of the civil and criminal law. In reference to the civil law it may
indeed have received actual authorization, in accordance with the, general
procedure in legislation. For the Roman legislation, so far as we can understand
it, recognised the authority of the Jewish communities in the Dispersion to
administer the law in civil suits among their countrymen, wherever the
contending parties chose to bring their disputes before their own communal
court.[1385] But in criminal matters this jurisdiction bore the character of a
usurped authority, rather than of one conferred by the emperor. Origen very
vividly, and at the same time authentically, describes to us the state of
matters which then prevailed. In vindicating the story of Susanna and Daniel, he
endeavours to prove that the Jews might quite well have had their own
judicatories during the Babylonian exile. In proof of this he refers to the
state of matters in Palestine in his own days, of which he knew from his own
observation. The power of the Jewish Ethnarch (so Origen designates him) is so
great, that he is in no respect different from a king (ὠς μηδὲν διαφέρειν
βασιλεύοντος τοῦ ἔθνους). “There are also secret legal proceedings in accordance
with the law, and many are condemned to death without any general authority
having been obtained for the exercise of such functions, and without any attempt
to conceal such doings from the governor.”[1386] This was the state of matters
during the third century, In the first decades after the destruction of
Jerusalem, they would not have ventured to go so far. Yet this was the direction
in which things were tending.—To this Jewish central court in Palestine, whose
president subsequently received the title of Patriarch, were also paid the
contributions of the Jews of the Dispersion, so far as these continued to be
collected after the destruction of the temple. At least for the period of the
later days of the empire this can be proved to demonstration. In this matter
also the Rabbis take the place of the priests. For previously the contributions
were cast into the central treasury of the priests at Jerusalem. It was now a
rabbinical board which made the collection by means of their apostoli, and
superintended its proper distribution. See Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 269, 288.
[1380] Sukka iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4; Menachoth x. 5. Derenbourg,
Histoire de la Palestine, p. 304 sq. [1381] Rosh hashana ii. 8-9.—According to
Edujoth vii. 7, once in Gamaliel’s absence the year was declared to be an
intercalary year, on the condition that he would confirm this opinion when he
returned. [1382] Kelim v. 4; Para vii, 6. Compare also Bechoroth iv. 5, vi. 8
(how they were wont to do in Jamnia in making inspection of the first-born).
[1383] Sanhedrin xi. 4; Rosh hashana iv. 2. [1384]a Sebachim i. 3; Jadajim iii.
5, iv. 2. Compare Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 370, 372. [1385] Josephus, Antiq. xiv.
10.17; Codex Theodosianus, ii. 1. 10: ex consensu partium in civili duntaxat
negotio. Compare Div. II. vol. ii. pp. 263, 269.—According to Edujoth vii. 7,
Gamaliel II. once made a journey to the governor (Hegemon) of Syria (it should
be “of Judea”) “in order to obtain a permission from him” (לטול רשות מהגמון
בסוריא). It is possible it had to do with an investiture, or extension, or
execution of legislative functions. [1386] Origen, Epistola ad Africanum, § 14,
given literally in Div. II. vol, i. p. 173. All zeal for the law of their
fathers in this later time, at least among the great majority of the pious, had
its motive power in the belief in a glorious future for the nation. Such was the
case even before the great catastrophe; and so it continued in a yet more
exaggerated degree after that terrible event. If now, more zealously than ever,
the people occupied themselves with the scrupulous fulfilment of the
commandments of God, certainly the most powerful motive working in this
direction was the wish to render themselves thereby worthy of the future glory
in which they so confidently believed. In regard to this religious movement
during the first decades after the overthrow of the holy city, the Apocalypses
of Baruch and Ezra, which had their origin in that very period, afford us a
lively as well as an authentic picture. On these Apocalypses see Div. II. vol.
iii. pp. 83-114. The immediate consequence of the terrible slaughter was indeed
a profound and paralyzing shook to the feelings. How could God permit this
disaster to befall His own chosen people? But this grand mystery was only a
particular instance of the universal mystery: How is the misfortune of the
righteous generally and the good fortune of the unrighteous possible? Through
the darkness of this latter problem the pious consciousness of Israel had long
ago successfully struggled. So now also a satisfactory answer was soon found. It
is a chastisement which God has inflicted upon His people because of their sin.
It has its own appointed time. When the people by means of it shall have learned
righteousness, the promised day of redemption will soon dawn for them. This is
the fundamental idea of both of these apocalypses, and their purpose is to
comfort the people in their distress, to inspire them with courage and with holy
zeal by visions of the redemption that will come to them surely and soon. The
confident belief in this future was therefore only intensified, confirmed, and
inflamed by the sore sufferings and sad disasters of the time. Out of the grief
for the overthrow of the sanctuary, the Messianic hope drew new nourishment, new
strength. This was also, from a political point of view, important, and
productive of serious consequences. For this Messianic hope was a wonderful
blending of religious and political ideals. The political aspirations of the
nation had never been abandoned, and the element of danger just lay in the
combination of them with religious motives. The political freedom of the nation,
which the people longed for, was now represented as the end of the ways of God.
The more firmly this was believed, the more readily did the people set out of
view the cool calculations of what is humanly possible, the bolder became their
resolve to dare even the impossible. It was this feeling which even in the time
of Nero had broken out in rebellion. In it there also still lay hidden elements
that yet would lead to new and frightful catastrophes. Under the emperors of the
Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, down to A.D. 96) there does not
seem to have been any more serious development of these tendencies. Sufficient
occasion, however, was presented for giving expression to those already present.
For the command to contribute what had been the temple-tax to the Capitoline
Jupiter at Rome (see above, p. 255), was an outrage upon the religious
sensibilities of the Jews, which every year, on the levying of the tax, must
afresh have roused the feeling of resentment. Under Domitian this tax was levied
with great strictness, as generally this emperor posed as a decided enemy of the
Jews, and conversion to Judaism was punished by the imposition of severe
penalties.[1387] [1387] Enforcement of the tax, Suetonius, Domitian, 12;
prohibition of conversions to Judaism, Dio Cassius, lxvii. 14. Both passages are
quoted in full in Div. II. vol. ii. p. 267. Eusebius speaks of an actual
persecution of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, even during
Vespasian’s reign, referring to Hegesippus as his authority. Vespasian, as well
as Domitian and Trajan, is said by Hegesippus to have hunted for and executed
all Jews of the house of David with great rigour, in order that the royal
family, on which the Jews rested their hopes, should be rooted out.[1388] This
order led to a great persecution of the Jews under Vespasian.[1389] We have no
longer any means of determining how far this story is historical. It can
scarcely be altogether without foundation, for that a Messiah descending from
the house of David was expected is beyond dispute. The existence, therefore, of
descendants of David might actually be looked upon as a source of political
danger. This “persecution,” however, cannot have been of great dimensions and
importance, since it is not taken notice of by any other writer.—Whether
political uprisings occurred in Judea under Domitian is certainly very
questionable. From certain hints in a military diploma of A.D. 86, some have
supposed that such disturbances must have taken place. Meanwhile, these
conclusions have not by any means been satisfactorily proved. See above, p.
259.—On the other hand, the outbursts which occurred, first outside of Judea and
afterwards in Judea itself, under Trajan and Hadrian, spread widely, and led to
scenes of terrible violence. [1388] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iii. 12 (Vespasian);
ibid. iii. 19-20 (Domitian); ibid. iii. 32. 3-4 (Trajan); reference being made
in all cases to Hegesippus. [1389] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iii. 12: Οὐεσπασιανὸν
μετὰ τὴν τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἅλωσιν πάντας τοὺς ἀπὸ γἑνους Δαβὶδ … ἀναζητεῖσθαι
προστάξαι, μἐγιστόν τε Ἰουδαίοις αὖθις ἑκ ταύτης διωγμὸν ἐπαρτηθῆναι τῆς αἰτίας.
2. THE WAR UNDER TRAJAN, A.D. 115-117 SOURCES DIO CASSIUS, lxviii. 32. EUSEBIUS,
Hist. eccl. iv. 2; Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164 sq. OROSIUS, vii. 12, almost
wholly according to Jerome’s Latin reproduction of the Chronicle of Eusebius.
LITERATURE MÜNTER, Der jüdische Krieg unter den Kaisern Trajan und Hadrian
(1821), pp. 10-29. CASSEL in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopaedie, sec. ii. Bd.
xxvii. 1850, p. 12 f. (in art. “Juden”). GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iv. p.
123 ff. DERENBOURG, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 402-412. NEUBÜRGER,
Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft Judenthums, 1873, pp. 386-397.
EWALD, History of Israel, viii. pp. 271-276. MORRISON, The Jews under the Roman
Empire, pp. 189-194. HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. iv.
181-189. RENAN, Les Évangiles (1877), pp. 503-512. VOLKMAR, “Zur Chronologie des
Trajanischen Partherkrieges mit Rücksicht auf die Ignatiustradition und eine
neue Quelle”(Rhein. Museum, Neue Folge, Bd. xii. 1857, pp. 481-511). VOLKMAR,
“Der parthische und jüdische Kreig Trajans nach den Quellen” (Zeitschrift für
die Alterthumswissenschaft. XV. Jahrg. 1857, Nr. 61-65). VOLXXAR, Handbuch der
Einleitung in dis Apokryphen, 1 Thl. Abth. 1, Judith. 1860. DIERAUER in
Büdinger’s Untersuchungen zur röm. Kaisergeschichte, i. 1868, p. 182 f. DE LA
BERGE, Essai sur le règne de Trajan (1877), pp. 182-184. SOHILLER, Geschichte
der römischen Kaiserzeit, i. 2 (1883), p. 561 f. MOMMSEN, Römischs Geschichte,
Bd. v. (1885) pp. 542-544 Compare p. 397 ff. Trajan, during the last years of
his life, A.D. 114-117, was incessantly occupied in bold expeditions of conquest
in the farthest eastern parts of the empire.[1390] While he was, in A.D. 115,
engaged in the conquest of Mesopotamia, the Jews in Egypt and Cyrene, taking
advantage of the emperor’s absence, “as if driven along by the wild spirit of
revolution, began to make riots against the non-Jewish inhabitants of the
land.”[1391] The rebellion reached such dimensions in the following year, A.D.
116, that it assumed the character of a formal war.[1392] The Roman governor of
Egypt, M. Rutilius Lupus, seems not to have been aware of the strength of the
Jews. In an engagement the rebel Jews conquered the “Greeks,” and compelled them
to fly to Alexandria. There, in the capital, the Greeks had decidedly the upper
hand, and the Jews residing there were seized and slain.[1393] [1390] On
Trajan’s wars in the East, compare, besides the above-named works of Volkmar, H.
Francke, Zur Geschichte Trajan’s (2 Ausg. 1840), pp. 249-300; Dierauer,
“Beiträge zu einer kritischen Geschichte Trajan’s,” pp. 152-186 (in Büdinger’s
Untersuchungen zur römischen Kaisergeschichte, Bd. i. 1868); De la Berge, Essai
sur le règne de Trajan (Paris 1877), pp. 149-190; Schiller, Geschichte der
römischen Kaiserzeit, i. 2 (1883) pp. 555-563; Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v.
397 ff.; Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (1888), pp.
140-146. [1391] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 2: Ἔν τε γὰρ Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ καὶ τῇ λοιπῃ
Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ προσέτι κατὰ Κυρήνην ὥσπερ ὑπὸ πνεύματος δεινοῦ τινὸς καὶ στασιώδους
ἀναρʼῥιπισθέντες ὥρμηντο πρὸς τοὺς συνοίκους Ἕλληνας στασιάζειν.—With reference
to the war in Egypt, the oldest witness, though very brief, is Appian, Civ. ii.
90. Appian there relates how that Caesar had dedicated a sanctuary at Alexandria
to the memory of Pompey; and then proceeds: ὅπερ ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ κατὰ Ῥωμαίων
αὐτοκράτορα Τραϊανόν, ἐξολλύντα τὸ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ Ἰουδαίων γένος, ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων
ἐς τὰς τοῦ πολέμου χρείας κατηρείφθη.—Undoubtedly the reference is to this
period in a fragment of Appian in which he tells how he had been obliged to flee
from Egypt at the time of the war with the Jews (Revue archéologique, Nouve
Série, t xix. 1869, pp. 101-110=Müller, Fragmenta hist. graec. (v. 1, p. lxv.).
[1392] The chronology is not quite certain. Dierauer and Schiller assume for the
Jewish revolt only the one year A.D. 117; Mommsen, the years 116-117; Clinton
(Fasti Romani) t. i.), de la Berge, and others, the years 115-117 (the first
beginning in 115, and extending more widely in 116). The latter view is the
correct one. For Eusebius, not only in his Chronicle, whose dates are often
quite arbitrarily given (Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164, ad ann. Abr. 2131),
but also in his Church History, definitely characterizes the eighteenth year of
Trajan as the time when the revolt began (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 2: ἤδη γοῦν
τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν ὀκτωκαιδέκατον ἐλαύνοντος, αὖθις Ἰουδαίων κίνησις
ἐπαναστᾶσα κ.τ.λ.). But the eighteenth year of Trajan reaches from the end of
January 115 down to the end of January 116. (On the day of Nerva’s death, see
Dierauer, p. 27 f.) In the following year, that is, 116, and, indeed, while
Lupus was governor of Egypt, the rebellion assumed larger proportions (Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. iv. 2: αὐξήσαντές τε εἰς μέγα τὴν στάσιν τῷ ἐπιόντι ἐνιαυτῷ πόλεμον
οὐ σμικρὸν συνῆψαν, ἡγουμένου τηνικαῦτα Λούπου τῆς ἁπάσης Αἰγύπτου).—The
correctness of this statement is confirmed by the chronology of the governors of
Egypt, which for these years can be determined with tolerable accuracy (comp.
Franz in Corpus Inscr. Graec. t. iii. p. 312). [1393] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv.
2; Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164 sq. (at the eighteenth year of Trajan, 2131
Abr.); Orosius, vii. 12: “In Alexandria autem commisso proelio victi et adriti
sunt.” Compare also Buxtorf, Lexicon Chald. col. 99, s.v. אלכסנדריא; Derenbourg,
Histoire, pp. 410-412; Wünsche, Der jerusakmische Talmud (1880), p. 125 f.—In
the Chronicle of Eusebius it is remarked on the first year of Hadrian that this
emperor restored Alexandria that had been destroyed by the Jews (or Romans?).
See Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164 sq., according to the Armenian:
“Adrianus Alexandriam a Judaeis subversam restauravit;” according to Jerome:
“Hadrianus Alexandriam a Romanis [sic] subversam publicis instauravit expensis.”
The city must therefore have suffered severely, even though it might not have
been, strictly speaking, “destroyed.” See, on the other side, Münter, pp. 19-23.
The conjecture of Mommsen, that the statement did not originally stand in the
text of Eusebius, and was only introduced by a misunderstanding of the Armenian
and Latin translators (Römische Geschichte, v. 543) in presence of the agreement
of the two, is not tenable. (1) On the inscription of a temple in the oasis of
Thebes, M. Rutilius Lupus is referred to as governor of Egypt during the
nineteenth year of Trajan, i.e. A.D. 116 (Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions
grecques et latines ds l’Égypte, i. 120 sq.=Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 4948: ἐπὶ
Μάρκου Ρουτιλίου Λούπου ἐπάρχου Αἰγύπτου … Λ ιθʹ αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Νερούα
Τραϊανοῦ . . παχὼν λʹ; the date corresponds to the 24th May A.D. 116. (2) In
order to quell the rebellion in Cyrene and Egypt, Trajan sent Marcius Turbo
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 2). That this man is to be regarded as governor of
Egypt, is proved from the circumstance that the governor of Cyrene had no army;
Turbo, therefore, can have fought against the rebels in those quarters only as
governor of Egypt From Spartian’s Vita Hadriani, however, we know positively
that Hadrian subsequently assigned Dacia to him titulo Aegyptiacae praefecturae,
i.e. with permission to retain the honorary rank of governor of Egypt (Spartian,
Hadrian, c. 7; compare Letronne, i. 164). Turbo was therefore the successor of
Lupus, and that during the time of Trajan, A.D. 117. (3) Eight months and a half
after Trajan’s death, i.e. in April A.D. 118, Bammius Martialis is described on
an inscription as governor of Egypt (Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions, i. 153,
n. xvi.=Corpus Inser. Graec. n. 4713 f.: ἐπὶ Ῥαμμίῳ Μαρτιάλι ἐπάρχῳ Αἰγύπτου …
βʹ αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Τραϊανοῦ Ἀδριανοῦ … φαρμουθὶ κή; the date corresponds
to 23rd April A.D. 118).—Marcius Turbo had therefore been recalled at the latest
in the beginning of A.D. 118 (compare also Spartian, Hadrian, 5: “Marcio Turbone
Judaeis compressis ad deprimendum tumultum Mauretaniae destinato”). But since he
had quelled the rebellion πολλαῖς μάχαις ἐν οὐκ ὀλίγῳ τε χρόνῳ (Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. iv. 2), his period of office must have filled up the year 117. This is
also confirmation of the view that the decided victory of the rebels over Lupus
is to be put down to the year 116, and the first beginning of the revolt to the
year 115. Still more furiously did the Jews in Cyrene conduct themselves. Of the
cruelties which the Jews there perpetrated upon their non-Jewish
fellow-inhabitants a dreadful picture is presented by Dio Cassius. They ate
their flesh, besmeared themselves with their blood, sawed them through from
above downward, or gave them for food to the wild beasts. The number of the
murdered is said to have been as many as 220,000.[1394] Though here, certainly,
the pen has been directed by the most extravagant fancy, the extent and
importance of the revolt are beyond all dispute. The leader of the Jewish
population of Cyrene, whom they proclaimed as their king, is called by Eusebius,
Lukuas, by Dio Cassius, Andrew.[1395] [1394] Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32. Compare
Orosius, vii. 12: “Incredibili deinde motu sub uno tempore Judaei, quasi rabie
efferati, per diversas terrarum partes exarserunt. Nam et per totam Libyam
adversus incolas atrocissima bella gesserunt: quae adeo tunc interfectis
cultoribus desolata eat ut nisi postea Hadrianus imperator collectas illuc
aliunde colonias deduxisset, vacua penitus terra, abraso habitatore, mansisset.
Aegyptum vero totam et Cyrenen et Thebaidam cruentis seditionibus turbaverunt.”
[1395] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 2; Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32. To suppress this
revolt Trajan sent one of his best generals, Marcius Turbo.[1396] By means of
long-continued and persistent fighting (πολλαῖς μάχαις ἐν οὐκ ὀλίγῳ τε χρόνῳ) he
brought the war to an end, and slew many thousands of the Jews, not only of
Cyrene, but also those of Egypt, who had attached themselves to their “king”
Lukuas.[1397] [1396] According to an inscription at Sarmizegethusa in Dacia, his
full name was Q. Marcius Turbo Fronto Publicius Severus (Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n.
831=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 1462). The same, but incomplete, occurs in
Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. xiv. n. 4243.—After the suppression of the Jewish revolt
by Hadrian, Marcius Turbo became successively governor of Mauretania, Pannonia,
Dacia (Spartian, Hadrian, c. 5 fin. 6 fin. 7), was appointed praefectus
praetorio (Spartian, Hadrian, c. 9; Dio Cassius, lxix. 18; Corpus Inscr. Lat. t.
iii. n. 1462), and is described as one of the most active men of Hadrian’s time
(Dio Cassius, lxix. 18; Frontonis epistulae, ed. Naber, p. 165), but who, as
many of his like had done, fell under the suspicion and awakened the dislike of
Hadrian (Spartian, Hadrian, c. 15). [1397] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv.
2.—According to Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164 sq.; Orosius, vii. 12,
the revolt had also extended into the Thebaid. The outbreak had also spread to
the island of Cyprus. Under the leadership of a certain Artemio, the Jews there
imitated the example of their co-religionists of Cyrene, and murdered 24,000
non-Jewish inhabitants of the island.[1398] The very capital, Salamis, was laid
waste by them.[1399] In regard to the suppression of the revolt we have no
information. The consequence of it was that henceforth no Jew was allowed to
appear upon the island; and if through stress of weather any Jew should happen
to be cast upon its coasts, he was put to death.[1400] [1398] Dio Cassius,
lxviii. 32. [1399] Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164 sq. (on the
nineteenth year of Trajan, 2132 Abr.). According to the Armenian: “Salaminam
Cipri insulae urbem Judaei adorti sunt et Graecos, quos ibi nacti sunt,
trucidarunt, urbemque a fundamentis subverterunt.” According to the Greek in
Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 657: Τοὺς ἐν Σαλαμῖνι τῆς Κύπρου Ἕλληνας Ἰουδαῖοι
ἀνελόντες τὴν πόλιν κατέσκαψαν.—Orosius, vii. 12: “Sane Salaminam, urbem Cypri,
interfectis omnibus accolis deleverunt.” [1400] Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32.
Finally, when Trajan had pressed on as far as Ctesiphon, the capital of the
Parthian empire, the Jews of Mesopotamia in his rear had become disturbed. Such
a disturbance there upon the very frontier of the empire was a most serious
affair. Trajan gave orders to the Moorish prince Lusius Quietus, who was at the
same time a Roman general, to sweep the rebels out of the province (ἐκκαθᾶραι
τῆς ἐπαρχίας αὐτούς). With barbarous cruelty Quietus executed his commission.
Thousands of Jews were put to death. Thus was order restored, and Quietus, in
recognition of his services, was appointed governor of Palestine.[1401] [1401]
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 2; Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164 sq. (on the
eighteenth year of Trajan, 2131 Abr.); Orosius, vii. 12; Dio Cassius, lxviii. 32
(who also gives many personal details about Quietus).—On Lusius Quietus compare
also what is said above at p. 262. His name seems at an early date to have been
corrupted in the text of the Chronicle of Eusebius, for Jerome has Lysias
Quietus, and Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, i. 657), Λυσίας Κύντος. The correct form is
given in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. ed. Heinichen, Dio Cassius, ed. Dindorf, and
Spartian, Hadrian, c. 5. The Jewish revolt was not, it would seem, finally
suppressed until the beginning of Hadrian’s reign in A.D. 117. At least Eusebius
speaks of disturbances in Alexandria which Hadrian had to quell;[1402] and the
biographer of Hadrian states that Palestine also had taken its share in the
rebellion.[1403] In any case, however, perfect quiet seems to have been restored
in the first year of Hadrian. [1402] Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 164
sq. (on the 1st year of Hadrian, 2133 Abr.). According to the Armenian:
“Adrianus Judaeos subegit ter [tertio] contra Romanos rebellantes.” According to
Jerome: “Hadrianus Judaeos capit secundo contra Romanos rebellantes.” According
to Syncellus: Ἀδριανὸς Ἰουδαίους κατὰ Ἀλεξανδρέων στασιάζοντας ἐκόλασεν, [1403]
Spartan, Hadrian, c. 5: “Lycia denique ac Palaestina rebelles animoe efferebant.
It is very doubtful indeed whether Palestine generally had any share in the
rebellion. This is maintained by Volkmar and Grätz in the interest of their
conception of the Book of Judith, which they place in this period; but it has
been rightly contested by Lipsius and others.[1404] Rabbinical tradition makes
mention distinctly of a “war of Quietus,” פוֹלְמוֹס שֶׁל קִיטוֹס;[1405] but
there is nothing to oblige us to understand by this any other than the
well-known war of Quietus in Mesopotamia. In Megillath, Taanith § 29, the 12th
Adar is designated the “day of Trajan,” יום טוריינוס,[1406] and the commentary
upon this passage remarks that this day was celebrated in commemoration of the
following incident:[1407] Two brothers, Julianus and Pappus, were arrested by
Trajan at Laodicea, when the emperor called out to them in mockery: Let your God
now save you as he saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The two brothers
replied that neither he nor they were worthy of having such a miracle wrought,
but that God would indeed require their blood of him if he slew them. But before
Trajan left that place, an order came from Rome, in consequence of which he was
put to death. This fable, which deserves no attention whatever, as it proceeds
on the assumption that Trajan was only a subordinate officer, is now forsooth
offered as the principal evidence regarding the war of Trajan in Palestine! But
it should be observed that even in it there is no mention either of a war or of
Judea, but expressly of Laodicea.[1408]—The one thing that seems to favour
Volkmar’s view is the statement of Spartian above referred to, according to
which, in the beginning of Hadrian’s reign, Palestine rebelles animos efferebat.
From this statement, indeed, it would seem to have been not altogether in a
quiet condition. But it can hardly have gone the length of an actual war.
Otherwise our original authorities would have given a more circumstantial
account of it. [1404] Volkmar, Theolog. Jahrbücher, 1857, pp. 441-498, and
especially, Das Buch Judith (1860), pp. 56 ff., 64 ff., 83 ff., 90 ff. Grätz,
Geschichte der Juden, iv. 439 ff. On the other side, see Lipsius, Zeitschrift
für wistenschaftliche Theologie, 1859, pp. 81-111. On the subject generally,
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift, 1858, p. 270 ff., and 1861, p. 338 ff.; Derenbourg,
Histoire, p. 405; Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iii. 448 ff.; Renan, Les
évangiles, p. 509; Gregorovius, Hadrian, (3 Aufl. 1884), pp. 27, 35-38. [1405]
Mishna, Sota ix. 14, and Seder Olam. sub fin. In both passages, instead of the
common reading of the text, פולמוס של טיטוס, we should read: פולמוס שלקיטס. See
Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 439 ff.; Volkmar, Judith, pp. 83-90; Lipsius,
Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1859, pp. 97-104; Derenbourg,
Histoire, p. 404 f.; Salzer, Magazin für dis Wissenschaft des Judenthums, iv.
1877, pp. 141-144.—In the Mishna passages קיטס is the reading in: (1) a
manuscript of the Royal Library at Berlin (MSS. Or. fol. 567, previously in
private hands; it is the same to which Grätz had referred). (2) The Cambridge
Manuscript, edited by Lowe in 1883 (University Additional, 470. 1). In the
passage from the Seder Olam, this same reading is found in an old manuscript
collated by Azariah de Rossi. See Grätz in the work above quoted. In the latter
passage this reading is also required by the context; for there are, according
to it, fifty-two years to be reckoned between the war of Vespasian and the war
of the קיטוס, and from that to the war of Ben-Cosiba (Bar-Cochba), 16 years.
Also in the Mishna passage the war of the קיטס follows upon the war of
Vespasian, and then after that “the last war,” i.e. that of Bar-Cochba. [1406]
Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 443, 446. On the forms of the name
טוריינוס, טיריון, etc., see Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 408. [1407] See Derenbourg,
Histoire, p. 406 f.; Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. p. 445 ff.; Volkmar,
Judith, pp. 90-100; Lipeius, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1869, pp.
104-110. [1408] At the basis of the legend there may lie probably an obscure
reminiscence of the fact that Lueius Quietus, the oppressor of the Jews, was
recalled by Hadrian, and subsequently executed (Spartian, Hadrian. 5 and 7). 3.
THE GREAT REBELLION UNDER HADRIAN, A.D. 132-135 SOURCES DIO CASSIUS, lxix.
12-14. EUSEBIUS, Hist. eccl. iv. 6; Chronicon, ed Schoene, ii. 166-169. On
Aristo of Pella, see vol. i. of this work, pp. 69-72. Rabbinical traditions in
Derenbourg, pp. 412-438. A collection of the rabbinical texts which refer to the
history of Beth-ther is given in Lebrecht, Bether, pp. 43-50; comp, also p. 20
f. On the coins, see Appendix IV. LITERATURE BASNAGE, Histoire des Juifs, t.
vii. (according to another arrangement, t. xi.), 1716, pp. 328-378. TILLEMONT,
Histoire des empereurs, t. ii. (Venice 1732), pp. 285-296. MÜNTER, Der jüdische
Krieg unter den Kaisern Trajan und Hadrian, 1821; a most comprehensive
monograph. CASSEL in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopaedie, sec. ii. Bd. 27, 1850,
pp. 13-16 (in article “Juden”). HERZFELD, Zur Geschiehte des Barkochba
(Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1856, pp.
101-111). GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iv. 2 Aufl. pp. 138-183. JOST,
Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Sekten, ii. 75-83. DERENBOURG, Histoire de
la Palestine, pp. 412-438. NEUBÜRGER, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1873, pp. 433-445, 529-536. WILLIAMS, The Holy
City, vol. i. pp. 209-213. MORRISON, The Jews under the Roman Empire, pp.
198-206. “The Jewish Wars under Hadrian and Trajan” (Journal of Sacred
Literature, vol. vii. 1851, pp. 439-444). EWALD, History of Israel, viii.
271-311 HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch. 2 Aufl. iv. 327-342. RENAN,
L’église, chrétienne (1879), pp. 186-228, 541-553. Revue historigue, t. ii.
1876, pp. 112-120. SALZER, “Der Aufstand des Bar-Cochba” (Magazin für die
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, iii. 1876, pp. 121-139, 173-190; iv. 1877, pp.
17-38). HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii., articles
Akib, Barkochba, Bethar, Hadrian, Hadrianische Verfolgungsedikte. DERENBOURG,
“Quelques Notes sur la guerre de Bar Kozeba” (Mélanges publiés par l’école des
hautes etudes, Paris 1878, pp. 167-173). DARMESTETER, “Notes épigraphiques,”
etc. (Revue des études juives, t. i. 1880, pp. 42-55). SCHILLER, Geschichte der
römische Kaiserzeit, i. 2,1883, pp. 612-615. MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, v.
pp. 544-546. GREGOROVIUS, Der Kaiser Hadrian (3 Aufl. 1884), pp. 38 f., 147-153,
188-216. GREGOROVIUS, “Die Gründung der römischen Colonie Aelia Capitolina”
(Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol. und hist. Classe der Münchener Akademie,
1883, pp. 477-508). SCHWARZ, Der Bar-Kochbaische Aufstand, Brünn 1885
(worthless; see Bursian’s Jahresber. der class. Alterthumswissensch. pp. 48, 282
f.). A late Jewish legend tells how in the days of Joshua ben Chananiah, that
is, in the time of Hadrian, the pagan government had granted authority to
proceed with the building of the temple. But the Samaritans had made
representations against the enterprise. And in consequence of these the emperor
had not indeed withdrawn the permission, but issued a decree that the new
building should not be erected precisely on the site of the old temple, which
came to the same thing as an actual prohibition. Then the Jews gathered together
in factions in the valley of Beth-Rimmon. But R. Joshua, in order to quiet them,
told them the story of the lion and the stork: as the stork ought to be glad to
have got its head uninjured out of the jaws of the lion, so also ought they to
be glad if they were allowed to live in peace under a heathen government.[1409]
The historical value of this legend is simply nil, and yet it forms the chief
ground for the view insisted upon by many modern scholars, that Hadrian had
given permission for the rebuilding of the temple, and that the withdrawal of
this permission was the real cause of the great Jewish rebellion.[1410] In
confirmation of this view reference is made to statements by Christian writers.
But even these are little calculated to support such a theory. Chrysostom,
Cedrenus, and Nicephorus Callistus only say that the Jews in the time of Hadrian
had rebelled and made an attempt to rebuild the temple, and that Hadrian put a
stop to that undertaking. The Chronicon Paschale speaks of a destruction by
Hadrian of the temple that had actually been built.[1411] Of a permission to
build the temple that had first been given by Hadrian and afterwards withdrawn,
there is no mention whatever. The attempt to rebuild the temple was really
itself one of the acts of the rebellion. An apparent support for this theory is
to be found only in one passage in the Epistle of Barnabas, of which, however,
the explanation is uncertain. Barnabas seeks to show that it is not according to
God’s will that the Jews should continue to observe the law. Their Sabbath is
not the true one. “And almost like the heathens have they honoured God in a
temple.” In order to prove the heathenish character of the Jewish temple,
Barnabas, in chap, xvi., quotes the prophecy of Isaiah 49:17 (LXX.): “Behold,
they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again;” and
then proceeds, in chap. xvi. 4: “It has so happened. For through their going to
war it was destroyed by their enemies; and now they [together with] the servants
of their enemies shall rebuild it” (γίνεται· διὰ γὰρ τὸ πολεμεῖν αὐτοὺς καθῃρέθη
ὑπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν· νῦν καὶ αὐτοὶ [καὶ] οἱ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑπηρέται ἀνοικοδομήσουσιν
αὐτόν). Only if the bracketed καί be retained, is the expectation there set
forth that now the Jews and the heathens together were to build in common the
Jewish temple. By striking out the καί the meaning of the sentence becomes this:
the heathens themselves build the temple, that is, for heathenish purposes. But
on external grounds also the latter reading deserves the preference. Barnabas
seems therefore to allude to Hadrian’s intention to erect a building for heathen
worship.[1412]—Of the alleged permission given by Hadrian for the rebuilding of
the Jewish temple, therefore, we do not meet with any trace when we investigate
the causes of the rebellion.[1413] Such permission, at least in the form of
active encouragement, is also improbable on internal grounds. For while Hadrian
zealously patronized the Greek-Roman religious rites, he looked with contempt
upon all foreign superstitions.[1414] [1409] Bereshith rabba c. 64. See the
passage in the original text, and in a French translation in Derenbourg,
Histoire de la Palestine, p. 416 sq. Text and Latin translation in Volkmar,
Judith, pp. 108-111. German in Wünsche, Der Midrasch Bereschit Rabba (1881), p.
307 f. [1410] So Volkmar, Judith, pp. 108 if., 131 ff.; Grätz, Geschichte der
Juden, iv. 138 ff., 442 ff.; Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 412 sq.;
Neubürger, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1873,
p. 433 ff.; Hausrath, Zeitgeschichte, iv. 328 f.; Salzer, Magazin, iii. 127 ff.;
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie, art. “Hadrian.” [1411] The passages are collected
in Münter, p. 64 f., and Volkmar, Judith, pp. 131-134. Compare also under note
93. [1412] The καί is given only in the Sinaiticus; in all other texts it if
wanting. The explanation given above, that the building was for heathen worship,
is supported, for example, by Lipsius in Schenkel’s Bibellexion, i. 371 f. The
words have been understood of the aid given to the Jewish building by the
heathens, especially by Volkmar, and that indeed even before the discovery of
the Sinaiticus, resting upon the common reading without the καί (Theolog.
Jahrbücher, 1856, pp. 351-361, and elsewhere). He was followed by J. G. Müller,
Erklärung des Barnabasbriefes (1869), pp. 334-340; Harnack, Patrum apostolorum,
Opera, i. 2, ed. 2 (1878), pp. lxx.-lxxii., and I myself adopted this view in
the first edition of this work. Others explain the words metaphorically of the
building of the spiritual temple by the Gentile Christians. So, e.g.,
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theologie, 1870, pp. 116-121; Barnabae
epistula, ed. 2, 1877, pp. 119-123; Wieseler, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie,
1870, pp. 612-614; Riggenbach, Der sogenannte Brief des Barnabas (1873), pp.
41-45. But according to the language of the passage it evidently treats of the
rebuilding of the actual temple. Barnabas wishes to say: this temple was not
better than a heathen temple, as even then it actually was rebuilt by the
heathen. Special emphasis should be laid on the αὐτόν at the close. Against
Weizsäcker’s reference to the building of Zerubbabel (Zur Kritili des
Barnabasbriefes, 1863, p. 21 ff.), the νῦν and the future are decisive. [1413]
Compare Renan, L’église chrétienne, p. 24; Schiller, Geschichte der röm.
Kaiserzeit, i. 613; Gregorovius, Hadrian, 3 Aufl. p. 38 f. [1414] Spartian, vita
Hadriani, c. 22 (in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, ed. Peter): sacra Romana
diligentissime curavit peregrina contempsit. Only two accounts of the causes of
the great rebellion are worthy of consideration. Spartian says:[1415] “moverunt
ea tempestate et Judaei bellum, quod vetabautur mutilare genitalia.” Dio
Cassius, on the contrary, gives his account thus:[1416] “When Hadrian had
founded at Jerusalem a city of his own in place of the one destroyed, which he
called Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of their God erected
another temple to Jupiter, the great and long-continued war broke out. For the
Jews regarded it as a horrible outrage that foreigners should settle in their
city, and that temples for strange gods should be built in it.” Since Spartian
mentions only the one and Dio Cassius only the other, it is doubtful whether
without more ado we are entitled to combine the two. Gregorovius rejects the
statement of Spartian, and regards that of Dio Cassius as alone worthy of
credence. In fact, a prohibition of circumcision, without any special occasion,
seems little in accordance with the mild character of Hadrian, although it might
quite conceivably be used for the purpose of securing the extinction of the Jews
after the suppression of the revolt.[1417] Nevertheless, the statement of
Spartian is to be defended. For, according to all that we know, the prohibition
of circumcision was not limited to the Jews, and was not immediately directed
against them. When, under Antoninus Pius, the Jews were again allowed to
circumcise their children, the prohibition still stood good against the
non-Jewish peoples. It was therefore originally a general order.[1418] The
special feature of this legislation was not that it aimed at the rooting out of
Judaism, but that it placed circumcision on the same level with castration, and
punished its practice accordingly.[1419] The prohibition was not, therefore,
first of all directed against Judaism, but it is at the same time quite evident
that Judaism would receive from it a deadly wound. In addition to this it was
now made known that Hadrian designed the erection of a new heathen city upon the
ruins of Jerusalem. In this also the ruling motive was not hostility to Judaism.
The rearing of magnificent buildings and the founding of cities was the work to
which Hadrian devoted the energies of his life. But this proposal must also have
been regarded as a blow in the face to Judaism. So long as Jerusalem lay in
ruins, the Jews could cherish the hope of its restoration. The founding of a
heathen city, the erection of a heathen temple on the holy place, put an end to
these hopes in terrible manner. It was an outrage as great as that which
Antiochus Epiphanea had fomerly committed, and was answered, as that had been,
by a genenal uprising of the excited people.—Both reasons, therefore, are not in
themselves improbable. A combination of the two is a suggestion which has much
to commend it, if the two enactments of Hadrian were not too far separated in
time from one another. [1415] Spartian, Hadrian. 14. [1416] Dio Cassius, lxix.
12. [1417] Compare Gregorovius, Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol. und hist.
Classe der Münchener Akademie, 1883, p. 499 ff.; Der Kaiser Hadrian, p. 188 ff.
In favour of Gregorovius’ view one might refer to the state of the original
documents. Dio Cassius, as well as Spartian, founds partly on the autobiography
of Hadrian (see Dio Cassius, lxix. 11, ὡς Ἁδριανὸς γράφει; Spartian, 1. 1, “in
libris vitae suae Hadrianus ipse commemorat;” 7. 2, “ut ipse vita sua dicit;”
comp. also 3. 3, and 3. 5). In Dio Cassius, however, the history of the Jewish
war follows immediately upon the quotation from the autobiography, and may
probably have been derived from it. So thinks Dürr, Die Reisen des Kaisers
Hadrian, 1881, p. 14 On the other hand, it seems probable that Spartian derives
his short notice of the Jewish war from some other source (Dürr, Reisen, p. 82).
[1418]a Modestinus, Digest. xlviii. 8. 11, pr.: “Circumcidere Judaeis filios
suos tantum rescripto divi Pii permittitur: in non ejusdem religionis qui hoc
fecerit, castrantis poena irrogatur.” This statement of fact is also
corroborated by other witnesses. In the Syrian Dialogue on Fate, which is
ascribed to Bardesanes, as a historical instance of the fact that ofttimes kings
when they conquer foreign countries have abolished the native laws and
introduced their own without the stars putting any hindrance in the way, this is
advanced as pre-eminently applicable, that only shortly before the Romans, after
the conquest of Arabia, had abolished the laws of that country, especially the
law regarding circumcision (Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, 1855, p. 30; in the
somewhat abbreviated text in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangel. vi. 10. 41, ed.
Gaisford, the prohibition of circumcision is not mentioned). But the same author
speaks immediately after of circumcision as an existing institution among the
Jews. He witnesses, therefore, precisely to the condition of matters as
determined by Antoninus Pius. A further witness for this is Origen, who
distinctly says that only the Jews were allowed to practise circumcision, but
that it was forbidden to all others on the pain of death (Contra Cels. ii. 13).
The jurist Paulus, a contemporary of Origen, says, Sent. v. 22. 3-4 (in
Huschke’s Jurisprudentias antejustinianae quae supersunt, ed. 5, Lips. 1886):
“Cives Romani, qui se Judaico ritu vel servos suos circumcidi patiuntur bonis
ademptis in insulam perpetuo relegantur; medici capite puniuntur. Judaei si
alienae nationis comparatos servos circumciderunt, aut deportantur aut capite
puniuntur.” The prohibition, therefore, by no means applied especially to the
Jews, but they rather were by Hadrian’s immediate successor expressly excluded
from its application. Compare also Nöldeke, Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenland
Gesellschaft, Bd. 39, 1885, p. 343 (who has also paid attention to the above
passage in the Dialogue on Fate). Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p.
119. [1419]b Compare Mommsen, Rämische Geschichte, v. 549.—Hadrian strictly
forbade castration; it was to be punished under the lex Cornelia de sicariis,
i.e. it was treated as murder (Digest. xlviii. 8. 4. 2). That circumcision was
treated in the same category as castration, is seen from the passage quoted
above from Modewstinus. In regard to the date at which the building of the Aelia
Capitolina was begun, various statements are given in the original authorities.
Epiphanius had been informed that Hadrian, forty-seven years after the
destruction of Jerusalem, when he arrived there on his second journey, gave
orders to rebuild the city (not the temple), and commissioned Aquila to see the
work done.[1420] This indication of date gives us A.D. 117, immediately after
Hadrian’s accession to the throne. He was then certainly in the East, but
Epiphauius expressly refers to his later journey taken from Rome, and thus his
statement regarding the time is deprived of all its value.[1421] The Chronicon
Paschale places the founding of Aelia Capitolina in A.D. 119; but it does so
only because it has also placed the great Jewish rebellion in that year, after
the quelling of which Aelia was founded.[1422] With the date fixed for the
Jewish rebellion, which is demonstrably false, falls also that fixed for the
founding of Aelia.[1423] Eusebius also regards the founding of the city as a
consequence of the rebellion.[1424] This is correct, inasmuch as only thereafter
was the plan carried out. But, according to Dio Cassius, it is not to be doubted
that the building had already been begun before the outbreak of the rebellion,
and indeed not very long before, for he says that the Jews, who were irritated
about the building, remained quiet so long as Hadrian stayed in Egypt and Syria,
but that they broke out so soon as he had left those regions.[1425] In
accordance with this, it must be assumed that the founding of the city took
place during the period of Hadrian’s visit to Syria, which occurred in A.D. 130.
[1420] Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, § 14. [1421] It has been turned to
account as serviceable by Dürr, Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, p. 16. Against it:
Gregorovius, Sitzungsberichte, 1883, p. 489. [1422] Chronicon Paschale, ed.
Dindorf, i. 474. [1423] See also Gregorovius, Sitzungsberichte, 1883, p. 493
f.—Renan’s assertion, that the founding took place about A.D. 122 (L’église
chretienne, p. 26), has no support from the original authorities. [1424]
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6. [1425] Dio Cassius, lxix. 12. Hadrian at that
time—it was during his last great journey in the East—arrived in Syria from
Greece, and thence went to Egypt, and then back again to Syria.[1426] It is made
certain from inscriptions and coins that he was in Syria in A.D. 130, in Egypt
in November A.D. 130, and so again in Syria in A.D. 131.[1427] Generally,
wherever he went he furthered the interests of culture: artistic and useful
buildings were erected: games were celebrated: he was a restitutor in all the
provinces.[1428] In the cities of Palestine also we come upon traces of his
presence. Tiberias had obtained an Ἀδριάνειον; Gaza, a πανήγυρις Ἀδριανή; Petra,
in grateful remembrance of the benefactions of the emperor, took the name of
Ἀδριανὴ Πέτρα.[1429] His residence in Judea was commemorated by coins bearing
the inscription, adventui Aug(usti) Judaeae.[1430] [1426] This route is
particularly described in Dio Cassius, lxix. 11-12. [1427] That Hadrian’s visit
to Egypt occurred in A.D. 130, upon which all the other dates turn, has been
proved by Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, vi. 489-491. He is followed by: Haakh in
Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 1036, article “Hadrianus;” Clinton, Fasti
Romani, t. i. 1885, ad ann. 129-131, p. Chr.; Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions
grecques et latines de l’Égypte, t. ii. 1848, pp. 364-367; Dürr, Die Reisen des
Kaisers Hadrian, 1881, pp. 62-65. For a further list of the literature, see
Dürr, pp. 7, 8.—The principal proofs are: (1) An inscription at Palmyra of the
year [4]42 aer. Seleuc.=A.D. 130-131, assumcs a previous visit of Hadrian to
Palmyra (De Vogüé, Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions de Palmyre, n. 16; Le Bas and
Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2585). (2) The coins of Gaza of the time of
Hadrian have an era beginning with A.D. 129 or 130, the occasion of which was
certainly Hadrian’s residence in Gaza, and the benefits that had been thereby
conferred upon the city. On this see the literature mentioned in Div. II. vol.
i. p. 72. The year 1 of the new era is the year 190-191 of the old era of Gaza;
and as this earlier era began in B.C. 60 or 61, is equivalent to A.D. 129 or
130. But even if one should assume A.D. 129 with Stark, Gaza, p. 550, Hadrian’s
visit may still be put down as A.D. 130, since the commencement of the era may
not be exactly synchronous with Hadrian’s visit. (3) In Alexandria coins of
Hadrian were minted in the fifteenth year of the emperor, that is, according to
the reckoning commonly used in Egypt, A.D. 130-131. According to all analogies,
it must be assumed that this must have occurred at the celebration of Hadrian’s
visit (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vi. 489 sq.). (4) The most precise information is
supplied by an inscription on the Memnon statue at Thebes, from which it appears
that Hadrian was there in the fifteenth year of his reign, in the month Athyr.
This date corresponds to November A.D. 130. For the words of the inscription,
see Eckhel and Clinton; more correctly given in Letronne, ii. 365, and Dürr, p.
123; also in Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4727. An exact facsimile is given by
Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Bd. xii. bl. 78; Inscrip. Graec.
n. 91. On the reckoning of the years of the emperor’s prevailing in Egypt,
especially the years of Hadrian, see Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 117
ff. [1428] Compare generally: Dürr, Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, p. 4 t;
Gregorovius, Der Kaiser Hadrian, 3 Aufl. p. 468 ff.—On numerous inscriptions
Hadrian is called σωτήρ, οἰκιστής, εὐεργέτης, κτίστης. See the texts in Dürr, p.
104 ff. On coins of Hadrian are found the following inscriptions: restitutori
Achaiae, restitutori Africae, restitutori Arabiae, restitutori Asiae,
restitutori Bithyniae, restitutori Galliae, restitutori Hispaniae, restitutori
Italiae, restitutori Libyae, restitutori Macedoniae, restitutori Nicomediae,
restitutori orbis terrarum, restitutori Phrygiae, restitutori Siciliae.” See
Eckhel, Doctr. Num. vi. 486-500; Cohen, Médaillée impériales, ed. 2, t. ii.
1882, pp. 209-214. [1429] On Tiberias, see Epiphanius, Haer. 30. 12: ναὸς δὲ
μέγιστος ἐν τῇ πόλει προῦπῆρχε· τάχα, οἶμαι, Ἀδριάνειον τοῦτο ἐκάλουν.—On Gaza,
Chronicon, ed. Dindorf, i. 474: καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔστησεν πανήγυριν … καὶ ἕως τοῦ νῦν ἡ
πανήγυρις ἐκείνη λέγεται Ἀδριανή.—The coins of Petra with the superscription:
Ἀδριαηὴ Πέτρα, in Mionnet, Description de Médailles, v. 587-589; Suppl. viii.
387 sq.; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 351-353. [1430] Eckhel,
Doctr. Num. vi. 495 sq.; Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), p. 231; Cohen,
Médailles impériales, ed. 2, t. ii. p. 110 sq. The coins were minted in Rome (S.
C.).—There were similar coins for almost all the provinces. See Eckhel, vi.
486-501; Cohen, ii. 107-112. The founding of Aelia also, without doubt, belongs
to the period of the emperor’s activity. Pliny calls Jerusalem longe clarissima
urbium orientis, non Judaeae modo.[1431] This celebrated city now lay in ruins,
or was still merely a Roman camp. What then could be more attractive to the
emperor than the restoring of such a city to its former magnificence? It was,
however, manifestly intended that this new magnificence should be of a heathen
character. A temple of the Capitoline Jupiter was to be erected on the spot
where formerly the temple of the God of the Jews had stood. This was the fatal
proposal. The Jews had been roused to a most violent degree by means of the
order, issued probably not long before, against the practice of circumcision.
And now to that was added a new outrage. By means of this proposed profanation
of their city matters were brought to a crisis. The people remained quiet so
long as the emperor remained in Egypt, and during his second visit to Syria. But
when he was no longer in the neighbourhood, that is, in A.D. 132, they broke out
into revolt: an uprising that, in its extent and violence, and its unhappy
consequences, was at least as serious as that of the time of Vespasian. If it
does not bulk so largely in our records, it is only because of the meagreness of
the original sources of information that have come down to us.[1432] [1431]
Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 14. 70. [1432] From Dio Cassius, lxix. 12, it appears that
the founding of Aelia occurred in the time of Hadrian’s first visit to Syria,
A.D. 130, but the outbreak of the rebellion after his second visit in A.D. 131,
and so probably in A.D. 132. In fact, the Chronicle of Eusebius places the
beginning of the rebellion in the sixteenth year of Hadrian, i.e. A.D. 132-133
(Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 166 sq.). The leader of the revolt is
called in the works of Christian writers Cochba or Bar-Cochba, and by the
rabbinical authorities Barcosiba or Bencosiba.[1433] The one as well as the
other is only a designation; the former distinguishes him as the star, or the
son of the star, with reference to Numbers 24:18, which passage R Akiba applied
to him;[1434] the latter is a name derived either from his father (the son of
Cosiba) or from his home (the man of Cosiba), and not until a comparatively late
period, and only by a few individual writers, in view of his miserable collapse,
was it taken to mean liar or deceiver.[1435] The designation Cochba or
Bar-Cochba was apparently chosen on account of its similarity in sound to
Barcosiba, but seems to have become pretty generally current, since the
Christian authorities are acquainted with it alone. The coins have preserved for
us the proper name of two men. For it is a fact scarcely admitting of question
that the Simon-coins, some of which certainly, and others most probably, were
stamped during the period of this outbreak, were issued by the leader of this
outbreak, who was certainly Bar-Cochba. Those minted in the first year have the
inscription, “Simon, Prince of Israel,” שמעון נשיא ישראל; those minted in the
second year have only the name “Simon” שמעון. On some the figure of a star
appears over that of a temple. Besides the Simoncoins there are also coins of
the first year with the inscription, “Eleasar the Priest,” אלעזר הכהן. There
thus seem to have been two men at the head of the rebellion, besides the Prince
Simon, the Priest Eleasar. After the second year there are no more
Eleasar-coins.[1436] Since in late rabbinical documents the R. Eleasar of
Modein, who is also known from other sources, is described as the uncle of
Barcosiba,[1437] some have ventured to conjecture that this man is the same as
the one named “Eleasar the Priest” on the coins.[1438] But there is nothing
anywhere to indicate that Eleasar of Modein was a priest. [1433] Χοχεβᾶς and
Chochebas are the forms of the name in the Chronicle of Eusebius, and in Jerome,
ad ann. Abr. 2149 (ed. Schoene, ii. 168 sq.; the Greek form in Syncellus, ed.
Dindorf, i. 660); so too in Orosius, vii 13 (ed. Zangemeister). Βαρχωχέβας in
Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 31 (ed. Otto) and Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6 (ed.
Heinichen); the passage from Justin also in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 8.
Barcochabas in Jerome, Adv. Rufin. in. 31 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, ii. 559).—In the
rabbinical sources, on the other hand, we have בר כוזיבא or בן כוזיבא
(Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 423; Lebrecht, Bether, p. 13).—Compare
in regard to him generally: Buxtorf, Lexicon Chald. col. 1028 (s.v. כזב);
Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 423 sqq.; Salzer, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des
Judenthums, iii. 184 ff.; Lebrecht, Bether (1877), pp. 12-20; Hamburger,
Real-Encyclopaedie, article “Barkochba;” “Levy, Neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, ii.
312. [1434] Jer. Taanith iv. fol. 68d (Cracow ed.): “R. Simon ben Jochai said:
R. Akiba my teacher expounded the passage: There shall go a star (כוכב) out of
Jacob” (Numbers 24:17), as follows: ‘There goes כוזבא out from Jacob.’ When R.
Akiba saw Barcosiba he said, This is the king Messiah. Then said to him R.
Jochanan ben Torta: Akiba, the grass will grow out of thy jaw-bone, and yet the
Son of David will not have come.” See the text in Lebrecht, Bether, p. 44;
German in Wünsche, Der Jerusalemische Talmud, 1880, p. 157.—The correct
explanation of Cochba as meaning a star (ἀστήρ) is also given in Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. iv. 6, and Syncellus, i. 660. According to Eusebius, Barcoshba also gave
himself out for a φωστὴρ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. [1435] Since Barcosiba or Bencosiba is the
prevailing form, even in the mouths of such as esteemed him highly, like Akiba,
it cannot have had a disrespectful meaning. Cosiba is either the name of his
father (so in earlier days, Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 423, note 3) or of his
home, כזבא, 1 Chronicles 4:22=כזיב, Genesis 38:5=אכזיב, in the tribe of Judah,
Joshua 15:44; Micah 1:14 (hardly to be identified with אכזיב in the tribe of
Asher=Ekdippa, between Tyre and Ptolemais, as conjectured by Derenbourg,
Mélanges publiés par l’école des hautes études, 1878, p. 157 sq.)—The rendering
of it כוזב, “Liar,” makes its appearance first in the Midrash, Echa rabbathi,
see Levy, Neuhebräishches Wörterbuch, ii. 312; the text is given in Lebrecht,
Bether, p. 46; in German in Wünsche, Der Midrasch Echa rabbati, 1881, p. 100.
[1436] See on the coins generally, Appendix IV.—The coins with the star are
given, e.g., in Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 239, 244. [1437] Midrash
on Echa ii. 2; Gittin 57a (in Derenbourg, Histoire, pp. 424, 433. See on Eleasar
of Modein: Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten (1884), pp. 194-219. ר׳ אליעזר הקודעו
is frequently referred to in the Mechilta. See above, vol. i. p. 209 f. [1438]
Ewald, History of Israel, viii. 291; De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, p. 44. The
application of the designation of the “Star,” which should come out of Jacob, to
Barcosiba, shows that he was regarded as the Messiah. R Akiba, the most
celebrated doctor of the law in his time, is said to have distinctly announced
him as such.[1439] And though, indeed, all the colleagues of Akiba did not
recognise him, he had the mass of the people on his side. As in the days of
Vespasian, so also at this time there was a widespread idea that the day had
come when the old prophecy of the prophets would be fulfilled, and Israel would
cast off the yoke of the Gentiles. The Christian legends also declare that
Barcosiba bewitched the people by deceitful miracles.[1440]—Just by reason of
the Messianic character of the movement it was quite impossible for Christians
to take part in it. They could not deny their own Messiah by recognising the
leader of the political revolution as such. Hence they were persecuted with
peculiar violence by the new Messiah, as Justin Martyr and Eusebius
testify.[1441] [1439] See the passage quoted in note 83; also Bacher, Die Agada
der Tannaiten, p. 291 f. On Akiba generally: Div. II. vol. i. p. 375 f., and the
literature there referred to. [1440]a Jerome, adv. Rufin. iii. 21 (Opp. ed.
Vallarsi, ii. 559). Jerome says there to his opponent Rufinus that he spits fire
“ut ille Barchocbabas, auctor seditionis Judaicae, stipulam in ore succensam
anhelitu ventilabat, ut flammas evomere putaretur.” [1441] Justin Martyr, Apol.
i. 31: Καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ Ἰουδαῖκῷ πολέμῳ Βαρχωχέβας, ὁ τῆς Ἰουδαίων
ἀποστάσεως ἀρχηγέτης, Χριστιανοὺς μόνους εἰς τιμωρίας δεινάς, εἰ μὴ ἀρνοῖντο
Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ βλασφημοῖεν, ἐκέλευεν ἀπάγεσθαι. Eusebius, Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, ii. 168 sq. ad. ann. Abr. 2149. According to the Armenian: “Qui dux
rebellionis Judaeorum erat Chochebas, multos e Christianis diversis suppliciis
affecit, quia nolebant procedere cum illo ad pugnam contra Romanos.” So, too,
the Latin reproduction of Jerome in Schoene, and Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 660.
Compare also Orosius, vii. 13. The rebellion spread rapidly over all Palestine.
Wherever strongholds, castles, caverns, subterranean passages afforded
hiding-places, there were those who struggled for native customs and freedom
gathered together. An open conflict they avoided; but from their dens in the
mountains they made devastating raids upon the country, and fought with all who
did not attach themselves to their party,[1442] Jerusalem also was certainly
beset by the rebels. The doubt which many, on the other hand, have raised is
mainly supported by this, that in the more trustworthy sources (Dio Cassius and
Eusebius’ Church History) there is no mention of a war at Jerusalem. But how
unspeakably meagre are these sources generally ! Even upon internal grounds it
is probable that the rebels, who were at the beginning victorious, should have
made themselves masters of Jerusalem, which was not then a strongly fortified
city, but only a Roman camp. But this conjecture is confirmed by twofold
testimony. In the first place by the coins.[1443] The coins that with the
greatest confidence can be set down to this period, bear on the one side the
name of Simon, שמעון, and on the other side the superscription, לחרות ירושלם,
lechêruth Jeruschalem, “the freedom of Jerusalem.” Therefore, the freeing of
Jerusalem was commemorated by Simon on the coins. But there are among the coins
belonging to this period also examples which, besides the date “First Year of
the freeing of Israel” or “Second Year of the freedom of Israel,” bear only the
name Jerusalem, ירושלם. These, therefore, have been minted by the city itself in
its own name, and hence we see that this city in the first year as well as in
the second was in the hands of the rebels. In addition to this witness from the
coins, we have the contemporary Appian, by whom, as will be told farther on, the
fact of the reconquest of Jerusalem by the Romans is declared as a
fact.[1444]—Whether during these troubled years of war the rebuilding of the
Jewish temple may actually have been begun must be left undecided. Late
Christians declare that this was so, and the intention to carry on this work was
certainly entertained.[1445] [1442] Dio Cassius, lxix. 12. Compare Jerome,
Chronicon, ad ann. Abr. 2148 (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 167):
“Judaei in arma verai Palestinam depopulati sunt.” The Armenian text of Eusebius
has: “Judae rebellarunt et Palestinensium terram invaserunt.” [1443] In regard
to these see Appendix IV. [1444] The besieging of Jerusalem by the rebels has
been contested, without any sufficient ground, by Cassel in his article “Juden”
in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopaedie, sec. ii. Bd. 27, p. 14, and by Jost,
Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 79, note. Also Renan declares that it is very
improbable, in the treatise: “Jérusalem a-t-elle été assiégée et détruite une
troisième fois sous Adrien?” in Revue historique, t. ii. 1876, pp.
112-120=L’église chrétienne, 1879, pp. 541-553. His final judgment is: “que
l’occupation de Jérusalem ait été un épisode court de ladite guerre, cela est
strictement possible; c’est peu probable cependant;” see Revue, ii. 119=L’église
chrétienne, p. 551. Gregorovius, founding upon the coins, holds it as probable
that the rebels gained at least a temporary possession of Jerusalem, but denies
that it had been the scene of any regular fighting (Der Kaiser Hadrian, 3 Aufl.
pp. 194, 200 f.; Sitzungsberichte der Münchener Akademie, 1883, pp. 502-505).
Similarly Selzer, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, iv. 22 f. Upon
the whole the besieging of Jerusalem by the rebels is admitted by most, e.g.
Deyling, Observationes sacrae, t. v. Lips. 1748, pp. 455-460 (in the
dissertation: “Aeliae Capitolinae origines et hietoria”); Münter, Der jüdische
Krieg, pp. 56 ff., 69 ff.; also Schiller, Geschichts der röm. Kaiserzeit, i.
612, note; Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 545. [1445] Chrysostom, Orat. adv.
Judaeos, v. 10, speaks of an attempt at the rebuilding of the temple in the time
of Hadrian. He endeavours there to show that the destruction of the temple had
been brought about by the will of God. If the Jews had not made the attempt to
build again the temple, then they might say: If we had chosen we might have
built it again. Νυνὶ δὲ αὐτοὺς δείκνυμι, ὅτι οὐχ ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ δὶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρὶς
ἐπιχειρήσαντας καὶ ῥαγέντας, namely, under Hadrian, Constantine, and
Julian,—Georpius Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, i. 437, relates: ἐφʼ οὗ στασιασάντων τῶν
Ἰουδαίων καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις ναὸν οἰκοδομῆσαι βουληθέντων ὀργίζεται κατʼ
αὐτῶν σφόδρα καὶ πολέμου γενομένου μεταξὺ ἀνεῖλεν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ μυριάδας
νή. In the details of his statement this Cedrenus agreea so exactly with the
statement of Chrysostom that it is apparent that he must have drawn his
information either directly from Chrysostom, or else from the sources which
Chrysostom had used. Nicephorus Callistus also, in his Eccles. Hist. iii. 24
(Migne, Patrol. Graec. t. cxlv.), reproduces this report The Chronicon Paschale
asserts that Hadrian at the building of Aelia, after the suppression of the
revolt, destroyed the Jewish temple (ed. Dindorf, i. 474: καθελὼν τὸν ναὸν τῶν
Ἰουδαίων τὸν ἑν Ἱεροσολύμοις).—Much weight cannot be laid upon any of these
witnesses. In regard to the progress of the war we know almost nothing. When it
broke out Tineius Rufus was governor of Judea.[1446] When he was unable with his
troops to crash the rebels, the revolt not only increased in dimension and
importance throughout all Palestine, but also spread itself far out beyond the
limits of that country. Unstable and restless elements indeed of another sort
attached themselves to the Jewish rebellion, so that at last “the whole world,
so to speak, was in commotion.”[1447] The severest measures were necessary in
order to put an end to the uproar. Large bodies of troops from other provinces
were called in to strengthen the resident garrison. The best generals were
commissioned for Palestine.[1448] Even the governor of Syria, Publicius
Marcellus, hasted to the aid of his endangered colleague.[1449] But it seems
that Rufus for the most of the time retained the supreme command; for Eusebius
names no other Roman commander, and speaks as if the suppression of the revolt
was accomplished by Rufus.[1450] In rabbinical authorities also, “Rufus the
Tyrant,” טורנס רופוס, appears the chief enemy of the Jews at that time.[1451]
But from Dio Cassius, whose statements on this point are corroborated by the
testimony of inscriptions, we know that during the last period of the war Julius
Severus, one of the most distinguished of Hadrian’s generals, had the supreme
command, and that it was he who succeeded in bringing the rebellion to an end.
He was summoned from Britain to conduct this war, and took a considerable time
in crushing the revolt. In an open engagement no decisive result was gained. The
rebels had to be hunted out of their hidingplaces one by one; and, where they
kept concealed in mountain caverns, they were exhausted by having their supplies
cut off. Only after long continued conflicts with individuals, in which there
was great expenditure of life, did he at last succeed in harrying,
exterminating, and rooting them out of the whole country (κατατρῖψαι καὶ
ἐκτρυχῶσαι καὶ ἐκκόψαι).[1452] [1446] On the correct form of his name see above,
p. 263. [1447] Dio Cassius, lxix. 13: πάσης ὡς εἰπεῖν κινουμένης ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῆς
οἰκουμένης. [1448] On the increasing of the strength of the troops: Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. iv. 6. 1; Chronicon, ad ann. Abr. 2148.—Generals: Dio Cassius, lxix.
13: τοὺς κρατίστους τῶν στρατηγῶν ὁ Ἀδριανὸς ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ἔπεμψεν.—By inscriptions
it can be proved that the following troops took part in the war (see
Darraesteter, Revue des études juives, t i. 1880, pp. 42-49; Schiller,
Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 614, note; the facts are very incorrectly
stated by Gregorovius, Der Kaiser Hadrian, p. 199: (1) The leg. III. Cyrenaica,
which from the time of Augustus to that of Trajan had remained in Egypt, and
since the time of Trajan had formed the garrison of the new province of Arabia
(Pfitzner, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserlegionen, 1881, p. 227 f.). A tribune
belonging to the legion was presented “donis militaribus a divo Hadriano ob
Judaicam expeditionem” (Orelli-Henzen, Inscr. Lat. n. 6501=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t.
xiv. n. 3610); a centurion of this same legion received “ab imp. Hadriano corona
aurea torquibus armillis phaleris ob bellum Judeicum” (Orelli, n. 832=Inscr.
Regni Neap. n. 3642=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. x. n. 3733).—(2) The leg. III.
Gallica, which probably from the time of Augustus belonged to the garrison of
Syria (see above, p. 50; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. ii. 1876, p.
432 ff.; Pfitzner, p. 228 ff.). An emeritus of this legion was presented “ex
voluntate imp. Hadriani Aug. torquibus et armillis aureis,” undoubtedly in
connection with the Jewish war (Orelli, n. 3571).-(3) It is also self-evident
that the leg. X. Fretensis, as the resident garrison troops of Judea, would take
part in the war. A centurion of that legion was presented “ab divo Hadriano ob
bellum Judaicum corona aurea torquibus armillis phaleris” (Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique, 1888, p. 424 sqq.=Revue des études juives, t. xvii.
1888, p. 299 sq.).—(4) Presumably also the legio VI. Ferrata took part in the
war, for it had previously formed part of the garrison of Syria, and formed from
the time of Hadrian, along with the leg. X. Fretensis, the garrison of Judea
(see above, pp. 50, 257 f.). On the other hand, the co-operation of the leg. IV.
Scythica in this war is highly improbable, although insisted upon by
Darmesteter. See on this point the next note.—(5) Of auxiliary cohorts, of which
undoubtedly a great number took part in the war, the inscriptions refer to the
coh. IV. Lingonum, the commander of which was presented “vexillo mil(itari) a
divo Hadriano in expeditione Judaica” (Orelli-Henzen, n. 5480=Corpus Inscr. Lat.
t. vi. n. 1523)—(6) A detachment, which took part in the Jewish war, is also
mentioned in Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 3505: “Sex. Attius Senecio praef. alae
I. Fl. Gaetulorum, trib. leg, X. Geminae, missus a Divo Hadriano in expeditione
Jadaica ad vexilla(tiones deducendas?).” It would appear as if this detachment
had been taken from the leg. X. Gemina, which was stationed in Pannonia.—(7)
Also the Syrian fleet had been called to give assistance (classis Syriaca), for
its commander was presented “donis militaribus a divo Hadrian o ob hellum
Judaicum” (Orelli-Henzen, n. 6924=Renier, Inscriptions de l’Algérie, n.
3518=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. viii. n. 8934). That the fleet did actually engage in
a bellum Judaeicum is also stated in a fragmentary inscription, Corpus Inscr.
Lat. t. vi. n. 1565. Here too the reference clearly is to the war of Hadrian (so
Mommsen, Ephmeris epigraphica, iii. p. 331). On an inscription in honour of a
certain P. Lucilius Gamala at Ostia, near Rome, mention is made of a bellum
navale, to which Ostia had contributed a large contingent Since this Lucilius
Gamala, according to another inscription, lived in the times of Hadrian,
Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, it might indeed have been the Jewish war of
Hadrian that he was engaged in. But it is probably the Marcomanian war of Marcus
Aurelius that is intended. See the two inscriptions in the Annali dell’
Instituto, 1857, p. 323 sqq.; and for their explanation, especially Mommsen,
Ephemeris epigraphica, t. iii. 1877, pp. 319-332. [1449] Corpus Inscr. Graec. n.
4033 and 4034 (the former=Archäolog.-epigraph. Mittheilungen aus
Oesterreich-Ungarn, ix. 118). In both inscriptions, which are almost literal
copies of each other, it is told that Ti. (or P.?) Severus was commander of the
leg. IV. Scythica, and administered Syria as commissary when Publicius Marcellus
had left Syria on account of the outbreak of the Jewish revolt(Σεούηρον …
ἡγεμόνα λεγεῶνος δʼ Σκυθικῆς καὶ διοκήσαντα τὰ ἐν Συρίᾳ πράγματα, ἡνίκα
Πουβλίκιος Μάρκελλος διὰ τὴν κίνησιν τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν μεταβεβήκει ἀπὸ Συρίας).
Publicius Marcellus led a portion of the Syrian garrison, which consisted of
three legions (Pfitzner, p. 187), against Judea, while Severus undertook as
commissary the administration of Syria, presumably still retaining the command
of his legion. The leg. IV. Scythica therefore probably remained in Syria.
[1450] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6. 1: πολέμου τε νόμῳ τὰς χώρας αὐτῶν
ἐξανδραποδιζόμενος. [1451] Bab. Taanith 29a in Derenbourg, Historie, p. 422.
Generally: Schoettgen, Horae hebraicae, ii. 953-957; Buxtorf, Lexicon
Chaldaicum, col. 916 (s.v. טרן); Levy, Neuhebraïsches Wörterbuch, ii. 149, s.v.
טורנוס; Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 1884, pp. 294-300=Monatsschrift für
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1883, pp. 303 ff. 347 ff.—The form
טורנוס רופוס is indeed only a corruption of Tineius Rufus. In the Jerusalem
Talmud the older editions (e.g. that of Cracow) have in several places,
Berachoth ix. fol. 14b from below, Sota v. fol. 20c from below, מונוסטרופוס,
Tunustrufus, where the t between the s and r seems to have been introduced as a
modification in pronunciation, as in Istrahel, Esdras, and such like forms.
[1452] Dio Cassius, lxix. 13.—That Julius Severus was recalled from Britain is
shown by an inscription, Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 2830, which gives his
entire cursus honorum (see above, p. 263 f.). Where Hadrian was residing during
the war cannot be determined with certainty. Probably during the critical year
he was himself personally present at the seat of war. He had left Syria before
the rebellion broke out. The evil tidings seem to have led him to return to
Judea; for his presence at the seat of war is not only presupposed in the
rabbinical legends,[1453] but is also made probable by some particulars derived
from inscriptions.[1454] There is no reference to his presence in Rome again
till May of A.D. 134.[1455] He would return so soon as he had been assured of a
successful issue to the war, without waiting for the completion of the
operations. [1453] Gittin 57a, in Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 433 sq. [1454]
Hadrian’s presence at the seat of war was denied, e.g. by Gregorovius, Der
Kaiser Hadrian, 3 Aufl. p. 197; but is, on the contrary, maintained without any
detailed proof by Dürr, Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, 1881, p. 65; Mommsen,
Röm. Geschichte, v. 545; and, on the ground of the rabbinical documents, is
assumed by Lebrecht, Bether, p. 37, and others. Darmesteter, Revue des études
juives, i. 49-53, and Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, i. 613,
note, attempt to prove it from the inscriptions. Both seek support for their
view from the following data: (1) One Q. Lollius was “legatus imp. Hadriani in
expeditione Judaica, qua donatus est hasta pura corona aurea” (Orelli-Henzen, n.
6500=Renier, Inscriptions de l’Algérie, n. 2319=Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. viii. n.
6706). The expression “legatus imp.,” without any particularizing addition, can
only be understood as designating a personal adjutant, who occupied the position
of an immediate attendant upon the emperor. (2) On an inscription, certainly in
a very fragmentary condition, but undoubtedly belonging to the later period of
Hadrian’s reign, very probably to A.D. 134 or 135, it is said that he
“(lab)oribus max(imis rempublicam ab ho)ste liberaverit” (Orelli-Henzen, n.
5457=Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 974). Since the only event occurring in this
later period is the Jewish war, the inscription would seem to refer to Hadrian’s
active participation in it. See Henzen’s remarks. According to Schiller,
Hadrian’s presence at the seat of war is made certain from the fact that to
Julius Severus were awarded only “ornamenta triumphalia,” not
“supplicationes”(Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 2830), “he was not therefore
commander-in-chief.” [1455] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 5906. Dürr, Die Reisen des
Kaiers Hadrian, p. 33. Dio Cassius as well as Eusebius is silent regarding the
fate of Jerusalem. It certainly did not form the middle point of the conflict,
as it had done in the Vespasian war. Its fortifications were quite unimportant.
Even although the rebels had succeeded in driving out the Roman garrison, the
recapture of the city would have been no very serious undertaking for a
sufficiently strong Roman military force. But that it had been actually taken
after a violent assault is plainly stated by Appian, a contemporary
witness.[1456] When Appian speaks of a destruction (κατασκάπτειν), he is
undoubtedly right, inasmuch as violent seizure is not conceivable without
destruction to a certain extent. But after all, as following the thoroughgoing
work of Titus, the object arrived at was comparatively limited. And, on the
other hand, the Romans after once they had made themselves masters of the city,
would not go further in the work of destruction. This was necessary in view of
their purposed new building of Aelia. A siege of the city is assumed by Eusebius
in his Demonstratio evangelica.[1457] Many Church Fathers (Chrysostom, Jerome,
and others) maintain that Hadrian completely destroyed the remnants of the old
city which were still left standing after the destruction by Titus. By this they
really only mean that Hadrian made an utter end of the old Jewish city, and
erected a new heathen city in its place.[1458] In the Mishna it is related that
Jerusalem was run over on the 9th Ab by the plough. By this, as the context
shows, the time of Hadrian is meant. In the Babylonian Talmud and by Jerome this
deed is ascribed to Rufus; only they both speak, not of a ploughing of the city,
but of the site of the temple.[1459] The short statement in the Mishna is
specially deserving of notice. What this ceremony would signify, however, would
be, not the destruction, but the new founding; and the incident must therefore
be placed before the outbreak of the revolt.[1460] The story of the conquest of
Jerusalem by Hadrian as told in the Samaritan chronicle is wholly
fabulous.[1461] [1456] Appian, Syr. 50: τὴν μεγίστην πόλιν Ἱεροσόλυμα—, ἢν δὴ
καὶ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ πρῶτος Αἰγύπτου βασιλεὺς καθῃρήκει, καἱ Οὐεσπασιανὸς αὖθις
οἰκισθεῖσαν κατέσκαψε, καἱ Ἁδριανὸς αὖθις ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ. [1457] Eusebius,
Demonstratio evangel. vi. 18. 10, ed. Gaisford: the prophecy of Zechariah 14:2,
ἐξελεύσεται τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς πόλεως ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ, was fulfilled in the time of
Vespasian; the other half of the city, i.e. of the inhabitants, was besieged in
Hadrian’s time and driven out, τὸ λοιπὸν τῆς πόλεως μέρος ἥμισν πολιορκηθὲν
αὖθις ἐξελαύνεται, ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνου καὶ εἰς δεῦρο πάμπαν ἄβατον αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι τὸν
τόπον. Eusebius therefore does not speak of the destruction of the city, but
only of the driving forth of the Jewish population after a siege had been
conducted against the city. [1458] Chrysostom, Adv. Judaeos, v. 11: τὰ λείψανα
ἀφανίσας πάντα.—Cedren. ed. Bekker, i. 437: καὶ τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ λείψανα τῆς πόλεως
καὶ τοῦ ναοῦ κατερειπώσας πτίξει νέαν Ἱερουσαλήμ.—Nicephorus, Callist. Eccl.
hist. iii. 24: ὅσα γε μὴν τῇ πόλει περιελείφθη τῆς ἐκ πάλαι οἰκοδομῆς λείψανα
ἐρειπῶσαι καὶ παντάπασιν ἀφανίσαι.—Hieronynius, Comm. in Jes. i. 5 (Opp. ed.
Vallarsi, iv. 15): “post Titum et Vespasianum et ultimam eversionem Jerusalem
sub Aelio Hadriano usque ad praesens tenipus nullum remedium est.” Idem, in
Jeremiah 31:15 (Vallarsi, iv. 1065): “sub Hadriano, quando et urbs Jerusalem
subversa est.” Idem, in Ezek. c. 5 (Vallarsi, v. 49): “post quinquaginta annos
sub Aelio Hadriano usque ad solum incensa civitas atque deleta est ita ut
pristinum quoque nomen amiserit.” Idem, in Ezek. c. 24 (Vallarsi, v. 277): “post
quinquaginta annos sub Hadriano civitas aeterno igne consumta est.” Idem, in
Dan. c. 9 fin. (Vallarsi, v. 696). Idem, in Joel 1:4 (Vallarsi, vi. 171): “Aelii
quoque Hadriani contra Judaeos expeditionem legimus, qui ita Jerusalem murosque
subvertit, ut de urbis reliquiis ac favillis sui nominis Aeliam conderet
civitatem.” Idem, in Habakkuk 2:14 (Vallarsi, vi. 622): “usque ad extremas
ruinas Hadriani eos perduxit obsidio.” Idem, in Zechariah 8:19 (Vallarsi, vi.
852). Idem, in Zechariah 11:4-5 (Vallarsi, vi. 885).—Passages from other writers
on Church history are given in Münter pp. 69-71. [1459] Mishna, Taanith iv. 6,
enumerates five unfortunate events as happening on 17th Thammuz, and five
unfortunate events as happening on 9th Ab. In reference to the latter it is
said: “On 9th Ab sentence was pronounced upon our forefathers that they should
enter into the country, and the temple was on the first occasion and on the
second occasion destroyed, and Beth-ther was conquered and Jerusalem levelled
down with the plough” (נחרשה העיר). The Babylonian Talmud, bab. Taanith 29a
(Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 422), relates more particularly that it was the
“turannus Rufus” (טורנס רופוס) who caused the plough to pass over the site of
the temple (it is there called ההיכל, not העיר).—The whole passage is to be
found quoted almost literally in Jerome, who expressly refers for authority to
the Jewish tradition (“cogimur igitur ad Habraeos recurrere”), ad Zechar. 8:19,
Opp. ed. Vallarsi, vi. 852: “In quinto mense, qui apud Latinos appellatur
Augustus, quum propter exploratores terrae sanctae seditio orta esset in populo,
jussi sunt montem non ascendere, sed per quadraginta annos longis ad terram
sanctam circuire dispendiis, ut exceptis duobus, Caleb et Josue, omnes in
solitudine caderent. In hoc mense et a Nabuchodonosor et multa post saecula a
Tito et Vespasiano templum Jerosolymis incensum est atque destructum; capta urbs
Bethel [l. Bether], ad quam multa millia confugerant Judaeorum; aratum templum
in ignominiam gentis oppressae a T. Annio [l. Tinnio] Rufo.” [1460] That the
plough should have been driven over Jerusalem as a sign of devastation and utter
ruin is not probable, since, indeed, the building of a new city was
contemplated. But this act may indeed have been performed at the beginning of
the founding of the new city as a ceremony of initiation. The ceremonial act
would be in either case the same; see Servius on Virgil. Aeneid, iv. 212: “cum
conderetur nova civitas, aratrum adhibitum, ut eodem ritu quo condita
subvertatur.” An exact description of the ceremony is given in a passage from
Varro quoted by Servius on Virgil. Aeneid, v. 755. [1461] Chronicon Samaritanum,
Arabice conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josuae, ed. Juynboll (Lugd. Bat
1848), p. 47.—The hopes which Münter entertained from the publication of this
chronicle have not been realized. The last hiding-place of Bar-Cochba and his
followers was the strong mountain fastness of Beth-ther,[1462] according to
Eusebius not very far from Jerusalem, probably on the site of the modern Bettir,
three hours south-west of Jerusalem.[1463] After a long and stubborn defence
this stronghold was also conquered in the eighteenth year of Hadrian=A.D.
134-135,[1464] according to rabbinical calculation on the 9th Ab.[1465] In the
sack of the city they found Bar-Cochba, “the originator of all the mad
fanaticism which had called down the punishment.”[1466] We have absolutely no
information about the siege and conquest. The rabbinical legends tell all manner
of stories about this struggle; but these productions of the wildest fancy do
not deserve even once to be mentioned. This one point alone may perhaps deserve
to be repeated, that before the fall of the city R. Eleasar, the uncle of
Bar-Cochba, is said to have been slain by his nephew because he falsely
suspected him of having come to an understanding with the Romans.[1467] [1462]
The name of the city is given by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6, as Βίθθηρ (accus.
Βίθθηρα), or according to some manuscripts, Βέθθηρ, Βήθθηρ; in Rufinus, Bethar.
In the Jerusalem Talmud, Taanith iv. fol. 68d-69a, where the name occurs
frequently, it is almost constantly ביתתר, only very rarely ביתר. In the Mishna,
Taanith iv. 6, the Cambridge and Hamburg manuscripts have ביתתר; the editio
princeps and cod. de Rossi, 138, ביתר; a Berlin manuscript, בתר. The correct
form is undoubtedly ביתתר, Beth-ther.—On the ground of the common printed text
of the Mishna it is generally assumed that our Beth-ther is also referred to in
Challa iv. 10. But, according to the context, the place there intended lies
beyond the borders of the land of Israel, and the correct reading there is
בייתור, Bê-jittur.—In other passages also, where it has been thought that our
place was referred to, this is found to be extremely questionable. Thus in
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 8. 1, where a village, Βήταρις, is mentioned as
“in the midst of Idumea.” We may also compare Βαιθήρ, which, according to some
manuscripts of the Septuagint text of Joshua 15:59, is named among the cities of
Judah in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem (cod. Vaticanus has Θεθήρ, but
Alexandrinus, Βαιθήρ; so also read Jerome, Comm. in Micham, v. 2, Opp. ed.
Vallarsi, vi. 490). Also Βαιθθήρ, which the text of the cod. Alex. 1 Chronicles
6:59 (vi. 44), names besides Beth-shemesh. In the passage in the Son_2:17,
בֶּתֶר is not Nomen proprium but appellativum. On Bethar, south of Caesarea, see
the next note. [1463] In determining the site many have allowed themselves to be
led astray by adopting a wrong point of view. In the Itinerarium Antonini, and
by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux, a Bethar is spoken about south of Caesarea on the
road to Lydda; and the rabbinical legends tell how that the blood of those slain
in Beth-ther rolled away with it great masses of rock until it flowed into the
sea (jer. Taanith iv. fol. 69a from above, text in Lebrecht, Bether, p. 45;
French in Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 434; German in Wünsche, Der jerusalemische
Talmud, 1880, p. 159). On the basis of these statements many have assumed that
it lay in the neighbourhood of the coast, and was identical with that Bethar.
But whoever will follow the rabbinical legend must follow it out fully. Now it
expressly states that the blood flowed from Beth-ther into the sea, although
Beth-ther was forty mil. pass. from the coast. See Derenbourg’s and Wünsche’s
translations of the jer. Taanith iv. fol. 69a. Only by later writers, who Sound
the statement too absurd, has the distance been reduced to four or one mil.
pass. (see Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 434, note 4). That Bethar of the Itineraries
cannot therefore be identified with our Beth-ther, because it lay in a
predominantly heathen district, and on the plain, and was therefore certainly
not an important military post in the Jewish war. The only certain point of view
for determining the site is that offered by the statement of Eusebius, that it
was not far from Jerusalem (Hist. eccl. iv. 6: τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων οὐ σφόδρα πόρρω
διεστῶσα). It is accordingly scarcely to be doubted that it is identical with
the modern Bettir, some three hours south-west of Jerusalem. A steep ridge,
which only in the south joins the mountain range, there breaks into the valley.
The place is therefore admirably fitted for a stronghold, and indeed traces of
an early fortress are still to be found there. Finally, from this to the sea the
distance is just about forty mil. pass., as mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud;
as the crow flies, thirty-one. The identity of this locality with Beth-ther has
therefore been rightly accepted by: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 428 f.; Williams, The
Holy City, i. 209-213; Tobler, Dritte Wanderung nach Palästina (1859), pp.
101-105; Guérin, Judée, ii. 387-395; Sepp, Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. i. 647-650; Renan,
Les évangiles, 1877, pp. 26-29; L’église chrétienne, 1879, p. 202 sq.;
Derenbourg, Mélanges publiés par l’école des hautes études, 1878, pp. 160-165;
The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 20, and
with it Sheet xvii. of the large English Map.—The identity with Bethar south of
Caesarea is maintained by: Cassel in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopaedie, sec. ii.
Bd. 27, p. 14; Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 156; Ewald, History of Israel,
viii. 290; Göttingen gel. Anzeiger, 1868, p. 2030 ff.; Gregorovius. Hadrian, pp.
191, 202 f.—Yet otherwise: Herzfeld in Frankel’s Monatsschrift für Geschichte
und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1856, pp. 105-107 (=Betaris in Idumea);
Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii. 270 (identifies it with
Bethel); Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, pp. 103-114 (= Beth-shemesh, but as he
identifies this with the modern Bettir he is so far correct); Lebrecht, Bether,
die fragliche Stadt im hadrianisch-jüischen Kriege, 1877 (Bether=vetera !!, by
which title the old castle of Sepphoris is said to have been designated !!!);
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie, article “Bethar” (in general correct but
indefinite: “on the mountains of Judea”).—Material on Beth-ther is also to be
found in Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, s.v. בתר; Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo
praemissa, c. 52 (Opp. ii. 208 sq.). [1464] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6. [1465]
Mishna, Taanith iv. 6, and Jerome, Comm. in Zech. viii. 19, Opp. ed. Vallarsi,
vi. 852 (see the passage quoted in note 107).—If we could give any credence
still to this tradition it might be understood of Ab of the year 135; for the
war was probably carried on into that year. The years of Hadrian’s reign run
from 11th August to 11th August (Spartian, Hadrian. c. 4). The 9th Ab would
correspond to the end of July. [1466] Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6. [1467] The
legends about the fall of Beth-ther are found principally in jer. Taanith iv.
fol. 68d-69a (German in Wünsche, Der jerusalemische Talmud, 1880, pp. 157-160),
and Midrash, Echa rabbathi c. ii. (German in Wünsche, Der Midrasch Echa rabbathi
1881, pp. 100-102). The texts are collected by Lebrecht, Bether, p. 44 ff. On
their relation to one another, see Lebrecht, p. 20 f.—The story of the death of
Eleasar is given also in Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 433 sq.—In the description of
the fearful massacre which the Romans perpetrated, the rabbinical legends use
the same hyperbole which the author of the Book of Revelation also employs: that
the blood reached up on the horses as far as the nostrils (Revelation 14:20 : up
to the horses’ bridles, ἄχρι τῶν χαλινῶν τῶν ἵππων). Even Lightfoot and Wetstein
have called attention, in their notes on Revelation 14:20, to the parallel
between that passage and jer. Taanith 69a and Midrash, Echa rabbathi, c. ii.
With the fall of Beth-ther the war was brought to a close, after having
continued for somewhere about three years and a half, A.D. 132-135.[1468] During
the course of it also many Rabbis died a martyr’s death. The later legends have
glorified by poetic amplification and exaggeration especially the death of ten
such martyrs, among them that of R. Akiba.[1469] [1468] That “the government of
Barcosiba” lasted three and a half years is stated in Seder Olam (in Derenbourg,
Histoire, p. 413: מלכות בו כוזיבא שלש שנים ומחצה; the reading three and a half
is certainly the correct one; see Salzer, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des
Judenthums, iv. 1877, pp. 141-144). Jerome also mentions it as the opinion of
some Hebraei that the last week year of Daniel (Daniel 9:27) covers the period
of Vespasian and of Hadrian (Comm. in Daniel 9 fin. = Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 696:
“tres autem anni et sex menses sub Hadriano supputantur, quando Jerusalem omnino
subversa est et Judaeorum gens catervatim caesa”). In the Jerusalem Talmud the
three and a half years are mentioned as the period of the siege of Beth-ther
(jer. Taanith iv. fol. 68d in Lebrecht, Bether, p. 44; Wünsche, p. 158); in the
Midrash, Echa rabbathi, three and a half years are assigned to Vespasian’s siege
of Jerusalem and three and a half years to Hadrian’s siege of Beth-ther
(Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 431).—Although these witnesses do not carry any great
weight, they are correct in saying that the war lasted about three and a half
years. Later documents confound the continuance of the siege of Beth-ther with
the continuance of the war. That the beginning is to he placed in A.D. 132 has
been shown above in p. 297. The end is to be placed, according to Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. iv. 6, in the eighteenth year of Hadrian=A.D. 134-135, and, indeed,
in 135 rather than 134. For on inscriptions of the year 134 Hadrian does not yet
bear the title (Imp)erator II., which was given him in consequence of the Jewish
war. The war was therefore then not yet ended (comp. note 118).—It is singularly
perverse on the part of Jewish scholars like Cassel (Ersch and Gruber’s
Encyclopaedie, art. “Juden,” p. 14 f.), Herzfeld (Monatsschrift, 1856, pp.
107-111), and Bodek (M. Aurelius Antoninus, 1868, pp. 50-54), in opposition to
all certain data, to set the fall of Beth-ther some ten years earlier; Cassel
and Herzfeld in A.D. 122, and Bodek in A.D. 125. In this they follow the
Jerusalem Talmud, which places the conquest of Beth-ther fifty-two years after
the destruction of Jerusalem (jer. Taanith iv. fol. 69a: ר׳ יוסי אומר חמשים
ושתים שנה עשת ביתתר לאחר חרבן בית המקדש; on עשת=“to spend, continue in
existence,” as in Ecclesiastes 6:12, see Salzer, Magazin, iii. 175 f.). This
statement has arisen out of a confusion between the war of Hadrian and that of
Vespasian (see above, note 56). The error here is improved in the course of
being repeated by Jerome in epist. ad Dardanum, c. 7 (Vallarsi, i. 974): “deinde
civitatis usque ad Hadrianum principem per quinquaginta annos mansere
reliquiae.” Idem, Comm. in Jes. c. 6 s. fin. (Vallarsi, iv. 100): “quando post
annos ferine quinquaginta Hadrianus venerit et terram Judaeam penitus fuerit
depraedatus.” Idem, Comm. in Ezech. c. 5 (Vallarsi, v. 49). Idem, Comm. in
Ezech. c. 24 (Vallarsi, v. 277); the last two passages are quoted above in note
106.—The authority also of the Chronicon Paschale, which places the war of
Hadrian in the year 119 (ed. Dindorf, i. 474), is not of such a kind that its
statement can override all other witnesses.—Essentially correct is the statement
of the Seder Olam, that the war of Bencosiba occurred sixteen years after the
war of Quietus. On the correct reading see Salzer, Magazin für die Wissenschaft
des Judenthums, iv. 141-144. [1469] According to the bab. Berachoth 61b, R.
Akiba was put to a martyr’s death by torture, his flesh being torn from his body
with iron combs. But during his sufferings he prayed the Shema, and while he,
proceeding with the repetition of it, lingered long over the word Echad
(Deuteronomy 6:4), he breathed out his spirit. Then there sounded forth a Bath
Kol, a voice from heaven, saying: “Blessed art thou, R. Akiba, that thy soul
departed with ‘Echad.’ ”—Elsewhere also in the older Midrash literature, and in
the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, casual reference is made to the martyr
death of this and that rabbi. The gathering together of ten martyrs, on the
other hand, makes its appearance first in the Midrashim of the post-Talmudic
period. Jellinek, Midrasch Ele Eskera, edited for the first time, according to a
manuscript of the Hamburg City Library, with dissertations, 1853, and in Bet
ha-Midrasch, Bd. ii. 64-72 and vi. 19-35, gives some texts. Compare further:
Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 142; Grätz in the
Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1851-1852, pp.
307-322; Geschichte der Juden, iv. 175 ff.; Möbius, Midrasch Ele Eskera, die
Sage von den zehn Märtyrern, metrisch übersetzt, 1854; Derenbourg, Histoire, p.
436; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, i.
(1886) pp. 155-158, art. “Zehn Märtyrer” (this last the relatively best
statement).—Bibliographical hints are also given in Steinschneider, Catalog.
librorum hebr. in Biblioth. Bodl. col. 585, n. 3730-3733. In honour of the
victory Hadrian was greeted for the Second time as Imperator.[1470] Julius
Severus received the ornamenta triumphalia; to officers and men were given the
customary rewards.[1471] The victory was won indeed at a very heavy cost. So
great were the losses that Hadrian in his letter to the Senate omitted the usual
introductory formula, that “he and the army were well.”[1472] Still more
grievous than this direct loss of men was the desolation of the fruitful and
populous province. “All Judea was well-nigh a desert.” Fifty fortresses, 985
villages were destroyed, 580,000 Jews (?) fell in battle, while the number of
those who succumbed to their wounds and to famine was never reckoned.[1473]
Innumerable was the multitude of those who were sold away as slaves. At the
annual market at the Terebinth of Hebron they were offered for sale in such
numbers that a Jewish slave was of no more value than a horse. What could not be
disposed of there was brought to Gaza and there sold or sent to Egypt, on the
way to which many died of hunger or by shipwreck.[1474] [1470] In this
designation of Hadrian the title Imp(erator) II. is wanting in two military
diplomas which are dated 2nd April and 15th September A.D. 134 (Corp. Inscr.
Lat. t. iii. pp. 877 and 878, Dipl. xxxiv. and xxxv.; the latter also, Corp.
Inscr. Lat. t. x. n. 7855). Also, it is wanting on other inscriptions of A.D.
134 (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 973, Inscr. Regni Neapol. n. 5771=Corp. Inscr.
Lat. t. ix. n. 4359). Particularly decisive is the witness of the military
diplomas, which in the designatory clauses are usually most precise.—Even from
A.D. 135 (Hadr. trib. pot. xix.) up to a very recent period the title had not
been proved. But perhaps certain inscription-fragments, on which the number xix.
and the letters teru are found, should be expanded into Hadr. trib. pot. xix.
imp. iterum (so Hübner, Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. ii. n. 478).—The title Imp. II. is
certainly demonstrable for A.D. 136 (Hadr. trib. pot. xx.); see Orelli, Inscr.
Lat. n. 813 and 2286=Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 975 and 976; also on an
inscription which bears this date (Hadr. trib. pot. xx.), but belongs probably
to the very beginning of that year, namely, December A.D. 135, Corp. Inscr. Lat.
t. xiv. n. 3577=4235 (the tribunicial year began then in December).—Hadrian
therefore received the title Imp. II. in A.D. 135, undoubtedly in consequence of
the successful ending of the Jewish war. Compare Darmesteter, Revue des études
juives, i. 53; Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 614, note 4. [1471]
On Julius Severus, see Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 2830: “Huic senatus auctore
imperatore Trajano Hadriano Augusto ornamenta triumphalia decrevit ob res in
Judea prospere gestas.” Julius Severus was probably the last upon whom this
honour was bestowed. See Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, i. 378.—On the rewards of
officers and men, see above, notes 96 and 102.—The coin with the inscription
exercitus Judaicus is not as, e.g., Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 164,
supposes, a memorial coin, by which it was intended to recognise the services
rendered by the army in the war. For there are many similar coins in provinces
in which during the time of Hadrian no war had been carried on (Eckhel, Doctr.
Num. vi. 486 sqq.; Cohen, Médailles impériales, ed. 2, t. ii. 1882, p. 153
sqq.). Besides, its very existence is questionable. It is given by Eckhel after
older authorities, but is now no longer demonstrable (Renan, L’église
chrétienne, p. 209, note). Cohen therefore has not reckoned it. [1472] Dio
Cassius, lxix. 14. Comp. Fronto, De bello Parthico, s. init. (ed. Mai, 1823, p.
200=Frontonis epistulae, ed. Naber, 1867, p. 217 sq.): “Quid? avo vestro
Hadriano imperium optinente quantum militum a Judaeis, quantum ab Britannis
caesum?” [1473] Dio Cassius, lxix. 14. [1474] Jerome, ad Zechar. xi. 5
(Vallarsi, vi. 885); ad Jerem. xxxi. 15 (Vallarsi, iv. 1065); Chronicon
Paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 474. See the passage in Münter, pp. 85 f., 113. On the
terebinth at Hebron: Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 7. With respect to the
capital Jerusalem, that was now proceeded with which had been projected before
the war: it was converted into a Roman colony with the name Aelia
Capitolina.[1475] In order to make permanent the purely heathen character of the
city, the Jews still residing there were driven out, and heathen colonists
settled in their stead.[1476] No Jew was allowed thereafter to enter the
territory of the city; if any one should be discovered there he was put to
death.[1477] The official name of the newly-founded city is given on the coins
as Col(onia) Aell(ia) Cap(itolina); writers designate it in their works, as a
rule, only Aelia.[1478] Its constitution was that of a Roman colony, but it had
not the jus Italicum.[1479] It may readily be supposed that it did not want
beautiful and useful buildings. The Chronicon Paschale mentions: τὰ δύο δημόσια
καὶ τὸ θέατρον καὶ τὸ τρικάμαρον καὶ τὸ τετράνυμφον καὶ τὸ δωδεκάπυλον τὸ πρὶν
ὀνομαζόμενον ἀναβαθμοὶ καὶ τὴν κόδραν.[1480] At the south gate of the city
toward Bethlehem the figure of a swine is said to have been engraved.[1481] The
chief religious worship in the city was that of the Capitoline Jupiter, to whom
a temple was erected on the site of the former Jewish temple.[1482] It would
also seem that in it there was the statue of Hadrian of which Christian writers
speak.[1483] On the coins, as deities of the city, besides Jupiter are
mentioned: Bacchus, Serapis, Astarte, the Dioscuri. A sanctuary of Aphrodite
(Astarte) stood on the place where, according to the Christian tradition, the
sepulchre of Christ had been;[1484] or, according to another version, a
sanctuary of Jupiter on the site of the sepulchre, and a sanctuary of Venus on
the site of the cross of Christ.[1485] [1475] Compare on the founding of Aelia
generally: Deyling, “Aeliae Capitolinae origines et historia” (Observations
sacrae P. V., Lips. 1748, pp. 433-490); Münter, Der jüdische Krieg, p. 87 ff.;
Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, ii. 27; Kuhn, Die städtische und
bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 357 ff.; Renan, L’église chrétienne,
pp. 21-30, 223-226; Gregorovius, “Die Gründung der römischen Colonie Aelia
Capitolina” (Sitzungsberichte der philos.-philol. und hist. Classe der Münchener
Akademie, 1883, pp. 477-508); Der Kaiser Hadrian, 3 Aufl. 1884 pp. 209-216.
[1476] Dio Cassius, lxix. 12; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6; Demonstratio
evangelica, vi. 18. 10, ed. Gaisford. The latter passage is quoted above in note
105. Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 279. [1477] Justin, Apologia, i. 47: ὅτι δὲ
φυλάσσεται ὑφʼ ὑμῶν ὅπως μηδεὶς ἐν αὐτῇ γένηται, καὶ θάνατος κατὰ τοῦ
καταλαμβανομένον Ἰουδαίου εἰσιόντος ὥρισται, ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστασθε. Dialog. c.
Trypho, c. 16; 92. Aristo of Pella in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. iv. 6: ὡς ἂν μηδʼ ἐξ
ἀπόπτου θεωροῖευ τὸ πατρῷον ἔδαθος (comp. on Aristo, vol. i. pp. 69-72).
Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos, c. 13 init.: “de longinquo eam oculis tantum videre
permissum est,” seems to be a conscious modification of the words of Aristo for
the purpose of harmonizing them with Isaiah 33:17. See Grabe, Spicilegium patr.
ii. 131 sq.: Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, i. 104 sq.: “saltim vestigio salutare
conceditur;” Eusebius, Demonstratio evangel. vi. 18. 10, ed. Gaisford; Eusebius,
Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 168, ad ann. Abr. 2151; according to the Armenian:
“ex hoc inde tempore etiam ascendere Hierosolymam omnino prohibiti sunt primum
Dei voluntate, deinde Romanorum mandato;” Jerome, Comm. in Is. vi. 11 sqq., ed.
Vallarsi, iv. 100; in Jerem. xviii. 15, ed. Vallarei, iv. 971: “nullus Judaeorum
terram quondam et urbem sanctam ingredi lege permittitur;” in Dan. ix. fin., ed.
Vallarsi, v. 696: “ut Judaeae quoque finibus pellerentur.” Other passages are
given by Renan, L’église chrétienne, p. 221, note 1. [1478] Dio Cassius, lxix.
12; Ulpian, Digest. l. 15. 1. 6, and Tabula Peuting. (Helya Capitolina) gives
the name in full, Aelia Capitolina. In Ptolemy, v. 16. 8 and viii. 20. 18, the
common printed text has in both cases Αἰλία Καπιτωλιάς.—It was called Aelia
after the family name of Hadrian: Capitolina after the Capitoline Jupiter.—The
coins are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 441-443; Mionnet, Description de
Médailles antiques, v. 516-522, Supplem. viii. 360, 363; De Saulcy, Recherches
sur la Numismatique judaïqué, pp. 171-187; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii.
68-73; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 211-231; Reichardt in the Wiener
Numismat. Zeitschrift, Jahrg. i. 1869, pp. 79-88; Kenner, Die Münzsammlung des
Stiftes St. Florian in Ober-Oesterreich, 1871; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la
Terre Sainte, 1874, pp. 83-109; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, pp. 55-68;
Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 247-275, where the material is given most
fully. [1479] Ulpian, Digest. l. 15. 1. 6: “In Palestina duae fuerunt coloniae,
Caesariensis et Aelia Capitolina, sed neutra jus Italicum habet.”—Paulus,
Digest. l. 15. 8. 7: similes his (namely, like the Caesariens who had not the
full jus Italicum) Capitulenses esse videntur.—A memorial inscription which the
courts of the colony set up in honour of Antoninus Pius is given by De Saulcy,
Voyage atour de la mer morte, ii. 204, with atlas, pl. xxiv. n. 6=Le Bas and
Waddington, Inscriptions, iii. 2, n. 1895=Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 116:
“Tito Ael(io) Hadriano Antonino Aug. Pio P. P. pontif(ici) Augur(i) d(ecreto)
d(ecurionum). Compare also Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 2 Aufl.
1881, p. 428. The coins of the colony extend down to Valerian (A.D.
253-260).—According to the Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 474, the city was
divided into seven districts: καὶ ἐμέρισεν τὴν πόλιν εἰς ἑπτὰ ἄμφοδα καὶ ἔστησεν
ἀνθρώπους ἰδίους ἀμφοδάρχας καὶ ἑκάστῳ ἀμφοδάρχῃ ἀπένειμεν ἄμφοδον. [1480]
Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 474. [1481] Jerome, Chronicon, ad. ann. Abr.
2152 (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, ii. 169): “Aelia ab Aelio Hadriano
condita, et in fronte ejus portae qua Bethleem egredimur sus scalptus in marmore
significans Romanae potestati subjacere Judaeos.”—The figure of the swine was
found also upon a coin of the leg. X. Fratensis discovered in Jerusalem, which
De Saulcy has published (Revue archéologique, nouv. série, t. xx. 1869, pp.
251-260, and De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 83 sq., pl. v. n.
3). Compare generally on figures of animals on the coins of the legions:
Domaszewski, Die Fahnen im römischen Heere, 1885, pp. 54-56. [1482] Dio Caseins,
lxix. 12.—The figure of Jupiter often occurs on the coins of Aelia. [1483]
Jerome, Comm. in Jes. ii. 9 (Vallarsi, iv. 37): “ubi quondam erat templum et
religio dei, ibi Hudriana statua et Jovis idolum collocatum est.”—Idem, Comm. in
Matt. xxiv. 15 (Vallarsi, vii. 194): “potest autem simpliciter aut de
Antichristo accipi aut de imagine Caesaris, quam Pilatus posuit in templo, aut
de Hadriana equestri statua quae in ipso sancto sanctorum loco usque in
praesenteni diem stetit.”—Since, according to this, the statue of Hadrian stood
on the site of the Jewish temple, where, according to Dio Cassius, the temple to
Jupiter was erected, and since it is mentioned by Jerome in the former passage
along with the figure of Jupiter, it must have stood in the temple of Jupiter.
Compare also, Chrysostom, Orat. adv. Judaeos, v. 11; Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, i.
438 (στήσας τὸ εαυτοῦ εἴδωλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ); Nicephorus Callistus, Eccl. Hist. iii.
24.—The Pilgrim of Bordeaux speaks of two statues of Hadrian (Palaestinae
descriptiones, ed. Tobler, p. 4: “sunt ibi et statuae duae Hadriani”). [1484]
Eusebius, vita Constantini, iii. 26. Constantine, it is well known, caused a
church to be built on that site. According to the later legend, which to
Eusebius was still unknown, the cross of Christ was found upon the excavation of
the sepulchre in its neighbourhood (Socrates, Hist. eccl. i. 17; Sozomenus,
Hist. eccl. ii. 1, and others. Compare Holder, Inventio sanctae crucis, 1889;
Nestle, De sancta cruce, 1889). [1485] Jerome, Epist. 58 ad Paulinum, c. 3
(Vallarsi, i. 321): “Ab Hadriani temporibus usque ad Imperium Constantini per
annos circiter centum octoginta in loco resurrectionis simulacrum Jovis, in
crucis rupe statua ex marmore Veneris a gentibus posita colebatur.”—The
difference of statement between Jerome and Eusebius has its origin evidently in
the legend of the finding of the cross. Socrates and Sozomen still speak, like
Eusebius, only of a sanctuary of Aphrodite. On account of the story of the
finding of the cross, however, they assumed that this was the site of the
sepulchre as well as of the crucifixion. Jerome, on the other hand, endows each
of the two holy places with an idol of its own. The complete ethnicizing of
Jerusalem was the actual accomplishment of a scheme which previously Antiochus
Epiphanes had in vain attempted. In another respect also the enactments of
Hadrian were similar to those of the former attempt. The prohibition of
circumcision, which had been issued probably even before the war, and was
directed not specially against the Jews (see above, p. 292), was now without
doubt continued in force. It was only under Antoninus Pius that the Jews were
again allowed to circumcise their children (see above, p. 292). The Jewish
tradition, which certainly refers to this prohibition, affirms that even the
observance of the Sabbath and the study of the law had been forbidden.[1486]
Whether this statement be reliable or not, the prohibition of circumcision was,
according to Jewish notions, equivalent to a prohibition of the Jewish religion
generally. So long as this prohibition was maintained and acted on, there was no
use speaking of a pacification of the Jewish people. In fact we hear again, even
in the time of Antoninus Pius, of an attempted rebellion which had to he put
down by strong measures.[1487] To the Roman authorities there was here only the
choice: either to tolerate the religious ceremonies, or to completely
exterminate the people. We may indeed assume that the knowledge which the
emperor Antoninus had of this alternative, led him to allow again and grant
toleration to the practice of circumcision. [1486] Derenbourg, Histoire de la
Palestine, p. 430; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, 2 Abth.
pp. 328-332 (art. “Hadri anische Verfolgungsedikte”). [1487] Capitolin.
Antoninus Pius, c. 5 (in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae ed. Peter): “Judaeos
rebellantes contudit per praesidee ac legatos.” Under Hadrian’s successor,
therefore, essentially the same state of matters is seen still to exist as had
existed since the time of Vespasian. He did not by any means answer the
political ideals of the Jews. But in regard to religious matters they could be
satisfied with him. The extinction of their political existence just led to
this, that those tendencies obtained the supremacy which represented undiluted
Judaism: Pharisaism and Rabbinism. The development now proceeded forth upon
those lines which became prominent in consequence of the great revolution of
sentiment that followed the destruction of Jerusalem. Without a political home,
grouped together into a unity only by the ideal power of the common law, the
Jews continued all the more persistently to hold by and cherish this birth-right
in which they all shared. In this way the separation between them and the rest
of the world was more and more sharply defined. While, during the period in
which Hellenistic Judaism flourished, the boundaries between the Jewish and
Graeco-Roman view of the world threatened to melt away, the Jews and their
opponents now gave attention with all their combined strength to deepen the
cleft even more and more. Jewish Hellenism, which proclaimed the common
brotherhood of man, disappeared, and Pharisaic Judaism, which sharply repudiated
all communion with the Gentile world, won universal acceptance. But paganism
also had become more intolerant: the rush of the masses to the worship of the
Jewish God had ceased, partly because of other powerful spiritual forces,
pre-eminently that of Chris tianity, which exercised a more potent influence,
but partly also because of the civil legislation which, without abrogating the
guaranteed toleration of the Jewish religion, imposed legal limitations to the
further encroachments of Judaism. And thus the Jews became more and more what
they properly and essentially were: strangers in the pagan world. The
restoration of a Jewish commonwealth in the Holy Land was, and continued even to
be, a subject of religions hope, which they held by with unconquerable tenacity.
The difference between the ideal and the actual, however, was at first, and even
after centuries had passed, so marked and severe, that they could enter even
their own capital only as strangers. Even in the fourth century it was permitted
them only once in the year to enter the city on the 9th Ab, the day of the
destruction of Jerusalem, in order that they might be able, on the site of the
temple, to pour forth their lamentations. In graphic terms Jerome describes how
the Jews on that day were wont to gather in mournful companies, to utter forth
their grievous complaints, and by gold to purchase from the Roman watch
permission to linger longer in the place of mourning:[1488] “Usque ad praesentem
diem perfidi coloni post interfectionem servorum et ad extremum filii dei
excepto planctu prohibentur ingredi Jerusalem, et ut ruinam suae eis flere
liceat civitatis pretio redimunt, ut qui quondam emerant sanguinem Christi emant
lacrymas suas et ne fletus quidem eis gratuitus sit. Videas in die, quo capta
est a Romanis et diruta Jerusalem, venire populum lugubrem, confluere decrepitas
mulierculas et senes pannis annisque obsitos, in corporibus et in habitu suo
iram Domini demonstrantes. Congregatur turba miserorum; et patibulo Domini
coruscante ac radiante ἀναστάσει ejus, de oliveti monte quoque crucis fulgente
vexillo, plangere ruinas templi sui populum miserum et tamen non esse
miserabilem: adhuc fletus in genis et livida brachia et sparsi crines, et miles
merceden postulat, ut illis flere plus liceat. Et dubitat aliquis, quum haec
videat, de die tribulationis et angustiae, de die calamitatis et miseriae, de
die tenebrarum et caliginis, de die nebulae et turbinis, de die tubae et
clangoris? Habent enim et in luctu tubas, et juxta prophetiam vox sollennitatis
versa est in planotum. Ululant super cineres sanctuarii et super altare
destructum et super civitates quondam munitas et super excelsos angulos templi,
de quibus quondam Jacobum fratrem Domini praecipitaverunt.”[1489] [1488] Jerome,
ad Zephan. i. 15 eq. (Vallarsi, vi. 692). [1489] Compare also Origen, in Josuam
homil. xvii. 1 (ed. Lommatzsch, xi. 152 sq.): “Si ergo veniens ad Jerusalem
civitatem terrenam, o Judaee, invenies eam subversam et in cineres ac favillas
redactam, noli flere sicut nunc facitis tanquam pueri sensibus; noli lamentari,
sed pro terrena require coelestem.”—Itinerarium Burdigalense (Palestinae
descriptiones, ed. Tobler, p. 4): “est non longe de statuis [Hadriani] lapis
pertusus, ad quem veniunt Judaei singnlis annis, et unguent eum et lamentant se
cum gemitu, et vestimenta sua scindunt et sic recedunt.”—Some other passages are
given by Renan, L’église chrétienne, p. 221, note 3.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 41: APPENDICES I-VIII
========================================================================

APPENDICES I-VIII


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 42: APPENDIX I
========================================================================

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF CHALCIS, ITUREA, AND ABILENE LITERATURE NORIS, Annus et epochae
Syromacedonum, iii. 9. 3, ed. Lips. pp. 316-322 (History of the City of
Chalcis). BELLEY, “Observations sur les médailles du tetrarque Zenodore”
(Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, first series, vol.
xxviii. 1761, pp. 545-556). MÜNTER, De rebus Ituraeorum, Hafniae 1824 (a
comprehensive monograph). WINER, Biblisches Realwörterb. articles “Abilene” (i.
7 f.) and “Iturea” (i. 622). SCHENKEL, Bibellexicon, articles “Abilene” and
“Iturea.” RIEHM’S Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums, articles “Abilene,”
“Iturea,” and “Lysanias.” HERZOG, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 87-89 (article
“Abilene” by Wieseler) and vii. 261 f. (article “Ituräa” by Rüetschi). CLESS,
art “Ituräa” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie der class. Alterthums-wissenschaft,
iv. 337-340. RITTER, Erdkunde, xvii. 1, pp. 14-16 (on the Itureans). KUHN, Die
städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs, ii. (1865), pp.
169-174 (on the dynasties of Chalcis, Abilene, and Iturea). MARQUARDT, Römische
Staatsverwaltung, 2 Aufl. i. 1881, pp. 400-403 (on the dynasties of Chalcis and
Abilene). WIESELER, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien (1869), pp.
169-204 (Lysanias of Abilene). DE SAULOY, “Recherches sur les monnaies des
tétrarques héréditaires de la Chalcidène et de l’Abilène” (Wiener numismatische
Monatshefte von Egger, 5 Bd. 1 Abth. (1869) pp. 1-34). REIOHARDT, Numismat.
Zeitschrift, edited by Huber and Karabacek, ii. 1870, pp. 247-250 (Review of the
treatise of De Saulcy). RENAN, “Mémoire sur la dynastie des Lysanias d’Abilène”
(Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. xxvi. 2, 1870,
pp. 49-84). Among the sons of Ishmael there is mentioned in the Old Testament
one יְטוּר (Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 1:31; 1 Chronicles 5:19). It is without
doubt the same tribe that is referred to in the later history under the name
Ἰτουραῖοι or Ἰτυραῖοι. The earliest mention of this people, so far as I know, is
to be found in the writings of the Jewish Hellenist Eupolemus (in the middle of
the second century before Christ), who mentions the Itureans among the tribes
fought against by David.[1490] Then we know from Josephus and his authorities,
Strabo and Timagenes, that the Jewish king Aristobulus I., B.C. 105-104, fought
against the Itureans and took from them a portion of their territory (Antiq.
xiii. 11. 3). And from this time onward they are frequently mentioned. They were
designated sometimes as Syrians, sometimes as Arabians.[1491] The proper names
of Iturean soldiers, which are mentioned on Latin inscriptions, are
Syrian.[1492]—At the time of the Roman conquest they were still an uncivilised
robber tribe,[1493] but greatly celebrated for their skill as bowmen. Even
Caesar made use of Iturean bowmen in the African war.[1494] The triumvir Marc
Antony had some of them as his bodyguard, and with them he terrorized the Senate
to the great scandal of Cicero.[1495] Poets and historians speak of the Iturean
bowmen down to the later days of the empire.[1496] [1490] Eusebius, Praep.
evang. ix. 30: Στρατεῦσαι δʼ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ Ἰδουμαίους καὶ Ἀμμανίτας καὶ Μωαβίτας
καὶ Ἰτουραίους καὶ Ναβαταίους καὶ Ναβδαίους. [1491] Appian, Civ. v. 7: τὴν
Ἰτουραίαν καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα γένη Σύρων.—Vibius Sequester, ed. Hessel, p. 155:
“Ithyrei vel Itharei Syrii.”—Also Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 23. 81, names the
Ituraeorum gentes among the tribes of Syria.—Dio Cassius, lix. 12: τὴν τῶν
Ἰτουραίων τῶν Ἀράβων. Strabo, p. 735, joins Ἰτουραῖοι τε καὶ Ἄραβες. So, too, at
p. 756.—Epiphanius, Haer. xix. 1: ἀπὸ τῆς Ναβατικῆς χώρας καὶ Ἰτουραίας. Compare
Eupolemus in Eusebius, Praep. evang. ix. 30. [1492] We have, e.g. Bargathes,
Baramna, Beliabus, Bricbelus (all four on one inscription, Münter, de rebus
Ituraeorum, p. 40 sq., more correctly in Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 4371),
Monimus, Jerombal (Münter, p. 42=Corp. Inscr. Rhenan. ed. Brambach, n. 1234),
Hanel, Jamlicus (Münter, p. 42 sq.=Brambach, n. 1233=Wilmanns, Exampla Inscr.
Lat. n. 1530).—Compare besides, Münter, pp. 8-10. [1493] Strabo, pp. 755, 756;
Cicero, Philipp. ii. 112. [1494] Bell. Africanum, 20: “sagittariisque ex omnibus
navibus Ityreis Syris et cujusque generis ductis in castra compluribus
frequentabat sua scopias.” [1495] Cicero, Philipp. ii. 19: “confiteare hunc
ordinem hoc ipso tempore ab Ituraeis circumsederi.”—Philipp. ii. 112: “cur
homines omnium gentium maxime barbaros Ituraeos cum sagittis deducis in
forum?”—Philipp. xiii. 18: “haec subsellia ab Ituraeis occupabantur.” [1496]
Virgil, Georg. ii. 448: “Ituraeos taxi torquentur in arcus.”—Lucan, Pharsal.
vii. 230: “Ituraeis cursus fuit inde sagittis.” Ibid. vii. 514: “tunc et Ituraei
Medique Arabesque soluto arcu turba minax.”—A military diploma of A.D. 110
(Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 868: “cohors I. Augusta Ituraeorum
sagittariorum.—Arrian, Alan. 18: οἱ πεζοὶ τοξόται, οἱ τῶν Νομάδων καὶ Κυρηναίων
καὶ Βοσπορανῶν τε καὶ Ἰτουραίων—Vopisc. vita Aureliani, c. 11 (in the Scriptores
historiae Augustae): “habes sagittarios Ityraeos trecentos.”—Vibius Sequester,
ed. Kessel, p. 155: “Ithyrei vel Itharei Syrii usu sagittae periti.” The
districts inhabited by them may not always have been the same. But during the
period of which we have fullest and most accurate information about them, they
are never spoken of as resident elsewhere than in Mount Lebanon. Christian
theologians indeed endeavour to place it as near as possible to Trachonitis on
account of Luke 3:1. Even Eusebius has for this reason identified Trachonitis
and Iturea.[1497] But all historical authorities point most distinctly to
Lebanon. So pre-eminently Strabo, who repeatedly designates the Itureans
mountaineers and inhabitants of that particular mountain which rises upon the
plain of Massyas, and says that they had Chalcis as their capital.[1498] The
plain of Massyas or Marsyas is the plain between the Lebanon and the
Anti-Lebanon,[1499] beginning in the north at Laodicea of the Lebanon and
stretching south as far as Chalcis.[1500] Since the Itureans are often named
together with the Arabians,[1501] they are to be looked for in the mountain
range that bounds the Massyas plain on the east, that is, in the Anti-Lebanon.
They appear also in later accounts as inhabitants of the Lebanon. Dio Cassius
(xlix. 32) plainly names the older Lysanias king of the Itureans. But he was son
and successor of Ptolemy Mennäus, whose kingdom just embraccd the Lebanon and
the plain of Massyas with the capital Chalcis (see below, p. 329 f.). On the
well-known inscription of the time of Quirinius his subordinate general Q.
Aemilius Secundus says of himself: “missu Quirini adversus Ituraeos in Libano
monte castellum eorum cepi.”[1502] During the time of the Vespasian war,
Josephus in his Life, xi., mentions a Οὐᾶρος βασιλικοῦ γένους, ἔκγονος Σοέμου
τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τετραρχοῦντος. But this Soemus was probably the same as is
designated by Dio Cassius and Tacitus the ruler of the Itureans.[1503] We never
find anywhere any indication that the Itureans had dwelt in any other region
than in the Lebanon. The opinion of Wetzstein, that they are to be looked for on
the eastern borders of the Hauran,[1504] is therefore just as erroneous as the
older view that the valley of Dschedur, south of Damascus, had received its name
from them. The latter theory is now found on philological grounds to be
impossible.[1505] [1497] Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 268: Ιτουραία ἡ
καὶ Τραχωνῖτις. Ibid. p. 298: Τραχωνῖτις χώρα ἡ καὶ Ἰτουραία. [1498] Strabo,
xvi. 2. 10, p. 753: οὐ πόρρω δʼ οὐδʼ Ἡλιούπολις καὶ Χαλκὶς ἡ ὑπὸ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ
Μενναίου τῷ τὸν Μασσύαν κατέχοντι καὶ τὴν Ἰτουραίων ὀρεινήν. Ibid. xvi. 2. 18,
p. 755: μετὰ δὲ τὸν Μάκραν ἐστὶν ὁ Μασσύας ἔχων τινὰ καὶ ὀρεινά, ἐν οἷς ἡ Χαλκὶς
ὥσπερ ἀκρόπολις τοῦ Μασσύου· ἀρχὴ δʼ αὐτοῦ Λαοδίκεια ἡ πρὸς Λιβάνῳ. τὰ μὲν οὖν
ὀρεινὰ ἔχουσι πάντα Ἰτουραῖοί τε καὶ Ἄραβες. Ibid. xvi. 2. 20, p. 756: ἕπειτα
πρὸς τὰ Ἀράβων μέρη καὶ τῶν Ἰτουραίων ἀναμὶξ ὄρη δύσβατα (in regard to this see
note 16).—Christian lexicographers also explain “Iturea” by “mountain land”
(montenae, ὀρεινή). See Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, pp. 64, 176, 193; Apuleius,
Florida, i. 6, styles the Itureans frugum pauperes, which precisely represents
the condition of dwellers in mountainous regions. [1499] Polybius, v. 45. 8 f.
[1500] This may be inferred from the passages quoted from Strabo. On the
position of both cities, see below, notes 17 and 18. [1501] Strabo, xvi. 2. 18.
p. 755. Compare also above, note 2. [1502] Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. iv. 1881,
p. 538.—On the genuineness of the inscription, see vol. i. of present work, p.
357. [1503] Dio Cassius, lix. 12; Tacitus, Annales, xii. 23. [1504] Wetzstein,
Reisebericht über Hauran und die Trachonen, 1860, pp. 90-92 [1505] It would seem
that Wetzstein’s view is favoured only by the third passage of Strabo (xvi. 2.
20, p. 756), where Strabo mentions the Trachones in connection with Damascus and
“those inaccessible mountains in the territories of the Arabians and Itureans.”
The order of succession in the enumeration seems to point to the Hauran. In
fact, it must be intended at least that this district should be included. But
how the matter is to be understood is seen by a comparison of the words of
Strabo that follow with Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1-3. Strabo proceeds to say
that in these mountains there are enormous caverns, which robbers used as
hiding-places. But the robber bands led by Zenodorus were now destroyed by the
Romans. This undoubtedly is the same state of matters as is described by
Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1-3. From this particular and detailed report we see
that the proper domain of Zenodorus was the district of Panias (Antiq. xv. 10.
3), but that he made common cause with robbers haunting Trachonitis and
Auranitis (xv. 10. 1). The territory of Zenodorus (on the southern spaces of
this Lebanon) is now, as our sketch will show, a portion of the once important
Iturean kingdom. When, therefore, Strabo says that this mountain range, full of
caverns, lay “in the territories of the Arabians and Itureans” (πρὸς τὰ Ἀράβων
μέρη καὶ τῶν Ἰτουραίων), he means by the μέρη Ἰτουραίων evidently the country of
Zenodorus. It cannot therefore from his words be concluded that the Itureans
themselves dwelt in the Hauran. In the last decades before the arrival of
Pompey, the Itureans belonged to an important confederacy, which recognised as
its head Ptolemy the son of Mennäus (Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Μενναίου); for his kingdom,
according to the first passage quoted from Strabo (xvi. 2. 10, p. 753), embraced
“the mountain lands of the Itureans” and the plain of “Massyas” with the capital
Chalcis.[1506] The plain of Massyas runs north as far as Laodicea of
Lebanon.[1507] But it would seem from the other passages that Ptolemy, like
Alexander Jannäus, pushed his conquests beyond this limit. His territory (for to
him applies what Strabo, xvi. 2. 18, p. 755, says of the inhabitants of the
Lebanon) extended westward to the sea. Botrys and Theuprosopon (Θεοῦ πρόσωπον)
belonged to him. Byblus and Berytus were threatened by him. In the east the
Damascenes suffered at his hands.[1508] In the south the district of Panias, as
may be inferred from the history of Zenodorus (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1-3,
compare with this passage also below, p. 333), belonged to him. Indeed in the
time of the Jewish king Aristobulus I., the kingdom of the Itureans seems to
have embraced even Galilee (see vol. i. of present work, pp. 293, 294). In any
case the Itureans were in that direction immediate neighbours of the Jews. We
have therefore before us a State constructed precisely in the same fashion as
was the Jewish State of that time, only that Ptolemy, son of Mennäus, was in
point of civilisation a good way in advance of Alexander Jannäus. [1506]
Josephus also names Chalcis on the Lebanon as the capital of Ptolemy (Antiq.
xiv. 7. 4: δυναστεύων Χαλκίδος τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ Λιβάνῳ ὄρει; Wars of the Jews, i. 9.
2: ὃς ἐκράτει τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ Λιβάνῳ Χαλκίδος). It lay on the route of Pompey’s
march, Antiq. xiv. 3. 2, south of Heliopolis. Compare also: Robinson,
Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 90; Later Biblical Researches, p. 500; Ritter, Erdkunde,
xvii. 1, p. 186 ff.; Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, viii.
1885, p. 35.—There is one other Chalcis not to be confounded with this one, from
which the province of Chalcidice haa its name. This Chalcis lay much farther
north, according to the Itinerarium Antonini only 18 mil. pass. south of
Beröa(Vetera Romanorum itineraria, ed. Wesseling, p. 193 eq.). Pliny, Hist. Nat.
v. 23. 81, calls it Chalcidem cognowinatam ad Belum. Compare also v. 26. 89.
Generally: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2, 1592 ff.—On both cities, Noris, Annus et
epochae, p. 316 sqq.; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 400. [1507]
Strabo, xvi. 2, 18, p. 755.—Laodicea on the Lebanon (not to be confounded with
Laodicea by the sea) lay, according to the Itinerarium Antonini (ed. Wesseling,
p. 198), 18 mil. pass. south of Emesa. Compare Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv.
763 f.; Furrer, Zeitschrift des DPV. viii. 31. [1508] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16.
3: ὃς βαρὺς ἦν τῇ πόλει γείτων. Ptolemy, son of Mennäus, reigned from about B.C.
85 to about B.C. 40. About B.C. 85, from fear of him, the Damascenes called in
the aid of Aretas, king of the Arabians (Antiq. xiii. 15. 2; Wars of the Jews,
i. 4. 8). About B.C. 78, Aristobulus, son of Queen Alexandra, made a journey to
Damascus, avowedly with the object of protecting it against Ptolemy (Antiq.
xiii. 16. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 3). When Pompey arrived, Ptolemy purchased
immunity from him by the payment of a thousand talents (Antiq. xiv. 3. 2).
Pompey, however, destroyed the fortified places in the Lebanon (Strabo, xvi. 2.
18. p. 755), and undoubtedly also curtailed the territory of Ptolemy in a way
similar to that in which he dealt with the Jewish territory.[1509] In B.C. 49,
Ptolemy took under his personal care the sons and daughters of the Jewish king
Aristobulus II., who had been deposed and quite recently murdered by the party
of Pompey (Antiq. xiv. 7. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 2). In B.C. 42, when
Cassius had left Syria, Ptolemy supported Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, in
his endeavour to secure to himself the government of Judea (Antiq. xiv. 12. 1).
Ptolemy died during the progress of the Parthian war, B.C. 40 (Antiq. xiv. 13.
3; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 1). As he is never designated “king” (Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 7. 4: δυναστεύων), it is possible that the coins, which for the most
part have the incomplete superscription Πτολεμαίου τετράρχου ἀρχ(ιερέως), belong
to him.[1510] [1509] Reference is made to the subjugation of Ptolemy in the
accounts given of the subjugation of the Itureans by Pompey in Appian,
Mithridat. 106; Eutropius, vi. 14; Orosius, vi. 6. [1510] Eckhel, Doctr. Num.
iii. 263 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 145, Suppl. viii. 119;
Münter, De rebus Ituraeorum, p. 37; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 116,
pl. lvi. n. 14; Renan, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscr. xxvi. 2, p. 62; De
Saulcy, Wiener numismat. Monatshefte, v. 1, pp. 26-28; Mélanges de Numismatique,
t. iii. 1882, p. 198 sq. (on the coins there given is to be read … λεμαι …
ετραρχο αρχι).—Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen, 1885, p. 44,
contends that the word Χαλκιδ is to be found on the coins. All the more then, in
consequence of our defective knowledge of these matters, it still remains a
posribility that the coins belong to some unknown Ptolemy. Head, Historia
Numorum (1887), p. 655. Ptolemy was succeeded by his son Lysanias (Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 13. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 1), who therefore obtained the
kingdom with the same extent of territory as had been left to his father by
Pompey. Dio Cassius styles him “King of the Itureans” (Dio Cassius, xlix. 32).
His reign falls in the time of Antony, who also laid the Itureans under a heavy
tribute (Appian, Civ. v. 7). At the instigation of Cleopatra, Antony caused
Lysanias to be executed in B.C. 36 (on the reckoning of the date, see vol. i. p.
402), on the pretence that he had been conspiring with the Parthians, and gifted
a large portion of his territory to Cleopatra (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 4. 1; Wars
of the Jews, i. 22, 3; Dio Cassius, xlix. 32).[1511] Since Dio Cassius and
Porphyry call him “king,” it is doubtful whether the coins bearing the
superscription Λυσανίου τετράρχου καὶ ἀρχιερέως belong to him, for there were
one or more younger princes of this name.[1512] At the same time writers were
accustomed to apply the title of βασιλεύς in a loose way even to tetrarchs.
[1511] To this also refers the statement of Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, i. 170: Τὸ δʼ ἑκκαιδέκατον (scil. “year of Cleopatra”) ὠνομάσθη τὸ καὶ
πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ τελευτήσαντος Λυσιμάχου τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ Χαλκίδος βασιλέως Μάρκος
Ἀντώνιος ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ τήν τε Χαλκίδα καἰ τοὺς περὶ αὐτὴν τόπους παρέδωκε τῇ
Κλεοπάτρᾳ. Instead of Λυσιμάχου it is now generally admitted that we should read
Λυσανίου. [1512] See the coins in Mionnet, Suppl. viii. 119 f.; Münter, De rebus
Ituraeorum, p. 38; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 116 sq. lvi. n. 15, 16;
Renan, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscr. xxvi. 2, p. 62 sq.; De Saulcy, Wiener
numismat. Monatshefte, v. 1, p. 29; Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe, p. 44, table
vi. 18; Head, Historia Numorum, p. 655.—In settling the question as to whether
our Lysanias bore the title of Tetrarch the inscription given in note 26 has to
be taken into account. The further history of the country cannot be followed out
in more detail. But it is certain that the once important kingdom of Ptolemy and
Lysanias was gradually cut up more and more into smaller districts. We can quite
definitely distinguish four different districts, all of which originally
belonged to the one kingdom of Chalcis. 1. About the year 23 B.C. (with regard
to the chronology, see vol. i. p. 409) Josephus tells of a certain Zenodorus who
had taken on lease the possessions that previously belonged to Lysanias (Antiq.
xv. 10. 1: ἐμεμίσθωτο τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Λυσανίου; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4: ὁ τὸν
Λυσανίου μεμισθωμένος οἶκον). This Zenodorus took part in the robberies in
Trachonitis, on account of which Trachonitis was separated from the dominions
under the sway of Zenodorus, and was conferred upon Herod (Antiq. xv. 10. 1-2;
Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4).[1513] Three years later, in B.C. 20, Zenodorus
died, and then Augustus conferred upon Herod also the territories over which he
had ruled, namely, Ulatha and Panias (Antiq. xv. 10. 3: τὴν τούτου μοῖραν οὐκ
ὀλίγην οὖσαν … Οὐλάθαν καὶ Πανιάδα καὶ τὴν πέριξ χώραν; compare Wars of the
Jews, i. 20. 4; Dio Cassius, liv. 9: Ζηνοδώρου τινὸς τετραρχίαν)[1514] A
difficulty arises here inasmuch as Zenodorus is mentioned at first only as
lessee or farmer of the οἶκος Λυσανίου, whereas mention is afterwards made of
his own country, Dio Cassius speaking of his tetrarchy, which was obtained by
Herod. The difficulty might be explained by regarding the two as different
territories. But against this may be alleged the circumstance that Josephus most
decidedly, at least in his first reference to him, would have designated him by
his own territory, if that territory had been different from the one which he
had farmed out. We are therefore constrained to regard the two as identical.
That the district of Ulatha and Panias had formerly belonged to the dominion of
Lysanias, i.e. to the Iturean kingdom, is highly probable, since the latter
extended as far as the borders of the Jewish country (see above, p. 330). It
seems therefore that Zenodorus, after the death of Lysanias, had received on
rent a portion of his territory from Cleopatra, and that after Cleopatra’s death
this “rented” domain, subject to tribute, was continued to him with the title of
tetrarch. [1513] Compare Straba, xvi. 2. 20, p. 756: καταλυθέντων νυνὶ τῶν περὶ
Ζηνοθωρον λῃστῶν. [1514] Ulatha is the district on the Merom or Semechonitis
Lake which if now called Beer-el-Huloh, and is clearly identical with the ימא
דחולתא mentioned in the rabbinical literature (Neubauer, La géographie du
Talmud, 1888, pp. 24, 27 sq.). On a monument to the dynasty of Lysanias at
Heliopolis, of the inscription on which we have indeed only fragments, mention
is made of a “Zenodorus, son of the tetrarch Lysanias.”[1515] The reference has
almost universally been supposed to apply to our Zenodorus, and he has therefore
been regarded as a son of the Lysanias executed by Antony. Although this also is
uncertain, because Lysanias is designated as tetrarch (see above, p. 332), yet
there is proved from the inscriptions a genealogical connection between the two
families, in which the same name may have been often repeated.—It may be taken
as certain that the coins with the superscription Ζηνοδώρου τετράρχου ἀρχιερέως
belong to our Zenodorus.[1516] They have the year numbers ΠΣ, ΒΠΣ, ΖΠ[Σ]], i.e.
280, 282, 287 aera Seleuc. or B.C. 32, 30, and 25, which precisely fit our
hypothesis.[1517] [1515] See the inscription in Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 4523, in
De Saulcy, Voyage autour de la mer morte, atlas (1853), pl. liii. n. 5; Le Bas
and Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, t. iii. n. 1880; most
correctly in Renan, Mission de Phenicie, pp. 317-319, and with a complete
commentary in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,
xxvi. 2, pp. 70-79. The legible portions run, with Renan’s filling up of
lacunae, as follows:— [1516] See the coins in Belley, Mémoires de l’Académie des
Inscr. et Belles-Lettrés, first series, t. xxviii. 1761, pp. 545-556; Eckhel,
Doctr. Num. iii. 496 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 576, Suppl.
viii. 381; Münter, De rebus Ituraeorum, p. 38 sq.; Renan, Mémoires de
l’Académie, xxvi. 2, p. 63; De Saulcy, Wiener numismat. Montashefte, v. 1
[1869], pp. 29-32; Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique et
d’Archéologie, t. v. (= second series, t. 1), fasc. 3, 1879, p. 182 sq. [coins
with the date ΖΠ]; Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), p. 124 Imhoof-Blumer,
Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen, 1885, p. 44, table vi. 19; Head, Historia
Numorum (1887), p. 663. [1517] The year number ΠΣ=280, aera Seleuc., or B.C. 32,
is indeed incomplete (Mionnet, v. 576: “cette date ne paroit pas entière”). It
would be strange indeed if Zenodorus should have received the title of Tetrarch
so long as Cleopatra continued to rule. … θυγάτηρ Ζηνοδώρῳ Λυσ[ανίου τ]ετράρχου
καὶ Λυσ[ανίᾳ] … [καὶ τοῖ]ς υἱοῖς μ[νήμη]ς χάριν [εὐσεβῶς] ἀνέθηκεν. After the
death of Herod the Great, a portion of the former tetrarchy of Zenodorus went to
Herod’s son, Philip (Antiq. xvii, II. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3).[1518] This
is the portion referred to by the evangelist Luke (Luke 3:1), when he says that
Philip was governor of Iturea (τῆς Ἰτουραίας).—The tetrarchy of Philip was
subsequently obtained by Agrippa I. and Agrippa II. [1518] In the passage, Wars
of the Jews, ii. 6. 3, instead of Ἰάμνειαν we should read Πανειάδα, according to
Antiq. xv. 10. 3. 2. Another tetrarchy was sliced off from the earlier Iturean
empire in the East between Chalcis and Damascus to form the district of Abila in
the Lebanon. This Abila, according to the Itinerarium Antonii[1519] and the
Peutinger tables, lay 18 mil. pass. from Damascus on the road from that city to
Heliopolis, consequently on the site of the present village of Suk on the
Barada, where are still to be seen the ruins of an old city. In the
neighbourhood on the wall of rock is engraved an inscription, on which it is
said that the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus viam fluminis vi abruptam
interciso monte restituerunt … impendiis Abilenorum.[1520] In the same
neighbourhood, too, they point out the so-called grave of Abel (Nebi Abil),
evidently a legendary creation, which had its origin in the name of the place
Abel. The identity of Abila and Suk, therefore, is placed beyond all
doubt.[1521] Much more uncertain is this identification with our Abila of a city
Leucas, urged by many numismatists, of which several coins are still extant. In
support of this, reference is made to a coin on which, besides the words
[Λευκ]αδιων Κλαυ[διεων], is to be read also the name of the river Χρυσοροας. In
ancient times, certainly, the Barada was called Chrysorrhoas, and it had upon
its banks, besides Damascus, no other city than Abila. But the name Chrysorrhoas
is also met with elsewhere, e.g. on the inscription of the Gerasenes, Div. II.
vol. i. p. 118; and it should be particularly observed that on the coin in
question the designation of the city is restored only by means of filling up the
lacunae.[1522] [1519] Vetera Romanorum itineraria, ed. Wesseling, p. 198. [1520]
See the inscription, e.g. in De Saulcy, Voyage autour de la mer morte, atlas
(1853), pl. li.; Robinson, Later Biblical Researches, p. 480; De Saulcy,
Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 20; Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions
grecques et latines, t. iii. n. 1874; Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 199;
Facsimile in Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Bd. xii. Blatt 101;
Inscr. Lat. n. 64.—The inscription, from its reference to the two emperors in
its formula, belongs to A.D. 163-165. See Waddington on n. 1874, and Mommsen in
the Corpus Inscr. Lat. [1521] See on Abila generally: Reland, Palaestina, p. 527
sqq.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2, p. 1278 ff.; Porter, Five Years in Damascus
(1855), i. 261ff.; Robinson, Later Biblical Researches, pp. 479-484; Sepp,
Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. ii. 393 ff.; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, 1 Aufl. p. 511; Ebers
and Guthe, Palästina, i. 456-460; Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, viii. 1885, p. 40. [1522] See on the coins: Belley, Mémoires
de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, first series, t. xxxii. 1768,
pp. 695-706; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 337 sq.; Mionnet, Description de méailles,
v. 308-310, Suppl. viii. 214-216; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte,
pp. 20-29.—The identification of Leucas and Abila was first suggested by Belley,
and has been specially favoured by De Saulcy. Eckhel expresses himself in a
hesitating manner (“quae aliud non sunt quam conjecturae probabiles”). Our Abila
was before the time of Caligula the capital of a tetrarchy which is often spoken
of by Josephus. When Caligula ascended the throne in A.D. 37, Agrippa I, besides
the tetrarchy of Philip, received also “the tetrarchy of Lysanias” (Antiq.
xviii. 6. 10: τὴν Λυσανίου τετραρχίαν). By this is meant the tetrarchy of Abila.
For when Claudius came to the throne in A.D. 41, he confirmed and increased the
domain of Agrippa by handing over to him the whole empire of his grandfather
Herod as his hereditary possession, and adding thereto: Ἀβίλαν τὴν Λυσανίου καὶ
ὁπόσα ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ ὄρει (Antiq. xix. 5. 1; compare Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5:
βασιλείαν τὴν Λυσανίου καλουμένην).[1523] After the death of Agrippa I., in A.D.
44, his territory was administered by Roman procurators. But in A.D. 53, in the
thirteenth year of Claudius, Agrippa II. obtained what had been the tetrarchy of
Philip, together with Abila, the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antiq. xx. 7. 1: σὺν
Ἀβίλᾳ, Λυσανία δὲ αὕτη ἐγεγόνει τετραρχία. Compare Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8:
τήν τε Λυσανίου βασιλείαν). [1523] There is no word here in reference to Abila
about a new donation, but only about a confirmation of the donation of Caligula.
From these passages we see that the tetrarchy of Abila had belonged previously
to A.D. 37 to a certain Lysanias.[1524] And seeing that Josephus nowhere
previously makes any mention of another Lysanias, except the contemporary of
Antony and Cleopatra, B.C. 40-36, theological criticism has endeavoured in
various ways to show that there had not afterwards been any other, and that the
tetrarchy of Abilene had its name from that older Lysanias. But this is
impossible. Lysanias I. had possessed the Iturean kingdom with the same
boundaries as his father Ptolemy. The capital of his kingdom was Chalcis
(compare also especially the passage quoted from Porphyry on p. 332). The domain
of Abila did indeed belong to that territory; for the empire of Ptolemy bordered
on the territory of Damascus. But it certainly formed only a small portion of
that important kingdom which embraced almost all of the Lebanon. It is therefore
impassible that the district of Abila could have been characterized as “the
tetrarchy of Lysanias.” It must therefore be assumed as certain that at a later
date the district of Abilene had been severed from the kingdom of Chalcis, and
had been governed by a younger Lysanias as tetrarch. [1524] The designation
βασιλεία, in Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5 and 12. 8, is evidently inexact. The
existence of a younger Lysanias is also witnessed to by the following
inscription found at Abila:—[1525] [1525] Corpus Inscr. Grace. n. 4521 (compare
Addenda, p. 1174=Renan, Mémoires de l’Académis des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, t. xxvi. 2, p. 67. Ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν κυρίων Σε[βαστῶν] σωτηρίας καὶ
τοῦ σύμ[παντος] αὐτῶν οἴκου, Νυμφαῖος …. Λυσανίου τετράρχου ἀπελε[ύθερος] τὴν
ὁδὸν κτίσας κ.τ.λ. Since the correctness of the filling up of the word
Σε[βαστῶν] cannot be doubted, the inscription cannot be placed earlier than the
time of Tiberius. For the title Augusti in the plural was never before given.
The first contemporary Σεβαστοί were Tiberius and his mother Livia, who from the
death of Augustus, in consequence of the last expressed wish of her husband,
took the title of Augusta.[1526] In the time of Tiberius, therefore, at least
fifteen years after the death of Lysanias I, it is, indeed, hardly conceivable
that a freedman of his would have built a street and erected a temple, as is
said on the inscription. Undoubtedly Nyraphäus was the freedman of the younger
tetrarch Lysanias.—Also the inscription from Heliopolis, quoted on p. 334, makes
it probable that there had been several princes of the name of Lysanias.—The
evangelist Luke is thoroughly correct when he assumes (Luke 3:1) that in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius there was a Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.[1527]
[1526] Tacitus, Annales, i. 8: “Livia in familiam Juliam nomenque Augustum
adsumebatur.” Tiberius and Livia (Julia) are named on a Palestinian coin as
Σεβαστοί (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 497); its reading, however, is doubtful
(Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 180).—For further criticism see also Corpus
Inter. Graec. t. iii. p. 1174 (Addenda to n. 4521); Renan, Mémoires, p. 63 sq.
(with reference to Renier and Waddington); Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen
Würdigung der Evangelien, p. 191, understands the two Σεβαστοί to be Augustus
and Tiberius, the latter having only in the last years of Augustus received the
title of Σεβαστός. But this is in contradiction to everything else that we know,
and, owing to the uncertain date of the coin to which Wieseler himself refers,
is incapable of proof. Compare against Wieseler’s hypothesis, Mommsen, Römisches
Staatsrecht, ii. 2 (1 Aufl. 1875), pp. 731-733, 772 f., 1064 ff. [1527] On the
existence of this younger Lysanias, and generally on Luke 3:1, see the pro and
contra in the following treatises, in addition to the literature mentioned on p.
325: Frid. Gott. Süskind, “Symbolae ad illustr. quaedam evangeliorum loca” (in
Sylloge commentt., ed. Pott, vol. viii. 1807, pp. 90-99; Schneckenburger, Ueber
Luc. iii. 1 (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1833, p. 1056 ff.); Süskind (son of
above—named), “Einige Bemerkungen zu den Worten u. s. w. Luc. iii. 1” (Theol
Stud. und Krit. 1836, pp. 431-448); Strauss, Leben Jesu, i. (4 Aufl. 1840) p.
341 ff.; Hug, Gutachten über das Leben Jesu von Strauss, 1840, pp. 119-123;
Wieeeler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 159-167; Ebrard,
Gospel History, Edin. 1869, § 30, pp. 143-146: “Lysanias of Abilene;”
Lichtenstein, Lebensgeschichte des Herrn Jesu Christi (1856), pp. 130-136;
Winer, Realwörterb. art. “Abilene;” Kneucker in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, i.
26-28, art. “Abilene;” Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu (2 Aufl. 1874), pp.
106-112; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 381-384; Aus dem Urchristenthum (1868), pp.
9-13; Bleek, Synoptische Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien, i. 1862, pp.
164-157. See Commentaries on the New Testament by Meyer and others on Luke 3:1.
The tetrarchy of Lysanias I. remained in possession of Agrippa II. down to his
death in A.D. 100; but the name of Lysanias long clung to the place. Also in
Ptolemaeus, v. 15. 22, Abila is called Ἄβιλα ἐπικληθεῖσα Λυσανίου, as may be
supposed because Lysanias was not only a previous possessor, but the new founder
of the city (compare Caesarea Philippi). 3. The domains of Zenodorus and
Lysanias lay on the circumference of the earlier Iturean kingdom. In the time of
Quirinius, his subordinate general, Q. Aemilius Secundus, undertook a warlike
expedition against the Itureans proper, as is told us on an inscription (“missu
Quirini adversus Ituraeos in Libano monte castellum eorum cepi”).[1528] Perhaps
just at that time a breaking up of the Iturean kingdom took place. At any rate,
in the time of Claudius we find a kingdom of Chalcis and a kingdom of Iturea
alongside of one another. In A.D. 38, Caligula deprived a certain Soemus of the
government of the Itureans (Dio Cassius, lix. 12: Σοαίμῳ τὴν τῶν Ἰτυραίων τῶν
Ἀράβων … ἐχαρίσατο).[1529] This Soemus died in A.D. 49, and then his territories
were incorporated with the province of Syria. Tacitus, Annales, xii. 23:
“Ituraeique et Judaei defunctis regibus Sohaemo atque Agrippa provinciae Suriae
additi.” But at the same time a Herod reigned in Chalcis, so that now the one
kingdom of Ptolemy and Lysanias was partitioned into, at least, four divisions.
The kingdom of Soemus is supposed to have embraced the northern part, from about
Heliopolis to Laodicea in the Lebanon.[1530] [1528] Ephemeris epigraphica, vol.
iv. 1881, p. 538. [1529] The name Soemus is found also in the dynasty of Emesa.
An Iturean Soemus of the time of Herod the Great is spoken of in Antiq. xv. 6,
5, 7. 1-4. [1530] The city of Heliopolis cannot have belonged to this kingdom of
Soemus, since it was from the time of Augustus a Roman colony (Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 428). When, upon the death of Soemus, his
territory was confiscated, it would seem that his son Varus (or Noarus, as he is
called in Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6) was portioned off with a small part of
his ancestral domains, and even this he held only till A.D. 53. In that year
Claudius bestowed upon Agrippa, in addition to the tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanias, τὴν Οὐάρου γενομένην ἐπαρχίαν (Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8; in regard
to the date, Antiq. xx. 7. 1). This Varus was, according to Josephus, Life, xi.,
probably the son of that Soemus who died in A.D. 49 (Οὐᾶρος βασιλικοῦ γένους,
ἔκγονος Σοέμου τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τετραρχοῦντος).[1531] [1531] The identity of
the Soemus referred to in the latter passage with the one who died in A.D. 49 is
not, indeed, quite certain, since there was during the time of Nero and
Vespasian a Soemus of Emesa (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii.
18. 9, iii. 4. 2, vii. 7.1; Tacitus, Hist. ii. 81, v. 1). The present
τετραρχοῦντος might be used with reference to the latter. But this grammatical
argument is not decisive (comp. Winer’s Grammar, § 45. 7); and Josephus would
scarcely have designated the ruler of Emesa as τὸν περὶ τὸν Λίβανον
τετραρχοῦντα, especially if, as from Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 7, we must assume
to have been the case, he ruled over Sophene that lay far off across the
Euphrates to the north of Edessa. After the Iturean territories had been
amalgamated with the province of Syria, regular Roman troops were enlisted
there. We meet with Iturean alae and cohortes from the last decades of the first
century in this farthest distant province of the Roman empire.[1532] [1532] The
inscriptions in regard to this matter afford us the following data (compare the
list of Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. v. 1884, p. 194):— The ala I.
Augusta Ituraeorum was stationed during A.D. 98 in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat.
t. iii. p. 862, Dipl. xix.), in A.D. 110 in Dacia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p.
868, Dipl. xxv.), in A.D. 167 again in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p.
888, Dipl. xlvi.).—Compare also Corp. Inter. Lat. t. iii. n. 1382, 3446, 3677,
4367, 4368, 4371; Corp. Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 2003.—An inscription of
Heliopolis dedicated to Jupiter by a vexillatio alae Ituraeorum, therefore by a
detachment of this ala under a separate command, has been found at Rome (Corp.
Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 421). The cohors I. Augusta Ituraeorum was, in A.D. 80,
stationed in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 854, Dipl. xi.), in A.D. 98
it was still in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 862, Dipl. xix.), in A.D.
110 in Dacia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 868, Dipl. xxv.).—Compare also Corp.
Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 1099. The cohors I. Ituraeorum, distinct from
the above, was stationed in A.D. 110 in Dacia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 868,
Dipl. xxv.).—Compare also Corp. Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 1233, 1234,
1289. Notitia dignitatum Occidentis, xxvi. 16 (ed. Seeck, p. 178). The cohors
II. Ituraeorum was stationed, in A.D. 83, in Upper Egypt (Ephemeris epigr. vol.
v. 1884, p. 612 sq.). Greek inscriptions in the temples at Talmis, Pselchis, and
Hiera-Sycaminus (all on the borders of Upper Egypt and Ethiopia) tell, with
reference to the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, that these soldiers of this
cohort had offered their devotions (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 5050, 5081,
5110).—Subsequently it was stationed in Lower Egypt (Notitia dignitatum
orientis, xxviii. 44, ed. Seeck, p. 60). The cohors III. Ituraeorum was
stationed, in A.D. 83, in Upper Egypt (Ephemeris epigr. vol. v. p. 612
sq.).—Compare also Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. viii. n. 2394, 2395, t. ix. n. 1619. A
cohors VII. Ituraeorum is supposed to be referred to in an inscription on the
Memnon statue at Thebes (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 59). But it has been
conjectured that there instead of VII. we should read III. Reference perhaps is
made to the sending of Iturean troops to Moesia in the fragmentary inscription
in Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, t. iii. n. 2120 (ed.
el-Hit, north of the Hauran):— . . ηξιλάου τοῦ εἰς Μοισία … . . τουραίων καὶ
στρατη … 4. The history of Chalcis, the centre of the former Iturean kingdom, is
unknown to us from the death of Cleopatra down to the date of Claudius’
accession. The Emperor Claudius, on his coming to the throne in A.D. 41, gifted
it to a grandson of Herod the Great, who was also called Herod.[1533] He was a
brother of Agrippa I, and so a son of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the
Great.[1534] [1533] Josephus, Antiq. xix, 5.1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5.
[1534] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 1. Herod of
Chalcis had the title βασιλεύς, and praetorian rank.[1535] He was twice married.
His first wife was Mariamme, a granddaughter of Herod the Great. By her he had a
son, Aristobulus,[1536] who married Salome, the daughter of Herodias, and widow
of the tetrarch Philip, and obtained from Nero the government of Lesser
Armenia.[1537] The second wife of Herod was Berenice, the daughter of his
brother Agrippa, who gave her to him in marriage after the death of Marcus, son
of Alexander, the alabarch of Alexandria, to whom she was first betrothed.[1538]
By her he had two sons, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus.[1539] [1535] He is always
designated βασιλεύς by Josephus. Dio Cassius, lx. 8, speaks of his praetorian
rank (στρατηγικὸν ἀξίωμα). [1536] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4, xx. 5. 2; Wars
of the Jews, ii. 11. 6. [1537] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4, xx. 8. 4; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 13. 2; Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 7, xiv. 26. [1538] Josephus, Antiq.
xix. 5. 1: Ταύτην μὲν (τελευτᾷ γὰρ Μάρκος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλεξάνδρου υἱός) παρθένον λαβὼν
ἀδελφῷ τῷ αὑτοῦ Ἀγρίππας Ἡρώδῃ δίδωσι. This is the correct reading, and we
should not put marks of parenthesis round παρθένον λαβών, as Bekker does.
Compare Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 197. Berenice therefore was not actually
married, but only betrothed to Marcus. [1539] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of
the Jews, ii. 11. 6. At the assembly of princes which was once convened by
Agrippa I. at Tiberias, but had been so rudely treated by the Roman governor
Marsus, we find our Herod also present.[1540] After the death of Agrippa I. in
A.D. 44, he besought from the emperor—and this is the point that makes him an
object of interest in the Jewish history—the oversight of the temple and the
temple treasury, as well as the right of nominating the high priest. His prayer
was granted, and he exercised his right by frequent appointments and depositions
of high priests.[1541] [1540] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2. [1541] Josephus,
Antiq. xx. 1. 3, 5. 2. Compare Div. II. vol. i. p. 196. On his coins he is named
Φιλοκλαύδιος—a natural compliment to the emperor, to whom he owed all his
advancement.[1542] Whether an honorary inscription of the Athenians to a Ἡρώδης
Εὐσεβὴς καὶ Φιλόκαισαρ, refers to him, seems doubtful.[1543] [1542] The coins
are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 492; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v.
569 sq., Suppl. viii. 380; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 127, pi. lx. n.
8-10; Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen (1885), p. 44, table vi.
20.—Many numismatists have assigned to one Herod a small copper coin with an
eagle, and the superscription Βασιλ. Ηρωδ. (so Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik,
ii. 35; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, p. 82; Madden, History of Jewish
Coinage, pp. 111-113). But the fact that the coins have been found in Jerusalem
is in favour of the assigning of them to Herod the Great, and the figure of the
eagle is not decisive against this view (De Saulcy, Recherches sur la
Numismatique judaïque, p. 131; Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der
Evangelien, pp. 86-88; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 114, in which he retracts
his earlier opinion. [1543] Corp. Inscr. Attic. iii. 1, n. 551, at Athens: [[Ὁ
δ]ῆμος [βασιλ]έα Ἡρώδην Εὐσεβῆ καὶ Φιλοκαίσαρα [ἀ]ρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ
εὐεργεσίας.—Another inscription at Athens (Corp. Inscr. Attic. iii. 1, n. 550)
honours in a similar manner a βασιλέα Ἡρώδην Φιλορώμαιον—On account of the
diversity in the title, these two references might be applied to two different
men; and it seems to be most in accordance with otherwise demonstrable antiquity
of the titles to refer n. 550 to Herod the Great, and n. 551 to Herod of
Chalcis. But difficulties arise over the fact that the latter on coins calls
himself Φιλοκλαύδιος. He died after a reign of about seven years, in the 8th
year of Claudius, A.D. 48. His nephew, Agrippa II., obtained his kingdom, but
probably only at a somewhat later period.[1544] [1544] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5.
2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6, 12. 1. Agrippa continued in possession of
Chalcis only till A.D. 53, when he, in return for the surrender of this country,
obtained a larger kingdom:[1545] The history of Chalcis thereafter recedes again
into obscurity. In the time of Vespasian there is, indeed, a King Aristobulus of
Chalcidice mentioned, who possibly may be identical with the son of Herod of
Chalcis and king of Lesser Armenia.[1546] But even if this were so, it is very
doubtful whether by Chalcidice we are to understand the territory of our Chalcis
ad Libanum, or the territory of Chalcis ad Belum. On both see above, p. 329 f.
[1545] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8. [1546] Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, vii. 7. 1: τῆς μὲν Χαλκιδικῆς λεγομένη Αριστόβουλος—A coin
with the superscription Βασιλεως Αριστοβουλου ET IZ (year 17), Τιτω Ουεσπασιανω
Αυτοκρατορι Σεβαστω, is communicated by De Saulcy (Mélanges de Numismatique, t.
iii. 1882, pp. 339-349); Babelon (Revue Numismatique, troisième série, t. i.
1883, p. 145, pl. iv. n. 9), and Imhoof-Blumer (Porträtköpfe, p. 44, table vi.
21-22, where mention is also made of Aristobulus’ wife, Salome). The city of
Chalcis, according to the coins, has an era beginning with A.D. 92, which
probably was the year of its incorporation with the province of Syria.[1547]
[1547] Norris, Annus et ep chae, iii. 9. 3 (cd. Lips. p. 316 sqq.); Eckhel,
Doctr. Num. iii. 264 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 143 sqq., Suppl.
viii. 115 sqq.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 43: APPENDIX II
========================================================================

APPENDIX II HISTORY OF THE NABATEAN KINGS LITERATURE RELAND, Palestina, pp.
90-95. VINOENT, Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients in the Indian Ocean,
London 1807, vol. ii. pp. 273-276 (was not obtainable by me). QUATREMÈRE,
“Mémoire sur les Nabatéens” (Nouveau Journal asiatique, t. xv. 1835, pp. 5-55,
97-137, 209-240). ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 558 ff.
WILLIAMS IN SMITH’S Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, art,“Nabataei,”
vol. ii. 392-394. BITTER, Erdkunde von Asien, Thl. xii. (1846), pp. 111-140.
CLESS, art. “Nabataei,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie der class.
Alterthumswissenschaft, Bd. v. (1848) pp. 377-384. WINER, Biblisches
Realwörterbuch, art. “Nabatäer.” DUO DE LUYNES, “Monnaies des Nabatéens” (Revue
Numismatique, 1858, pp. 292-316, 362-385, pl. xiv., xv., xvi.). The Nabateans
and Professor CHWOLSON (Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, new
series, vol. i. 1862, pp. 103-115). KUHN, Die städtische und bürgerliche
Verfassung des römischen Reichs, Bd. ii. (1865) pp. 165-169.

DE VOGÜÉ, “Monnaies des rois de Nabatène (Revue Numismatique, 1868, pp. 153-168,
pl. v.); also reprinted in Mélanges d’archéologie orientale, Paris 1868. DE
VOGÜÉ, Syris centrales, Inscriptions sémitiques (Paris 1868), pp. 100-124; comp.
Schröder, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins, xxxviii. 1884, p. 532 f.
NÖLDEKE, art. “Nabatäer,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, Bd. iv. (1872) p. 269 f.
DE SAULCY, “Numismatique des rois Nabatéens de Pétra” (Annuaire de la Société
françaiss de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. iv. 1, 1873, pp. 1-35).
Supplements to this: (1) Annuaire de la Sociétéfrançaise de Numismatique et
d’Archéologie, t. v. (=seconde série, t i) fasc. 5, 1881, p. 462 sq. (unreadable
coins, perhaps of Aretas and Sekailath). (2) Mélanges de Numismatique, t iii.
1882, pp. 193-197 (a coin of Aretas and two of Sylläus?). GRÄTZ, “Die Anfänge
der Nabatäerherrschaft” (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judenthums, 1875, pp. 49-67). SCHRADER, Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung,
1878, pp. 99-116. KAUTZSCH, art. “Nabatäer,” in Riehm’s Handworterbuch des
biblischen Alterthums. MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl.
1881, pp. 404 f., 431 f. SACHAU, “Eine nabatäische Inschrift aus Dmâr”
(Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. 1884, pp. 635-542).—In
addition, CLERMONTGANNEAU, Revue critique, 1885, Nr. 5, pp. 88-92, and Nr. 9, p.
176 sq. DE VÖGUE, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et
belles-lettres de l’année, 1885 (IVme série, t. xiii.), pp. 45-52. DOUGHTY,
Documents épigraphiques recueillis dans le nord de l’Arabie, Paris 1884. BERGER,
“Nouvelles inscriptions nabatéennes de Medaïn Salih” (Comptes rendus de
l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l’année (IVme série, t. xii.),
pp. 377-393. HALÉVY, “Inscriptions nabatéennes” (Revue des études juives, i. ix.
1884, pp. 8-16), known only from quotation in Doughty. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, “Les
noms royaux nabatéens employés comme noms divins” (Revue archéologique, IIIe
série, t. v. 1885, pp. 170-178). NEUBAUER, “On some newly-discovered Temanite
and Nabataean Inscriptions” (Studia Biblica, Oxford 1885, pp. 209-232). MOMMSEN,
Römische Geschichte, v. 1885, p. 476 ff. EUTING, Nabatäische Inschriften aus
Arabien, Berlin 1886; in this work at pp. 81-89: GUTSCHMID, Verzeichniss der
nabatäischen Könige—the most complete collection of materials.—Euting gives the
same inscriptions for the most part as Doughty and Berger, but much more
correctly. SORLIN-DORIGNY and BABELON, “Monnaies Nebatéennes inédites” (Revue
Numismatique, troisième sèrie, t. v. 1887, pp. 369-377). Separate single
Nabatean coins have been communicated by Levy, Numismat. Zeitschrift, Bd. iii.
1871, pp. 445-448, and Olshausen, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie aus dem
Jahrs, 1874, p. 185. A Nabatean inscription from Puteoli is given by
Gildemeister, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1869, pp. 150-154; comp, also, Levy,
Zeitschrift der DMG. pp. 652-654; Nöldeke, Ibid. 1884, pp. 144, 654. Other
examples are given by Renan, Journal asiatique, VIIe série, t. ii. 1873, pp.
366-382. One inscription from Sidon is given by Levy, in Zeitschrift der DMG.
1869, pp. 435-440. Greek Aretas coins are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 330;
Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 284 sq.; Visconti, Iconographie grecque, t
ii. (p. 444 sq.=atlas, pl. 48, n. 12; Lenormant, Trésor de Numismatique, p. 117,
pl. lvi. n. 17-19. A Latin coin of Scaurus, with reference to the subjugation of
Aretas, in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. v. 131; Babelon, Monnaies de la république
romaine, i. 120 sq. On the Aretas referred to in the New Testament (2
Corinthians 11:32), see especially Job. Gottlob Heyne, De ethnarcha Aretae
Arabum regis, 2 vols. Wittemb. 1755; Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum
ratione (1833), pp. 173-182; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters
(1848), pp. 167-175, and the articles on Aretas in Winer’s Realwörterbuch and
Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie (the latter by Wieseler). Besides the Syrian empire
in the north, and the Egyptian empire in the south, Palestine had during the
Graeco-Roman period a third powerful neighbour: the Nabatean kingdom in the
south and east. The history of this kingdom can now be set forth in a tolerably
connected manner only when the scattered references to it in early writers,
particularly in Josephus, are filled out by means of the rich materials afforded
by coins and inscriptions. Information regarding the coins has been imparted by
the Duc de Luynes (1858), De Vogüé (1868), and De Saulcy (1873); information
regarding the inscriptions by De Vogüé (1868), Doughty (1884), Berger (who in
1884 published the materials gathered by the scientific traveller Huber, who
perished as a victim in the prosecution of his calling), and Euting (1885). The
inscriptions of De Vogüé belong to the district of the Hauran, and therefore to
the north of the Nabatean kingdom; those published by Doughty, Berger, and
Euting were found for the most part at el-Hegr. (=Medain Salih), one of the
southernmost points of the kingdom of Nabatea. The latter are specially numerous
and important, since almost all of them are dated according to the years of the
reigns of the Nabatean kings Aretas and Malchus. The correct reading of them was
for the first time made possible by the careful copies of Euting. This scholar
has also correctly determined the meaning of some Nabatean number-signs, and has
thereby made corrections upon several conjectured dates in the earlier readings
of the coins and inscriptions. The whole material from writers, coins, and
inscriptions has been collected together by Gutschmid in an excursus to Euting’s
works. To his full and informing treatise, we are largely indebted for the facts
in the following sketch. About the nation of the Nabateans (Ναβαταῖοι, נבטו) we
know so little that we can point to no certain indication of its nationality.
The language of the coins and inscriptions, which without exception are in
Aramaic, seems to confirm Quatremère’s supposition that they were Aramaeans. On
the other hand, they are uniformly designated by early writers Arabians, and
indeed not only by those writing at a distance, but also by such as Josephus,
who must have been quite familiar with the distinction between Aramaeans and
Arabians. Besides this, it should be noted also that the names on the
inscriptions are distinctly Arabian. The idea therefore has rightly been
insisted upon principally by Nöldeke that they were Arabians, but that they had
made use for literary purposes of the Aramaic as the language of culture at that
time, because the Arabic had not yet been developed into a literary
language.[1548] [1548] See Nöldeke, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ.
Gesellsch. Bd. xvii. 1863, p. 703 ff., xxv. 1871, p. 122 ff. Regarding the
history of the Nabateans previous to the Hellenic period, we really know next to
nothing. Their identity with the נְבָיוֹת who are mentioned in Genesis 35:13;
Genesis 28:9; Genesis 36:3, 1 Chronicles 1:29, Isaiah 60:7, as an Arabian tribe,
is indeed probable but by no means certain.[1549] Nor do we obtain much further
information from the cruciform inscriptions.[1550] The first actually reliable
information about the Nabateans comes to us at the beginning of the Hellenistic
period. We find them then, where in earlier times the Edomites had been settled,
between the Dead Sea and the Aelanitic Gulf in the district of Petra, the
ancient םֶלַע of the Edomites. When Antigonus, in B.C. 312, had driven Ptolemy
Lagus out of Coele-Syria, he sent his general Athenäus with 4000 foot soldiers
and 600 cavalry against the Nabateans. Athenäus threw down their stronghold
Petra, and took from it great spoil. But in consequence of his own carelessness
his army was soon thereafter almost completely annihilated by a night attack of
the Nabateans; only fifteen horsemen, and even these mostly wounded, are said to
have escaped. Antigonus thereupon sent his son Demetrius against the Nabateans
with a new army. But even Demetrius was not able to win any decisive victory.
After a fruitless siege of Petra he began again his homeward march, for he had
to content himself with arranging for hostages, and taking pledges from the
Nabateans that they would maintain friendship. Diodorus, who reports all this to
us,[1551] gives on this occasion also a description of the Nabateans. They were
even then uncivilised nomads, practising no agricultural arts, pursuing no
cattle rearing and trade, and evidently still without kings. But gradually
culture must have made its way more and more amongst them, until they came to
have a sort of civil and political order under regal government. Their dominion
was now extended toward the north and toward the south Their capital continued
to be that Petra which so early as the time of Antigonus had formed their
strongest place of refuge.[1552] [1549] The identity was, it would seem, assumed
even by Josephus, Antiq. i. 12. 4. He was followed by Jerome, Quaestiones in
Genes. xxv. 13, Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iii. 345, and by most modern commentators.
See, besides the literature referred to above, the commentaries on Genesis
25:13. The only difficulty arises from the fact that Nabajoth is written with ת,
Nabatean with ט (on coins and inscriptions it is written constantly נבטן).
[1550] See Schrader, Keitinschriften und Geschichtsforschung, 1878, pp. 99-116.
[1551] Diodorus, xix. 94-100.—Compare Plutarch, Demetr. 7; Droyaen, Geschichts
des Hellenismus, 2 Aufl. ii. 2, pp. 55-59. [1552] Compare on Petra as capital of
the Nabateans, especially Strabo, xvi. p. 779; Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 28. 144;
Josephus, Antiq. 1. xiv. 4, 5. 1, 13. 9, xvii. 3. 2, xviii. 5. 3; Wars of the
Jews, i. 6. 2, 8. 1, 13. 8, 29. 3; Plutarch, Pompeius, c. 41; Periplus maris
erythraei, § 19.—Generally: Reland, Palaestina, p. 926 sqq.; Robinson, Biblical
Researches in Palestine, ii. 512, 517, 653; Räumer, Palästina, pp. 276-278, 451
ff.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xiv. 1103-1141; Cless in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v.
1394 ff.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. “Sela;” Bertheau in Schenkel’s
Bibellexicon, art. “Sela;” Mühlau in Riehm’s Wörterbuch, art. “Sela;” Dyer in
Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, art. “Petra,” vol. ii. 583;
Eckhel, Dodr. Num. iii. 503 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 587-589,
Suppl. viii. 387 sq.; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 351, 353,
pl. xx. 1-6; Marqnardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, 2 Aufl. i. 1881, p. 431 f.;
Duc de Luynes, Voyage d’Exploration à la mer morte à Pétra et sur la rive gauche
du Jourdain, 3 vols. Text and 1 of illustr. Paris, s. a. [1874] especially pl.
44-49; Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, 1875, pp. 303-309. The first prince (τύραννος)
of the Nabateans of whom we know anything is that Aretas (Aretas I.) with whom
the high priest Jason in B.C. 169 in vain sought shelter (2Ma_5:8).[1553] Since
Aretas is designated as τύραννος it would seem that the Nabatean princes then
had not yet assumed the title of king.—After the outbreak of the Maccabean
revolution the Nabatean princes assumed a friendly attitude toward the leaders
of the Jewish national party (Judas, B.C. 164; Jonathan, B.C. 160). See
1Ma_5:25; 1Ma_9:35. The country under their rule now extended as far as to the
district east of the Jordan. [1553] The Second Book of Macc. 5:8 says with
reference to this: Jason was imprisoned by Aretas, prince of the Arabians
(ἐγκλεισθεὶς πρὸς Ἀρέταν τὸν τῶν Ἀράβων τύραννον), then fled from city to city,
etc. Instead of the reading of the common text ἐγκλεισθείς, modern expositors
have conjectured ἐγκληθείς (accused), and interpreted it as meaning that Jason
had sought refuge with Aretas, but was not received by him, since, on account of
his hostile attitude toward Antiochus Epiphanes, he had been “accused” or
denounced before Aretas. The kingdom of the Nabateans, however, did not rise
into greater importance until the end of the second century before Christ, when
the fall of the empire of the Ptolemies and the Seleucid dynasty made possible
the founding of a powerful independent commonwealth upon their borders. In
Justin’s abstract from Trogus Pompeius it is said of the period about B.C.
110-100 (Justin, xxxix. 5. 5-6) that this kingdom of Syria and Egypt had become
so enfeebled, “ut adsiduis proeliis consumpti in contemptum finitimorum venerint
praedaeque Arabum genti, inbelli antea, fuerint: quorum rex Erotimus fiducia
septingentorum filiorum, quos ex paelicibus susceperat, divisis exercitibus nunc
Aegyptum, nunc Syriam infestabat magnumque nomen Arabum viribus finitimorum
exsanguibus fecerat.” This Erotimus therefore ought to be regarded as the
founder of the royal Nabatean dynasty.[1554] [1554] The two “Arabians,” referred
to about B.C. 146, 145, “Zabdiel,” 1Ma_11:17 (called Zabelus in Josephue, Antiq.
xiii. 4. 8, and perhaps identical with Diodes in Diodorus in: Müller, Fragm.
hist. graec. t. ii. p. xvi.), and “Imalkue,” 1Ma_11:39 (called Malchus in
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5.1, and in Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. ii.
p. xvii., called Jamblichus, i.e. ימלכו, see vol i. of present work, p. 247),
were probably only petty rulers, not princes of the Nabateans (see Gutschnrid in
Eating, Nabatäitche Inschriften, p. 81). The very existence of the Maliku I.,
whom Gutechmid, on the strength of the testimony of a coin, places on the list
before Erotimus, is extremely doubtful. An Aretas II. (Ἀρέτας ὁ Ἀράβων βασιλεύς)
is spoken of at the time of the siege of Gaza by Alexander Jannäus in B.C. 96.
He had promised help to the Gazites, but the city fell into the hands of
Alexander before Aretas could afford assistance (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 3).
A couple of years later, about B.C. 90, Alexander Jannäus attacked King Obedas
I. (Ὀβέδαν τὸν Ἀράβων Βασιλέα), but suffered at his hands a crushing defeat on
the east of the Jordan (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 5; Wars of the Jews, i 4. 4).
De Saulcy, Gutschmid, and Babelon think that to this Obedas I. should be
ascribed certain coins with the superscription עבדת מלך נבטו.[1555] [1555] De
Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. p. 18 sq.; Gutschmid in Eating, Nabatäische
Inschriften, p. 82. An example of this coin is also given by Levy, Numismat.
Zeitschrift, iii. 1871, pp. 445-448.—The specimen published by Babelon (Revue
Numismatique, 1887, p. 371 sq.) has the superscription עבדת מלכא מלך נבטו, and
is of the fifth year (שנת חמש). Again, another couple of years later, Antiochus
XII advanced from Coele-Syria against the king of the Arabians, whose name is
not mentioned. This time also the Arabians were victorious. Antiochus himself
fell in the battle at Cana (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 1; Wars of the Jews, i.
4. 7). By the unnamed king of the Arabians we are to understand Aretas III., of
whom Josephus immediately afterwards tells that he, just in consequence of the
death of Antiochus, succeeded in gaining possession of Coele-Syria and Damascus,
and then gained a victory over Alexander Jannäus near Adida (Josephus, Antiq.
xiii. 15. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 8).[1556] The power of the Nabatean kings
was thus now, about B.C. 85, extended as far as Damascus.[1557] To our Aretas
III. the Numismatists have rightly assigned the coins with the superscription,
Βασιλέως Ἀρέτου Φιλέλληνος. These can belong to no other Aretas, for they were
minted in Damascus; and not indeed to the younger Aretas IV., since he called
himself “the Friend of his People.”[1558] The coins witness therefore to the
prevalence of Hellenism at that period in the Nabatean kingdom.—In the time of
this Aretas there occurred also the first collision with the Romans. We know
from the Jewish history that Aretas, in the conflict between Hyrcanus and
Aristobulus, sided with the party of Hyrcanus, supported him with his troops,
and laid siege to Aristobulus in Jerusalem; but then, at the command of the
Roman general Scaurus, he withdrew, and on his return march was defeated by
Aristobulus (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 4-2. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2-3).
Thereupon Pompey had made a resolve to go himself against Aretas. But during his
march to Petra he was obliged by the hostile attitude of Aristobulus to make his
way back to Judea (Antiq. xiv. 3. 3-4). After the conquest of Jerusalem, Pompey
made over the province of Syria to Scaurus (Antiq. xiv. 4. 5); and this general
was the first to lead an expedition against Petra, but obtained from Aretas no
more than the payment of a sum of money (Antiq. xiv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i.
8. 1). Only to this extent was the subjugation of Aretas carried, of which
Pompey had boasted,[1559] and which was gloried over upon a coin struck in
memory of the event[1560] The city of Damascus, on the very first appearance of
the Romans in Syria, had been laid siege to by the legates of Pompey (Josephus,
Antiq. xiv. 2. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2), and from that time onward
continued under Roman suzerainty.[1561]—The period of the reign of Aretas III.
extends, according to the hitherto prevailing view, from somewhere about B.C. 85
to B.C. 60. On account of the similarity between his portrait and that of Aretas
Philellen, some of the Nabatean coins with the superscription חרתת מלך נבטו have
been ascribed to him.[1562] On one we meet with the number 17 or 18 (so
Euting-Gutschmid, not as was formerly read, 32 or 33). [1556] Gutschmid
understands by the unnamed king Babilus, by whom, according to Steph. Byz., “the
Macedonian Antigonus was slain” (Steph. Byz. s.v. Μωθώ· κώμη Ἀραβίας, ἐν ᾗ
ἔθανεν Ἀντίγονος ὁ Μακεδὼν ὑπὸ Ῥαβίλου τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Ἀραβίων, ὡς Οὐράνιος ἐν
πέμπτῳ). Instead of Ἀντίγουος, Gutschmid reads Ἀντίοχος, and understood by it
Antinchus XII. It seems to me, however, that this hypothesis is shattered by a
careful comparison of Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 15. 2 with 15. 1. It would also
thus be necessary to assume two kings between Aretas II. in B.C. 96 and Aretas
III. in B.C. 85. In the passage from Steph. Byz. we must in any case suppose
that some confusion has entered in. But all the less can we build upon it any
satisfactory conclusion. Compare also Müller, Fragm. hist, graec. iv. 525.
[1557] Damascus, however, cannot have continued in unbroken possession of the
Arabians down to the Roman conquest, for, according to a coin of the year 243
Seleuc. aera B.C. 70-69 (Mionnet, Suppl. viii. 193), it was then autonomous. In
agreement with this also is the fact that it was occupied about that time by the
Jewish queen Alexandra in order so protect it against Ptolemy Mennäus (Josephus,
Antiq. xiii. 16, 3, Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 3). [1558] See the coins in Eckhel,
Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 330; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 284 sq.;
Visconti, Iconographie grecque, ii. 444 sq.=atlas, pl. 48, n. 12; Lenormant,
Trésor de numismatique, p. 117, pl. lvi. n. 17, 18; Duc de Luynes, Revue
Numismatique, 1858, p. 293 sq., pl. xiv. n. 2, 3; De Saulcy, Annvaire, t. iv.
1873, p. 11 sq., pl. i. n. 4, 5; Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe (1885), p. 47,
Illust. vi. 24.—One of these coins has the year number AP=101, on which compare
Duc de Luynes, Revue Numismatique, 1858, p. 311 sq. The reference of this coin
to Aretas IV., which Kohden favours (De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis,
1885, p. 6 sq.), is impossible, since the title on it, רחם עמה, cannot be
synonymous with Φιλέλλην. [1559] Diodorus, xl. 4,=Exc. Vatican, pp. 128-130.
Compare also Dio Caseins, xxxvii. 15; Plutarch. Pompeius, 41; Appian, Mithridat.
106; Orosius, vi. 6. [1560] Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. v. 131; Babelon, Monnaies
de la république romaine, t. i. 1885, p. 120 sq. On the coin Aretas is
represented as kneeling, with the superscription: “Rex Aretas, M. Scaur, aed.
cur., ex S. C.” [1561] Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 405, and
Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 476 f., assume from 2 Corinthians 11:32 that
Damascus, from the beginning of the Roman period down to A.D. 106, had continued
in subjection to the Arabian kings. But, besides the passage from Jerome quoted
by us in Div. II. vol. i. p. 97, the following evidence seems to tell against
that view: (1) According to Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 18. 74, and Ptolemy, v. 15. 22,
it belonged to Decapolis, i.e. to the cities which had their freedom given them,
and were placed only under the general supervision of the Roman governor of
Syria. It cannot therefore, in consequence of the arrangements made by Porapey,
have been given over to the king of Arabia. (2) The existence of a “cohors I.
Flavia Damascenorum” (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. 2, p. 870, Dipl. n. xxvii.;
Ephemeris epigr. t. v. p. 194 and p. 652 sq., a military diploma of Domitian of
A.D. 90 found at Mainz) proves that at latest in the time of the Flavian
dynasty, therefore in the first Christian century, regular enlistments of Roman
troops were made in Damascus. This, to say the least of it, was very unlikely to
occur in a city belonging to the territory of an Arabian king, although, indeed,
Mommsen regards such enlistment as possible in the territories of kings who
recognised the sovereignty of Rome (Hermes, xix. 48, 49). (3) After the
territory of the Arabian king had been converted in A.D. 106 into a Roman
province, Damascus belonged not to the Roman province of Arabia, but to the
province of Syria. (So, along with others, testifies Justin in the Dial. c.
Trypho, c. 78 s. fin.: Δαμασκὸς τῆς ἀρʼῥαβικῆς γῆς ἦν καὶ ἔστιν, εἰ καὶ νῦν
προσνενέμηται τῇ Συροφοινίκῃ λεγομένῃ). (4) In the boundary dispute between the
Sidonians and the Damascenes in the time of Tiberius (Antiq. xviii. 6. 3),
mention is made only of the suzerainty of the Roman governor, not of that of the
Arabian king. (5) Also the coins of Damascus, with the images of Augustus,
Tiberius, Nero, are very unfavourable to the idea of a contemporary subjection
to the king of Arabia. Recently Rohden has therefore rightly (De Palaestina et
Arabia provinciis Romanis, 1885, pp. 4-9) decided against the views of Marquardt
and Mommsen.—Wandel (Zeitechrift für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben, 1887,
pp. 433-443) thinks he has made a completely new discovery when he declares that
Damascus was “neither Arabian nor Roman, but an independent state with certain
guaranteed liberties under Roman suzerainty and Roman protectors” (p. 441 f.).
This, so far as it is correct, is precisely the view of those who speak of it as
“Roman.” [1562] De Vogüé, Revue Numismatique, 1868, p. 157; De Saulcy, Annuaire,
iv. p. 13. In B.C. 55 Gabinius undertook an expedition against the Nabateans.
Whether at that time Aretas or his successor Malchus occupied the throne is not
stated by Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 6. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 7). Malchus I.
(Μάλχος or Μάλιχος, see Nöldeke in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 63)
reigned from B.C. 50 to B.C. 28. In B.C. 47 he placed cavalry at the service of
Caesar for the Alexandrian war (Bell. Alex. i.). When the Parthians conquered
Palestine in B.C. 40, Herod wished to take refuge with Malchus, but was not
received by him (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 14. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 14. 1-2).
On account of the aid given by him to the Parthians, Ventidius exacted from him
a tribute in B.C. 39 (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 41). Antony bestowed a portion of his
territory upon Cleopatra (Dio Cassius, xlix. 32; Plutarch, Anton. 36; Josephus,
Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 4).[1563] In B.C. 32 Malchus sent to Antony auxiliary
troops for the Actean war (Plutarch, Anton. 61). Since he no longer paid the
tribute for the portion granted to Cleopatra, war was waged against him by Herod
at the instigation of Antony. The war, which at the beginning was favourable to
the Arabians, ended in their utter overthrow in B.C. 32-31 (Josephus, Antiq. xv.
5; Wars of the Jews, i. 19). The last that we hear of Malchus is that he
promised the aged Hyrcanus to support him in the revolt planned against Herod in
B.C. 30 (Antiq. xv. 6. 2-3).—To our Malchus De Vogüé thinks a Nabatean
inscription at Bozra should be referred, in which “the eleventh year of King
Muliku” is spoken of (למלכו מלכא 11 שנת).[1564] Renan finds this same Malchus
(מלכו מלך נבטו) on an inscription which has been discovered at Puteoli.[1565]
[1563] The statement of Josephus, Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 3, that Malchus was
put to death at the instigation of Cleopatra, is erroneous. [1564] De Vogüé,
Syrie centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques, pp. 103-105. The inscription is,
according to De Vogüé (p. 114), written in an older character than the other
inscriptions which have come down from the first century after Christ. [1565]
Renan, Journal asiatique, VIIe série, t. ii. 1873, pp. 366-382. Obodas II.,
about B.C. 28-9, was king during the campaign of Aelius Gallus against the
southern Arabians, B.C. 25-24, in which campaign a thousand Nabatean auxiliary
troops took part. He made over the concerns of government wholly to his
ἐπίτροπος Syllaeus, who gave to Aeliua Gallus evil counsel as to the course of
march that he should take (Strabo, xvi. pp. 780-782). Obodas is still spoken of
as king in the last days of Herod, when Syllaeus went to Jerusalem to treat for
the hand of Salome, the sister of Herod (Antiq. xvi. 7. 6; Wars of the Jews, i.
24. 6), and when Herod undertook an expedition against the Arabians (Antiq. xvi.
9. 1 and 4). Just about that time, B.C. 9 (?), Obodas died it is supposed by
poison administered to him by Syllaeus (Antiq. xvi 9. 4). Some coins have been
communicated by De Saulcy.[1566] [1566] De Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. p. 19. Also
Euting-Gutschmid, p. 84.—Two coins of Syllaeus (?) are given by De Saulcy,
Mélanges de Numismatique, t. iii. 1882, p. 196. Aretas IV., whose original name
was Aeneas, from B.C. 9 till A.D. 40, succeeded Obodas immediately in the
possession of the throne (Antiq. xvi. 9. 4).[1567] Because of his assuming the
government of his own accord, Augustus was at first indignant, but afterwards
recognised him as king (Antiq. xvi. 10. 9). Aretas repeatedly preferred
accusations against Syllaeus before Augustus (Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the
Jews, i. 29. 3), and in consequence of these complaints Syllaeus was put to
death in Rome (Strabo, xvi. p. 782; Nicholas of Damascus in Müller, Fragm. hist,
graec. iii. 351). When, after the death of Herod in B.C. 4, the governor Varus
was obliged to fit out a warlike expedition against the Jews, Aretas contributed
auxiliary troops to his army (Antiq. xvii. 10. 9: Wars of the Jews, ii. 5.
1).—From the long reign of Aretas only a few incidents belonging to its latest
period have come down to us. The tetrarch Herod Antipas had a daughter of Aretas
for his wife, and her he subsequently divorced in order to marry Herodias. The
enmity occasioned thereby between the two princes was further inflamed by
disputes regarding boundaries. An open conflict followed, in which the army of
Herod was defeated by the troops of Aretas. Owing to his having proceeded at his
own instance, Aretas was to have been chastised by the governor Vitellius at the
instigation of the Emperor Tiberius. But when Vitellius, on his march against
Petra, received in Jerusalem the tidings of the death of Tiberius he turned
back, leaving his task unperformed (Antiq. xviii. 5.1 and 3). These events
therefore belong to the latest years of the reign of Tiberius, A.D. 36-37. At a
period not much later occurred Paul’s flight from Damascus, at which time
Damascus was under a governor (ἐθνάρχης) of King Aretas (2 Corinthians 11:32).
We learn from this statement that now again Damascus belonged to the domain of
the Arabian king. This is also confirmed by the fact that from the time of
Caligula and Claudius no coins of Damascus are known having the image of the
Roman emperor. Compare Div. II. vol. i. pp. 97, 98. Probably Caligula, who was
induced to the performance of such acts of grace, had restored the city to
Aretas.[1568]—Of no other Nabatean king have we so rich materials in coins and
inscriptions as of Aretas IV. Among the inscriptions of el-Hegr=Medain-Salih,
which Doughty, Huber, and, most correctly of all, Euting have communicated,
there are found no fewer than twenty which are dated from the reign of this
Aretas, most of which are in a good state of preservation.[1569] The same Aretas
is probably also referred to in an inscription at Sidon,[1570] and on the two
inscriptions from Puteoli.[1571] His name also occurs not infrequently on
coins.[1572] On the inscriptions at el-Hegr he is constantly called חרתת מלך
נבטו רחם עמה, “Charitheth, king of the Nabateans, who loves his people”
(Rachem-ammeh). It is the same also, as a rule, upon the coins. The title
Rachem-ammeh is an expression of a national patriotic sentiment, and embraces an
indirect refusal or repudiation of such titles as Φιλορώμαιος or Φιλόκαισαρ
(Gutschmid, p. 85).[1573] That this very Aretas, Rachem-ammeh, is identical with
Aretas IV. may be regarded as certain. For the year of this reign as given on
the inscriptions of el-Hegr reach down to the year 48, and indeed the
twenty-eighth year is written on both inscriptions (Euting, No. 16 and 17) in
words, שנת ארבעין ותמונא לחרתת מלך נבטו רחם עמה, so that a doubt in regard to
the number is impossible. The coins (also according to Euting-Gutschmid, p. 85)
come down to the year 48; but only Aretas IV. can have reigned for so long a
time. And there is thus also a proof supplied that the Aretas mentioned in the
last years of Herod the Great is identical with the opponent of Herod Antipas.
[1567] The year of the accession to the throne cannot be with certainty
determined. Compare the chronology of the last years of Herod in vol. i. p. 414.
[1568] So also Gutschmid in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 85. The older
literature on this question is given by Anger, Wieseler, Winer in the
above-named works. Very improbable is the view presented in various forms that
Aretas had gained possession of Damascus by force. Such an attack upon Roman
territory could not have been left unheeded. The coins of Damascus with the
image of Tiberius come down to the year 345 Seleuc. aera=A.D. 33-34 (Mionnet, v.
286; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 30); those of Nero begin
with the year 374, Seleuc. aera=A.D. 62-63 (Mionnet, v. 286; De Saulcy,
Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 36). In the interval Damascus may have been
in the possession of the Arabian king. [1569] Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften,
pp. 24-61 (Nr. 1-20). [1570] De Vogüé, Syrie, centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques,
p. 113=Levy, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1869, p. 435 ff. With reference to the date,
compare also Euting-Gutschmid, p. 85. De Saulcy is inclined to refer it to
Aretas III, and by the Zoilus therein spoken about, to understand the person of
that name known to us from Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 2 and 4. See Comptes
rendus de la société française de numismatique et d’archéologie, 1873, which is
known to be only by Bursian’s Jahresbericht, ii. 1246 f. [1571] Gildemeister,
Zeitschrift der DMG. 1869, p. 150 ff.; Levy in same Journal, p. 652 ff.; Nöldeke
in same Journal, 1884, pp. 144, 654; Renan, Journal asiatiques, VIIe série, t.
ii. 1873, p. 366 sqq.—With regard to the dating of both, compare
Euting-Gutschmid, p. 85. [1572] Duc de Luynes, Revue Numismatique, 1858, pp.
294-296; De Vogüé, Revue Numismatique, 1868, p. 162 sqq.; De Saulcy, Annuaire,
t. iv. 1873, pp. 13-17; Babelon, Revue Numismatique, 1887, pp. 374-377. [1573]
He casually remarks that one should expect, according to the Semitic חרתת,
naturally Ἀρέθας, as indeed the well-known bishop of Caesarea names himself. The
form Ἀρέτας undoubtedly has arisen under the influence of the Greek word ἀρετή.
Abias, ὁ Ἀράβων βασιλεύς, in the time of Claudius undertook a warlike expedition
against Izates of Adiabene, in which he was aided by the very subjects of
Izates, who were disgusted at his conversion to Judaism. Abias was conquered by
Izates, and in order to escape falling into his enemy’s hands took his own life
(Antiq. xx. 4. 1).—In Gutschmid’s list this Abias is not inserted (or is
overlooked?). But certainly the fact is remarkable that a Nabatean king takes
the field against the Adiabene lying on the other side of the Euphrates.—In
another place, however, Josephus says expressly that Ναβατηνή stretched from the
Red Sea to the Euphrates.[1574] [1574] Josephus, Antiq. i. 12. 4: οὗτοι (scil.
the descendants of Ishmacl) πᾶσαν τὴν ἀπʼ Εὐφράτου καθήκουσαν πρὸς τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν
θάλασσαν κατοικοῦσι, Ναβατηνὴν τὴν χώραν ὀνομάσαντες. Malchus II., about A.D.
48-71, in A.D. 67 contributed auxiliary troops to the army of Vespasian for the
Jewish war (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2), and is mentioned in the
Periplus maris Erythraei, composed about A.D. 70, as king of the Nabateans
(Periplus maris Erythrasi, § 19, ed. Fabricius: Λευκὴ κώμη, διὰ ἧς ὁδός ἐστιν
εἰς Πέτραν πρὸς Μαλίχαν, βασιλέα Ναβαταίων). An inscription at Salkhat in the
Hauran is dated from “the seventeenth year of Maliku, king of the Nabateans, son
of Charithath, king of the Nabateans, who loves his people”
(Rachem-ammeh).[1575] At el-Hegr were found six inscriptions, which are dated
according to the years of the reign of Maliku,[1576] of which the latest
(Euting, No. 26) is of “the twenty-first year of King Maliku, king of the
Nabateans,” כשנת עשרין וחדה למלכו מלכא מלד נבטו. There are coins of the year 9,
and of the year 23 (so Euting-Gutschmid, p. 86, not as De Vogüé, who reads 25
and 33).[1577] Since the king Rabel, according to the inscription of D’mer,
succeeded to the throne in A.D. 71, Malchus reigned from about A.D. 48 to 71.
During his time also Damascus had been, probably by Nero, again separated from
the Nabatean kingdom (see above, p. 357). [1575] De Vogüé, Syrie centrale,
Inscriptions sémitiques, p. 107; Schröder, Zeitschrift der DMG. 1884, p. 532 f.
[1576] Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, pp. 61-68 (Nr. 21-26). [1577] Duc de
Luyncs, Revue Numismatique, 1858, p. 296 eq.; De Vogüé, Revue Numismatique,
1868, p. 166 sq.; De Saulcy, Annuaire, t. iv. 1873, p. 17 sq.—A coin of Malchus
and Sekilath without date is given by Sorlin-Dorigny, Revue Numismatique, 1887,
p. 369 sq. Rabel, A.D. 71-106, is known only from inscriptions and coins. His
name is, according to Euting, to be pronounced not as formerly Dabei, but Rabel
(רבאל). An older Ῥάβιλος βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἀραβίων is mentioned in Steph. Byz. s.v.
Μωθώ (see above, p. 352). The year of his accession to the throne can be
precisely determined according to the inscription at D’mer, which is dated from
the month Ijjar “in the year 405 according to the reckoning of the Romans, that
is, in the twenty-fourth year of the king Rabel.”[1578] By the year 405,
“according to the reckoning of the Romans,” is to be understood the year of the
Seleucid era. Accordingly the date corresponds to May A.D. 94. See Gutschmid, p.
86. The first year of Rabel is A.D. 71. On two inscriptions at el-Hegr the
second and fourth year of Rabel are mentioned;[1579] on an inscription at
Salkhat in the Hauran the twenty-fifth, שנת עשרין וחמש לרבאל;[1580] the coins
give no certain date.[1581] Since on some coins Rabel is mentioned along with
his mother, he must have been a minor at the time of his accession. Mention of
him on the inscription at D’mer, east of Damascus, on the way to Palmyra, proves
that the Nabatean dominion extended to that region. [1578] So reads Euting,
Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 86. The first to publish it was Sachau in
Zeitschrift der DMG. 1884, p. 536 ff.; and he read 410. [1579] Euting,
Nabatäische Inschriften, pp. 68-70 (Nr. 27, 28). [1580] De Vogüé Syrie centrale,
Inscriptions sémitiques, p. 112. [1581] Duc de Luynes, Revue Numismatique, 1884,
p. 297 sq.; De Vogüé Revue Numismatique, 1868, p. 167 sq.; De Saulcy, Annuaire,
t. iv. 1873, pp. 19-21. In addition: Euting-Gutschmid, p. 86. Rabel was probably
the last king of the Nabateans, for in A.D. 106 “Arabia belonging to Petra” was
converted by Cornelius Palma, the governor of Syria, into a Roman
province.[1582] The boundary of the province seems to have approached that of
what had been the Nabatean kingdom.[1583] In any case, Petra in the south and
Bostra in the north (in the district of Hauran), both of which reckoned
according to the provincial era of A.D. 106, had belonged to that kingdom as its
most important cities.[1584] Subsequently in the fourth Christian century Arabia
was divided into two provinces: Arabia with Bostra as its capital, and
Palaestina tertia with Petra as its capital.[1585] [1582] Dio Cassius, lxviii.
14: κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον χρόνον καὶ Πάλμας τῆς Συρίας ἄρχων τὴν Ἀραβίαν τὴν
πρὸς τῇ Πέτρᾳ ἐχειρώσατο καὶ Ῥωμαίων ὑπήκοον ἐποιήσατο. Compare, Ammianus, xiv.
8. 13. The fact is also celebrated by coins of Trajan, with the superscription
Arab. adquisit (Cohen, Médailles impériales, 2 ed. vol. ii. 1882, Trajan, n.
26-38).—On Cornelius Palma, see also Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t.
iii. n. 2296, 2297, 2305; Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 2186; Liebenam,
Forschungen sur Verwaltungsgeschichte des röm. Kaiserreichs, Bd. i. 1888, p. 43
f.—On the incorporation of Arabia: Dierauer in Büdinger’s Untersuchungen zur
röm. Kaisergeschichte, i. 111; De la Berge, Essai sur la règne de Trajan, Paris
1877, pp. 71-73; Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 2, p. 554. [1583]
Rohden (De Palaestina et Arabia provinciis Romanis, pp. 15, 17) makes an attempt
to determine the boundaries more exactly. [1584] Chronicon Paschale (ed.
Dindorf, i. 472): Πετραῖοι καὶ Βοστρηνοὶ ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς ἑαυτῶν χρόνους ἀριθμοῦσι.
The Chronicon Paschale makes this remark under the year 105 (“Candido et
Quadrate Coss.”). But the exact date of the epoch was 22nd March 106. See
Waddington, “Les ères employées en Syrie” (Revue archéologique, nouv. série, t.
xi. 1865, pp. 263-272); Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 431; Gutschmid
in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, p. 87. The inscriptions are given in Le Bas
and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 2088, 2462, 2463. See also Waddington’s
explanations of n. 2463. [1585] On the history of the province, see Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 2 Aufl. 1831, pp. 431-434, and the literature
quoted there; Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs,
ii. 373-388; Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 471-486; Rohden, De Palaestina et
Arabia provinciis Romanis quaestiones selectae, Diss. Berol. 1885. Rohden gives
at pp. 49-57 a list of the governors of the province, and seeks to show at pp.
22-30 that the partition of the province took place between A.D. 357 and A.D.
361. See also, Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des röm.
Kaiserreichs, Bd. i. 1888, pp. 42, 49, for a list of the governors.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 44: APPENDIX III
========================================================================

APPENDIX III THE JEWISH AND MACEDONIAN MONTHS COMPARED WITH THE JULIAN CALENDAR
1. נִיסָן |Nisan |Ξανθικός |April. | 2. אִיָּר |Ijjar |Ἀρτεμίσιος |May. | 3.
סִיוָן |Sivan |Δαίσιος |June. | 4. תַּמּוּז |Tammuz |Πάνεμος |July. | 5. אָב |Ab
|Λῷος |August. | 6. אֱלוּל |Elul |Γορπιαῖος |September. | 7. תִּשְׁרִי |Tischri
|Ὑπερβερεταῖος |October. | 8. מַרְחֶשְׁוָן |Marcheshvan |Δῖος |November. | 9.
כִּסְלֵו |Chisleu |Ἀπελλαῖος |December. | 10. טֵבֵת |Tebeth |Αὐδυναῖος |January.
| 11. שְׁבָט |Shebat |Περίτιος |February. | 12. אֲדָר |Adar |Δύστρος |March. |
The Jewish names of the months, as has been now thoroughly established by the
cuneiform inscriptions, are of Babylonian-Assyrian origin. On the tablet of
months discovered at Nineveh the names are given as follows (see Schrader, The
Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, London 1885-1888, vol. ii. p. 69):
Nisaannu, Airu, Sivanu, Duuzu, Abu, Ululu, Tasritav, Araah samna, Kisilivu,
Tibituv, Sabatu, Addaru.—Within the realm of Judaism the most ancient document
which gives the names of the months in regular succession is the Megillath
Taanith, which was edited sometime during the first Christian century, since it
is quoted in the Mishna (see vol. i. of this work, p. 163). Of later witnesses
we need here mention only the little-known Christian Josephus, who, in his
Hypomnesticum, c. 27, gives the following list (Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus
Vet. Test. t. ii. Appendix, also in Gallandi, Bibl. patr. t. xiv., and Migne,
Patrolog. graec. t. cvi.): Νησάν, Εἴαρ, Σιουάν, Θαμούζ, Ἄβ, Ἐλούλ, Ὀσρί [read
Θισρί], Μαρσαβᾶν, Χασελεῦ, Τηβήθ, Σαβάθ, Ἀδάρ. In regard to the several names
the oldest proofs and examples, apart from the cuneiform inscriptions, occur in
the following passages:— 1. נִיםָן, Nehemiah 2:1; Esther 3:7; Mishna, Pesachim
iv. 9; Shekalim iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 1, 3, 4; Taanith i. 2, 7, iv. 5; Nedarim
viii. 5; Bechoroth ix. 5. Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften aus Arabien (1885), n.
ii. 4, v. 3, x. 7, xi. 7, xii. 9, xvi. 3, xx. 8, xxi. 4; De Vogüé, Syrie
centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques (1868), Palmyrenische Inschriften, n. i. 2, 4,
6, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, and elsewhere.—The Greek Νισάν occurs in Esra
apocr. v. 6; Additions to Esther i. 1; Josephus, Antiq. i. 3. 3, ii. 14. 6, iii.
8. 4, 10. 5, xi. 4. 8. 2. אִיָּר, Rosh hashana i. 3; Euting, Nabatäische
Inschriften, n. viii. 10, ix. 9, xiii. 8, xxvii. 13; De Vogüé, Inscript. sémit.
Palmyren. n. 88.—Ἰάρ, Josephus, Antiq. viii. 3. 1. 3. סִיוָן, Esther 8:9;
Shekalim iii. 1; Bechoroth ix. 5; De Vogüé, Palmyren. n. 33a and 33b.—Σιουάν,
Bar_1:8. 4. תַּמּוּז, Taanith iv. 5, 6. 5. אָב, Pesachim iv. 5; Shekalim iii. 1;
Rosh hashana i. 3; Taanith ii. 10, iv. 5, 6; Megilla i. 3; Bechoroth ix. 5;
Euting, n. vii. 5; De Vogüé, n. 5, 28, 29, 73, 84, 103.—In Josephus, Antiq. iv.
4. 7, we have the reading Ἀββά (more correctly Ἀβά). It is, indeed, only a
conjectural reading introduced by Bernard, but it is a well-conceived
conjecture. For the Σαβά adopted, in accordance with the manuscripts by Niese,
cannot possibly have been written by Josephus. 6. אֱלוּל, Nehemiah 6:15;
Shekalim iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 1, 3; Taanith iv. 5; Bechoroth ix. 5, 6;
Euting, n. i. 3; De Vogüé, n. 78, 79, 123a I.—Ἐλούλ, 1Ma_14:27. 7. תִּשְׁרִי,
Shekalim iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 1, 3, 4; Bechoroth ix. 5, 6; De Vogüé, n. 17,
22, 85, 123a II.—In Josephus, Antiq. viii. 4. 1, where editions since Hudson
have Θισρί, Niese reads Ἀθύρει. But Hudson’s reading, which is supported by the
form used by older Latin writers, is without doubt the correct one. 8.
מַרְחֶשְׁוָן, Taanith i. 3, 4.—Μαρσουάνης, Josephus, Antiq. i. 3. 3.—On the
Palmyrene inscriptions this month is called Kanun, כנון, De Vogüé, n. 31, 63,
64. 9. כִּסְלֵו, Zechariah 7:1; Nehemiah 1:1; Rosh hashana i. 3; Taanith i.
5.—Χασελεῦ, 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_4:52; 2Ma_1:9; 2Ma_1:18; 2Ma_10:5; Josephus, Antiq.
xii. 5. 4, 7. 6.—On the Palmyrene inscriptions the name is given in the form
כסלול, Kislul or Kaslul (De Vogüé, n. 24, 75). 10. טֵבֵת, Esther 2:16; Taanith
iv. 5; Euting, n. iii. 2, xiv. 9, xv. 8; De Vogüé, n. 66, 123a III.—Τεβέθος,
Josephus, Antiq. xi. 5. 4. 11. שְׁבָט, Zechariah 1:7; Rosh hashana i 1; Euting,
n. iv. 9; De Vogüé, n. 67, 89.—Σαβάτ, 1Ma_16:14. 12. אֲדָר, frequently in the
Book of Esther, and also in Additions to that book; Shekalim i. 1, iii. 1; Rosh
hashana i. 3; Megilla i. 4, iii. 4; Nedarim viii. 5; Edujoth vii. 7; Bechoroth
ix. 5; Euting, n. xxiv. 6; De Vogüé, n. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 94, 117,
119.—Ἀδάρ, 1Ma_7:43; 1Ma_7:49; 2Ma_15:36; Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8. 49, xi. 6. 2,
xii. 10. 5.—אְדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן and אֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, Megilla i. 4; Nedarim viii. 5.
The Jewish months continued always to be, what the “months” of all civilised
nations originally were, actual lunar months. Since the astronomical length of a
month is equivalent to 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 seconds (Ideler,
Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 43), then it must follow that in actual practice
months of 29 and mouths of 30 days must pretty regularly alternate with one
another.—But twelve such lunar months would give only 354 days, 8 hours, 48
minutes, and 38 seconds (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 66), whereas the
solar year embraccs 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 48 seconds (Ideler, i.
35, 66) The difference between a lunar year of twelve months and the solar year
is 10 days and 21 hours. In order to do away with this difference a month must
be intercalated, at least, in every third year, sometimes even in the second. It
was observed in very early times that a sufficiently accurate equation would be
reached, if three times in every eight years a month were intercalated (the
difference in eight years amounting to 87 days). Acquaintance with this cycle of
eight years, this “Octaeteris,” was possessed by those who arranged the Greek
games for every fourth year; for the cycle of four years is only got by halving
that of eight years.[1586] But even as early as the fifth century before Christ,
the astronomer Meton of Athens proposed a still more exact system of equation, a
cycle of nine years, in which a month had to be seven times intercalated.[1587]
This was considerably in advance of the eight years’ cycle in accuracy, since in
this case in 19 years only a difference of somewhere about 2 hours remained
(Ideler, i. 47), whereas in the eight years’ cycle in 8 years there was a
remaining difference of 1½ days. [1586] Compare on the antiquity of the
“Octaeteris,” Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 304 f., ii. 605; Boeckh, Zur
Geschickte der Mondcyclen der Hellenen (Jahrbücher für class. Philol. 1.
Supplementbd. 1855-1856), p. 9 ff.; Adolf Schmidt, Handbuch der griechischen
Chronologie, herausg. von Rühl, Jena 1888, pp. 61-95. [1587] According to
Diodorus, xii. 36, Meton made known his system in B.C. 433-432. Compare also
Theophrastus, de signis tempestatum, c. 4; Aelian, Variae historiae, x. 7.—But
the introduction of the system of Meton at Athens did not take place, as Boeckh
was the first to prove, until some time later (according to Usener, B.C. 312;
according to Unger, between B.C. 346 and B.C. 325, see Philologus, xxxix. 1880,
p. 475 ff.; Dürr is in favour of the former view in Die Reisen des Kaisers
Hadrian, 1881, p. 90 ff.). Compare, generally, on the Calendar of the Athenians,
Mommsen, Chronologie, Untersuchungen über des Kalenderwesen der Griechen
insonderheit der Athener, 1883, and Adolf Schmidt, Handbuch der griechischen
Chronologie, 1888. How far, then, had the Jews in the time of Christ advanced in
the knowledge of these matters? They, naturally, had a general sort of
acquaintance with them. But, unless all indications are deceitful, they did not
in the time of Jesus Christ possess as yet any fixed calendar, but on the basis
of a purely empirical observation, on each occasion they began a new month with
the appearing of the new moon, and likewise on the basis of each repeated
observation intercalated a month in the spring of every third and second year,
in accordance with the rule that the Passover under all circumstances must fall
after the vernal equinox.[1588] [1588] For the view that the Jews had even in
the time of Christ a fixed calendar, Wieseler has argued with special vigour
(Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, p. 401 if.; Beiträge zur richtigen
Würdigung der Evangelien. p. 296 ff.).—The correct view is given, e.g., by
Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 512 ff.; Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen
Kalendar, pp. 117 ff., 137 ff.; Caspari, Chronological and Geographical
Introduction to the Life of Jesus Christ, p. 10 f. 1. The author of the
astronomical pieces in the Book of Enoch was aware that the year has six months
of 30 days each and as many of 29 days each;[1589] and Galen, in the second
century after Christ, says that “the people of Palestine” divide the period of
every two months, embracing 59 days, into two unequal halves, so that they
reckon to one month 30 days, and to the other 29 days.[1590] But it would be a
mistake if we were from this to draw the conclusion that the duration of the
months was à priori strictly determined. Even in the age of the Mishna, in the
second Christian century, this cannot have been the case; for the whole
legislation of the Mishna rests on the presupposition that the new month,
without previous reckoning, was begun each time upon the new moon becoming
visible. So soon as the appearance of the new moon was proved by credible
witnesses before the competent court at Jerusalem and later at Jamnia, the new
moon was solemnized, and, after all the rites had been observed, messengers were
sent in order to notify the opening of the new month. So, at least, was it done
during the six months in which it was of importance on account of the existence
of any festival: in Nisan on account of the Passover, in Ab on account of the
Fast, in Elul on account of the New Year, in Tizri on account of the arrangement
of the feast days of that month, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of
Tabernacles; in Chisleu on account of the feast of the Dedication of the Temple,
in Adar on account of the feast of Purim, and so long as the temple stood, in
Adar also on account of the little Passover.[1591] Since, naturally, it was
known pretty accurately when the appearing of the new moon was to be expected,
every effort would be made so as to fix the date wherever possible upon the
right day. But the duration of the particular months was not fixed. This is
confirmed especially by the following two passages from the Mishna: (1) Arachin
iii. 7: “If one should have any apprehension in regard to the New Year feast,
lest the month Elul should be fixed at 30 days, he may,” etc.[1592] (2) Arachin
ii. 2: “In one year there are, at least, four months of thirty days, and of
these there have not hitherto been more than eight.” From the former passage it
appears that it was by no means established à priori whether a month should have
29 or 30 days; and the latter passage shows how uncertain this empirical method
left the calendar. Even in the time of the Mishna, the second Christian century,
it was still a possible contingency that a year might come in which only four
months had each 30 days, and again another in which there might be eight such
months. Thus the length of the lunar year might vary from 352 days to 356 days,
while in actual fact it can only oscillate between 354 and 355 daye.[1593]
[1589] Book of Enoch, 78:15-16, in Dillmann’s translation: “And for three months
he makes 30 days his period, and for three months he makes his period 29 days,
in which he performs his waning in the first period and in the first door in 167
days. And in the period of his waxing he appeare for three months every thirty
days, and for three months every nine and twenty days.” [1590] Galen, Opp. ed.
Kühn, t. xvii. p. 23: τοὺς δύο μῆνας ἡμερῶν γινομένους θʹ καὶ νʹ τέμνουσιν εἰς
ἄνισα μέρη, τὸν μὲν ἕτερον αὐτῶν λʹ ἡμερῶν ἐργαζόμενοι, τὸν δʼ ἕτερον θʹ καὶ κʹ.
See the passage given at length in Greek and English in Caspari, Chronological
and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Jesus Christ, p. 9. [1591] Compare,
generally, Rosh hashana i. 3 ff., ii. throughout, iii. 1, iv. 4. See, further,
especially Zuckermann, Materialien zur Entwickelung der altjüdischen
Zeitrechnung im Talmud (1882), pp. 1-39.—According to Sanhedrin i. 2 (compare
Rosh hashana ii. 9, iii. 1), for the declaring of the new moon and of the
intercalary year a court of three men was sufficient, but it is not said that as
a rule it was determined by such a tribunal. [1592] a That the later rule,
according to which Elul must always have 29 days, did not then exist, is also
seen from Shebiith x. 2. [1593] In the context of the passage quoted (Arachin
ii. 2), with reference to matters of the most diverse description, are laid down
what might be the minimum and maximum limits. The variation spoken of in the
length of the year has therefore actually been observed and, even in the age of
the Mishna, was regarded as a possible occurrence.—To the authorities of the
Babylonian Talmud, indeed, the statement did appear so remarkable that attempts
were made to explain it away. See bab. Arachin 8b-9a; Zuckermann, Materialien,
p. 64 f. 2. The system of intercalation was not fixed even in the second century
after Christ. Julius Africanus indeed says that the Jews as well as the Greeks
intercalated three months in every eight years;[1594] and we have no reason for
doubting this statement in regard to the time of Julius Africanus, in the first
half of the third Christian century, although it is uncertain so far as the
Greeks are concerned, for the majority of them had long adopted the more exact
cycle of nineteen years. Also for the time of Jesus Christ this statement may be
regarded as generally valid, since the thrice repeated intercalation in the
course of eight years would naturally result from a purely empirical procedure.
But the knowledge of this eight years’ cycle is certainly even in the
astronomical pieces in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (which may be
approximately regarded as witnesses for the period of Christ) extremely inexact,
and it is not there made use of for the constructing of a regular intercalary
system. In the astronomical pieces of the Book of Enoch the erroneous idea is
taken up that the moon in the eight years is only about eighteen days behind the
sun, for the lunar year is set down at 354 days and the solar year at 364 (Book
of Enoch, c. 74:17; see generally cc. 72-82). The very same inexact conceptions
are found also in the Book of Jubilees, c. 6 (Ewald’s Jahrbücher der bibl.
Wissensch. ii. 246). A calendar, built up upon such premises as these, would
certainly very soon land in serious error. It was fortunate therefore that in
actual practice it was disregarded, and the intercalation carried out without
reference to any preconceived theory on the basis of an empirical observation
made on each separate occasion. That this was still the case in the times of the
Mishna is proved from the two following passages:—(1) Megillah i. 4: “If one has
read the Megillah (the Book of Esther for the celebration of the feast of Purim)
in the first Adar, and the year is then declared to be an intercalary year, he
must read it again in the second or intercalary Adar.” (2) Edujoth vii. 7: “R.
Joshua and K Papias testified that the year might be declared an intercalary
year at any time during the month Adar, for previously this could be done only
to the feast of Purim. These same testified that one might conditionally declare
the year an intercalary year. When on one occasion Rabban Gamaliel was on a
journey in order to obtain a concession from the governor of Syria, and remained
long away, the year was pronounced an intercalary year under the reservation
that the decision would stand only if Rabban Gamaliel were satisfied. And when
he arrived he was satisfied, and so it was an intercalary year.” Both passages
are so clear that they need no further commentary. Yet quite at the close of the
year, in the month Adar, even after the feast of Purim had been celebrated, the
decision might be arrived at whether or not a month was to be intercalated.
There is absolutely no tracc of any previous calculation.[1595] [1594] Jul.
Africanus in Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, viii. p. 390=Syncell. ed.
Dindorf, i. 611=Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, ii. 302: Ἕλληνες καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι τρεῖς
μῆνας ἐμβολίμους ἔτεσιν ὀκτὼ μαρεμβάλλουσιν (Latin also in Jerome, Comment. in
Daniel 9:24 sqq., Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 683 sq.). [1595] a All that is said in
Tosephta Sanhedrin ii., bab. Sanhedrin 11a-12a, and elsewhere regarding the
grounds for intercalation, and regarding the procedure carried on in connection
therewith, goes to confirm what is stated above. It may therefore be accepted as
certain that the decision as to whether there should be intercalation or not,
was made on each separate occasion in the course of the year according to the
principles stated. For the more important details, see below at note 9a. The
rule, according to which it was determined whether to intercalate or not, was
very simple. It required that care should be taken that the Passover festival,
to be celebrated at the full moon in Nisan (14th Nisan), should in any case fall
after the vernal equinox (μετὰ ἰσημερίαν ἐαρινήν), when the aun stood in the
sign Aries. This explanation is characterized by Anatolius in the fragment of
decided importance in relation to the history of the Jewish calendar given in
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16-19, as the view in which all Jewish
authorities are agreed, pre-eminently as that of Aristobulus, the celebrated
Jewish philosopher of the time of Ptolemy Philouietor (not Philadelphus, as
Anatolius erroneously says). With this also agree the statements of Philo and
Josephus.[1596] If one therefore toward the close of the year noticed that the
Passover would fall before the vernal equinox, the intercalation of a month
before Nisan would have to be resorted to.[1597] The intercalated month was
called, like the last month of the year, Adar. They were distinguished
respectively as אֲדָר חָרִאשׁוֹן and אֲדָר הַשֵּנִי (first and second Adar).
[1596] Philo, De Septenario, § 19 (Mangey, ii 293); Quaestiones et solut. in
Exodum, i. § 1 (Richter, vii. 262 sq.). Compare also Vita Mosis, iii. 29
(Mangey, ii. 169), de decalogo, § 30 (Mangey, ii. 206); Josephus, Antiq. iii.
10. 5: ἐν κριῷ τοῦ ἡλίου καθεστῶτος. [1597] a For yet other reasons for
intercalation see especially Tosephta Sanhedrin c. ii., bab Sanhedrin 11a-12a;
with reference to these: Zuckermann, Materialen zur Entwickelung der
altjüdischen Zeitrechnung im Talmud (1882), pp. 39-45.—The most remarkable
passage is the following: “For three reasons a year may be pronounced an
intercalary year: Because of the ripeness of the grain [if this has not occurred
at the proper season], and on account of the fruit trees [if these have not
ripened at the right season], and on account of the course of the sun [if the
sun at the Passover has not yet come into the sign Aries]. Only if two of these
reasons combine may one conclude for intercalation, but not for one of these
alone.”—“Intercalation is not dependent on the age of the he-goats or lambs or
pigeons. Yet this is to be regarded as a supplementary ground [i.e. if only one
of the above three chief reasons is forthcoming, all these minor reasons may be
read in order to eke it out].” … “Thus once Rabban Gamaliel caused it to be
written to the communities in Babylon and Media: Since the pigeons are still too
feeble and the lambs still too young, and the time of harvest has not yet come,
I and my colleagues have found it necessary to add thirty days to the year.”—We
cannot be wrong, then, if for the time of Christ we consider the reason that
proved decisive to be that drawn from the course of the sun. And yet, primitive
as this calendar was, it had this great advantage, that serious and persistent
inaccuracies, such as in the course of the year inevitably crept into a calendar
calculated upon an incorrect basis, were avoided.—The very complicated later
Jewish calendar, calculated upon the nineteen years’ cycle, is said to have been
introduced by the patriarch Hillel in the fourth century after Christ. Although
this is not witnessed to with absolute certainty, it is not improbable (Ideler,
Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 569 ff.).[1598] [1598] b On the basis of some coins
of the Arsacidae, in which the years 287, 317, and 390 of the Seleucid. aera are
referred to as intercalary year, Theodor Reinach has proved in a convincing
manner that in the kingdom of the Arsacidae, that is, in Babylon, even in the
first century before Christ and in the first century after Christ, the Greek
calendar, calculated according to the nineteen years’ cycle, was in use. But
since Julius Africanus in the passage above referred to speaks of the eight
years’ cycle as that used “by Gentiles and Jews,” it would seem that that cycle,
even in the third Christian century, prevailed in Palestine and Syria (so far as
the solar year had not yet been adopted). From this, too, is confirmed what
otherwise is probable, that the later Jewish calendar was constructed, not by
the Palestinian, but by the Babylonian Jews. See Theodor Reinach, “Le calendrier
des Grecs de Babylonie et les origines du calendrier juif” (Revue des études
juives, t. xviii. 1889, pp. 90-94). As Rabbis who had specially interested
themselves in matters connected with the calendar, the Babylonians Mar Samuel in
Nehardea and Rabbi Adda bar Ahaba in Sura are specially named, both in the third
century after Christ. The latter had an exact acquaintance with the nineteen
years’ cycle in the improved form given it by Hipparchus in the second century
before Christ (Ideler, i. 574 f.). The Palestinian Hillel must therefore have
received the incentive to his work from the Babylonians. With reference to the
various beginnings of years in spring or in harvest, see vol. i. of the present
work, p. 37. The literature on the Jewish calendar, especially in its later
form, is very extensive. A systematic exposition was given as early as the
twelfth century by Maimonides in the passage treating of “the celebration of the
New Moon” in his great work Jad Ha-chasaka or Mishne Thora (compare: Maimonides’
Kiddusch Hachodesch, translated and explained by Ed. Mahler, Wien 1889). Various
monographs are collected by Ugolini in his Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, t.
xvii. (Nic. Mülleri Annus Judaeorum luna-solaris et Turc-Arabum mere lunaris;
Seldeni Diss. de anno civili Judaeorum; Maimonidis, De sanctificatione
novilunii, cum versione Latina de Veilii. Christ. Langnansen, De mense veterum
Hebraeorum lunari).—Of more recent date, especially: Ideler, Handbuch der
mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, Bd. i pp. 477-583; Wieseler,
Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 401-436; Beiträge zur richtigen
Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangelischen Geschichte (1869), pp. 290-321;
Seyffarth, Chronologia sacra (1846), pp. 26-80 (believes that the Jewish year
down to A.D. 200 was a solar year!); De Wette, Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen
Archäologie, 4 Aufl. 1864, § 178-179; Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender
zunāchst in seiner Beziehung zur neutestamentlichen Geschichte, Brüssel 1848;
Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, Bd. i. 1853, pp. 396-406; Lewisohn, Geschickte
und das System des jüdischen Kalenderwesens, Leipzig, 1856 (=Schriften
herausgeg. vom Institute zur Förderung der israelit. Literatur, erstes Jahr,
1855-1856); Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of
Jesus Christ, pp. 2-19; Schwarz, Der jüdische Kalender historisch und
astronomisch untersucht, 1872; Dillmann, “Ueber das Kalenderwesen der Israeliten
vor dem babylonischen Exil” (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1881, pp.
914-935); Zuckermann, Materialien zur Entwickelung der altjüdischen Zeitrechnung
im Talmud, 1882 (gathers together the Talmudic deliverances on matters connected
with the calendar); Hamburger, Real-Encydopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii.
1883, pp. 608-628, art. “Kalender;” Mémain, La connaissance des temps
évangéliyues, Paris 1886, pp. 39-43, 377-445, 481 ff.; Isidore Loeb, Tables du
calendrier juif depuis l’ère chrétienne jusqu’ au XXX siècle, avec la
concordance des dates juives et des dates chrétiennes et une méthode nouvelle
pour calculer ces tables, Paris 1886; Mahler, Chronologische
Vergleichungs-Tabellen, nebst einer Anleitung zu den Grundzügen der Chronologie,
2 Heft: Die Ziet- und Festrechnung der Juden, Wien 1889; also the articles
“Jahr” and “Monate” in the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm, and in
Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. vi 495-498, article “Jar” by Leyrer. Since
the Jewish year has sometimes twelve, sometimes thirteen months, it is evident
that its months can only be made approximately to correspond to those of the
Julian calendar.—The Macedonian names of the months came to be used in Syria
from the beginning of the Seleucid domination (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie,
i. 397). They originally also indicated lunar months. But from the time of
Julius Caesar’s reform of the calendar they were employed in Syria and Phoenicia
to indicate the twelve months of the solar year, which is, speaking generally,
identical with the Julian; therefore its several months do not exactly
correspond with those of the Julian, since their beginnings are otherwise
determined, and indeed were different in different large cities (Ideler, i.
433). It was not till a later period that the Julian months came to be named in
Syria by Maccdonian names (Ideler, i. 429 ff.).—Besides the Macedonian names,
the old native Syrian names (which were for the most part identical with the
Jewish) were also used; and it may safely be assumed that their use was in
strict conformity with that of the Macedonian names. Thus, e.g., the Syrian date
on the inscriptions at Palmyra exactly corresponds to the Macedonian (24
Tebeth=24 Audynäus, 21 Adar=21 Dystros; see De Vogüé, Inscriptions, n. 123a,
iii. 124=Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, t. iii. 2, n.
2571b, 2627). The same is true of the later Syrian calendar, where the Syrian as
well as the Macedonian names indicate simply the months of the Julian
calendar.[1599] [1599] That this was already the case on the inscriptions at
Palmyra cannot be proved. The doubts which Nöldeke expresses in this connection
(Zeitschrift der DMG. xxxix. 1885, p. 339) are very well founded. Under these
circumstances it may be asked what Josephus means when he makes use of the
Macedonian names of the months, as he frequently does in his History of the
Jewish War. Ordinarily he uses them as perfectly parallel to the Jewish,
precisely in the same way as is done in the inscriptions at Palmyra
(Nisan=Xanthicus, Ijjar=Artemisius, Ab=Lous, Tizri=Hyperberetaeus,
Marcheehwan=Dios, etc.; the proofs for this are given above at p. 364 f,; for
the Palmyrene inscriptions see the collection in Le Bas and Waddington, n.
2571b). But does he mean precisely the Jewish months when he uses the Macedonian
names? In many cases undoubtedly he does so. (1) The Jewish Passover was
observed on the 14th Xanthicus (Antiq. iii. 10. 5; Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 1).
(2) In the time of Antiochns Epiphanes the temple was desecrated and
reconsecrated on 25th Apellaios (Antiq. xii. 5. 4, 7. 6; comp. 1Ma_1:59;
1Ma_4:52. (3) During the siege of Titus the daily morning and evening sacrifice
was stopped on 17th Panemos (Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 1); according to Mishna,
Taanith iv. 6, however, this happened on 17th Thammuz. (4) The destruction of
the temple of Nebuchadnezzar took place on the 10th Loos (Wars of the Jews, vi
4. 5); according to Jeremiah 52:12, on the 10th Ab. On the ground of these facts
ancient and modern investigators have assumed that Josephus invariably intends
when using the Macedonian names of the month to make the dates correspond with
the Jewish months.[1600] But against this view, after the example of Scaliger,
Baronius, and Usher, O. A. Hoffmann has recently advanced objections.[1601] He
specially urges the point that Josephus was scarcely in a position (and if he
had been, would not certainly have taken the trouble) to reckon the dates which
had been transmitted to him according to another calendar, in accordance with
the Jewish calendar. He just followed the calendar which his authorities
followed. But in regard to the numerous dates in the Wars of the Jews, Hoffmann
(p. 16) believes that Josephus must have used, as sources, the official State
Papers which he found in the Roman camp. Hence it may be assumed that in these
the dates were given in accordance with the Julian calendar, the months of which
were simply indicated by Josephus under Macedonian names. The grounds for this
opinion are undoubtedly correct. A writer like Josephus would not take the
trouble to change the reckoning, but would simply give the dates as he found
them. One should not therefore assume right off that in his works all the dates
would be according to the same calendar, Many are given undoubtedly according to
the Jewish calendar, others according to the Roman.[1602] But whether the dates
in the Wars of the Jews are for the most part derived from the official Roman
State Papers, seems to me more than doubtful. It is not correct to say, as
Hoffmann does (p. 15), that Josephus almost exclusively gives precise dates for
the enterprise of the Romans, but not for the internal events of Jewish history.
A thorough examination of the facts communicated in our exposition (§ 20)
plainly shows that among the details circumstantially related are many that
refer purely to the internal affairs of the Jews, whereas on the other hand the
exact statements about the doings of the Bomans, especially of that period,
become more numerous when Josephus was first a prisoner and subsequently on his
parole in the Roman camp. He had therefore personal knowledge of these things.
Indeed, in his vindication of the credibility of his exposition he refers simply
to his own memoranda of these occurrences which he had made for himself and not
to Roman official documents (Treatise against Apion, i. 9: τὰ κατὰ τὸ
στρατόπεδον τὸ Ῥωμαίων ὁρῶν ἐπιμελῶς ἀνέγραφον). Evidently, therefore, he did
not use these official papers. But that he had made his memoranda according to
the Jewish calendar is probable, partly from the internal probability of the
matter, partly from the circumstance that particular dates are given undoubtedly
according to the Jewish calendar; so Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 1 (see above, p.
242), and Wars of the Jews, vi. 4.1-5 (see above, p. 243 f.). The oft recurring
formula, Πανέμου νουμηνίᾳ (Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 36, v. 13. 7, vi. 1. 3),
cannot indeed be used as a proof that the months of Josephus actually began with
the new moon. For in later usage νουμηνίᾳ signifies generally the first day of
the month, even when, according to the calendar employed, the months did not
begin with the new moon, as e.g. in the Roman. Compare Dio Cassius, lx. 5: τῇ
τοῦ Αὐγούστου νουμηνίᾳ; Plutarch, Galba, 22: ἡ νουμηνία τοῦ πρώρτου μηνός, ἣν
καλάνδας Ἰανουαρίας καλοῦσι; Steph. Thesaurus, s.v. [1600]a So Noris, Annus et
epochae Syromacedonum, i. 3rd ed. Lips. p. 44 sqq.; Ideler, Handbuch der
Ohronologie, i. 400-402; Anger, De temparum in Actis apostolorum ratione, p.
10sq.; Wieseler, Chronologie Synopse, p. 448; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 357
sq.; Champagne, Rome et la Judée, (2nd ed. 1865), ii. 348 sqq. [1601] Otto
Adalb, Hoffmann, De imperatoris Titi temporibus racts dsfinisendis (Marburg
1883), pp. 4-17. [1602] In accordance with the Roman calendar Josephus
apparently gives, e.g., the periods of the reigns of the Emperors Galba, Otho,
Vitellius. The dates which come into consideration (according to the careful
statement of Knaake in Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1871, pp. 230-235) are the
following: Nero, † 9 June 68; Galba, † 15 January 69; Otho, † 16 April 69;
Vitellius, † 20 December 69. But according to Josephus, Galba. reigned 7 months
and 7 days (Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 2); Otho, 3 months and 2 days (Wars of the
Jews, iv. 9. 9); Vitellius, 8 months and 5 days (Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4).
If we count in the day of the accession and the day of death, this agrees
exactly with the above dates of the Julian calendar, which therefore Josephus
here follows. So also Knaake, Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1871, p. 244,
unsuccessfully contested by Wieseler, Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1872, p. 55
ff.—Josephus seems to give the day of Vitellius’ death according to the calendar
of Tyre. While according to the Julian calendar it fell upon 20 December,
Josephue sets it down upon 3 Apellaios (Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4). But this
in the Tyrian calendar corresponds to the 20 December in the Julian. Josephus
may therefore be supposed here to follow some Phoenician authority. Compare
Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, i. 3, p. 60 sq. ed. Lips.; Ideler,
Handbush der Chronologie, i. 436; Knaake, Zeitschrift, p. 244; O. A, Hoffmann,
De imperatoris Titi, p. 6.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 45: APPENDIX IV
========================================================================

APPENDIX IV THE JEWISH SHEKEL AND COINS OF THE REBELLION THE extant coins with
old Hebrew writing may be arranged in three groups: (1) The coins of the
Asmonean high priests and princes which are furnished with names, and therefore
are most easily determined; (2) the silver shekel and half-shekel: (3) the
“Coins of Freedom,” which with manifold variations celebrate the emancipation
(geulla or cheruth) of Israel or Jerusalem or Sion. The most perfect agreement
prevails among numismatists with reference to the first group: a pretty general
agreement also prevails with reference to the second, because they are assigned
by the majority of numismatists to the times of Simon the Maccabee. Most diverse
are the views entertained with reference to the third group. Since the placing
and determining of the first group is relatively easy and certain, it will be
found that we have already communicated all that is necessary regarding it in
our historical exposition. A more special investigation is required in reference
to the coins of the second and third groups. It must be shown by a systematic
examination of all the particulars, that with regard to the third group a much
higher degree of certainty may be reached than in regard to the second, that
therefore the measure of the present consensus stands in inverse ratio to the
degree of scientific certainty attainable. 1. THE SHEKEL LITERATURE ECKHEL,
Doctrina Numorum veterum, iii. 455 sqq. CAVEDONI, Biblische Numismatik, transl.
by Werhof, i. 18 ff., ii. 10 ff. DE SAULOY, Recherches sur la Numismatique
Judäique, 1854, p. 17 sqq. EWALD, Gottinger “Nachrichten,” 1855, p. 109 ff.
LEVY, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, 1862, p. 39 ff. MADDEN, History of Jewish
Coinage, 1864, p. 43 sqq. DE SAULCY, Revue Numismatique, 1864, p. 370 sq.
CAVEDONI in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 1867, pp. 9-18. REICHARDT in the Wiener
Numismatischen Monatsheften, ed. G. Egger, Bd. ii. 1866, p. 137 ff. DE SAULCY,
Revue archéologique, nouv. sér. vol. xxiii. 1872, p. l sqq. MERZBACHER, De
siclis nummis antiquissimis Judaeorum, Berl. 1873. MADDEN, Numismatic Chronicle,
1874, p. 281 sqq. LEWIS, Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, p. 322 (Shekel of the year
V.). MERZBACHER in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. iii. 1876, pp. 141
ff., 183 ff., Bd. v. 1878, pp. 151 ff., 292 ff. MADDEN, Coins of the Jews, 1881,
pp. 67-71, where the material is most fully given. REINACH, “Actes et
conférences de la société des études juives,” 1877 (Supplement to Revue des
études juives, 1887), p. cciii sqq. Separate reprint, Les monnaies juives, Paris
1887, p. 42 sqq. The silver shekel and half-shekel are equal in weight to the
Greek tetradrachmae and the double drachmae minted in the Phoenician towns, and
afford us a point of connection for estimating the values of Phoenician-Hebrew
coins.[1603] The superscription runs ירושלם קדשה or ירושלים הקדושה, on the other
side שקל ישראל (shekel of Israel); on the half-shekels: חצי השקל (half-shekel),
The whole as well as the half-shekels have, besides the indication of the
weight, a number, usually accompanied with an שנת = ש, a year; e.g. שב=year II.
There are extant examples of both coins from the years א, ב, ד נ (I., II., III.,
IV.); of the whole shekel there is also an example of שה, year V. As might be
expected, we have no portrait profiles, but only simple symbols, the
significance of which is still doubtful (a cup and branch of lilies?).—Since
upon those coins of the “holy Jerusalem” there is no trace of any personal name,
it is extremely difficult to determine their age. But it should first of all be
laid down as certain that they cannot have been minted between B.C. 135 and A.D.
66. For the Asmoneans, since John Hyrcanus, B.C. 135, minted coins bearing their
own names, as did also Herod and his sons. It is also clear that these coins
could not have been struck under the Roman procurators, for they presuppose the
political independence of Jerusalem. They can therefore be assigned only to the
time before B.C. 135 or after A.D. 66. Under the latter alternative they can be
referred only to the period of the war A.D. 66-70; for from the time of the
Hadrian war, A.D. 132-135, we have coins of quite another sort. Ewald was the
first (Göttinger “Nachrichten,” 1855, p. 109 ff.) to argue in favour of the
years 66-70 as the date of the minting of the shekels; and in the first edition
of this work, p. 365 f., I adopted his view. Among numismatists, however, this
theory is now maintained only by Theód. Reinach (1887) and Imhoof-Blumer (in
epistolary correspondence with myself). All the others declare this impossible,
in consequence of the antiquated style, and almost unanimously place these
shekels in the time of Simon the Maccabee, B.C. 142-135. De Saulcy puts them
even farther back, assigning them first of all, in Recherches sur la
Numismatique Judaïque, 1854, to the time of Alexander the Great, subsequently,
in the Étude chronologique des livres d’Esdras et de Néhémie, 1868 (which has
not been accessible to me), and in the Revue archéologique, 1872, to the time of
Ezra.—In determining this question we must take into account: (1)
Palaeographical, (2) Historical, (3) Numismatical arguments. [1603] Compare on
the value of the shekel, especially: Brandis, Das Münz-, Mass- und Gewichtswesen
in Vorderasien (1866), pp. 55 ff., 94 ff., 102 ff.; Hultsch, Grisckische und
römische Metrologie (2 Bearbeit. 1882), pp. 466 ff., 602 ff.; Merzbacher,
Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. v. 1878, pp. 161 ff., 171 ff., 173 f.;
Rëvillout, “Note sur les plus anciennes monnaies hébraiques” (Annuaire de la
Société française de Numismatique, t. viii. 1884, pp. 113-146 [revised reprint
from the Revue Égyptologique]). 1. We may set aside, first of all, the
palaeographical, because they scarcely yield any result. The character of the
writing is the so-called Phoenician or old Hebraic. But this writing for
monumental purposes, such as inscriptions and coins, changed so little during
the period coming under consideration, that from this nothing can be gained to
help in determining our question. The character of the writing on the coins fits
equally the assigning of them to the Maccabean age and to a very much later
period, as, upon inquiry, Euting also has assured me, one of the highest
authorities on Semitic palaeography. 2. On historical grounds the shekel can
hardly have been minted in the Persian and Greek age prior to the winning of
Jewish independence by Simon the Maccabee. For according to all that we know,
the Jews did not, either in the Persian or in the Greek age, possess such a
degree of political independence as is assumed in an autonomous minting of money
of their own. This would have been distinctly impossible in the age of
Alexander, from the fact that under him in Phoenicia only royal money was minted
(so, e.g., in Ascalon, Ptolemais, Damascus; see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 74, 91,
97).[1604] All the more perfectly do they now seem to suit the time of Simon the
Maccabee. Under him “the yoke of the heathen was taken away from Israel,” and
expression was given to this fact by the introduction of a native reckoning of
their own, according to the years of Simon (1Ma_13:41-42; compare also p. 256).
May it not be just this era that is meant on the shekels? This is indeed what is
assumed by most numismatists. But on nearer consideration certain not
inconsiderable difficulties arise. The era of Simon begins in the year 170 of
the Seleucid era=B.C. 143-142 (1Ma_13:41 f.); but Simon did not die before the
year 177 of the Seleucid era=B.C. 136-135 (1Ma_16:14). One should therefore
expect on the shekels the year numbers I.-VII., whereas even of the year V. we
have only one example, but no single example for any later years. Merzbacher,
Zeitschrift für Numismatik, v. 292 if., has therefore made the attempt to place
the era of Simon about two years later. That this expedient is quite
inadmissible, I think I have succeeded in proving on page 259. It would also
involve this further consequence, that the minting of the shekels in a very
remarkable manner was suddenly broken off with Simon, and in their place
immediately under Simon’s successor, John Hyrcanus, a minting of quite another
kind was introduced, bearing the name of the reigning high priest. If this be
not impossible, it is at least very singular. On the other hand, the hypothesis
that the shekels were minted during the period of the rebellion A.D. 66-70, is
beset by no kind of historical difficulties. It must therefore have the
preference, if no numismatic considerations tell against it. [1604] Againat
placing the shekel in the time of Ezra or Alexander the Great, see especially
the comprehensive treatise of Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numiematik, Bd. v.
1878, p. 151 ff. 3. The decision from the numismatic standpoint is difficult for
this reason, that the minting is of a rude or at least peculiar description, and
therefore hard to classify. This explains the fact that even experienced
numismatists differ from one another in their judgments. Theód. Reinach has
given no convincing proof for the date of A.D. 66-70 as adopted by him. By his
publication Imhoof-Blumer has been driven to an examination of the facts of the
case, which has led him to accept the theory of Reinach. The grounds which he
has been good enough in correspondence to communicate to me are the following:
“The small diameter of the shekel and half-shekel, and their border, do hot
correspond to the Syrian and Phoenician mintings of the middle of the second
century before Christ nearly so well as to the silver coins minted in those
districts bearing the images of Nero, Agrippina, and Vespasian, of which there
are many tolerably thick examples of about 14 and 7 grs. in weight. Upon a
question of style no result can be drawn from the extremely slovenly and rude
types referred to, but merely on a question of technology, and in this respect
they have no resemblance to the broad coins of the Syrian kings Antichus VI.,
Tryphon, Antiochus VII.,” etc. Against this theory may be quoted the opinions of
all other numismatists of the time, who pronounce it impossible, on account of
the ancient appearance of the shekels, that they can be assigned to so late an
age. Also it has been emphatically declared against the above statement, e.g. by
Sallet in an admirable communication which he has made to me, that the
prevailing view must be maintained. “The antique character of the coins is so
clearly stamped, the thickness of the piece of metal so thoroughly in accordance
with the antique coins minted long before Christ, the stamp and the writing are
of so decidedly antique a character, that the coins must be placed in the time
of the Maccabees.” They are “distinctly distinguishable “ from the coins of the
later rebellion. In presence of this diversity of opinion among the best
authorities, no one not an expert can do anything but conclude with the
confession: adhuc sub judice lis est. 2. THE COINS OF THE REBELLION LITERATURE
EOKHEL, Doctrina Numorum, veterum, iii. 464-474. MIONNET, Description de
médailles antiques, v. 555-562, Suppl. viii. 378; Planches, xxvii.-xxviii.
Trésor de Numimatique (edited by Lenormant, 1849), pp. 118-123, pl. lvii.-lix.
CAVEDONI, Biblische Numismatik, transl. by Werlhof, i. 18-51. DE SAULCY,
Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, 1854, pp. 151-170, pl. x.-xv. EWALD,
Göttinger “Nachrichten,” 1855, pp. 109-122; Gött, gel. Anzeigen, 1862, p. 841
ff. (review of Levy’s work). DE VOGÜÉ, Revue Numismatique, 1860, pp. 280-292
(Eleazar coins) LEVY, Geschichte der jüdischen Munzen (1862), pp. 83-131.
MADDEN, History of Jewish Coinage (1864), pp. 154-182, 198-210. CAVEDONI in
Grote’a Münzstudien, v. 1867, pp. 29-37. DE SAULCY, Revue Numismatique, 1865,
pp. 29-55. GARRUCCI, Dissertazioni archeologiche, ii, 1865, pp. 31-39. MADDEN,
Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, pp. 36-65. DE SAULCY, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871,
pp. 250-253. MERZBACHER, “Untersuchungen über althebräische Münzen” (Zeitschrift
für Numismatik, Bd. iv. 1877, pp. 350-365). DE SAULCY, Mélanges de Numismatique,
ii. 1877, pp. 87-92. SALLET, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. v. 1878, pp.
110-114. RENAN, L’église chrétienne (1879), pp. 546-551. MADDEN, Coins of the
Jews (1881), pp. 188-206, 230-246. STICKEL, Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palaestina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 212, 214. GRÄTZ, Monatsschrift für Geschichte
und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1887, pp. 145-176 (English translation in
Numismatic Chronicle, 1888). REINACH (THÉOD.), Revue des études juives, t. xv.
1887, pp. 56-61. REINACH (THÉOD.), Actes et conférences de la société des études
juives, 1887 (Suppl. to Revue des études juives, 1887), pp. cciii-ccxvi.—In
separate reprint (Les monnaies juives, Paris 1887), pp. 42-67. GRÄTZ, Revue des
études juives, t. xvi. 1888, pp. 161-169; t. xviii. 1889, pp. 301-304. GRÄTZ,
Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. (1888), pp. 819-841. REINACH (THÉOD.),
Revue des études juives, t. xvii. 1888, pp. 42-45; t. xviii. 1889, pp. 304-306.
The coins of the rebellion belong to the following varieties. The material is
adequately presented by De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique, 1854; Madden,
History of Jewish Coinage, 1864; Numismatic Chronicle, 1875; Merzbacher,
Zeitschrift für Numis∙atik, iv. 1887; most fully in Madden, Coins of the Jews,
1881. 1. Ligullath Zion, the Deliverance of Zion. Obv. לנאלת ציון ligullath
Zion. Rev. שנת ארבע, year IV. or, שנת ארבע חצי, year IV., a half. or, שנת ארבע
רביע, year IV., a quarter. All these are copper coins of various sizes, with
Jewish emblems. See De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique, p. 20; Cavedoni,
Biblische Numismatik, ii. 11 f.; Ewald, Göttinger Nachrichten, 1855, p. 114;
Levy, Geschichte, p. 44; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 47; Garrucci,
Dissertazioni, ii. 32, 38; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, pp. 48-63 (very
complete in reference to the date, against Garrucci); Merzbacher, Zeitschrift
für Numismatik, i. 222, iv. 364; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 71 sq. 2. Chêruth
Zion, the Emancipation of Zion. Obv. חרות ציון, chêruth Zion. Rev. שנת שתים,
year II. or, שנת שלוש year III. Small copper coins with Jewish emblems of which
numerous examples are extant (Sallet, Zeitschrift, v. 110). See De Saulcy,
Recherches, p. 154; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 53 f.; Ewald, Gött.
Nach. 1855, p. 114; Levy, Geschichte, p. 100; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage,
p. 180; De Saulcy, Revue Numismatique, 1865, p. 29 sq.; Garrucci, Dissertazioni,
ii. 38; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift, i. 223, iv. 364 f.; Madden, Numismatic
Chronicle, 1875, p. 320 sq.; Coins of the Jews, p. 206. 3. Year I. ligullath
Israel, of the Emancipation of Israel. Obv. אלעזר הכהן, Eleasar the priest. Rev.
שנת אחת לגאלת ישראל, year I. ligullath Israel. Obv. אלעזר הכהן, Eleasar the
priest. Rev. שמעון Simon. Obv. ירושלם, Jerusalem. Rev. שנת אחת לגאלת ישראל, year
I. ligullath Israel Obv. שמעון נשיא ישראל, Simon prince of Israel. Rev. שנת אחת
לגאלת ישראל, year I. ligullath Israel. These are some of them silver, some of
them copper, coins of various sizes and of various types. That they all belong
to the same period is proved from the date “Year I. ligullath Israel,” which is
common to all the three. But the coins bearing the names of Eleasar and Simon
cannot be separated from the other Eleasar coins. See De Saulcy, Recherches, pp.
158-160, 165-168; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 55-59; Ewald, Göttinger
Nachr. 1855, p. 119 ff.; De Vogüé, Revue Num. 1860, p. 280 ff. (Eleasar coins
communicated for the first time by De Voguë); Levy, Geschichte, pp. 88-92,
97-99; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 161-166, 174-178; De Saulcy, Revue
Num. 1865, p. 29 sq.; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 29 ff.; Garrucci, ii.
37 sq.; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift, i. 229-232, iv. 350-353; Madden, Numismatic
Chronicle, 1875, pp. 313-320; Coins of the Jews, pp. 198-206; Sallet,
Zeitschrift, v. 110 ff.; Reinach, Revue des études juives, xv. 58 sq. (on the
Simon-Eleasar coins). 4. Year II. lechêruth Israel, the Freedom of Israel. Obv.
שמעון, Simon. Rev. ש׳׳ב לחרות ישראל, year II. lechêruth Israel. Obv. ירושלם,
Jerusalem. Rev. ש׳׳ב לחרות ישראל, year II. lechêruth Israel. The latter kind are
found rarely, the former very frequently, in silver and copper, of various sizes
and of various types. In regard to some it is still discernible that they had
been made out of Roman coins of Vespasian and Trajan (Sallet, Zeitschrift, v.
110-114). See De Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 168-170; Cavedoni, Biblische
Numismatik, ii. 59 ff.; Ewald, Göttinger Nachr. 1855, p. 119 ff., Levy,
Geschichte, pp. 93-96, 105-108; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 166-174,
207 sq. ; De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, 29 sq.; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien,
v. 30 ff.; Garrucci, ii. 34; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift, i. 232-236, iv. 353-356;
Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 329-333; Coins of the Jews, pp. 241-246;
Sallet’s Zeitschrift, v. 110-114. 5. Lechêruth Jerushalem, the Freedom of
Jerusalem. Obv. שמעון, Simon. Rev. לחרות ירושלם, lechêruth Jerushalem. Silver
and copper coins of various sizes and with various types. Many are stamped upon
Roman coins, especially upon those of Trajan. See De Saulcy, Recherches, pp.
160-165; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 56-59; Ewald, Göttinger Nachr.
1885, p. 119 ff.; Levy, Geschichte, pp. 93-96, 105-108; Madden, History of
Jewish Coinage, pp. 166-174, 203-210; De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, p. 29 sqq.;
Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 30 ff.; Garrucci, ii. 33 sq.; Merzbacher,
Zeitschrift, i. 236 f., iv. 357-363; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp.
321-328; Coins of the Jews, pp. 233-241; Sallet, Zeitschrift, v. 110-114. The
three last-named classes (Year I. ligullath Israel, year II. lechêruth Israel,
lechêruth Jerushalem without date) are to be assigned with great probability,
the last two indeed with certainty, to the period of the rebellion of
Bar-Cochba. In regard to the last class this is admitted by all. The original
Roman minting discernible upon many of them, which gives the figure of the
Jewish temple, proves that they were struck not earlier than the times of
Trajan. But only one period is conceivable in which this minting can have taken
place: that of the rebellion under Hadrian. Yet even among the coins of our
fourth class, those of the “Year II. lechêruth Israel,” some examples are met
with which are stamped upon coins of Vespasian and Trajan (Sallet, Zeitschrift,
v. 110-114). The same therefore applies to them as to those bearing the device
“lechêruth Jerushalem.” It will, however, be readily admitted that those results
hold not only for the copies stamped upon imperial coins, but also for others
with similar superscriptions and of similar types, for the production of which
imperial coins were not employed. For it is a singularly arbitrary proceeding to
divide among different periods coins of precisely the same impression, only for
this reason that on some an original Roman stamp can be traced, while it is not
discernible on the others (so. Levy, who divides the coins of our fourth as well
as of our fifth class between the first and the second revolutions).—While,
therefore, these two classes certainly belong to the time of Bar-Cochba, those
of “Year I. ligullath Israel” may be assigned at least with great probability to
the same period. For it is admitted by all competent numismatists that they are
in style extremely similar to, quite the same, indeed, as the others.[1605] The
rabbinical tradition also speaks generally of “coins of Bencosiba,” מעות כוזביות
or מטבע בן כוזיבא.[1606] [1605] See especially, De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, p.
29 sqq., and Sallet, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, v. 110 ff.: “To me, as a
numismatist, it was never doubtful that De Saulcy’s view was right, that, in
spite of all arguments to the contrary, all these denarius-like coins, and the
tetra-drachms as well, must unquestionably have belonged to one period. In the
numismatics of antiquity it is without example, and impossible that coins
perfectly like one another in style, yea, precisely the same as one another,
should be sixty years apart.—Also, Merzbacher says, although he adopts the
partition declared by Sallet impossible, Zeitschrift für Num. i. 223 f.: “They
are little distinguished from one another in style and material, since only a
few divergences in type can be pointed out, and therefore should not be too far
separated in time from one another.” [1606] Tosephta Maasi scheni, i. 5; Jer.
Maaser sheni, i. 2; bab. Baba kamma, 97b; in Levy, Geschichte, p. 127 ff.;
Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 329 sq.; Coins of the Jews, p. 311 sqq.
The great variety of mintings within a few years, which has been the principal
reason for numismatists dividing the coins between the time of the Vespasian and
that of the Hadrianic war, is not on closer examination incapable of
explanation. During the first year two leaders of the rebellion, “Eleazar the
Priest” and “Simon the Prince,” minted coins. In the second year Simon seems to
have secured to himself the sole sovereignty. Thus it can be easily understood
that on the coins of the first year he distinguished himself from the priest by
the title of “prince,” whereas during the second year he no longer found this
necessary.[1607] Besides Simon and Eleaaar the city of Jerusalem also minted
coins, and that indeed during the first as well as the second year ; but these
coins are very rare. Finally, Simon, besides the coins dated according to the
era of the freedom of Israel, also stamped some coins without date in
commemoration of “the freedom of Jerusalem.” Their great variety therefore
presents no ground for assigning a portion of them to the time of the war of
Vespasian. [1607] There is a remarkable coin bearing the inscription, Obv. אלעזר
הכהן, Rev. שמעון. De Vogüé regarded it as the work of a forger, who combined the
fronts of an Eleasar and a Simon coin with one another. According to
Friedländer’s and Sallet’s opinion, however, its genuineness is indisputable
(Zeitschrift für Numismatique, iv. 350, v. 111, note; Madden, Coins of the Jews,
p. 201). Yet more remarkable is a coin published by Reinach in Revue des études
juives, xv. 56-61, the inscription of which is indeed defective, but has been
restored with tolerable certainty as follows:— Obv. שנת אחת לגאלת ישראל. Rev.
ש׳׳ב לחרות ישראל. This coin also Beinach declares to be undoubtedly genuine.
According to his subtle explanation we have in both coins to recognise monnaies
hybrides, i.e. coins on which, in consequence of an error in the minting, the
inscriptions of two different coins were combined with one another. Such
“bastards” are not seldom found among the Roman consular coins. In the history
of numismatics the classification of our coins has passed through five different
stages. 1. The older numismatists, Eckhel, Mionnet, and even Cavedoni, Biblische
Num. i., put all the kinds together, so far as they were known, along with the
shekel coins in the time of Simon the Maccabee. Only one French scholar of the
last century, Henrion, recognised the fact that they belonged to the time of
Bar-Cochba (see Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 472). But his voice sounded unheard,
although even then some copies stamped upon imperial coins were known, which had
to be of necessity assigned to the age of Bar-Cochba (Eckhel, iii. 473).—2. De
Saulcy in his Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, 1854, not only
essentially enriched the material, but also gave expression to the correct view
that all three kinds belonged to the time of Bar-Cochba. He was followed by
Cavedoni, Biblische Num. ii, and Ewald. The latter also assigned to the same
period the Eleasar coins first communicated by De Vogüé in 1860 (History of
Israel, viii. 291).—3. An unfortunate confusion was caused by Levy in 1862 in
consequence of his arbitrary division of the coins between the time of Vespasian
and that of Hadrian. He assigned to the earlier period not only all coins of
“Year I. ligullath Israel,” but also the greater part of those of the “Year II.
lechêruth Israel” and “lechêruth Jerushalem.” But some individual examples of
the last two classes are met with in the time of Hadrian, and thus coins of a
precisely similar stamp are separated by a period of sixty years. Those who
issued coins during the age of Vespasian were the well-known leader of the
Zealots, Eleasar, then Simon bar-Giora, and the scribe Simon, son of Gamaliel,
upon whom the later Jewish legends bestowed the title of Nasi. On the
baselessness of this legend see Div. II. vol. i. p. 183 ff. Neither could
Eleasar nor Simon bar-Giora have struck the coins of years I. and II. of
freedom, since they did not become party leaders until the later days of the
rebellion; Simon bar-Giora only in the third year (Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 12);
Eleasar even later, and only for a short time (see above, p. 235).
Notwithstanding the more than weak foundation of these hypotheses, Levy obtained
at first ardent supporters in Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864, and
Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. Madden’s work of 1864 is consequently in
those parts extremely ill-suited to afford a clear summary of the history. Also
Renan was influenced by Levy, inasmuch as he inclines to ascribe only the
superimposition of the stamp to the age of Bar-Cochba (L’église chrétienne, p.
546 sq.). Levy’s and Madden’s views were decidedly combated by Ewald, Gött. gel.
Anz. 1862, p. 841 ff., and De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, who held fast by their
earlier judgments. Yet even De Saulcy so far paid tribute to the Jewish legends
as to understand by “Simon the Prince” the younger Simon, son of Gamaliel,
grandson of the earlier one of that name, whose title of Nasi, however, stands
historically on as weak a foundation, as in the case of his grandfather.—4. A
change for the better, however, was made by Merzbacher when he, although still
influenced by Levy, abandoned his arbitrary separation of the coins of our
fourth and fifth classes. He put all coins of “Year I. ligullath Israel” and all
those of “Year II. lecêruth Israel” into the Vespasian age, and all those with
“lechêruth Jerushalem” into the age of Hadrian. All the Simon coins of the age
of Vespasian, whether with or without the title Nasi, he ascribed to Simon, son
of Gamaliel. But even before him Garrucci had come one step nearer the truth
when he ascribed to the Hadrianic period both the coins of the “Year II.
lechêruth Israel,” and those with “lechêruth Jerushalem,” and assigned to the
age of Vespasian only those of “Year I. ligullath Israel.” His arguments also
soon made an impression upon Madden (Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, p. 63 sq.), who
in his later works (Numismatic Chronicle, 1875; Coins of the Jews, 1881)
actually adopted the arrangement of Garrucci. In consequence of this, Madden’s
masterpiece of 1881 marks an important advance upon the History of 1864, not
only in regard to the wealth of material, but also in respect of its
incomparably superior arrangement.—5. The researches of Merzbacher, Garrucci,
and Madden gradually unravelled the confusion wrought by Levy, and led step by
step back again to the original simple views of De Saulcy. Sallet and Reinach
have returned completely to these earlier views, for reasons that have been
stated above. Although on other points De Saulcy is not always happy in his
historical combinations, his numismatical sense has in this particular guided
him aright.—Whether the weight of the arguments by which modern numismatists
have been constrained to return step by step to De Saulcy’s view will survive
all attacks the future alone can show. An attempt to produce embarrassment anew
has been made by Grätz (Monatsschrift, 1887, p. 145 ff.; Revue des études
juives, xvi. 161 sqq., xviii. 301 sq.; Geschichte der Juden, iii. 4 Aufl. 1888,
p. 819 ff.). There is scarcely any danger of such an attempt succeeding, for any
one who has even a moderate appreciation of scientific method must regard
Grätz’s speculations as a tissue of groundless surmises. Compare in opposition
to him. Reinach, Revue des ëtudes juives, xvii. 42-45, xviii. 304-306. In regard
to the small copper coins communicated under No. 2, with the superscription חרות
ציון, chêruth Zion, years II. and III., a much greater agreement prevails than
in regard to the coins of our third, fourth, and fifth classes. With almost
perfect unanimity they are ascribed to the period of the war of Vespasian. This
is the opinion not only of De Saulcy, who assigns to the Vespasian period only
those coins, but also of Ewald, who places the shekels along with them, and of
Levy, Garrucci, and Madden, who join with them a more or less considerable
portion of our Bar-Cochbe coins. This latter view is indeed indefensible,
because these coins differ from the others essentially in style, so that
Merzbacher renounces the attempt to fix their age (Zeitschrift für Numismatique,
i. 223, iv. 364 f.). But if all the coins of our third, fourth, and fifth
classes are placed in the time of Bar-Cochba, it will become probable, owing to
the diversity of style, that the coins of the years II. and III. chêruth Zion
belong to the time of Vespasian. In this case also De Saulcy has hit upon the
right explanation. It is of the utmost importance to determine the coins of the
year IV., לגאלת ציון, ligullath Zion, communicated under No. 1. Many, on account
of the admitted antiquity of their style, class them along with the shekel
coins. So De Saulcy, Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatique, ii.; Ewald, Levy, Madden,
1864. Yet it is just their style which leads Garrucci to separate them from the
shekels, and to place them in the time of Vespasian (Dissertazioni, ii. 32); and
Madden, after he had, in complete contradiction to Garrucci, maintained their
conteraporariness with the shekels (Num. Chron. 1866, pp. 48-63), at last only
holds so far to that opinion that their reference to the Seleucidean period
seems to some extent proved (Coins of the Jews, p. 73), while even Merzbacher is
of opinion that they were not of the same period as the shekels (Zeitschrift, i.
222 f.), and are therefore to be reckoned only as ancient coins of an uncertain
age (Zeitschrift, iv. 364). It is thus difficult to arrive at any decided
judgment upon these matters.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 46: APPENDIX V
========================================================================

APPENDIX V

PARALLEL YEARS OF THE GREEK, SYRIAN, ROMAN, AND CHRISTIAN ERAS[1608] [1608]
According to Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 472 sqq. THE Olympiad era begins in
B.C. 776, and is to be reckoned from 1st July.[1609] The Seleucid era begins in
B.C. 312, and is to be reckoned from 1st October.[1610] The Varronian era ab
Urbe condita begins in B.C. 753, and counts from the festival of the Palilia,
XI. Cal. Maii=21st April.[1611] But since writers reckon by the years of office
of the consuls, we have to do, not with the starting-point of the Varronian
year, but with the point of time at which the consuls entered upon their office.
But this took place from A.U. 601, and so continued during almost the whole of
the succeeding period, on 1st January.[1612]—In the following table the
respective years of the Greek, Seleucidean, and Roman eras are paralleled with
the same year of the Christian era in which they begin. Thus: [1609] Ideler,
Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 377. [1610] Ibid. i. 450-453. [1611] Ibid. ii. 47,
150, 163 ff. [1612] Ibid. ii. 148 f. Ol. 151, 1=1st July B.C. 176 down to the
same day in B.C. 175. Sel. 137=1st October B.C. 176 down to the same day in B.C.
175. A.U. 578=21st April (or 1st January) B.C. 176 down to the same day in B.C.
175. OL. |SEL. |A.U. |B.C. | 1, 1 | | |776 | 6, 4 | |1 |753 | 117, 1 |1 |442
|312 | . . |. |. |. | 151, 1 |137 |578 |176 | 2 |138 |579 |175 | 3 |139 |580
|174 | 4 |140 |581 |173 | 152, 1 |141 |582 |172 | 2 |142 |583 |171 | 3 |143 |584
|170 | 4 |144 |585 |169 | 153, 1 |145 |586 |168 | 2 |146 |587 |167 | 3 |147 |588
|166 | 4 |148 |589 |165 | 154, 1 |149 |590 |164 | 2 |150 |591 |163 | 3 |151 |592
|162 | 4 |152 |593 |161 | 155, 1 |153 |594 |160 | 2 |154 |595 |159 | 3 |155 |596
|158 | 4 |156 |597 |157 | 156, 1 |157 |598 |156 | 2 |158 |599 |155 | 3 |159 |600
|154 | 4 |160 |601 |153 | 157, 1 |161 |602 |152 | 2 |162 |603 |151 | 3 |163 |604
|150 | 4 |164 |605 |149 | 158, 1 |165 |606 |148 | 2 |166 |607 |147 | 3 |167 |608
|146 | 4 |168 |609 |145 | 159, 1 |169 |610 |144 | 2 |170 |611 |143 | 3 |171 |612
|142 | 4 |172 |613 |141 | 160, 1 |173 |614 |140 | 2 |174 |615 |139 | 3 |175 |616
|138 | 4 |176 |617 |137 | 161, 1 |177 |618 |136 | 2 |178 |619 |135 | 3 |179 |620
|134 | 4 |180 |621 |133 | 162, 1 |181 |622 |132 | 2 |182 |623 |131 | 3 |183 |624
|130 | 4 |184 |625 |129 | 163, 1 |185 |626 |128 | 2 |186 |627 |127 | 3 |187 |628
|126 | 4 |188 |629 |125 | 164, 1 |189 |630 |124 | 2 |190 |631 |123 | 3 |191 |632
|122 | 4 |192 |633 |121 | 165, 1 |193 |634 |120 | 2 |194 |635 |119 | 3 |195 |636
|118 | 4 |196 |637 |117 | 166, 1 |197 |638 |116 | 2 |198 |639 |115 | 3 |199 |640
|114 | 4 |200 |641 |113 | 167, 1 |201 |642 |112 | 2 |202 |643 |111 | 3 |203 |644
|110 | 4 |204 |645 |109 | 168, 1 |205 |646 |108 | 2 |206 |647 |107 | 3 |207 |648
|106 | 4 |208 |649 |105 | 169, 1 |209 |650 |104 | 2 |210 |651 |103 | 3 |211 |652
|102 | 4 |212 |653 |101 | 170, 1 |213 |654 |100 | 2 |214 |655 |99 | 3 |215 |656
|98 | 4 |216 |657 |97 | 171, 1 |217 |658 |96 | 2 |218 |659 |95 | 3 |219 |660 |94
| 4 |220 |661 |93 | 172, 1 |221 |662 |92 | 2 |222 |663 |91 | 3 |223 |664 |90 | 4
|224 |665 |89 | 173, 1 |225 |666 |88 | 2 |226 |667 |87 | 3 |227 |668 |86 | 4
|228 |669 |85 | 174, 1 |229 |670 |84 | 2 |230 |671 |83 | 3 |231 |672 |82 | 4
|232 |673 |81 | 175, 1 |233 |674 |80 | 2 |234 |675 |79 | 3 |235 |676 |78 | 4
|236 |677 |77 | 176, 1 |237 |678 |76 | 2 |238 |679 |75 | 3 |239 |680 |74 | 4
|240 |681 |73 | 177, 1 |241 |682 |72 | 2 |242 |683 |71 | 3 |243 |684 |70 | 4
|244 |685 |69 | 178, 1 |245 |686 |68 | 2 |246 |687 |67 | 3 |247 |688 |66 | 4
|248 |689 |65 | 179, 1 |249 |690 |64 | 2 |250 |691 |63 | 3 |251 |692 |62 | 4
|252 |693 |61 | 180, 1 |253 |694 |60 | 2 |254 |695 |59 | 3 |255 |696 |58 | 4
|256 |697 |57 | 181, 1 |257 |698 |56 | 2 |258 |699 |55 | 3 |259 |700 |54 | 4
|260 |701 |53 | 182, 1 |261 |702 |52 | 2 |262 |703 |51 | 3 |263 |704 |50 | 4
|264 |705 |49 | 183, 1 |265 |706 |48 | 2 |266 |707 |47 | 3 |267 |708 |46 | 4
|268 |709 |45 | 184, 1 |269 |710 |44 | 2 |270 |711 |43 | 3 |271 |712 |42 | 4
|272 |713 |41 | 185, 1 |273 |714 |40 | 2 |274 |715 |39 | 3 |275 |716 |38 | 4
|276 |717 |37 | 186, 1 |277 |718 |36 | 2 |278 |719 |35 | 3 |279 |720 |34 | 4
|280 |721 |33 | 187, 1 |281 |722 |32 | 2 |282 |723 |31 | 3 |283 |724 |30 | 4
|284 |725 |29 | 188, 1 |285 |726 |28 | 2 |286 |727 |27 | 3 |287 |728 |26 | 4
|288 |729 |25 | 189, 1 |289 |730 |24 | 2 |290 |731 |23 | 3 |291 |732 |22 | 4
|292 |733 |21 | 190, 1 |293 |734 |20 | 2 |294 |735 |19 | 3 |295 |736 |18 | 4
|296 |737 |17 | 191, 1 |297 |738 |16 | 2 |298 |739 |15 | 3 |299 |740 |14 | 4
|300 |741 |13 | 192, 1 |301 |742 |12 | 2 |302 |743 |11 | 3 |303 |744 |10 | 4
|304 |745 |9 | 193, 1 |305 |746 |8 | 2 |306 |747 |7 | 3 |307 |748 |6 | 4 |308
|749 |5 | 194, 1 |309 |750 |4 | 2 |310 |751 |3 | 3 |311 |752 |2 | 4 |312 |753 |1
| 195, 1 |313 |754 |A.D. 1 | 2 |314 |755 |2 | 3 |315 |756 |3 | 4 |316 |757 |4 |
196, 1 |317 |758 |5 | 2 |318 |759 |6 | 3 |319 |760 |7 | 4 |320 |761 |8 | 197, 1
|321 |762 |9 | 2 |322 |763 |10 | 3 |323 |764 |11 | 4 |324 |765 |12 | 198, 1 |325
|766 |13 | 2 |326 |767 |14 | 3 |327 |768 |15 | 4 |328 |769 |16 | 199, 1 |329
|770 |17 | 2 |330 |771 |18 | 3 |331 |772 |19 | 4 |332 |773 |20 | 200, 1 |333
|774 |21 | 2 |334 |775 |22 | 3 |335 |776 |23 | 4 |336 |777 |24 | 201, 1 |337
|778 |25 | 2 |338 |779 |26 | 3 |339 |780 |27 | 4 |340 |781 |28 | 202, 1 |341
|782 |29 | 2 |342 |783 |30 | 3 |343 |784 |31 | 4 |344 |785 |32 | 203, 1 |345
|786 |33 | 2 |346 |787 |34 | 3 |347 |788 |35 | 4 |348 |789 |36 | 204, 1 |349
|790 |37 | 2 |350 |791 |38 | 3 |351 |792 |39 | 4 |352 |793 |40 | 205, 1 |353
|794 |41 | 2 |354 |795 |42 | 3 |355 |796 |43 | 4 |356 |797 |44 | 206, 1 |357
|798 |45 | 2 |358 |799 |46 | 3 |359 |800 |47 | 4 |360 |801 |48 | 207, 1 |361
|802 |49 | 2 |362 |803 |50 | 3 |363 |804 |51 | 4 |364 |805 |52 | 208, 1 |365
|806 |53 | 2 |366 |807 |54 | 3 |367 |808 |55 | 4 |368 |809 |56 | 209, 1 |369
|810 |57 | 2 |370 |811 |58 | 3 |371 |812 |59 | 4 |372 |813 |60 | 210, 1 |373
|814 |61 | 2 |374 |815 |62 | 3 |375 |816 |63 | 4 |376 |817 |64 | 211, 1 |377
|818 |65 | 2 |378 |819 |66 | 3 |379 |820 |67 | 4 |380 |821 |68 | 212, 1 |381
|822 |69 | 2 |382 |823 |70 | 3 |383 |824 |71 | 4 |384 |825 |72 | 213, 1 |385
|826 |73 | 2 |386 |827 |74 | 3 |387 |828 |75 | 4 |388 |829 |76 | 214, 1 |389
|830 |77 | 2 |390 |831 |78 | 3 |391 |832 |79 | 4 |392 |833 |80 | 215, 1 |393
|834 |81 | 2 |394 |835 |82 | 3 |395 |836 |83 | 4 |396 |837 |84 | 216, 1 |397
|838 |85 | 2 |398 |839 |86 | 3 |399 |840 |87 | 4 |400 |841 |88 | 217, 1 |401
|842 |89 | 2 |402 |843 |90 | 3 |403 |844 |91 | 4 |404 |845 |92 | 218, 1 |405
|846 |93 | 2 |406 |847 |94 | 3 |407 |848 |95 | 4 |408 |849 |96 | 219, 1 |409
|850 |97 | 2 |410 |851 |98 | 3 |411 |852 |99 | 4 |412 |853 |100 | 220, 1 |413
|854 |101 | 2 |414 |855 |102 | 3 |415 |856 |103 | 4 |416 |857 |104 | 221, 1 |417
|858 |105 | 2 |418 |859 |106 | 3 |419 |860 |107 | 4 |420 |861 |108 | 222, 1 |421
|862 |109 | 2 |422 |863 |110 | 3 |423 |864 |111 | 4 |424 |865 |112 | 223, 1 |425
|866 |113 | 2 |426 |867 |114 | 3 |427 |868 |115 | 4 |428 |869 |116 | 224, 1 |429
|870 |117 | 2 |430 |871 |118 | 3 |431 |872 |119 | 4 |432 |873 |120 | 225, 1 |433
|874 |121 | 2 |434 |875 |122 | 3 |435 |876 |123 | 4 |436 |877 |124 | 226, 1 |437
|878 |125 | 2 |438 |879 |126 | 3 |439 |880 |127 | 4 |440 |881 |128 | 227, 1 |441
|882 |129 | 2 |442 |883 |130 | 3 |443 |884 |131 | 4 |444 |885 |132 | 228, 1 |445
|886 |133 | 2 |446 |887 |134 | 3 |447 |888 |135 | 4 |448 |889 |136 |


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 47: APPENDIX VI
========================================================================

APPENDIX VI GENEALOGY OF THE SELEUCIDAE


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 48: APPENDIX VII
========================================================================

APPENDIX VII GENEALOGY OF THE ASMONEANS


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 49: APPENDIX VIII
========================================================================

APPENDIX VIII THE HOUSE OF HEROD[*]

[*] According to Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, vii. 160.—Proofs of the greater number of
the details will be found in the following places:— 1. Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Wars of
the Jews, i. 8. 9 (parents and brothers and sisters of Herod). 2. Antiq. xvii.
1. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4 (wives and children of Herod). 3. Antiq. xviii.
5. 4, xix. 9. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6 (the descendants of Marianmme).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 50: SECOND DIVISION
========================================================================

SECOND DIVISION THE INTERNAL CONDITION OF PALESTINE, AND OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE,
IN THE TIME OF JESUS CHRIST


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 51: � 22. THE STATE OF CULTURE IN GENERAL
========================================================================

§ 22. THE STATE OF CULTURE IN GENERAL


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 52: I. MIXTURE OF POPULATION, LANGUAGE
========================================================================

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


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 53: II. DIFFUSION OF HELLENIC CULTURE
========================================================================

II. DIFFUSION OF HELLENIC CULTURE 1. Hellenism in the Non-Jewish Regions The
Jewish region just described was, in ancient times as well as in the
Graeco-Roman period, surrounded on all sides by heathen districts. Only at
Jamnia and Joppa had the Jewish element advanced as far as the sea. Elsewhere,
even to the west, it was not the sea, but the Gentile region of the Philistine
and Phenician cities, that formed the boundary of the Jewish. These heathen
lands were far more deeply penetrated by Hellenism, than the country of the
Jews. No reaction like the rising of the Maccabees had here put a stop to it,
besides which heathen polytheism was adapted in quite a different manner from
Judaism for blending with Hellenism. While therefore the further advance of
Hellenism was obstructed by religious barriers in the interior of Palestine, it
had attained here, as in all other districts since its triumphant entry under
Alexander the Great, its natural preponderance over Oriental culture. Hence,
long before the commencement of the Roman period, the educated world, especially
in the great cities in the west and east of Palestine, was, we may well say,
completely Hellenized. It is only with the lower strata of the populations and
the dwellers in rural districts, that this must not be equally assumed. Besides
however the border lands, the Jewish districts in the interior of Palestine were
occupied by Hellenism, especially Scythopolis (see § 23. I. Nr. 19) and the town
of Samaria, where Macedonian colonists had already been planted by Alexander the
Great (§ 23. I. Nr. 24), while the national Samaritans had their central point
at Sichem. The victorious penetration of Hellenistic culture is most plainly and
comprehensively shown by the religious worship. The native religions, especially
in the Philistine and Phenician cities, did indeed in many respects maintain
themselves in their essential character; but still in such wise, that they were
transformed by and blended with Greek elements. But besides these the purely
Greek worship also gained an entrance, and in many places entirely supplanted
the former. Unfortunately our sources of information do not furnish us the means
of separating the Greek period proper from the Roman, the best are afforded by
coins, and these for the most part belong to the Roman. On the whole however the
picture, which we obtain, holds good for the pre-Roman period also, nor are we
entirely without direct notices of this age. On the coins of Raphia of the times
of the empire are seen especially Apollo and Artemis according to the purely
Greek conception;[34] upon those of Anthedon, on the contrary, the tutelary
goddess of the city is conceived of as Astarte.[35] [34] Mionnet, Description de
médailles antiques, v. 551 sq.; Supplement, viii. 376 sq. De Saulcy,
Numismatique de la Terre Sainte (1874), pp. 237-240, pl. xii. n. 7-9. Stark,
Gaza, p. 584. [35] Mionnet, v. 522 sqq.; Suppl. viii. 364. De Saulcy, pp.
234-236, pl. xii. n. 2-4. Stark, p. 594. Of the worship at Gaza in the times of
the Roman Empire complete information is given in the life of Porphyry, Bishop
of Gaza, by Marcus Diaconus. According to this, there were in Gaza in the time
of Porphyry (the end of the fourth century after Christ) eight δημόσιοι ναοί,
viz. of Helios, Aphrodite, Apollo, Persephone (Kore), Hecate, Heroon, a temple
of Tyche, and one of Marnas.[36] From this it appears that the purely Greek
worship was the prevailing one, and this is confirmed in general by the coins,
upon which other Grecian deities also appear.[37] A temple of Apollo in Gaza is
already mentioned at the time of the destruction of the city by Alexander
Jannaeus (Antt. xiii. 13. 3). In the Roman period only the chief deity of the
city, Marnas, was, as his name (מר = Lord) implies, originally a Shemitic deity,
who was however more or less disguised in a Greek garment.[38] [36] Marci
Diaconi Vita Porphyrii episcopi Gazensis, ed. Haupt (Essays of the Berlin
Academy, formerly known only in the Latin translation), c. 64: ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ
πόλει ναοὶ εἰδώλων δημόσιοι ὀκτώ, τοῦ τε Ἡλίου καὶ τῆς Αφροδίτης καὶ τοῦ
Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ τῆς Κόρης καὶ τῆς Ἑκάτης καὶ τὸ λεγόμενον Ἡρῷον καὶ τὸ τῆς Τύχης
τῆς πόλεως, ὃ ἐκάλουν Τυχαῖον, καὶ τὸ Μαρνεῖον, ὃ ἔλεγον εἶναι τοῦ Κρηταγενοῦς
Διός, ὃ ἐνόμιζον εἶναι ἐνδοξότερον πάντων τῶν ἱερῶν τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ. The Marneion
is also mentioned in many other passages of this work. [37] Eckhel, Doctr. Num.
iii. 448 sqq. Mionnet, v. 533-549; Suppl. viii. 371-375. De Saulcy, pp. 209-233,
pl. xi. Stark, Gaza, pp. 583-589. [38] Comp. on Marnas besides the passages in
Marcus Diaconus, Steph. Byz. s.v. Γάζα· ἔνθεν καὶ τὸ τοῦ Κρηταίου Διὸς παρʼ
αὐτοῖς εἶναι, ὃν καὶ καθʼ ἡμᾶς ἐκάλουν Μαρνᾶν, ἑρμηνευόμενον Κρηταγενῆ. Eckhel,
Doctr. Num. iii. 450 sq. Stark, Gaza, pp. 576-580. The oldest express testimony
to the cult of Marnas are coins of Hadrian with the superscription Μαρνα; see
Mionnet, v. 539. De Saulcy, pp. 216-218, pl. xi. n. 4. His cult is also met with
beyond Gaza. Comp. the inscription of Kanata in Le Bas and Waddington,
Inscriptions, vol. iii. n. 2412g (Wetstein, n. 183): Διῒ Μάρνᾳ τῷ κυρίῳ. With
the worship of Marnas as Ζεὺς Κρηταγενής is also connected the later Greek
legend, that Gaza was also called Μίνῳα, after Minos (Steph. Byz. s.v. Γάζα and
s.v. Μίνῳα). Comp. Stark, Gaza, p. 580 sq. A mixtur of native and Greek worship
is also found at Ascalon. A chief worship here was that of Ἀφροδίτη οὐρανίη,
i.c. of Astarte as Queen of Heaven. She is mentioned even by Herodotus as the
deity of Ascalon, and is still represented on coins of the imperial epoch
chiefly as the tutelary goddess of the town.[39] With her is connected, nay
probably at first identical, the Atargatis or Derceto, which was worshipped at
Ascalon under a peculiar form (that of a woman with a fish’s tail). Her Semitic
name (עתרעתה, compounded of עתר = Astarte, and עתה) already points out that she
is “merely the Syrian form of Astarte blended with another deity” (Baudissin).
From this fish-form it is evident, that “the fertilizing power of water” was
especially honoured in her.[40] Asclepius λεοντοῦχος of Ascalon, to whom the
Neo-Platonist Proclus composed a hymn, is, as well as these two, to be regarded
as an originally Oriental deity.[41] The genuinely Greek deities Zeus, Poseidon,
Apollo, Helios, Athene, etc., appear also on the coins of Ascalon.[42] A temple
of Apollo in Ascalon is mentioned in pre-Herodian times, the grandfather of
Herod having been, it is said, Hierodule there.[43] [39] Herodotus, i. 105. The
coins in Mionnet, v. 523-533; Suppl. viii. 365-370. De Saulcy, pp. 178-208, pl.
ix. and x., and comp. Stark, pp. 258 sq., 590 sq. The identity of the Grecian
Aphrodite with Astarte is universally acknowledged. Perhaps even the names are
identical; Aphtoreth and thence Aphroteth might, as Hominel conjectures, have
arisen from Ashtoreth (Fleckeisen’s Jahrbucher für class. Philologie, 1882, p.
176). [40] On the worship of Derceto in Ascalon, see especially Strabo, xvi. p.
785; Plinius, Hist. Nat. v. 23. 81; Lucian, De Syria dea, c. 14; Ovid, Metam.
iv. 44-46. The Semitic name upon a Palmyrian inscription and some coins (see
Baudissin, and on the coins very fully Six in the Numismatic Chronicle, 1878, p.
103 sqq.). With the worship of Derceto was connected the religious honour paid
to the dove in Ascalon, on which comp. Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 646 (from Philo’s
work, de providentia, in Eusebius, Praep. erang. viii. 14. 16, ed. Gaisford;
from the Armenian in Aucher, Philonis Judaei sermones tres, etc., p. 116). On
the literature, the article of Baudissin in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. i.
736-740, is worthy of special mention. To the list here given of the literature
must be added the article on “Derceto the Goddess of Ascalon,” in the Journal of
Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, new series, vol. vii. 1865, pp. 1-20. Ed.
Meyer, Zeitschr. der DMG. 1877, p. 730 sqq. Six, Monnaies d’Hierapolis en Syrie
(Numismatic Chronicle, vol. xviii. 1878, pp. 103-131, and pl. vi.). Rayet,
Dédicace à la déesse Atergatis (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, vol. iii.
1879, pp. 406-408). The inscription found in Astypalia and given here runs thus:
Αντιοχος και Ευπορος Αταργατειτι ανεθηκαν. Atargatis occurs only three times
besides in Greek inscriptions. Corp. inscr. Graec. n. 7046. Le Bas et
Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. n. 1890, 2588. [41] Stark, Gaza, pp. 591-593.
[42] See the coins in Mionnet and De Saulcy, as above. Stark, p. 589. [43]
Euseb. Hist. eccl. i. 6. 2; 7. 11. In Azotus, the ancient Ashdod, there was in
the pre-Maccabaean period a temple of the Philistine Dagon, who was formerly
also worshipped at Gaza and Ascalon.[44] At the conquest of Ashdod by Jonathan
Maccabaeus, this temple was destroyed, and the heathen worship in general
extirpated (1Ma_10:84; 1Ma_11:4). Of its re-establishment at the restoration by
Gabinius no particulars are known. In any case Azotus also had in this later
period a considerable number of Jewish inhabitants (see § 23. I. Nr. 5). [44]
See on this temple, Baudissin in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. iii. 460-463,
and the literature there cited. In the neighbouring towns of Jamnia and Joppa
the Jewish element attained the preponderance after the Maccabæan age. Joppa is
nevertheless of importance to Hellenism, as the scene of the myth of Perseus and
Andromeda; it was here on the rock of Joppa, that Andromeda was exposed to the
monster and delivered by Perseus.[45] The myth retained its vitality even during
the period of Jewish preponderance. In the year 58 B.C., at the splendid games
given by M. Scaurus as aedile, the skeleton of the sea-monster brought to Rome
from Joppa by Scaurus was exhibited.[46] The permanence of the myth in this
locality is testified by Strabo, Mela, Pliny, Josephus, Pausanias, nay even by
Jerome.[47] The Hellenistic legend, according to which Joppa is said to have
been founded by Cepheus, the father of Andromeda, also points to it.[48] Pliny
even speaks of a worship of the Ceto there,[49] and Mela of altars with the name
of Cepheus and his brother Phineus as existing at Joppa.[50] After Joppa was
destroyed as a Jewish town in the war of Vespasian, the heathen worship regained
the ascendancy there.[51] [45] The earliest mention of Joppa as the place of
this occurrence is found in Scylax (four centuries B.C.). See Müller, Geogr. gr.
minores, i. 79; comp. in general, Stark, p. 255 sqq., 593 sq. [46] Plinius,
Hist. Nat. ix. 5. 11: Beluae, cui dicebatur exposita fuisse Andromeda, ossa Romæ
adportata ex oppido Judaeae Jope ostendit inter reliqua miracula in aedilitate
sua M. Scaurus longitudine pedum xl., altitudine costarum Indicos elephantos
excedente, spinae crassitudine sesquipedali. On Scaurus, comp. the review of the
Roman Proconsols of Syria in vol. i. On the time of his aedileship, Pauly’s
Encycl. i. 1, 2nd ed. p. 372. [47] Strabo, xvi. p. 759; Mela, 11; Plinius, v.
13. 69; Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 3; Pausanias, iv. 35. 6; Hieronymus, Comment.
ad Jon. i. 3 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, vi. 394). Most make mention, that traces of
Andromeda’s chains were seen on the rock at Joppa. [48]a Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἰόπη.
[49] Plinius, v. 13. 69: Colitur illic fabulosa Ceto. The name Ceto is indeed
only a Latinizing of κῆτος (sea-monster); comp. Stark, p. 257. [50]a Mela, i.
11: ubi Cephea regnasse eo signo accolae adfirmant, quod titulum ejus fratrisque
Phinei veteres quaedam arae cum religione plurima retinent. [51] Comp. in
general the coins in Mionnet, v. 499; De Saulcy, p. 176 sq. pl. ix. n. 3, 4. In
Caesarea, which was first raised to a considerable city by Herod the Great, we
meet first of all with that worship of Augustus and of Rome, which characterized
the Roman period. Provinces, towns and princes then vied with each other in the
practice of this cult, which was indeed prudently declined by Augustus in Rome,
but looked upon with approval and promoted in the provinces.[52] It was
self-evident that Herod also could not remain behind in this matter. If a
general remark of Josephus is to be taken literally, he “founded Caesarea
(Καισαρεῖα, i.e. temples of Cæsar) in many towns.”[53] Such are specially
mentioned in Samaria, Panias (see below) and in Caesarea. The magnificent temple
here lay upon a hill opposite the entrance of the harbour. Within it stood two
large statues, one of Augustus after the model of the Olympic Zeus, and one of
Rome after that of Hera of Argos, for Augustus only permitted his worship in
combination with that of Rome.[54] With respect to the other worships of
Caesarea, the coins show a motley variety. In saying this we must certainly take
into consideration, that these belong for the most part to the second and third
centuries, which is of importance in the case of Caesarea, because after the
time of Vespasian the Roman element, in opposition to the Greek, received a
considerable reinforcement in the Roman colony introduced into Caesarea by that
emperor. Hence it is to be ascribed to the influence of the Roman element, that
the Egyptian Serapis, who was, as is well known, highly honoured in Rome, occurs
so very frequently. In general, however, we may transpose to an earlier period
also the deities mentioned on the coins. We here find again Zeus, Poseidon,
Apollo, Herakles, Dionysos, Athene, Nike, and of female deities chiefly Astarte,
according to the view of her prevailing in Palestine.[55] [52] Tacit. Annal. i.
10, Augustus is reproached nihil deorum honoribus relictum, cum se templis et
effigie numinum per flamines et sacerdotes coli vellet. Sueton. Aug. 59:
provinciarum pleraeque super templa et aras ludos quoque quinquennales paene
oppidatim constituerunt. Only in Rome did Augustus decline this worship (Sueton.
Aug. 52: in urbe quidem pertinacissime abstinuit hoc honore): a temple was first
erected for it there by Tiberius (Tacit. Annal. vi. 45; Sueton. Calig. 21).
Among the temples to Augustus, which have been preserved, the most celebrated is
that at Ancyra, on which comp. Perrot, Exploration archéologique de la Galatie
et de la Bithynie, etc. (1872), pp. 295-312, planche 13-31. Compare in general
on the worship of the emperor, Preller, Römische Mythologie, p. 770 sqq.;
Boissier, La religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins (2nd ed. 1878), i. pp.
109-186; Kuhn, Die städt. und bürgerl. Verfassung des röm. Reichs, i. 112;
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. iii. (1878) p. 144 sqq., and vol. i.
(2nd ed. 1881) p. 503 sqq.; Le Bas et Waddington, Inscript. vol. iii.
Illustrations to n. 885; Perrot as above, p. 295; Marquardt, De provinciarum
Romanarum conciliis et sacerdotibus (Ephemeris epigraphica), i. 1872, pp.
200-214; Desjardins, Le culte des Divi et le culte de Rome et d’Auguste (Revue
de philologie, de literature et d’histoire anciennes), nouv. serie, iii. 1879,
pp. 33-63. I am only acquainted with the latter from Bursian’s philolog.
Jahresber. xix. 620-622. [53] Bell. Jud. i. 21. 4; comp. Antt. xv. 9. 5. [54]
Sueton. Aug. 52: templa … in nulla tamen provincia nisi communi suo Romaeque
nomine recepit. On the temple at Caesarea, Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 21. 7; Antt.
xv. 9. 6. Philo also mentions the Σεβαστεῖον, see Legat. ad Cajum, § 38 fin.,
ed. Mang. ii. 590, fin. The remains of a temple have also been discovered in
Caesarea by the recent researches of Englishmen (The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 13 sqq., with plan of the town,
p. 15). It must, however, remain uncertain whether they are those of the temple
of Augustus. [55] Mionnet, v. 486-497; Suppl. viii. 334-343. Serapis very often.
Zeus, n. 53; Suppl. n. 43. Poseidon, n. 38. Apollo, n. 6, 12, 13; Suppl. n. 7,
12, 15. Herakles, n. 16. Dionysos, n. 37, 54, 56. Athene, Suppl. n. 37. Nike, n.
4; Suppl. n. 6, 8, 20. Astarte, n. 1, 2, 7, 18, 24, 51; Suppl. n. 9, 10, 11, 45.
Still more in De Saulcy, pp. 112-141, pl. vii. The coins of Dora, which are
assignable to a period subsequent to Caligula, have most frequently the image of
Zeus with the laurel.[56] In a narrative of Apion, which is indeed a silly
fiction, Apollo is designated the deus Dorensium.[57] His worship, which was
common in all these towns (comp. Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Caesarea), is to be
traced to Seleucid influence. For Apollo was the ancestral God of the Seleucids,
as Dionysos was that of the Ptolemies.[58] [56] Mionnet, v. 359-362; Suppl.
viii. 258-260. De Saulcy, pp. 142-148, pl. vi. n. 6-12. Comp. also Eckhel, iii.
362 sq. [57] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 9. [58] Stark, Gaza, p. 568 sqq. The
ancient Ptolemais (Akko) was in the age of the Seleucids and Ptolemies one of
the most flourishing of heathen cities (see § 23. I. Nr. 11). Hence we may here
assume, even without more special information, an early penetration of the Greek
worship. Upon the autonomie coins of the town, belonging probably to the last
decades before Christ (soon after Caesar), is found. almost universally the
image of Zeus.[59] In the time of Claudius, Ptolemais became a Roman colony.
Upon the very numerous subsequent coins is found chiefly Tyche (Fortuna);
likewise Artemis, Pluto and Persephone, Perseus with Medusa, the Egyptian
Serapis and the Phrygian Cybele.[60] The Mishna gives an account of a meeting of
the famous scribe Gamaliel II. with a heathen philosopher in the bath of
Aphrodite.[61] [59] De Saulcy, pp. 154-156. [60] Mionnet, v. 473-481; Suppl.
viii. 324-331. Tyche (Fortuna) frequently. Artemis, n. 29, 39. Pluto and
Persephoue, n. 37. Perseus, Suppl. n. 19, 20. Serapis, n. 16, 24, 28. Cybele, n.
42. Still more in De Saulcy, pp. 157-169, pl. viii. [61] Aboda sara iii. 4.
Beside the towns on the coast, it was chiefly the districts in the east of
Palestine which were the earliest and the most completely Hellenized. It is
probable that Alexander the Great and the Diadochoi here founded a number of
Greek towns, or Hellenized towns already existing. Hence arose in early times a
series of centres of Greek culture in these parts. Their prosperity was
interrupted for only a short time by the chaotic work of destruction of
Alexander Jannaeus. For Pompey already made an independent development again
possible to them by separating them from the Jewish realm and combining them
probably under the name of Decapolis into a certain sort of unity. Damascus is
reckoned by Pliny and Ptolemy as the chief among these cities of Decapolis. It
was an important arsenal even in the time of Alexander the Great. Its
Hellenistic character at that period is testified to by coins of Alexander,
which were minted there (see § 23. I. Nr. 12). From that time onward it became
increasingly a Hellenistic city. At the partition of the great empire of the
Seleucids into several portions towards the end of the second century before
Christ, it even became for a while the capital of one of these smaller kingdoms.
As was consequently to be expected, the autonomic and mostly dated coins of
Damascus reaching to the commencement of the Roman Empire, present us with the
purely Greek deities: Artemis, Athene, Nike, Tyche, Helios, Dionysos.[62] Upon
imperial coins proper the emblems and images of stated divinities are,
comparatively speaking, but seldom found. Silenus, the honoured companion of
Dionysus and with him Dionysos himself here occur the most frequently;
especially in the third century after Christ.[63] The Hellenistic legend, which
connects him with the foundation of Damascus, also points to the worship of this
god.[64] Perhaps his worship both here and in other cities of Eastern Palestine
is to be traced to Arabian influence. For the principal deity of the Arabians
was conceived of by the Greeks as Dionysos.[65] Upon the Greek inscriptions,
which have been preserved in Damascus and its neighbourhood, Zeus is more
frequently mentioned.[66] [62] De Saulcy, pp. 30-33. Artemis, n. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10,
14, 21. Athene, n. 2, 8, 14, 15. Nike, n. 11, 12, 22, 23. Tyche, n. 17, 18.
Helios, n. 3, 21. Dionysos, n. 24, 25. Most also in Mionnet, v. 283 sq.; Suppl.
viii. 193 sqq. [63] Mionnet, v. 285-297; Suppl. viii. 193-206. Silenus, n. 61,
62, 68, 69, 72, 77, 85; Suppl. n. 34, 35, 48. Dionysos, n. 80, 88. The most also
in De Saulcy, pp. 35-56. [64] Stephanus Byz. s.v. Δαμασκός. [65] Herodot. iii.
8. Arrian, vii. 20. Strabo, xvi. p. 741. Origenes, contra Cels. v. 37. Hesych.
Lex. s.v. Δουσάρης. Krehl, Ueber die Religion der vorislamischen Araber, 1863,
pp. 29 sqq., 48 sqq. [66] Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, vol. iii. n. 1879,
2549, 2550. Ζεὺς Κεραύνιος (at Deir Kanun on the Nahr Barada). Corp. Inscr.
Graec. 4520 = Waddington, n. 2557a. In many of the towns of Decapolis,
especially in Kanatha, Gerasa, and Philadelphia, the existing magnificent ruins
of temples of the Roman period still bear witness to the former splendour of the
Hellenistic worship in these towns.[67] Of the special worships of the several
towns, we have for the most part but deficient information. In Scythopolis,
Dionysos must have been specially honoured. For the town was also called
Nysa,[68] and this is the mythological name of the place, in which Dionysos was
brought up by the nymphs.[69] The name Scythopolis was also referred
mythologically to Dionysos (see § 23. I. Nr. 19). On the coins of Gadara Zeus is
most frequently met with, also Herakles, Astarte and other individual
deities.[70] Artemis is depicted on the coins of Gerasa as the Τύχη Γεράσων.[71]
In Philadelphia Herakles appears to have been the principal divinity, Τύχη
Φιλαδελφέων, other individual gods also occurring.[72] The coins of the other
cities of Decapolis are not numerous, and offer but insufficient material. [67]
See the geographical literature mentioned in § 23. I. [68] Plinius, Hist. Nat.
v. 18. 74: Scythopolim antea Nysam. Steph. Byz. s.v. Σκυθόπολις, Παλαιστίνης
πόλις, ἢ Νύσσης (1. Νύσσα) Κοίλης Συρίας. On coins chiefly Νυσ[αιων?]
Σκυθο[πολιτων]. [69] A whole number of towns claimed to be the true Nysa. See
Steph. Byz. s.v. (Νῦσαι πόλεις πολλαί), Pauly’s Encycl. v. 794 sq.
Pape-Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen, s.v. [70] Mionnet, v. 323-328;
Suppl. viii. 227-230. De Saulcy, pp. 294-303, pl. xv. [71] Mionnet, v. 329;
Suppl. viii. 230 sq. De Saulcy, p. 384 sq., pl. xxii. n. 1-2. [72] Mionnet, v.
330-333. Suppl. viii. 232-336. De Saulcy, pp. 386-392, pl. xxii. n. 3-9. The
bust of the young Herakles is found with the superscription Ηρακλης upon a coin
of Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus (see the representation of it in De Saulcy, pl.
xxii. n. 7). Upon two others (one of Marcus Aurelius, the other of Commodus) is
depicted a vehicle drawn by four horses, with the superscription Ηρακλειον
(Mionnet, n. 77, 80; De Saulcy, pp. 390, 391). According to the ingenious
supposition of Eckhel (Doctr. Num. iii. 351), we are to understand by the latter
a small statue or sacellum which was on festivals carried in procession. The
Τύχη Φιλαδελφέων upon the coins of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, see De Saulcy, p.
389. Apart from the coast towns and the cities of Decapolis, there are only two
other cities in which especially Hellenism gained an early footing, viz. Samaria
and Panias. Alexander the Great is said to have settled colonists in Samaria. In
any case it was an important Hellenistic military post in the times of the
Diadochoi (see § 23. I. Nr. 24). The town was indeed razed to the ground by John
Hyrcanus, but the Hellenist rites must certainly have been re-established at its
restoration by Gabinius, and have attained still greater ascendancy at the
enlargement of the town by Herod the Great, who also here erected a magnificent
temple to Augustus.[73] On the other worships some further information is
furnished by coins attributable to times subsequent to Nero.[74] In Panias, the
subsequent Caesarea Philippi, the Greek Fan must have been worshipped since the
commencement of Hellenic times in the grotto there; for the locality is in the
days of Antiochus the Great already mentioned by the name of τὸ Πάνειον (see §
23. I. Nr. 29). The continuance of his worship in later times is also abundantly
testified by coins and inscriptions.[75] Herod the Great built here as well as
in Caesarea Stratonis and Samaria a temple of Augustus.[76] Of other deities
Zeus is most frequently found upon the coins, some appear singly; the image of
Pan is, however, by far the most prevalent.[77] [73] Bell. Jud. i. 21. 2; comp.
Antt. xv. 8. 5. [74] Mionnet, v. 513-516; Suppl. viii. 356-359. De Saulcy, pp.
275-281, pl. xiv. n. 4-7. [75] The coins in Mionnet, v. 311-315, n. 10, 13, 16,
20, 23; Suppl. viii. 217-220, n. 6, 7, 8, 10. Others in De Saulcy, pp. 313-324,
pl. xviii.; comp. especially the representations of Pan with the flute in De
Saulcy, pl. xviii. n. 8, 9, 10. The inscriptions in Le Bas et Waddington, Inscr.
vol. iii. n. 1891, 1892, 1893 (= Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4538, 4537, Addenda, p.
1179). [76] Antt. xv. 10. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 3. [77] See Mionnet and De
Saulcy’s above-named work. Subsequently to the second century after Christ,
Hellenic worship may be proved to have existed in other towns of Palestine also,
as Sepphoris, Tiberias, etc. It may however be assumed with tolerable certainty,
that it found no favour in them before the Vespasian war. For till then the
cities in question were chiefly inhabited by Jews, who would hardly have
tolerated the public exercise of heathen worship in their midst.[78] [78] That
there were no heathen temples in Tiberius may be indirectly inferred also from
Joseph. Vita, 12. For only the destruction of Herod’s palace adorned with images
of animals is mentioned, not that of heathen temples. The case was different
with the half-heathen districts of Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis, east of
the Lake of Gennesareth. Here too the Hellenistic worships probably first
penetrated to a wider extent subsequently to the second century after Christ.
But the work of Hellenization. began with the appearance of Herod and his sons,
who gained for culture these hitherto half-barbarous places (see above, p, 4).
The worship of Hellenic deities was afterwards admitted. The inscriptions, of
which a special abundance has been preserved in these regions, testify to its
prevalence from the second to the fourth centuries. The same observation must
however here be made as with respect to the Philistine towns, viz. that the
native Arabian deities were still maintained beside the Greek gods. Among these
Dusares, compared by the Greeks to Dionysos, takes the first place. His worship
in Roman times is testified chiefly by the games dedicated to him, the Ἄκτια
Δουσάρια in Adraa and Bostra.[79] Several other Arabian gods, the names of some
of whom are all that is known to us, are also mentioned upon the
inscriptions.[80] The Greek deities have, however, the preponderance during this
period. Among them by far the most frequently occurring is Zeus,[81] and next to
him Dionysos, Kronos, Herakles.[82] Of female deities the most frequent are
Athene[83] and Tyche,[84] then Aphrodite, Nike, Irene.[85] Finally, the
religious syncretism of the subsequent imperial period favoured other Oriental,
as well as the ancient native deities. Among these the Syrian Sun-god, who is
here adored, now under his Semitic name Αὔμου, now under his Greek name Ἥλιος,
at another under both together, plays the chief part.[86] His worship so
flourished in Constantine’s time also, that a considerable temple could even
then be erected for it in Auranitis.[87] Nay, the Christian preachers were only
able to suppress it, by substituting for him the prophet Ἡλίας.[88] Besides the
Syrian Sun-god, the worship of Marnas of Gaza and the Egyptian deities Ammon and
Isis, may also be shown to have been practised.[89] [79] Δουσάρης in Le Bas et
Waddington, Inscr. vol. iii. n. 2023, 2312. The Nom. propr. Δουσάριος 1916.
דושרא in de Vogüé, Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques, pp. 113, 120. The
Ἄκτια Δουσάρια in Mionnet, v. 577-585, n. 5, 6, 18, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37. The same
also in De Saulcy, pp. 375, 365, 369 sq. Comp. Tertullian, Apolog. 24: Unicuique
etiam provinciae et civitati suus deus est, ut Syriae Astartes, ut Arabiae
Dusares. Hesych. Lex. s.v.: Δουσάρην τὸν Διόνυσον Ναβαταῖοι. Krehl, Ueber die
Religion der vorislamischen Araber (1863), p. 48 sq. Waddington’s illustrations
to n. 2023. Mordtmann, Dusares in Epiphanius (Ztschr. der DMG. 1875, pp.
99-106). [80] Θεανδρίτης or Θεάνδριος in Waddington, n. 2046, 2374a (C. I. Gr.
4609, Addend. p. 1181), 2481. See concerning him Waddington’s illustrations to
n. 2046. Οὐασαιάθου, Waddington, n. 2374, 2374a. קציו, Qaçiu, in de Vogüé, Syrie
Centrale, Inscr. sém. pp. 96, 103. אלת, Allath (a female deity), de Vogüé, pp.
100, 107, 119. [81] Waddington, n. 2116, 2140, 2211, 2288, 2289, 2290, 2292,
2339, 2340, 2390, 2412d (Wetzstein, 185), 2413b (Wetzet. 179), 2413J (C. I. Gr.
4558), 2413k (C. I. Gr. 4559). Ζεὺς Τέλειος, n. 2484. [82] Dionysos, Waddington,
n. 2309. Kronos, n. 2375, 2544. Heracles, n. 2413c (Wetzst. 177), 2428. [83]
Waddington, n. 2081, 2203a (Wetzet. 16), 2216, 2308, 2410, 2453, 2461. Also with
a local colouring (Ἀθηνᾷ Γοζμαίῃ at Kanatha), n. 2345. [84] Waddington, n, 2127,
2176, 2413f to 2413i (= Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4554 to 4557), 2506, 2512, 2514.
In the Semitic Τύχη the name of a deity is rendered by גָּד (see Lagarde,
Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1866, p. 16. Mordtmann, Zeitschr. d. DMG. 1877, pp.
99-101, and comp. the locality near Jerusalem mentioned in the Misbna גד יון,
Sabim i. 5). It does not however follow that the worship of Τύχη can be traced
back to the old Semitic Gad, the wide diffusion of which cannot be proved (comp.
Baudissin in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. 2nd ed. iv. 722 sq.). Rather is the Syrian
Astarte, with which Tyche is certainly generally connected, to be thought of (so
also Mordtmann). [85] Aphrodite, Waddingtou, n. 2098. Nike, n. 2099, 2410, 2413j
(C. I. Gr. 4558), 2479. Irene, n. 2526. [86] Αὔμου, Waddington, n. 2441, 2455,
2456. Ἥλιος, n. 2398, 2407. Ἠλιος θεὸς Αὖμος, n. 2392, 2393, 2395. [87]
Waddington, n. 2393. [88] See Waddington on n. 2497. [89] Marnas, Waddington, n.
2412g (Wetzst. 183). Ammon, n. 2313, 2382. Isis, n. 2527. Also upon a coin of
Kanata in Mionnet, Suppl. viii. 225, n. 5. Periodical games were often closely
connected with the religious rites. In this department also the predominance of
Hellenic customs may be proved by numerous examples. But even here authorities
for the Greek period, properly so called, are extremely few. We know, that
Alexander the Great celebrated splendid games at Tyre.[90] The πενταετηρικὸς
ἀγών held there is incidentally mentioned in the prefatory narrative of the
Maccabean rising (2Ma_4:18-20). On the same occasion we learn also that
Antiochus Epiphanes desired to introduce the Διονύσια into Jerusalem (2Ma_6:7).
But it is just is the Hellenic towns of Palestine that the celebration of such
solemnities during the pre-Eoman period cannot be proved in detail, though from
the general character of the age it must evidently be assumed.[91] Not till we
come to the Roman period are authorities again abundant. The great importance of
public games in imperial times is well known; not a provincial town of any
consequence was without them.[92] This was especially the case with those in
connection with the cult of the Imperator, the games in honour of the emperor,
which were everywhere in vogue, even in the time of Augustus.[93] In Palestine
also they were introduced by Herod into Caesarea and Jerusalem. Other games of
various kinds also existed beside them. Their prevalence in the chief towns of
Palestine in the second century after Christ is proved by an inscription at
Aphrodisias in Caria, upon which the council and people of the Aphrodisians
record the victories gained by one Aelius Aurelius Menander in several contests.
Among the games here enumerated are some also which took place in Palestinian
towns.[94] In a similar inscription at Laodicaea in Syria, of the beginning of
the third century after Christ, the victor himself transmits to posterity the
victories he obtained. Here too many towns of Palestine are mentioned as the
theatres of these victories.[95] Lastly, in an anonymous Descriptio totius orbis
of the middle of the 4th century after Christ, are enumerated the kinds of games
and contests, for which the most important towns of Syria were then
distinguished.[96] From these and other sources the following materials have
been compiled.[97] [90] Arrian, ii. 24. 6; iii. 6. 1. Comp. Plutarch. Alex. c.
29. Droysen, Gesch. d. Hellenismus (2nd ed.), i. 1. 297, 325. [91] Comp. Stark,
Gaza, p. 594 sq. [92] Compare on the games in the Roman period, especially
Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengesch. Roms, vol. ii. (3rd ed. 1874)
pp. 261-622. On their organization and kinds, also Marquardt, Römische
Staatsver-waltung, vol. iii. (2nd ed. 1878) pp. 462-544 (also edited by
Friedländer). [93] Sueton. Aug. 59: provinciarum pleraeque super templa et aras
ludos quoque quinquennales paene oppidatim constituerunt. [94] Le Bas et
Waddington, vol. iii. n. 1620b. The inscription, as is proved by another
pertaining to it (n. 1620a), is of the time of Marcus Aurelius. The part which
interests us is as follows:— [95] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4472 = Le Bas et
Waddington, vol. iii. n. 1839. The date of the inscription is A.D. 221. It
mentions among others games at Caesarea, Ascalon and Scythopolis. [96] This
originally Greek Descriptio totius orbis is preserved in two Latin paraphrases,
both of which are given in Müller’s Geographi Graeci minores, ii. 513-528. One
also in Riese’s Geographi Latini minores (1878), pp. 104-126. According to the
freer but more intelligible version c. 32 runs as follows: Iam nunc dicendum est
quid etiam in se singulae civitates, de quibus loquimur, habeant delectabile.
Habes ergo Antiochiam in ludis circensibus eminentem; similiter et Laodiciam et
Tyrum et Berytum et Caesaream. Et Laodicia mittit aliis civitatibus agitatores
optimos, Tyrus et Berytus mimarios, Caesarea pantomimos, Heliopolis choraulas,
Gaza pammacarios, Ascalon athletas luctatores, Castabala pyctas. [97] In
enumerating the towns I follow the same order as above when treating of the
worships, and in § 23. I. The further information may also be given, that the
kinds of games were in general as follows: (1) in the circus (ἱππόδρομος) the
chariot race; (2) in the amphitheatre the contests of gladiators and fights of
wild beasts; (3) in the theatre plays, properly so called, to which were also
added pantomimes; (4) in the stadium gymnastic games—boxing, wrestling, and
running; the latter were also sometimes held in the circus (Marquardt, iii. 504
sq.). At the great annual feasts several of these gaines were generally
combined. Δαμασκὸν Βʹ ἀνδρῶν πανκράιν, Βηρυτὸν ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν, Τύρον ἀνδρῶν
πανκράτιν, Καισάρειαν τὴν Στράτωνος ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν, Νέαν πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρίας
ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν Σκυθόπολιν ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν, Γάζαν ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν, Καισάρειαν
Πανιάδα βʹ ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν, … Φιλαδέλφειαν τῆς Ἀραβίας ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν. In
Gaza a πανήγυρις Ἀδριανή was celebrated from the time of Hadrian.[98] A
παγκράτιον is mentioned as held there in the inscription of Aphrodisias.[99] The
pammacarii (= παμμάχοι or παγκρατιασταί) of Gaza were in the fourth century the
most famous in Syria.[100] Jerome in his Life of Hilarion mentions the
Circensian games there.[101] A ταλαντιαῖος ἀγών is testified for Ascalon in the
inscription of Laodicaen. Its wrestlers (athlelue luctatores, see note [102]
were particularly famous. In Caesarea a stone theatre and a large amphitheatre,
the latter with a view of the sea, were built by Herod the Great;[103] a στάδιον
is mentioned of the time of Pilate;[104] the town must also have had a circus
from its commencement, since a ἵππων δρόμος was held (see below) so early as at
the dedication by Herod. Even now traces and remains of a theatre are
discernible.[105] All the four species of games having thus been from the first
provided for, it follows that all four were in fact celebrated at the dedication
by Herod the Great.[106] From that time onwards they were repeated every four
years in honour of the emperor.[107] These were however of course not the only
games held at Caesarea. All the four kinds may also be pointed out singly in
later times. 1. The ludi circenses of Caesarea were in the fourth century after
Christ as famous as those of Antioch. Laodicaea, Tyre and Berytus (see note
[108]. Titus instituted after the termination of the Jewish war gladiatorial
contests and fights of wild beasts, in which hundreds of Jewish prisoners were
sacrificed.[109] The Emperor Maximinus exhibited at the celebration of his
birthday animals brought from India and Ethiopia.[110]. Games in the theatre are
mentioned in the time of King Agrippa I.[111] The pantomimi of Caesarea were in
the fourth century the most famous in Syria (see note [112] We must understand
indeed of pantomimic games also, what Eusebius says of the games of
Maximinus.[113]. A παγκράτιον is mentioned in the inscription of Aphrodisias, a
boxing-match in that of Laodicaea.[114] In Ptolemais a gymnasium was built by
Herod the Great.[115] [98] Chron. pasch., ed. Dindorf, i. 474. [99] The
παγκράτιον is the “joint contest,” which comprises both wrestling (πάλη) and
boxing (πυγμή). Hence it belongs to the order of gymnastic games. [100] See
above, note 93. In the text of the second Latin translation of the Descr. totius
orbis, it is said more fully concerning Gaza: aliquando autem et Gaza habet
bonos auditores, dicitur autem habere eam et pammacharios. The Latin auditores
is undoubtedly an erroneous translation, perhaps for ἀκροαματικοί (see Stark,
Gaza, p. 595). [101] Hieronymus, Vita Hilarionis, c. 20 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, ii.
22): Sed et Italicus ejusdem oppidi municeps Christianus adversus Gazensem
Duumvirum, Marnae idolo deditum, circenses equos nutriebat. [102] The παγκράτιον
is the “joint contest,” which comprises both wrestling (πάλη) and boxing
(πυγμή). Hence it belongs to the order of gymnastic games. [103] Antt. xv. 9. 6
fin.; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 8. [104] Antt. xviii. 3. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 3. [105]
The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 13 sqq.
(with plan of the town, p. 15). [106] Antt. xvi. 5. 1: κατηγγέλκει μὲν γὰρ ἀγῶνα
μουσικῆς καὶ γυμνικων ἀθλημάτων, παρεσκευάκει δὲ πολὺ πλῆθος μονομάχων καὶ
θηρίων, ἳππων τε δρόμου, etc. [107] The games were celebrated κατὰ πενταετηρίδα
(Antt. xvi. 5. 1) and hence called πενταετηρικοὶ ἀγῶνες (Bell. Jud. i. 21. 8).
According however to our mode of expression these games were held every four
years. The same formula are constantly used of all fourth yearly games, the
Olympic, the Actian, etc. See the Lexica and the material in the index to the
Corp. Inscr. Graec. p. 158, s.v. [108] The παγκράτιον is the “joint contest,”
which comprises both wrestling (πάλη) and boxing (πυγμή). Hence it belongs to
the order of gymnastic games. [109] Bell. Jud. vii. 31. [110] Euseb. De Martyr.
Palaest. vi. 1-2. [111] Antt. xix. 7. 4; 8. 2. On the games mentioned in the
last passage, as held in honour of the Emperor Claudius, see above, § 18, s.
fin. [112] The παγκράτιον is the “joint contest,” which comprises both wrestling
(πάλη) and boxing (πυγμή). Hence it belongs to the order of gymnastic games.
[113] De Martyr. Palaest. vi. 2: ἀνδρῶν ἐντέχνοις τισὶ σωμασκίαις παραδόξους
ψυχαγωγίας τοῖς ὁρῶσιν ἐνδεικνυμένων. See also the note of Valesius. [114] This
πυγμή took place on the occasion of the Σεουήρειος Οἰκουμενικὸς Πυθικός (scil.
ἀγών), i.e. of the Pythic games dedicated to the Emperor Septimius Severus.
[115]a Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 21. 11. In Damascus also a gymnasium and theatre
were built by Herod the Great (see Josephus as before). The existence of a
παγκράτιον there is testified to by the inscription of Aphrodisias, and σεβάσμια
(games in honour of the emperor) are mentioned upon the coins since
Macrinus.[116] Ruins of two theatres are still standing at Gadara.[117] A
ναυμαχία there occurs on the coins of Marcus Aurelius.[118] Kanatha has besides
ruins of its temple those of a small theatre, hewn out in the rock and
designated on an inscription as θεατροειδὲς ᾠδεῖον.[119] In Scythopolis traces
of a hippodrome are found, and ruins of a theatre are still standing.[120] A
παγκράτιον is mentioned in the inscription of Aphrodisias, and a ταλαντιαῖος
ἀγών in that of Laodicaea. Among the magnificent ruins of Gerasa are found those
of two theatres and traces of a Naumachia (an amphitheatre erected for battles
of ships).[121] Philadelphia too possesses the ruins of a theatre and of an
Odeum (a small roofed theatre),[122] and a παγκράτιον is mentioned in the
inscription of Aphrodisias. In Caesarea Panias “various spectacles” (παντοίας
θεωρίας), especially gladiatorial contests and wild beast fights, in which
Jewish prisoners were used, were given by Titus after the termination of the
Jewish war.[123] A παγκράτιον held there is mentioned in the inscription of
Aphrodisias. On games in the Jewish towns (Jerusalem, Jericho, Tarichea,
Tiberias), see the next section. [116] Mionnet, v. 291 sqq.; Suppl. viii. 198
sqq. De Sanley, p. 42 sqq. [117] See the geographical literature cited in § 23.
I. note 179. [118] See especially Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 348 sqq., also
Mionnet, v. 326, n. 38. De Saulcy, p. 299. [119] The inscription in Le Bas et
Waddington, vol. iii. n. 2341. On the building itself, see the geographical
literature cited § 23. I. note 214. [120] See especially, The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, vol. ii. p. 106 (plan of the
hippodrome) and p. 107 (plan of the theatre). The theatre is according to Conder
(ii. 106) the best preserved specimen of Roman work in Western Palestine. [121]
See the geographical literature cited § 23, note 1. 253. [122] See the
literature cited § 23, note 1. 270. [123] Bell. Jud. vii. 2. 1. Besides the
religious rites and games, there is finally a third point which shows how deeply
Hellenism had penetrated in many of these towns, viz. that they produced men,
who gained a name in Greek literature. Among the coast towns Ascalon is
especially prominent in this respect. In Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Ἀσκάλων)
are enumerated four Stoic philosophers: Antiochus, Sosus, Antibius, Eubius, who
were natives of Ascalon. Of these only Antiochus is elsewhere known. He was a
contemporary of Lucullus and a teacher of Cicero, and therefore belongs to the
first century before Christ. His system is moreover not exactly stoic but
eclectic.[124] As grammarians of Ascalon, Ptolemaeus and Dorotheas, as
historians Apollonius and Artemidorus are named by Steph. Byz. The two latter
are unknown. Dorotheas is elsewhere quoted, but his date cannot be decided.[125]
Next to the philosopher Antiochus, the grammarian Ptolemaeus is best known.[126]
If he was, as stated by Stephen, Ἀριστάρχου γνώριμος, he would belong to the
second century before Christ. He is probably however of a considerably later
date (about the beginning of the Christian era).[127] Among the towns of
Decapolis Gadara and Gerasa are especially to be mentioned as the birthplaces of
distinguished men. Of Gadara was the Epicurean Philodemus, the contemporary of
Cicero, numerous fragments of whose writings have become known through the rolls
discovered in Herculaneum; also the epigrammatic poet Meleager and the cynic
Menippus, both probably belonging to the first century before Christ. The Greek
anthology contains more than a hundred epigrams of Meleager, nay he was himself
the founder of this collection. Lastly the rhetorician Theodorus, the tutor of
the Emperor Tiberius, was also a Gadarene. All the four are already mentioned in
combination by Strabo.[128] Of Gerasa were, according to Steph. Byz. (s.v.
Γέρασα): Ariston (ῥήτωρ ἀστεῖος), Kerykos (σοφιστής) and Plato (νομικὸς ῥήτωρ),
all three not otherwise known. [124] See Pauly’s Encykl. i. 1 (2nd ed.), p. 1141
sq., and the literature there cited, especially Zeller. Also Hoyer, De Antiocho
Ascalonita, Bonn 1883. [125] See Fabricius, Biblioth. graeca, ed. Harles, i.
511, vi. 365, x. 719. Pauly’s Encykl. ii. 1251. Nicolai, Griech. Literaturgesch.
ii. 381. [126] See Fabricius, Biblioth. graeca, i. 521, vi. 156 sqq. Pauly’s
Encykl. vi. 1, 142. Nicolai, Griech. Literaturgesch. ii. 347. Baege, De
Ptolemaco Ascalonita, 1882; also in Dissertationes philol. Halenses, v. 2, 1883.
[127] Comp. on the date of Ptolemy, Baege, pp. 2-6. In Stark, Gaza, he is,
certainly through inadvertence, transposed to the middle of the third century.
[128] Strabo, xvi. p. 759. For further particulars on all four, see the works of
Fabricius (Biblioth. graec.), Pauly (Encykl.), Nicolai (Griech. Literatur,
gesch.); on Philodemus and Menippus in the works of Zeller and Ueberweg on the
history of Greek philosophy; on Menippus, Wildenow, De Menippo Cynico, Halis
Sax. 1881. 2. Hellenism in the Jewish Region[129] [129]a Comp. in general
Hamburger, Realencyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, 2nd Div., article “Griechenthum.”
In the Jewish region proper Hellenism was in its religious aspect triumphantly
repulsed by the rising of the Maccabees; it was not till after the overthrow of
Jewish nationality in the wars of Vespasian and Hadrian, that an entrance for
heathen rites was forcibly obtained by the Romans. In saying this however we do
not assert, that the Jewish people of those early times remained altogether
unaffected by Hellenism. For the latter was a civilising power, which extended
itself to every department of life. It fashioned in a peculiar manner the
organization of the state, legislation, the administration of justice, public
arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the customs of daily life
down to fashion and ornaments; and thus impressed upon every department of life,
wherever its influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind. It is true that
Hellenistic is not identical with Hellenic culture. The importance of the former
on the contrary lay in the fact, that by its reception of the available elements
of all foreign cultures within its reach, it became a world-culture. But this
very world-culture became in its turn a peculiar whole, in which the
preponderant Greek element was the ruling keynote. Into the stream of this
Hellenistic culture the Jewish people was also drawn; slowly indeed and with
reluctance, but yet irresistibly, for though religious zeal was able to banish
heathen worship and all connected therewith from Israel, it could not for any
length of time restrain the tide of Hellenistic culture in other departments of
life. Its several stages cannot indeed be any longer traced. But when we reflect
that the small Jewish country was enclosed on almost every side by Hellenistic
regions, with which it was compelled, even for the sake of trade, to hold
continual intercourse, and when we remember, that even the rising of the
Maccabees was in the main directed not against Hellenism in general, but only
against the heathen religion, that the later Asmonaeans bore in every respect a
Hellenistic stamp—employed foreign mercenaries, minted foreign coins, took Greek
names, etc., and that some of them, e.g. Aristobulus I., were direct favourers
of Hellenism,—when all this is considered, it may safely be assumed, that
Hellenism had, notwithstanding the rising of the Maccabees, gained access in no
inconsiderable measure into Palestine even before the commencement of the Roman
period. Its further diffusion was not to any considerable amount promoted by the
rule of the Romans and Herodians, who added to it that Latin element, which
makes itself so very apparent especially after the first century of the
Christian era. For this later age (the first half of the second century after
Christ), the Mishna affords us copious material, plainly showing the influence
of Hellenism upon every sphere of life. A multitude of Greek and also of Latin
words in the Hebrew of the Mishna shows, how it was just Hellenistic culture
which had gained an ascendancy in Palestine also. A series of examples may serve
to substantiate this in detail also.[130] [130] The compilation following is for
the most part the result of my own collection. Anton Theodor Hartmann’s
catalogue of the Greek and Latin words in the Mishna (Thesauri linguae hebraicae
e Mishna augendi particula i. (Rostochii 1825), pp. 40-47, comp. Pt. iii. (1826,
p. 95)), a very careful work, though not complete as to authorities, has
furnished me with several needed additions. Comp. also on the foreign words in
the Mishna and Talmud, Sachs, Beitrage zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung aus
jüdischen Quellen, Nos. I. and II. 1852-1854. Cassel in Ersch and Gruber’s
Encycl., Div. ii. vol. 27, p. 28 sq. Adolf Brull, Fremdsprachliche Redensarten
und ausdrucklich als fremdsprachlich bezeichnete Wörter in den Talmuden und
Midraschim, Leipzig 1869. Perles, Etymologische Studien zur Kunde der
rabbinische Sprache und Altherthümer, Breslau 1871. N. Brull, Fremdsprachliche
Wörter in den Talmuden und Midraschim (Jahrb. fur jüdische Gesch. und Literatur,
i. 1874, pp. 123-220). It is chiefly of course in the department of civil
government and military matters that, together with foreign arrangements, we
find foreign terms also current. A provincial governor is called הגמין (ἡγεμών),
a province הגמוניא (ἡγεμονία), the municipal authorities of a town ארכי
(ἀρχή).[131] For soldiers in general the Latin לגיונות (legiones) is used; an
army is called אסטרטיא (στρατία), war פולמוס (πόλεμος), pay אפסניא (ὀψώνιον), a
helmet קסדא (cassida), a shield תריס (θυρεός).[132] In matters of jurisprudence,
Jewish traditions were in general strictly adhered to. The law, given to His
people by God through Moses, extended not only to sacred transactions, but also
to matters of civil law and the organization of the administration of justice.
Here too then the Old Testament was in essential points the standard. We
nevertheless meet with Greek terms and arrangements in some particulars in these
departments also. The court of justice is indeed generally called בית דין, but
sometimes also סנהדרין (συνέδριον), the assessors פרהדרין (πάρεδροι), the
accuser קטיגור (κατήγορος), the advocate פרקליט (παράκλητος), a deposit אפותיקי
(ὑποθήκη), a testament דיתיקי (διαθήκη), a guardian or steward אפיטרופוס
(ἐπίτροπος).[133] Nay even for a specifically Jewish legal institution,
introduced in the time of Hillel, viz. the declaration before a court of
justice, that the right to call in a given loan at any time was reserved
notwithstanding the Sabbatic year, the Greek expression פרוזבול (προσβολή) was
used.[134] [131] הגמון, Edujoth vii. 7; הגמוניא, Gittin i. 1; ארכי, Kiddushin
iv. 5. [132] לגיונות, Kelim xxix. 6; Ohaloth xviii. 10; אסטרטיא Kiddushin iv. 5;
פולמוס, Sota ix. 14; Para viii. 9; אפסניא (not אספניא), see Levy, Neuhebr.
Wörterbuch. s.v., Sanhedrin ii. 4; קסדא, Shabbath vi. 2; Kelim xi. 8; תריס,
Shabbath vi. 4; Sota viii. 1; Aboth iv. 11. [133] סנהדרון, Sota ix. 11;
Kiddushin iv. 5; Sanhedrin i. 5-6; Shebuoth ii. 2, Middoth v. 4; specially
abundant in the later Targums, see Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., and Levy, Chald.
Wörterb. s.v.—פרהדרין, Joma 1. 1; קטיגור and פרקליט, Aboth iv. 11; אפותיקי,
Gittin iv. 4; דיתיקי, Moed katan iii. 3; Baba mezia i. 7; Baba bathra viii. 6;
אפיטרופוס, Shebiith x. 6; Bikkurim i. 5; Pesachim viii. 1; Gittin v. 4; Baba
kamma iv. 4, 7; Baba bathra iii. 3; Shebuoth vii. 8; אפיטרופא (stewardess),
Kethuboth ix. 4, 6. [134] פרוזבול, Pea iii. 6; Shebiith x. 3-7; Moed katan iii.
3; Kethuboth ix. 9; Gittin iv. 3; Ukzin iii. 10. Of other public institutions,
games again come first into notice. Pharisaic Judaism has always repudiated the
heathen kind of games. Philo indeed says in his work, Quod omnis probus liber,
that he was once present at an ἀγὼν παγκρατιαστῶν, and another time at the
performance of a tragedy of Euripides.[135] But what the cultured Alexandrian
allowed himself was no standard for the strict legal Palestinians. Even in the
period of the Maccabees the building of a gymnasium in Jerusalem and the
visiting of the same on the part of the Jews is mentioned as a chief abomination
of the prevailing Hellenism (1Ma_1:14-15; 2Ma_4:9-17). And this continued to be
the standpoint of legal Judaism.[136] Even Josephus designates the theatre and
amphitheatre as “foreign to Jewish customs.”[137] Judaism however was unable, in
spite of this theoretic repudiation, to prevent the pageantry of heathen games
from developing in the midst of the Holy Land during and after the Herodian
period; and we cannot assume that the mass of the Jewish population denied
themselves from visiting them. A theatre and amphitheatre were built in
Jerusalem by Herod, who instituted there as well as at Caesarea games every four
years in honour of the emperor.[138] The games imply the existence also of a
stadium and hippodrome, the latter indeed is once expressly mentioned.[139] In
Jericho where Herod seems to have frequently resided were a theatre,
amphitheatre and hippodrome.[140] In Tiberias a stadium is incidentally
mentioned.[141] Even so unimportant a town as Tarichea had a hippodrome.[142]
[135] Opp. ed. Mangey, ii. 449 and 467. [136] Aboda sara i. 7: “Neither bears,
lions, nor anything from which harm to others might arise, might be sold to the
heathen. They may not be helped in building a Basilica, a place of execution
(Gradum), a Stadium or Bema. Comp. in general, Winer, Realwörterb. s.v. “Spiele”
and the literature there cited. Löw, Die Lebensalter in der jüdischen Literatur
(1875), pp. 291-300. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästin. Theologie
(1880), p. 68: Opinion was everywhere very strict “on the theatre and circus of
the heathen.” Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii.
article “Theater.” [137] Antt. xv. 8. 1: θέατρον … ἀμφιθέατρον, περίοπτα μὲν
ἂμφω τῇ πολυτελείᾳ, τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἔθους ἀλλότρια· χρῆσις τε γὰρ
αὐτῶν καὶ θεαμάτων τοιούτων ἐπίδειξις οὐ παραδέδοται. The Jews saw in these
games a φανερὰ κατάλυσις τῶν τιμωμένων παρʼ αὐτοῖς ἐθῶν. [138] Antt. xv. 8. 1.
The games at Jerusalem, like those at Caesarea, comprised all the four kinds:
gymnastic and musical games, chariot racing and contests of wild beasts. See the
further description in Josephus as above. [139] Antt. xviii. 10. 2; Bell. Jud.
ii. 3. 1. [140] Theatre, Antt. xvii. 6. 3. Amphitheatre, Antt. xvii. 3. 2; Bell.
Jud. i. 33. 8. Hippodrome, xvii. 6. 5; Bell. Jud. i. 33. 6. [141] Bell. Jud. ii.
21. 6, iii. 10. 10; Vita, xvii. 64. [142] Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 3; Vita, xxvii. 28.
The public baths and public inns were further arrangements showing the influence
of Hellenism. The bath indeed was designated by a purely Hebrew expression
מֶרְחָץ. But the name for the director of the bath, בַּלָּן (βαλανεύς), points
to its Greek origin.[143] In the case of the public inns their Greek name,
פונדקי (πανδοκεῖον or πανδοχεῖον), already showed them to be a product of the
Hellenistic period.[144] [143] בלן, Kelim xvii. 1; Sabim iv. 2. Compare on the
baths as a heathen institution but one permissible to Jews, especially Aboda
sara i. 7, iii. 4. On their diffusion and arrangements, Marquardt, Das
Privatleben der Römer, vol. i. (1879) p. 262 sqq. Hermann and Blümner, Lehrb.
der griechischen Privatalterthümer (1882), p. 210 sqq. [144] פונדקי, Jebamoth
xvi. 7; Gittin viii. 9; Kiddushin iv. 12; Edujoth iv. 7; Aboda sara ii. 1.
פונדקית (the hostess), Demai iii. 5; Jebamoth xvi. 7. Foreign travellers are
called אכסניא or אכסנאין (ξένοι), Demai iii. 1; Chullin viii. 2. פונדקי not
unfrequently in the Targums, see Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., and Levy, Chald. Wörterb.
s.v. A δημόσιον or κοινὸν πανδοχῖον occurs in two inscriptions in the Hauran, Le
Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. n. 2462, 2463. The word also occurs, as is well
known, in the N. T. (Luke 10:34). See Wetstein, Nov. Test. on Luke 10:34;
Hermann and Blümner, Lehrb. der griechischen Privatalterthümer, p. 499 sqq., and
the Lexicons. Architecture in general and especially in public buildings must be
regarded as emphatically a Hellenizing element.[145] In the Hellenistic towns in
the neighbourhood of Palestine this is of course self-evident. They all had
their ναούς, θέατρα, γυμνάσια, ἐξέδρας, στοάς, ἀγοράς, ὑδάτων εἰσαγωγάς,
βαλανεῖα, κρήνας and περίστυλα in Greek fashion.[146] But also in Palestine
proper, the prevalence of the Greek style—especially since the time of Herod—may
be safely assumed. When Herod built himself a splendid palace, there can be no
doubt that he adopted for it the Graeco-Roman style.[147] The same remark
applies also to the other contemporary palaces and monuments of Jerusalem. In
any case not only were Stadia[148] known in Palestine,—as must be assumed from
what has been remarked about the games,—but also Basilica,[149] porticoes,[150]
porches,[151] Tribunes,[152] banqueting-halls[153] and other buildings after the
Graeco-Roman manner. Even in the temple at Jerusalem the Grecian style of
architecture was copiously adopted. It is true that in the temple proper (the
ναός) Herod could not venture to forsake the old traditional forms. But in the
building of the inner fore-court we see the influence of Greek models. Its gates
had fore-courts (ἐξέδραι) within, between which colonnades (στοαί) ran along the
inside of the walls.[154] The gate at the eastern side of the outer court had
folding doors of Corinthian brass, which were more costly than those covered
with gold and silver.[155] Quite in the Grecian style were the colonnades
(στοαί), which surrounded the outer court on all four sides. Most of them were
double (διπλαῖ),[156] but the most magnificent were those found on the south
side. They were in the form of a basilikon (βασίλειος στοά); four rows of large
Corinthian columns, together 162 in number, formed a three-aisled hall, the
middle aisle of which was broader by a half than the two side aisles and as high
again.[157] All this does not indeed prove, that the Grecian was the prevailing
style for ordinary private houses, nor may this be assumed. Occasionally we see
also that Phoenician and Egyptian architecture was also found in Palestine.[158]
[145] Comp. Winer, RWB., article “Baukunst.” Rüetschi in Herzog’s Real-Encycl.,
2nd ed. ii. 132 sqq. De Saulcy, Histoire de l’art judaïque, Paris 1858. Conder,
Notes on Architecture in Palestine (Quarterly Statement, 1878, pp. 29-40).
Almost all the ruins that remain belong to the non-Jewish towns of Palestine.
[146] See especially the summary of the buildings of Herod, Bell. Jud. i. 21.
11. On Gaza, comp. Stark, 598 sqq. On Berytus, the buildings of the two
Agrippas, Antt. xix. 7. 5, xx. 9. 4. On the public buildings, which were
everywhere customary in Greek towns, see Hermann and Blümner, Lehrb. der
griechischen Privatalterthümer (1882), p. 132 sqq. [147] See the description
Bell. Jud. v. 4. 4. [148] אצטדין (στάδιον), Baba kamma iv. 4; Aboda sara i. 7
[149] בסילקי (βασιλική) Aboda sara i. 7; Tohoroth vi. 8. [150] איצטבא (στοά),
Shekalim viii. 4; Sukka iv. 4; Ohaloth xviii. 9; Tohoroth vi. 10. [151] אכסדרה
(ἐξέδρα), Maaseroth iii. 6; Erubin viii. 4; Sota viii. 3; Tamid i. 3; Middoth i.
5; Ohaloth vi. 2. The ἐξέδρα is an open fore-court in front of the house door.
See especially Ohaloth vi. 2. [152] בימה (βῆμα), Sota vii. 8; Aboda sara i. 7.
[153] טריקלין (τρίκλινος), Erubin vi. 6; Baba bathra vi. 4; Aboth iv. 16;
Middoth i. 6. [154] The ἐξέδραι are mentioned by this name in the Mishna also
(Tamid i. 3; Middoth i. 5). Comp. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 3; also v. 1. 5 fin., vi. 2.
7, 4. 1; Antt. xx, 8. 11. On the στοαί the inner court, see Bell. Jud. v. 5. 2
fin., vi. 5. 2 (where they are decidedly distinguished from those of the outer).
[155] Bell. Jud. v. 5. 3, init. Comp. also on this gate, Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3,
vi. 5. 3. It was probably identical with the θύρα ὡραία mentioned Acts 3:2.
[156] Bell. Jud. v. 5. 2, init.; comp. Bell. Jud. v. 3, and also Philo, De
monarchia, lib. ii. § 2. The στοαί are also mentioned in the Mishna under this
Greek designation (Shekalim viii. 4; Sukka iv. 4). [157] Antt. xv. 11. 5. [158]
Tyrian courts to houses are mentioned Maaseroth iii. 5; Tyrian and Egyptian
windows, Baba bathra iii. 6. The Tyrian houses were particularly large and
elegant, see Strabo, xvi. p. 757, init.; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 9. Plastic
art could, by reason of the Jewish repudiation of all images of men and beasts,
find no entrance into Palestine; and it was only in isolated cases, as e.g. when
Herod the Great had a golden eagle brought into the temple, or Herod Antipas
placed images of animals on his palace at Tiberias, that the Herodians allowed
themselves to defy Jewish views,[159] Grecian music was undoubtedly represented
at the feasts at Jerusalem and elsewhere.[160] The musical instruments of the
Greeks, κίθαρις, ψαλτήριον and συμφωνία, are, as is well known, mentioned in the
Book of Daniel and also in the Mishna.[161] Of games of amusement dice, קוביא
(κυβεία), were, as the name shows, introduced into Palestine by the Greeks. They
also were repudiated by the stricter Jews.[162] In the matter of writing the
influence of the Greek and Roman periods is shown in the words used for pen,
קלמוס, (κάλαμος), and writer, לבלר (librarius).[163] [159] The eagle in the
temple, Antt. xvii. 6. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 33. 2. The representations of animals on
the palace at Tiberias, Joseph. Vita, 12. Representations of animals are also
found upon the remarkable ruins of Arâk el-Emir, north-west of Heshbon, which
are evidently identical with the castle of Tyrus mentioned by Josephus in the
neighbourhood of Heshbon, the building of which he ascribes to one Hyrcanus of
the time of Seleucus IV. (Antt. xii. 4. 11). It is however questionable, whether
the castle with its rude figures of animals is not older than Josephus supposes,
viz. of pre-Hellenistic origin; see De Vogüé, Le Temple de Jerusalem (1864), pp.
37-42, pl. xxxiv., xxxv. Tuch, Report of the Saxon Gesellsch. der Wissensch.
philol.-hist. Cl. (1865), pp. 18-86. De Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte (1865),
i. 211 sqq. The same in the Mémoires de l’Academie des Inscr. et Belles Lettres,
vol. xxvi. 1 (1867), pp. 83-117 with pl. viii. Duc de Luynes, Voyage
d’exploration à la mer morte, etc., pl. 30-33. Bädeker, Palästina (1875), pp.
320-322. [160] Herod offered prizes τοῖς ἐν τῇ μουσικῇ διαγινομένοις καὶ
θυμελικοῖς καλουμένοις … καὶ διεσπούδαστο πάντας τοὺς ἐπισημοτάτους ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ
τὴν ἅμιλλαν (Antt. xv. 8. 1). [161] Daniel 3:3; Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:10; Daniel
3:15. On the several instruments, see especially the article in Gesenius’
Thesaurus. סמפוניא, also Kelim xi. 6, xvi. 8. On music in general among the
Jews, Winer, RWB. ii. 120-125. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. x.
387-398. Löw, Die Lebensalter in der jüdischen Literatur, p. 300 sqq. [162]
קוביא, Shabbath xxiii. 2; Roth hashana i. 8; Sanhedrin iii. 3; Shebuoth vii. 4.
See in general Löw, Die Lebensalter, p. 323 sqq. Hermann and Blümner, Griech.
Privatalterthümer, p. 511 sqq. Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, ii. 824
sqq. [163] קלמוס, Shabbath i. 3, viii. 5. לבלר, Pea ii. 6; Shabbath i. 3; Gittin
iii. 1. But it was in the department of trade, of industry, and all connected
therewith, and in that of the necessaries of daily life, that the influence of
Hellenism made itself the most forcibly noticeable. By their ancient commerce
with the Phoenicians the coast lands of the Mediterranean had already entered
into active intercourse with each other.[164] While, however, in ancient times
the Phoenicians had the preponderance as givers, the Orientals now more occupied
the position of receivers. At least it was the Graeco-Roman element which was
now the intermediary and influential factor in the general commerce of the
world. This is plainly shown in the trade and commerce of Judaeo-Palestine.[165]
Already are the technical designations of the commercial class partly Greek. A
corn-dealer is called סיטון (σιτώνης), a sole dealer, מנפול (μονοπώλης), a
retail dealer, פלטר (πρατήρ),[166] a merchant’s account-book is called פנקס
(πίναξ).[167] The whole coinage system of Palestine was partly the
Phoenician-Hellenistic, partly the entirely Greek or Roman.[168] Reckonings were
made in Palestine in the time of the Maccabees by drachmas and talents.[169]
During the period of independence the Asmonean princes certainly issued money of
their own, coined according to a native (Phoenician) standard, and with Hebrew
inscriptions. But the later Asmoneans already added Greek inscriptions also. Of
the Herodians only coins of Roman values with Greek inscriptions are known. In
the period of Roman supremacy the Roman system of coins was fully carried out,
nay even the Roman names of coins were then more current than the Hebrew and
Greek ones, which were used simultaneously. This is seen by the following
comparison of the material afforded by the Mishna and the New Testament.[170]
(1) The Palestinian gold coin is the Roman aureus of 25 denarii, often mentioned
in the Mishna under the name of the “gold denarius” (דינר זהב).[171] (2) The
current silver coin was the denarius (δηνάριον), which is the most frequently
named of all coins in the New Testament (Matthew 18:28; Matthew 20:2 sqq.,
Matthew 22:19; Mark 6:37; Mark 12:15; Mark 14:5; Luke 7:41; Luke 10:35; Luke
20:24; John 6:7; John 12:5; Revelation 6:6). That this Latin designation is
familiar to the Mishna is very evident, for it is here almost more frequently
mentioned by the expression דינר than by its Semitic equivalent זוּז.[172] The
denarius being esteemed equal in value to an Attic drachma, calculations were
still made by drachmas. Still this mode of computation was no longer
frequent.[173] (3) Of copper coins, the two as piece, or dupondius (Hebr.
פונדיון), is chiefly mentioned.[174] Such a dupondius is also meant in the
saying of Christ, Luke 12:6, where the Vulgate rightly translates ἀσσαρίων δύο
by dipondio. (4) The most common copper coin was the as, Greek ἀσσάριον (Matthew
10:29; Luke 12:6), Hebr. אסר, sometimes expressly designated as the Italian as,
אסר איטלקי.[175] It amounted originally to one-tenth, but after the second Punic
war (B.C. 217), to only one-sixteenth of a denarius.[176] (5) The smallest
copper coin was the פְּרוּטָה, amounting to only the eighth of an as.[177] It
was unknown to the Roman system of coinage, its name too is Semitic. The λεπτόν
however which occurs in the New Testament (Mark 12:42; Luke 12:59; Luke 21:2),
and is, according to Mark 12:42, the half of a quadrans, is identical with it.
Coins of this size are in fact found in the period of the later Asmoneans and
single ones in the Herodian-Romish period.[178] It is however striking, that
both in the Mishna and the New Testament reckonings are made by this smallest
portion of the as, and not by the semis (half as) and quadrans (quarter as),
while the latter were then coined in Palestine also, and indeed more frequently
than the λεπτόν.[179] The mode of reckoning seems, according to the latter, to
have come down from pre-Roman times, but to have remained in use even after the
introduction of the Roman valuation. The coins issued in the Phoenician towns,
especially in Tyre, which were in circulation in Palestine even when no more
were made according to this standard, differed in value from the Roman
coins.[180] [164] On the commerce of the Phoenicians, see especially the classic
work of Movers (Die Phönicier), the last part of which (ii. 3, 1856) is entirely
devoted to this subject. On the influence thereby exerted upon Western by
Eastern culture, see the literature in Hermann and Blümner, Griechische
Privatalterthümer (1882), p. 41 sq., and in Marquardt, Das Privatleben der
Römer, vol. ii. (1882), p. 378 sq. [165] On Jewish commerce, see especially
Herzfeld, Handelgeschichte der Juden des Alterthums (1879); and for a short
account, Winer, RWB. i. 458 sqq. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. v. 578
sqq., xiii. 513 sqq. (art. “Schiffahrt”). De Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jüd.
Archäologie (Räbiger, 4th ed.), p. 390 sqq. Keil, Handb. der bibl. Archäol. (2nd
ed. 1875) p. 599 sqq. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div.
ii. art. “Welthandel.” For an acquaintance with Oriental commerce in general, in
the first century after Christ, one of the most important and interesting
authorities is the Περίπλους τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης (probably composed by a
contemporary of Pliny about 70-75 after Christ). Comp. on the Periplus,
especially Schwanbeck, Rhein. Museum, new series, vol. vii. 1850, pp. 321-369,
481-511. Dillmann, Monthly Report of the Berlin Academy, 1879, pp. 413-427.
Jurien de la Gravière, Le commerce de l’Orient sous les règnes d’ Auguste et de
Claude (Revue des deux mondes, 1883, Nov. 15, pp. 312-355). The text is given in
Müller’s Geographi Graeci minores, vol. i. 1855, pp. 257-305 (see also the
Proleg., p. xcv. sqq.). The separate publication, Fabricius, The Periplus of the
Red Sea, by an unknown traveller, in Greek and German, with critical and
explanatory note, and a complete glossary of words. Leipzig 1883 (in this work
is given, pp. 1-27, the rest of the literature). [166] סיטון, Demai ii. 4, v. 6;
Baba bathra v. 10; Kelim xii. 1; מנפול, Demai v. 4; Aboda sara iv. 9; on σιτώνης
and μονοπώλης, see also Herzfeld, p. 135 sq. פלטר is in some places =
πωλητήριον, the place of sale; and Herzfeld (pp. 131, 132) insists on so
understanding it in the two passages quoted; but it is more probably = πρατήρ
(so Hartmann, Thes. ling. Hebr. e Mischna aug. p. 45). [167] פנקס, Shabbath xii.
4; Shebuoth vii. 1. 5; Aboth iii. 16; Kelim xvii. 17, xxiv. 7. This account-book
consisted of two tablets bound together, which could be opened and closed. [168]
On the Jewish coinage of earlier and later times, see Bertheau, Zur Geschichte
der Israeliten (1842), pp. 1-49. Zuckermann, Ueber talmudische Gewichte und
Münzen, 1862. Herzfeld, Metrologische Voruntersuchungen zu einer Geschichte des
ibräischen reap. altjüdischen Handels, 2 parts, 1863-1865. The same,
Handelsgeschichte der Juden (1879), pp. 171-185. Winer, RWB. art. “Gold;” also
the articles Denar, Drachme, Stater, Sekel. De Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jüdischen
Archäol. (4th ed. 1864) p. 251 sqq. The works of De Saulcy, Madden, and others
on Jewish coins; see above, § 2. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie
(1882), pp. 456 sqq., 602 sqq. [169] Drachmas, 2Ma_4:19; 2Ma_10:20; 2Ma_12:43.
Talents, 1Ma_11:28; 1Ma_13:16; 1Ma_13:19; 1Ma_15:31; 1Ma_15:35; 2Ma_3:11;
2Ma_4:8; 2Ma_4:24; 2Ma_5:21; 2Ma_8:10 sq. What standard is to be assumed in this
case must here be left uncertain. [170] On the coins named in the New Testament,
see Madden, History of Jewish Coinage (1864), pp. 232-248; Winer and De Wette’s
above-mentioned works. On the Roman coinage, comp. especially the excellent
summary in Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. ii. (1876), pp. 3-75. The
two chief modern works are Mommsen, Gesch. des römischen Münzwesens, 1860, and
Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie, 1882. [171] דינר זהב, Maaser sheni
ii. 7, iv. 9; Shekalim vi. 6; Nasir v. 2; Baba kamma iv. 1: Shebuoth vi. 3;
Meila vi. 4. On the Roman aureus (called also denarius aureus), see Marquardt,
ii. 25 sq.; Hultsch, p. 308 sqq. That the דינר זהב was equal to 25 denarii
appears, e.g., from Kethuboth x. 4; Baba kamma iv. 1. [172] דינר, e.g. Pea viii.
8; Demai ii. 5; Maaser sheni ii. 9; Shekalim ii. 4; Beza iii. 7; Kethuboth v. 7,
vi. 3, 4, x. 2; Kiddushin i. 1, ii. 2; Baba mezia iv. 5; Arachin vi. 2, 5, and
elsewhere. זוּז Pea viii. 8, 9; Jama iii. 7; Kethuboth i. 5, vi. 5, ix. 8;
Gittin vii. 5; Kiddushin iii. 2; Baba kamma iv. 1, viii. 6; Baba bathra x. 2.
[173] δραχμή, Luke 15:8 sq.; Joseph. Vita, 44. In both passages, however,
drachmae of Tyrian value may be intended; comp. below, note 172. [174] פונדיון,
Pea viii. 7; Shebiith viii. 4; Maaser sheni iv. 8; Erubin viii. 2; Baba mezia,
iv. 5; Baba bathra v. 9; Shebuoth vi. 8; Kelim xvii. 12 (in the last expressly
named as the Italian pondion (פונדיון איטלקי). From Baba bathra v. 9, it is
evident that a pondion = two asses, as is also expressly noticed in the Talmud
(jer. Kiddushin 58d; bab. Kiddushin 12a; Lightfoot, Horae hebr. on Matthew 5:26,
Opp. ii. 288 sq.). The pondion is therefore without doubt the Roman dupondius,
as Guisius on Pea viii. 7 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna i, 7) has remarked. [175] אסר
איטלקי, Kiddushin i. 1; Edujoth iv. 7; Chullin iii. 2; Mikwaoth ix. 5. On אסר in
general, e.g. Pea viii. 1; Shebiith viii. 4; Maaseroth ii. 5, 6; Maaser sheni
iv. 3, 8; Erubin vii. 10; Baba mezia iv. 5; Baba bathra v. 9. [176] Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 16. [177] פְּרוּטָה, Kiddushin i. 1, ii. 1, 6;
Baba kamma ix. 5, 6, 7; Baba mezia iv. 78; Shebuoth vi. 1, 3; Edujoth iv. 7.
That it amounted to the eighth of the as is said Kiddushin i. 1; Edujoth iv. 7.
[178] See Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 301. [179] See Madden, as above.
The semis and quadrans are not to my knowledge mentioned in the Mishna, but
first occur in the Jerusalemite and Babylonian Talmud. In the New Testament
indeed the quadrans (κοδράντης) is twice mentioned. But in one passage (Mark
12:42) the words ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης are only an explanation on the part of the
evangelist; in the other (Matthew 5:26) the expression κοδράντης was probably
inserted by the evangelist in place of λεπτόν offered by his authority, and
preserved by St. Luke (12:59). The authorities therefore of our Gospels mention
only the λεπτόν, as the Mishna mentions only the פרוטה. [180] The coins of
Phoenician valuation were somewhat lighter than the Roman; see Hultsch, Griech.
und röm. Metrologie, p. 594 sqq. A νόμισμα Τύριον, of the value of 4 drachmae,
is mentioned by Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 2; comp. Vita, 13, s. fin. The
δίδραχμον (Matthew 17:24) and the στατήρ (= 4 drachmae, Matthew 17:27) are coins
of this valuation: for the temple tribute, as well as those generally prescribed
in the A. T., were discharged according to Tyrian valuation (Mishna Bechoroth
viii. 7; Tosefta Kethuboth xii. fin.), because this corresponded to the Hebrew;
comp. Hultsch, pp. 604 sq., 471. When Josephus states the value of the νόμισμα
Τύριον to have been 4 Attic drachmae, this is but an approximate valuation, for
the Tyrian tetradrachmon was somewhat lighter than the Attic (Hultsch, 595 sq.).
That which applies to money, the medium of commerce, applies also to its
objects. Here too we everywhere come upon the track of Greek and Roman names and
matters.[181] At the same time we must not overlook the fact, that Palestine
with her abundance of natural products made on her part large contributions to
the commerce of the world; the produce of her soil and her industrial
commodities went into all lands and were some of them world-famed.[182] But
whether the commodities were produced in the land or introduced from abroad,
they equally bore in large proportion the impress of the prevalent Hellenistic
culture; the produce of the interior was regulated by its requirements, while
just the objects which were the fashion in all the world were those which were
imported into Palestine.[183] [181] On the commercial commodities of antiquity,
see especially Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, vol. ii., Leipzig 1882 (2nd
ed. of the römischen Privatalterthümer, vol. ii.). Karl Friedr. Hermann and H.
Blümner, Lehrb. der griechischen Privatalterthümer, Freiburg 1882.
Büchsenschütz, Die Hauptstätten des Gewerbfleisses im klassischen Alterthums,
Leipzig 1869. On the products of Egypt in particular, Lumbroso, Recherches sur
l’économie politique de l’Egypte sous les Lagides, Turin 1870. On the arts of
the Restoration, Blümner, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste
bei Griechen und Römern, vols, i.-iii., Leipzig 1875-1884. The Edictum
Diocletiani de pretiis rerum (1st ed.) given—(1) by Mommsen in the reports of
the Saxon Scientific Society, phil.-hist. Cl. vol. iii. 1851, pp. 1-80, with
Appendix, pp. 383-400; (2) by Waddington in Le Bas et Waddington, Inscr. vol.
iii., Explications, pp. 145-191; (3) by Mommsen in Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. iii.
2, pp. 801-841, is a copious source of information concerning goods. I quote
from Waddington’s edition. [182] On the commercial commodities of Palestine, see
Movers, Die Phönicier, ii. 3 (1856), pp. 200-235; Herzfeld, Handelsgesch. der
Juden, pp. 88-117; Blümner, Die gewerbliche Thätigkeit, etc., pp. 24-27. A
survey of the chief commodities in the fourth century after Christ is given in
the Totius orbis descriptio in Müller, Geographi gr. minores, ii. 513 sqq. c.
29. Ascalon et Gaza in negotiis eminentes et abundantes omnibus bonis mittunt
omni regioni Syriae et Aegypti vinum optimum … c. 31: Quoniam ergo ex parte
supra dictas descripsimus civitates, necessarium mihi videtur, ut etiam quidnam
unaquaeque civitas proprium habeat exponamus, ut qui legit, certam eorum
scientiam habere possit. Scythopolis igitur, Laodicia, Byblus, Tyrus, Berytus
omni mundo linteamen emittunt; Sarepta vero, Caesarea, Neapolis et Lydda
purpuram praestant; omnes autem fructiferae vino, oleo et frumento; Nicolaum
vero palmulam invenies abundare in Palaestina regione, in loco qui dicitur
Hiericho, similiter et Damasci minores palmulas, sed utiles, et pistacium et
omne genus pomorum. Especially famous was the linen manufacture of Scythopolis.
In the Edictum Diocl. c. xvii.-xviii., the linen goods of Scythopolis stand
first as the most expensive. See also Jer. Kiddushin ii. 5: כלי פשתן הדקים הבאין
מבית שאן, Movers, ii. 3, 217 sq. Herzfeld, p. 107. Marquardt, Das Privatleben
der Römer, ii. 466. Büchsenschütz, p. 61. Blümner, Die gewerbl. Thätigkeit, p.
25. The Mishna too assumes, that Galilee carried on chiefly the manufacture of
linen, and Judea on the contrary that of woollen goods (Baba kamma x. 9). Hence
there was a wool-market at Jerusalem. [183] On imported articles, see also
Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte, pp. 117-129. A series of examples from the three
departments of (1) provisions (2), clothing and (3) furniture may serve as a
further illustration. Of foreign provisions, e.g., there were known in Palestine
Babylonian sauce (כּוּתַח), Median beer (שֵׁכָר), Edomite vinegar (חוֹמֶץ) and
Egyptian zythos (זִיתוֹס).[184] Also other Egyptian products, viz. fish,[185]
mustard, pumpkins, beans, lentils.[186] Likewise Cilician groats,[187] Bithynian
cheese,[188] Greek pumpkins,[189] Greek and Roman hyssop,[190] and Spanish
kolias.[191] From abroad came also, as their foreign names show, e.g. asparagus,
lupines and Persian nuts.[192] Very widely diffused in Palestine was the custom
of salting fish or pickling them in brine, as the name of the town Ταριχέαι on
the Lake of Gennesareth and the frequent mention of brine (muries) in the Mishna
prove.[193] The foreign origin of this custom also is evident from its foreign
name. [184] All four are mentioned, Pesachim iii. 1, as examples of provisions,
which are prepared from kinds of grain and have gone through a process of
fermentation. On the Egyptian ζῦθος (a kind of beer, Hebr. זיתוס, not זיתום, see
Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, s.v.), comp. Theophrast. de caus. plant. vi. 11. 2.
Diodor. i. 34. Plinius, xxii. 164. Strabo, xvii. p. 824. Digest. xxxiii. 6, 9.
Edict. Diocletiani, ii. 12. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. s.v. Waddington’s explanations
to the Edict. Diocl. p. 154. Pauly’s Encykl. s.v. cerevisia. Marquardt,
Privatleben der Römer, ii. 444. Hermann and Blümner, Griech. Privatleben, p.
235. Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere (3rd ed. 1877), p. 136 sq. Schleusner’s
Lexicon in LXX. s.v. and the Lexicons generally. It also occurs in the Greek
translations of the Old Testament Isaiah 19:10. [185] Machshirin vi. 3. Pickled
fish (ταρίχη), which are produced in large quantities in different places in
Egypt, and formed a considerable article of exportation, are intended (Blümner,
Die gewerbl. Thätigkeit, etc., pp. 14, 17. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 133. The
expositors of Numbers 11:5). A large number of places on the Egyptian coast had
the name of Ταριχέαι from this branch of industry (Steph. Byz. s.v.). See,
concerning its wide diffusion, Marquardt, Privatleben der Römer, ii. 420 sqq.,
and the chief work there cited, viz. Köhler, Τάριχος ou recherches sur
l’histoire et les antiquités des pêcheries de la Russie méridionale (Mémoires de
l’Académie imp. des sciences de St. Petersbourg, vi. serie, vol. i. 1832, pp.
347-490). [186] Mustard (חַרְדְּל), Kilajim i. 2. Pumpkins (דְּלַעַת), Kilajim
i. 2, 5. Beans (פּול), Kilajim i. 2, ii. 11, iii. 4; Shebiith ii. 8, 9; Shabbath
ix. 7; Nedarim vii. 1, 2. Lentils (עְדָשִׁים), Maaseroth v. 8; Kelim xvii. 8.
Egyptian lentils were known also in Rome, see Plinius, xvi. 201; Marquardt, ii.
410. Their cultivation in Egypt is of ancient date, see Hehn, Kulturpflanzen und
Hausthiere (3rd ed.), p. 188. [187] גרים קילקי, Maaseroth v. 8; Kelim xvii. 12;
Negaim vi. 1. [188] גבינה ותנייקי, Aboda sara ii. 4 (for thus we should here
read, according to the best authorities, instead of the corrupt גבינת בית
אונייקי). Bithynian cheese is also spoken of, Plinius, xi. 241; trans maria vero
Bithynus fere in gloria est. [189] דלעת יונית, Kilajim i. 5, ii. 11; Orla iii.
7; Ohaloth viii. 1. [190] אזוב יוֹן and אזוב רומי, Negaim xiv. 6; Para xi. 7.
The former also Shabbath xiv. 3. [191] קולייס האספנן, Shabbath xxii. 2;
Machshirin vi. 3. The colias is a kind of tunny-fish (see concerning it Plinius,
xxxii. 146; Marquardt, ii. 422 and the Lexicons). It was of course salted for
commerce and was like the Spanish τάριχος everywhere well known (Marquardt, ii.
421; Blümner, pp. 130-135). [192] Asparagus (אספרגוס, ἀοπαράγος), Nedarim vi.
10. Lupines (תורמוס, θέρμος), Shabbath xviii. 1; Machshirin iv. 6; Tebul jom. i.
4. Persian nuts (אפרסקי, Περσική), Kilajim i. 4; Maaseroth i. 2. In both places,
as the context shows, not peaches, but Persian nuts are meant, on which comp.
Marquardt, ii. 411. [193] מורייס, Terumoth xi. 1; Joma viii. 3; Nedarim vi. 1;
Aboda sara ii. 4; Kelim x. 5. Of materials for dress and garments of foreign
origin the following are mentioned: Pelusian and Indian linen and cotton
fabrics,[194] Cilician haircloth,[195] the sagum (סגום), the dalmatica
(דלמטיקיון), the paragaudion (פרגוד), the stola (אצטלית),[196] the handkerchief
(סודרין, σουδάριον),[197] the felt hat (פליון, πιλίον), the felt socks (אמפליא,
ἐμπίλια), the sandals (סנדל), of which the Laodicean (סנדל לדיקי) are mentioned
as a special kind.[198] A series too of technical expressions in the department
of manufactured articles testifies to the influence of Greek models. The spun
thread is called נימא (νῆμα), a certain arrangement of the loom קירוס
(καῖρος),[199] the tanner בורסי (βυρσεύς).[200] Of raw materials, hemp (e.g.
קנבוס, κάνναβος, κάνναβις) was first introduced into Palestine by the
Greeks.[201] [194] The garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement
were, according to Joma iii. 7, made of both materials. In the morning he wore
the פילוסין, in the afternoon the הנדווין (whether these were of linen or cotton
is not shown by these designations). The fine linen of Pelusium was famous; see
Plinius, xix. 1. 14: Aegyptio lino minimum firmitatis, plurimum lucri. Quattuor
ibi genera: Taniticum ac Pelusiacum, Buticum, Tentyriticum. Movers, ii. 3. 318.
Büchsenschütz, 62 sq. Blümner, Die gewerbliche Thätigkeit, p. 6 sqq., especially
16.—Indian materials (ὀθόνιον Ἰνδικόν, ὀθόνη Ἰνδική, σινδόνες Ἰνδικαί) are e.g.
also frequently mentioned in the Periplus maris Erythraei (see above, note 157)
as articles of commerce (§ 6, 31, 41, 48, 63). Probably cotton goods are to be
understood. See Marquardt, ii. 472 sq. Fabricius, Der Periplus des erythrdischen
Meeres (1883), p. 123, and Brand’s article, “Ueber die antiken Namen und die
geographische Verbreitung der Baumwolle im Alterthum” (1866), quoted in both
these two works. [195] קילקי, Kelim xxix. 1.—Cilicium was a cloth made of goat’s
hair, and used for very various purposes (coarse cloaks, curtains, covers,
etc.). See Marquardt, ii. 463; Büchsenschütz, 64; Blümner, 30. If then St. Paul
was a σκηνοποιός of Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 18:3), his calling was closely
connected with the chief manufacture of his native place. In the Mishna קילקי is
called “felt” (Filz), e.g. matted (verfilztes) hair on the beard, chest, etc.
(Mikwaoth ix. 2). [196] סגום, Kelim xxix. 1; Mikwaoth vii. 6. דלמטיקיון, Kilajim
ix. 7. פרגוד, Shekalim iii. 2; Kelim xxix. 1. אצטלית, Joma vii. 1; Gittin vii.
5. For particulars respecting this piece of clothing, see Marquardt, ii. 584
sq., 563 sq., 536 sq. Waddington, explanations to the Edict. Dioclet. pp. 175
sq., 182, 174 sq. Mommsen, Reports of the Saxon Scientific Society, phil.-hist.
Cl. iii. 71, 391.—The sagum was a mantle which left the arm at liberty, and was
therefore especially worn by soldiers and artisans. The three others are
different kinds of underclothing (hence in the Armenian translation of the Bible
paregôt more frequently occurs for χιτών; see Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen,
1866, p. 209 sq.). The dalmatica is also mentioned in Epiphan. Haer., when
speaking of the garments of the scribes. [197] סודרין, Shabbath iii. 3; Joma vi.
8; Sanhedrin vi. 1; Tamid vii. 3; Kelim xxix. 1. In the New Testament, Luke
19:20; John 11:44; John 20:7; Acts 19:12. Much matter concerning it is also
found in Wetstein, Nov. Test. on Luke 19:20, and in the Lexicons. [198] פליון,
Kelim xxix. 1; Nidda viii. 1. אמפליא, Jebamoth xii. 1; Kelim xxvii. 6 (comp.
Marquardt, ii. 486; Waddington, p. 164; Mommsen, p. 71). סנדל, e.g. Shabbath vi.
2, 6, x. 3, xv. 2; Shekalim iii. 2; Beza i. 10; Megilla iv. 8; Jebamoth xii. 1;
Arachin vi. 5. The sandal-maker was called סנדלר, Jebamoth xii. 5; Kethuboth v.
4; Aboth iv. 11; Kelim v. 5. See on sandals in general, Marquardt, ii. 577 sq.;
Hermann and Blümner, Griechische Privatalterthümer, pp. 181, 196. סנדל לדיקי,
Kelim xxvi. 1. Which Laodicea is meant cannot be ascertained, probably the
Phrygian, which was famed for its manufactures (Edict. Diocl.; Marquardt, ii.
460; Büchsenschütz, p. 65; Blümner, pp. 27, 28). The Syrian Laodicea was chiefly
famous for its linen manufacture (Edict. Diocl. xvii.-xviii.; Marquardt, ii.
466; Büchsenschütz, p. 61; Blümner, p. 26). [199] נימא Erubin x. 13; Shekalim
viii. 5; Kelim xix. 1, xxix. 1; Negaim xi. 10. קירוס, Shabbath xiii. 2; Kelim
xxi. 1. Comp. on the καῖρος, especially Blümner, Technologie und Terminologie
der Gewerbe und Künste, i. 126 sqq. [200] בורסי, Kethuboth vii. 10. בורסקי (the
tan-yard), Shabbath i. 2; Baba bathra ii. 9. [201] קנבוס, Kilajim v. 8, ix. 1,
7; Negaim xi. 2. On the comparatively late diffusion of hemp, see Hehn,
Kulturpflanzen u. Hausthiere (3rd ed.), p. 168 sq. Domestic utensils of foreign,
especially of Greek and Roman origin, are everywhere plentiful. Of Egyptian
utensils, a basket, a ladder, and a rope are mentioned,[202] also a Tyrian
ladder,[203] Sidonian dishes or bowls.[204] Of Greek and Roman utensils we find
the bench (ספסל, subsellium), the armchair (קתדרא, καθέδρα), the curtain (וילון,
velum), the mirror (אספקלריא, specularia), the Corinthian candlestick.[205] For
eating and drinking, e.g. the plate (אסקוטלא, scutella), the bowl (פילי, φιάλη),
the table-cloth (מפה, mappa).[206] For cases of all kinds the most common
designation is תיק, θήκη.[207] Special kinds of wooden vessels are the cask or
box (קופה, cupa), the wine-barrel (פיטס, πίθος),[208] the chest (גלוסקמא,
γλωσσόκομον), the small chest (קמטרא, κάμπτρα), the casket (קפסא, capsa), the
sack (מרצוף, μαρσύπιον).[209] [202] Basket (כְּפִיפָה), Shabbath xx. 2; Sota ii.
1, iii. 1; Kelim xxvi. 1. The reading also of Tebul jom. iv. 2 is certainly
כפישה instead of כפיפה. Ladder (סֻלָּם), Baba bathra iii. 6; Sabim iii. 1, 3,
iv. 3. Rope (חֶבֶל), Sota i. 6. [203] Baba bathra iii. 6; Sabim iii. 3. [204]
Kelim iv. 3. קוסים, comp. the Biblical קֶסֶת. Glass vessels are certainly meant;
for the making of glass vessels formed in Roman times a main branch of Sidonian
industry. Plinius, H. N. v. 19. 76: Sidon artifex vitri. Hermann and Blümner,
Griech. Privatalterthümer, p. 437 sq. Marquardt, Privatleben, ii. 726. [205]
ספסל, Baba bathra iv. 6; Sanhedrin ii. 1, fin.; Kelim ii. 3, xxii. 3; Mikwaoth
v. 2; Sabim iv. 4. Comp. Marquardt, ii. 704. קתדרא, Kethuboth v. 5; Kelim iv. 3,
xxii. 3; Marquardt, ii. 705. וילון, Kelim xx. 6, xxiv. 13. אספקלריא, Kelim xxx.
2. Corinthian candlesticks in the possession of King Agrippa, Joseph. Vita, 13.
[206] טבלא, Shabbath xxi. 3; Beza i. 8; Moed katan iii. 7; Edujoth iii. 9 (טבלא
elsewhere means a marble slab in the floor, Sota ii. 2, Middoth i. 9, iii. 3, or
a tablet with pictures, Rosh hashana, ii. 8). אסקוטלא, Moed katan ii. 7; Kelim
xxx. 1. פילי, Sota ii. 2; Marquardt, ii. 632. מפה, Berachoth viii. 8; Marquardt,
ii. 469. [207] תיק, Shabbath xvi. 1; Kelim xvi. 7, 8. [208] קופה (any round
hollow vessel, cask, basket, box), Pea viii. 7; Demai ii. 5; Shabbath viii. 2,
xviii. 1; Shekalim iii. 2; Kethuboth vi. 4; Kelim xvi. 3; Ohaloth vi. 2;
Machshirai iv. 6, vi. 3. פיטס (more correctly פיתס), Baba mezia iv. 12; Baba
bathra vi. 2; Kelim iii. 6; Marquardt, ii. 45, 626 sq. Hermann and Blümner,
Privatalterthümer, p. 162. [209] גלוסקמא, Gittin iii. 3; Baba mezia i. 8; Meila
vi. 1; Ohaloth ix. 15. According to the latter passage a coffin might have the
form of a γλωσσόκομον or a κάμπτρα. The LXX. (2 Chronicles 24:8; 2 Chronicles
24:10-11) put γλωσσόκομον for אָרוֹן. In the New Testament (John 12:6; John
13:29) γλωσσόκομον is a money-box. See on all these meanings, Wetstein, Nov.
Test. on John 12:6, and the Lexicons. קמטרא, Kelim xvi. 7; Ohaloth ix. 15. קפסא,
Kelim xvi. 7; Marquardt, ii. 705 sq. מרצוף, Shabbath viii. 5; Kelim xx. 1. The
stock of Greek and Latin words in the Mishna is far from being exhausted by the
specimens quoted. They suffice however to give a vivid impression of the full
adoption of Western manners and customs even in Palestine in the second century
after Christ. The influence of the Greek language reached still farther. For
even in cases where the introduction of Western productions and notions is not
treated of, we meet with the use of Greek words in the Mishna. The air is called
אויר (ἀήρ),[210] the form טופס (τύπος), the sample or pattern דוגמא
(δεῦγμα),[211] an ignorant, a non-professional, or a private individual הדיוט
(ἰδιώτης), a dwarf ננס (νάννος), a robber לסטיס (λῃστής).[212] For the notion
“weak” or “ill” the Greek expression אסטניס (ἀσθενής) for steep קטפדס
(καταφερής) is used.[213] The employment also of Greek and Latin proper names is
pretty frequent even among the lower classes and the Pharisaic scribes. Not only
were the aristocratic high priests, who were on friendly terms with the Greeks,
called Jason and Menelaus (in the Maccabean period), Boethus and Theophilus (in
the Herodian period), not only did the Asmonean and Herodian princes bear the
names of Alexander, Aristobulus, Antigonus, Herod, Archelaus, Philip, Antipas,
Agrippa, but among men of the common people also, as the apostles of Christ,
names such as Andrew and Philip appear. And in the circles of the Rabbinical
scribes we find an Antigonus of Socho, a R. Dosthai (= Dositheus), a R. Dosaben
Archinos (for such and not Harkinas was the Greek name of his father), R.
Chananiah ben Antigonus, R. Tarphon (= Tryphon), R. Papias, Symmachus. Latin
names also were early naturalized. The John Mark mentioned in the New Testament
was, according to Acts 12:12, a Palestinian; so too was Joseph Barsabas, whose
surname was Justus (Acts 1:23). Josephus mentions besides the well-known Justus
of Tiberius, also e.g. a Niger of Peræa.[214] [210] אויר, Shabbath 3; Chagiga i.
8; Kethuboth xiii. 7; Gittin viii. 3; Kinnim ii. 1; Kelim i. 1, ii. 1, 8, iii.
4, and elsewhere; Ohaloth iii. 8, iv. 1; Sabim v. 9. [211] טופס, e.g. the
different shapes of the loaf (Demai v. 3, 4), or the shape in which the loaf was
baked (Menachoth xi. 1), or the holder for the Tephillin (Kelim xvi. 7), or the
formula for the bill of divorcement (Gittin iii. 2, ix. 5). דוגמא, Shabbath x.
1, a specimen of seeds. [212] הדיוט used very frequently in the most different
relations, e.g. of a layman as distinguished from a professional craftsman (Moed
katan i. 8, 10), or of a private individual in distinction from a ruler or
official (Nedarim v. 5; Sanhedrim x. 2; Gittin i. 5); also of ordinary priests
as distinguished from the high priest (Jebamoth ii. 4, vi. 2, 3, 5, vii. 1, ix.
1, 2, 3). ננס, Bechoroth vii. 6, and in the proper name שמעון בן ננס, Bikkurim
iii. 9; Shabbath xvi. 5, and elsewhere; also of animals (Para ii. 2) and objects
(Tamid iii. 5; Middoth iii. 5). לסטיס, usually in the plural לסטים, Berachoth i.
3; Pea ii. 7, 8; Shabbath ii. 5; Pesachim iii. 7; Nasir vi. 3; Baba kamma vi. 1,
x. 2. [213] אסטניס, Berachoth ii. 6; Joma iii. 5. קטפרס, Ohaloth iii. 3;
Tohoroth viii. 8, 9. [214]a Compare in general, Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für
Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii., article “Namen.” But all that has been said does not
prove that the Greek language also was familiar to the common people of
Palestine. However large the number of Greek words which had penetrated into the
Hebrew and Aramaic, an acquaintance with Greek by the mass of the people is not
thereby proved. In fact, it must be assumed, that the lower classes in Palestine
possessed either no knowledge, or only an insufficient one of Greek. When the
Apostle Paul wanted to speak to the people in Jerusalem, he made use of the
Hebrew (Aramaic?) tongue (Acts 21:40; Acts 22:2). When Titus during the siege of
Jerusalem repeatedly summoned the besieged to surrender, this was always done in
Aramaic, whether Titus commissioned Josephus to speak, or spoke in his own name
by the help of an interpreter.[215] Thus the incidental knowledge of Greek on
the part of the people was in any case by no means an adequate one. On the other
hand it is probable, that a slight acquaintance with Greek was pretty widely
diffused, and that the more educated classes used it without difficulty.[216]
Hellenistic districts not only surrounded Palestine on almost every side, but
also pushed far into the interior (Samaria, Scythopolis). Constant contact with
them was inevitable. And it is not conceivable, that this should continue
without the diffusion of a certain amount of knowledge of the Greek language in
Palestine also. To this must be added, that the country, both before and after
the Asmonean period, was under rulers, whose education was a Greek one: first
under the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, then under the Herodians and Romans; nay some
even of the Asmoneans promoted Greek civilisation. The foreign rulers too
brought with them into the country a certain amount of elements moulded by Greek
training. We know of Herod especially, that he surrounded himself with Greek
literati (see § 15). There were foreign troops in the land; Herod had even
Thracian, German and Gallic mercenaries.[217] The games given by Herod at
Jerusalem brought not only foreign artists, but spectators from abroad into the
holy city.[218] But the most numerous concourse of strangers took place at the
great annual Jewish festivals. The thousands of Jews, who came on these
occasions from all parts of the world to Jerusalem, were for the most part both
in language and education Hellenists. And not only Greek Jews, but actual
Greeks, i.e. proselytes, came at the Jewish feasts to Jerusalem to sacrifice and
worship in the temple (comp. John 12:20 sqq.). We must conceive of the number of
such proselytes, who made annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, as something
considerable. Again many Jews, who had received a Greek education abroad, took
up their permanent abode at Jerusalem, and even formed there a synagogue of
their own. Hence we find at Jerusalem in the times of the apostles a synagogue
of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics (Acts 6:9;
comp. 9:20), in which it is uncertain whether one congregation or five are
spoken of.[219] In Galilee the larger towns had probably a fraction of Greek
inhabitants. We know this for certain of Tiberias,[220] not to speak of the
mainly non-Jewish Caesarea Philippi. Together with this strong penetration of
the interior of Palestine by Greek elements, there must have been not
infrequently the necessary acquaintance with the Greek tongue. And single traces
actually point to this. For while the Asmoneans had their coins stamped with
both Greek and Hebrew inscriptions, the Herodians and Romans coined even the
money intended for the Jewish region proper with merely Greek inscriptions; and
it is known from the gospel history that the (undoubtedly Greek) inscription
upon the coins of Caesar could be read without difficulty at Jerusalem (Matthew
20:20 sq.; Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24).[221] The statement of the Mishna, that even
in the temple certain vessels were marked with Greek letters, is certainly
supported there by only one authority (R. Ismael), while according to the
prevailing tradition the letters were Hebrew.[222] When further it is determined
in the Mishna that the writing of divorcement might be in the Greek language
also,[223] and that the Holy Scriptures might be used in the Greek
translation,[224] both these permissions may refer to the Jewish Dispersion
beyond Palestine. The notice on the contrary, that at the time of the war of
Titus (or more correctly Quietus) it was forbidden to any one to have his son
instructed in Greek,[225] presupposes, that hitherto that which was now
prohibited had taken place in the sphere of Rabbinic Judaism.[226] Nor can the
circumstance be otherwise explained, than by a certain familiarity with Greek,
that in the Mishna the names of Greek letters are often used for the explanation
of certain figures, e.g. כִּי for the explananation of the figure Χ, or גַּמָּא
for the explanation of the figure Γ.[227] [215] Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 9. 2, vi.
2. 1. Interpreter, Bell. Jud. vi. 6. 2. If it sometimes appears as though Titus
had spoken directly to the people (Bell. Jud. v. 9. 2, vi. 2. 4), we see from
the latter passages that this is only in appearance, and that Josephus had to
interpret his speech (Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 5, init.). [216] The question respecting
the diffusion of Greek in Palestine has been much discussed both in ancient and
modern times. The copious literature is recorded in Hase, Leben Jesu, § 29, note
b. Credner, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 183. Volbeding, Index
Dissertationum quibus singuli historiae N. T. etc. loci illustrantur (Lips.
1849), p. 18. Danko, Historia Revelationis divinae Nov. Test. (Vindob. 1867) p.
216 sq. Of more modern times, Hug, Einl. in die Schriften des N. T. (4th ed.
1847) ii. 27-49. Rettig, Ephemerides exegetico-theologicae fasc. iii. (Gissæ
1824) pp. 1-5. Thiersch, Versuch zur Herstellung des histor. Standpuncts (1845),
p. 48 sqq. Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, Cambridge and London 1864,
Macmillan & Co. (571, p. 8). Delitzsch, Saat und Hoffnung, 1874, p. 201 sqq.
[217] Antt. xvii. 8. 3. [218] Antt. xv. 8. 1. [219]a A synagogue of the
Alexandrians at Jerusalem is also mentioned, Tosefta Megilla iii., ed.
Zuckermandel, pp. 224, 26; Jer. Megilla 73d (in Lightfoot, Horae on Acts 6:9).
[220] Joseph. Vita, 12. [221] Comp. the representation of such a denarius as
Jesus probably had in His hand, in Madden’s History of Jewish Coinage, p. 247.
[222] Shekalim iii. 2. [223] Gittin ix. 8. [224] Megilla i. 8. [225] Sota ix.
14. [226]a Comp. on the general position of Rabbinical Judaism to Greek
education, Hamburger, Real-Encycl., 2nd Div., art. “Griechenthum.” [227] כּי,
Menachoth vi. 3; Kelim xx. 7. גַּמָּא, Middoth iii. 1; Kelim xxviii. 7. From the
commencement of the Roman supremacy the Latin was added to the Greek language
and culture. But Latin, as in all the eastern provinces, so also in Palestine,
attained no wide diffusion till the later imperial period. In the first
centuries the Roman officials in their intercourse with provincials exclusively
employed the Greek language. It was only in official documents, inscriptions,
and the like, that Latin was, from the time of Caesar, also adopted. Thus e.g.
Caesar commanded the Sidonians to set up in Sidon upon a brazen tablet his
decree for the appointment of the Jewish high priest Hyrcanus II. in the Greek
and Roman languages (Antt. xiv. 10. 2). Another official decree of the same
period was in like manner to be set up in the Roman and Greek tongues in the
temples of Sidon, Tyre, and Ascalon (Antt. xiv. 10. 3). Mark Antony commanded
the Tyrians to set up in a public place a decree issued by him in Greek and
Latin (Antt. xiv. 12. 5). In the temple at Jerusalem there were placed at
intervals on the enclosure (δρύφακτος), beyond which a nearer approach to the
sanctuary was forbidden to Gentiles, tablets (στῆλαι) with inscriptions, which
announced this prohibition partly in the Greek and partly in the Latin language
(Bell. Jud. v. 5. 2, vi. 2. 4). The superscription also over the cross of Christ
was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (John 19:20). Beyond such official use
Latin had not advanced in Palestine, in the early times of the Roman supremacy.
3. Position of Judaism with Respect to Heathenism The more vigorously and
perseveringly heathenism continued to penetrate into Palestine, the more
energetically did legal Judaism feel called upon to oppose it. On the whole
indeed the advance of heathen culture could not, as has been shown, be
prevented. But for that very reason the lines of defence against all illegality
were only the more strictly and carefully drawn by the vigilance of the scribes.
Extreme vigilance in this direction was indeed a vital question for Judaism.
For, if it was not to succumb in the struggle for existence, in which it was
engaged, it must defend itself with the utmost energy against its adversary. But
the anxiety with which the struggle was carried on infinitely increased the
danger which was to be guarded against, and which was in fact victoriously
encountered. For the greater the subtilty with which casuistry determined the
cases, which were to be regarded as a direct or indirect pollution through
heathen customs, the more frequent was the danger of incurring it. Hence the
course of events placed the pious Israelite in an all but unendurable position.
He was in almost daily contact with heathenism, whether with persons or with
goods and matters which sought and found entrance into Palestine in the way of
trade and commerce. And the zeal of the scribes was continually increasing the
number of snares, by which an Israelite who was a strict adherent to the law
might incur uncleanness through heathen practices. Two points especially were
not to be lost sight of in guarding against heathen practices—(1) heathen
idolatry and (2) heathen non-observance of the Levitical law of uncleanness.
With respect to both the Pharisaism of the scribes proceeded with extreme
minuteness. (1) For the sake of avoiding even an only apparent approximation to
idolatry, the Mosaic prohibition of images (Exodus 20:4 sq.; Deuteronomy 4:16
sq., Deuteronomy 27:15) was applied with the most relentless consistency.[228]
To suffer anything rather than the setting up of the statue of Caligula in the
temple was indeed quite right.[229] But pictorial representations in general,
such as the trophies in the theatre in the time of Herod,[230] or the eagle at
the gate of the temple,[231] were also repudiated. When Pilate marched his
troops into Jerusalem with the eagles of the legions, a regular tumult took
place.[232] Vitellius took his troops by an indirect course from Antioch to
Petra for the sole reason of not polluting the sacred soil of Judah by the Roman
eagles.[233] And at the outbreak of the war, the first thing to be done in
Tiberias was to destroy the palace of Antipas, because it was adorned with
images of animals.[234] It seems indeed, that coins with the image of the
emperor were circulated in Judaea (Matthew 22:20, and parallel passages); but
the coins issued there were not, from considerate forbearance, so stamped.[235]
When the famous scribe Gamaliel II. justified his visit to the baths of
Aphrodite at Akko (Ptolemais) by saying, that the image of Aphrodite was there
because of the baths, and not the baths because of the image of Aphrodite,[236]
this was a kind of consideration by no means generally recognised as valid in
the sphere of legalistic Judaism. To obviate the danger of a direct or indirect
encouragement of idolatry, or any kind of contact therewith, an Israelite was
forbidden to transact business with Gentiles, to lend to, or borrow anything
from them, to make them payments, or receive payments from them during the three
days preceding, and, according to R. Ismael, also the three days following any
heathen festival,[237] while on the festival itself an Israelite was to hold no
kind of intercourse in the town.[238] All objects, which might even possibly be
connected with idolatrous worship, were forbidden. Thus heathen wine must not
only be made no use of, because it might possibly have been offered as a
libation, but it was also forbidden to derive any profit from it.[239] If wood
had been taken from an idol grove all use of it was prohibited. If the stove had
been heated by it, the stove must be broken to pieces, if it were still new; but
if it were old, it must be let to cool. If bread had been baked with it, not
only the eating, but every use of it was forbidden. If such bread were mixed
with other bread, no use of it was allowed. If a weaver’s shuttle were made of
such wood, its use was forbidden. If a garment had been made of the stuff woven
therewith, all use of the garment was forbidden. If this garment had been mixed
among others, and these again among others, the use of all was forbidden.[240]
[228] Comp. Winer, RWB., art. “Bildnerei.” Rüetschi, art. “Bilder,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. ii. 460 sqq. Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung
der Evv. p. 84 sqq. [229] Antt. xviii. 8; Bell. Jud. ii. 10. [230] Antt. xv. 8.
1, 2. [231] Antt. xvii. 6. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 33. 2. [232] Antt. xviii. 3. 1;
Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 2, 3. [233] Antt. xviii. 5. 3. [234] Vita, 12. [235] Ewald,
Gesch. des Volkes Israel, v. 82 sq. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp.
134-153. De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 69 sqq., pl. iii. and
iv. [236] Aboda sara iii. 4. [237] Aboda sara i. 1, 2. [238] Aboda sara i. 4.
[239] Aboda sara ii. 3; comp. also the Gemara (Aboda sara, or the worship of
idols, a tract from the Talmud, translated by Ferd. Christian Ewald, 2nd ed.
1868, p. 213 sqq., especially 221 sqq.). [240] Aboda sara iii. 9. If all this
sufficiently provided for the separation of Judaism from heathenism, it was
still further inculcated by the notion, that a Gentile—as a non-observer of the
laws of purification—was unclean, and that consequently all intercourse with him
was defiling; that further, for the same reason, even the houses of the heathen,
nay all objects touched by them,—so far as these were receptive of Levitical
uncleanness,—were to be regarded as unclean.[241] When it is said (Acts 10:28),
that a Jew might have no intercourse with a heathen (ἀθέμιτόν ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ
Ἰουδαίῳ κολλᾶσθαι ἢ προσέρχεσθαι ἀλλοφύλῳ), this must not indeed be
misunderstood to the extent of supposing that there was an absolute prohibition
of all intercourse, yet it does mean that ceremonial uncleanness was incurred by
such intercourse. All Gentile houses were as such unclean.[242] Merely to enter
them was to become unclean (John 18:28). All articles belonging to Gentiles and
of a kind susceptible of Levitical uncleanness, were unclean, and needed before
using some kind of purification. “If any one buys kitchen utensils of a Gentile,
he must dip what is to be purified by dipping; boil what is to be boiled and
heat in the fire what is to be heated; spits and gridirons are to be made
red-hot; knives need only be sharpened and they are clean.”[243] Apart from this
uncleanness, which so many objects might contract by use on the part of
Gentiles, there were lastly many heathen products, which could not be used by
Jews, because in their production the Jewish laws, especially those relating to
the distinction between clean and unclean, had not been observed. Partly for the
former, partly for the latter reason, the most ordinary provisions, if coming
from the heathen, were not to be eaten by Jews, who were only allowed to use
them by buying and selling. This was especially the case with milk milked by a
heathen without an Israelite seeing it, also with the bread and oil of the
heathen.[244] Neither could a strictly legal Israelite at any time sit at meat
at a Gentile table (Acts 11:3; Galatians 2:12). Hence Israelites travelling in
foreign countries were in very evil case, and, if they wanted to be exact in
their observance of the law, had to restrict themselves to vegetable raw
materials, as e.g. certain priests, friends of Josephus, who having been brought
as prisoners to Rome lived there upon nuts and figs.[245] [241] Comp. also on
what follows, Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie (1880),
p. 68 sqq. [242] Ohaloth xviii. 7. Comp. Kirchner, Die jüdische Passahfeier und
Jesu letztes Mahl (Progr. of the Duisburg Gymnasium, 1870), pp. 34-41.
Delitzsch, Talmudische Studien, xiv. The uncleanness of Gentile houses according
to Jewish notions is testified to in the N. T. (Zeitschr. für luth. Theol. 1874,
pp. 1-4). Schürer on φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, John 18:28, akademische Festschrift
(1883), p. 23 sq. [243] Aboda sara v. 12. [244] Aboda sara ii. 6. With respect
to oil, see Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 2; Vita, 13. On the
motives, see the Gemara (Aboda sara, translated by Ewald, p. 247 sqq.). Milk
e.g. was forbidden, because there might possibly be mixed with it milk from
unclean animals; oil, because it might (at least according to one authority)
have contracted uncleanness from unclean vessels. Talmudic authorities are not
always clear even concerning the motives. See the discussions in the Gemara as
above. [245] Joseph. Vita, 3. To all the reasons here stated, which made
intercourse with the heathen and their abode in the Holy Land a heavy burden to
an Israelite, who was faithful to the law, was added an entirely opposite and
doctrinal view, which caused the rule of strangers in the land of Israel to be
felt as a glaring contrast between the ideal and reality. For the land was the
property of the chosen people. None but Israelites could be landowners therein.
Even the letting of houses and fields to the heathen was, according to the
theory of the scribes, forbidden.[246] And what with such views must have been
their feelings at finding the heathen really in possession—if not privately yet
politically—of the whole land? Under such circumstances we can understand, that
the question, whether it were lawful for a faithful Israelite to pay tribute to
Caesar at all, would be one of serious consideration (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark
12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26). [246] Aboda sara i. 8. The letting of fields was still
more strictly forbidden than that of houses, since in the former case not only
was the possession of the soil delivered up to Gentiles, but tithe was not paid
on the produce. Thus circumstances present us with a peculiar double picture: a
yielding to the influence of heathen customs together with the erection of the
strongest wall of partition against them. So far as the actual purpose of the
latter was a defence against heathenism in its religious aspect, its aim was
certainly attained. In other respects, however, heathen culture was not
restrained by it, but only made a burdensome oppression to Israelites.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 54: � 23. CONSTITUTION. SANHEDRIM. HIGH PRIEST
========================================================================

§ 23. CONSTITUTION. SANHEDRIM. HIGH PRIEST


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 55: I. THE HELLENISTIC TOWNS
========================================================================

I. THE HELLENISTIC TOWNS THE LITERATURE Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum in
vetustis urbium Syriae nummis praesertim Mediceis expositae (Florence 1689). I
cite from the Leipsic edit. 1696. Belley, Suppléments aux Dissertations du
Cardinal Noris sur les époques des Syro-Macédoniens, in the Mémoires de
l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, ancient series, vols. xxvi.
xxviii. xxx. xxxii. xxxv. Paris 1759-1770. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum.
Vol. iii. Vindob. 1794. Mionnet, Description de médailles antiques. Vol. v.
Paris 1811. Supplément. Vol. viii. Paris 1837. Recueil des planches. Paris 1808.
De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, Description des monnaies autonomes
et impériales de la Palestine et de l’Arabie Pétrée. Paris 1874. Droysen,
Geschichte des Hellenismus. 2nd ed. 3 parts in 6 half vols. Gotha 1877-1878.
Stark, Gaza und die philistäische Küste. Jena 1852. Kuhn, Die städtische und
bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Justinians. 2
parts. Leipzig 1864-1865. Kuhn, Ueber die Entstehung der Städte der Alten.
Komenverfassung und Synoikismos. Leipzig 1878 (especially pp. 422-434).
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung. Vol. i. (also under the title of Handb.
der röm. Alterthümer von Marquardt u. Mommsen, vol. iv.). 2nd ed. Leipzig 1881.
Pauly’s Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, unter den
betr. Artikeln. Winer’s and Schenkel’s Biblische Realwörterbucher, unter den
betr. Artikeln. The geographical works of Reland, Raumer, Robinson, Ritter,
Guérin, and others (for the titles see above, § 2). Menke’s Bibelatlas, maps iv.
and v. OF fundamental importance in the political life of Palestine during the
Hellenic era was the independent organization of large municipal communities.
This was indeed no novelty in Palestine, where from of old the large towns of
the Philistine and Phoenician coasts had formed centres of political life. The
entrance of Hellenism marks however a turning-point in this respect also. For,
on the one hand it essentially transformed the existing communities, while on
the other it founded numerous new ones and made the municipal communities in
general the basis of the political organization of the country in a far more
thorough manner than before. Wherever Hellenism penetrated—especially on the
Philistine coasts and the eastern boundaries of Palestine beyond the Jordan—the
country districts were grouped around single large towns as their political
centres. Each of such communities formed a comparatively independent whole
managing its own internal affairs, and its dependence upon the rulers of Syria
consisted only in the recognition of their military supremacy, the payment of
taxes, and certain other performances. At the head of such a Hellenistically
organized community was a democratic senate of several hundred members, which we
may probably conceive of as resembling the Athenian βουλή, i.e. as one changed
annually, chosen from the Phylae, or as a committee chosen by lot from the
people (Marquardt).[247] It formed the ruling power, not for the town only, but
also for all the smaller towns and villages, which belonged to the often
extensive district of the town.[248] The entire Philistinian and Phoenician
coast was in this way divided into a number of municipal communities, some of
which were of considerable importance. We have then briefly to consider as such
the Hellenistic towns in the east and north-east of Palestine, the Hellenized
towns in the interior of Palestine, such as Samaria and Scythopolis, and the
towns founded by Herod and his sons, of which a considerable portion of the
population was non-Jewish. [247] The Senate of Gaza, e.g. consisted of 500
members (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 13. 3), that of Tiberias of 600 (Bell. Jud. ii. 21.
9). Comp. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung, ii. 354. [248] The
furnishing of these towns with a district of greater or less extent will be
shown in many cases in what follows. Compare on the Hellenistic
town-constitution, F. W. Tittmann, Darstellung der griechischen
Staatsverfassung, Leipzig 1822. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 208-216
(1881). Also much matter in the Corp. Inscr. Graec. p. 32 sqq. With all their
independence these towns of course participated on the whole in the political
fate of the rest of Palestine. In the time of the Diadochoi the government
changed very frequently. Ptolemy I. three times took possession of Phoenicia and
Palestine, and three times had to surrender them. It was not till about 280 B.C.
that Ptolemy (II.) Philadelphus succeeded in establishing the rule of the
Ptolemies over these countries for a lengthened period.[249] After that date not
only Palestine proper, but also the whole of Phoenicia, as far as Eleutherus,
south of Aradus, was under their dominion.[250] Their power, however, did not
extend beyond Lebanon. Damascus already belonged to the Seleucidae.[251] In the
years 219-217 B.C. Antiochus assumed a transitory possession of Palestine, but
was obliged to give it up in consequence of the unsuccessful battle at Raphia.
After the death of Ptolemy (IV.) Philopator, he however invaded Palestine a
second time, and his victory at Panias (198 B.C.) was decisive in favour of the
Seleucidae. From this time onward Palestine and the whole
Philistinian-Phoenician coast belonged to the Syrian kingdom.[252] The supremacy
of the Ptolemies, like that of the Seleucidae, found its expression chiefly in
two points: in the appointment of military governors (στρατηγοί) in the regions
subject to their sway, and in the imposition of regular taxes. Josephus in his
account of Josephus, the farmer of taxes, and his son Hyrcanus (Antt. xii. 4),
gives us a very vivid picture of the manner in which the system of taxation was
organized in the later period of their rule, a picture which, notwithstanding
its fictitious colouring, certainly gives a faithful reflection of the
institutions. It shows that the imposts were not collected by the authorities,
but leased to great contractors, to whom their collection in the several towns
was given up.[253] [249] For particulars, see Stark, Gaza und die philistäische
Küste, pp. 347-367. It seems probable, from an inscription of Oum el-Awamid,
published by Renan (Mission de Phénicie, pp. 711-725), that Tyre had an era
which began thirty-seven years later than that of the Seleucidae, i.e. 275 B.C.
(see Renan as above, pp. 719-723). Its cause seems to have been the definite
seizure of Phoenicia by Ptolemy II., who showed himself on that occasion the
benefactor of the town. Comp. Six, Numismatic Chronicle, 1877, p. 192. [250] See
Stark, pp. 368, 371. Kuhn, ii. 128 sq. [251] See below, on Damascus. [252]
Farther particulars in Stark, pp. 375-406, 425 sqq. [253] In illustration of
Joseph. Antt. xii. 4, compare especially Stark, pp. 412-423, and Nussbaum,
Observationes in Flavii Josephi Antiquitates (Göttinger Dissertat. 1875), pp.
15-17. There is an internal contradiction in the narrative of Josephus. He
transposes the beginning of the renting of the taxes by Josephus, which lasted
twenty-two years to the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, who died 221 B.C. (Antt.
xii. 4. 1; comp. 4. 6); the entire account also assumes, that Palestine was then
still under the rule of the Ptolemies. This would, as Stark states, p. 416,
bring it to about the years 229-207 B.C. On the other hand however Josephus
always calls the wife of the Egyptian king, Cleopatra, while this name was first
naturalized in the family of the Ptolemies by Cleopatra, the daughter of
Antiochus the Great and wife of Ptolemy V. Stark rightly finds the error to
consist in the mistake as to the queen’s name, and accepts the results which
follow from the other dates. The view of Nussbaum is more artificial. It is
based moreover upon the improbable assumption, that Palestine had shortly after
the battle of Raphia already come again into the possession of Antiochus.
Towards the end of the second century before Christ, the kingdom of the
Seleucidae increasingly exhibits an image of dissolution. The central authority
was so weakened by continual revolutions, that a multitude of independent
communities were founded in the border lands of the empire. During this period
therefore not only did the Jews obtain and maintain their full freedom, but a
number also of the larger towns, which had already in the wars between Syria and
Egypt often played a part of their own, declared themselves independent, and as
a sign of their independence began a new computation of time. Thus Tyre had an
era dating from the year 126 B.C.; Sidon a similar one from the year 111;
Ascalon from 104. In other towns individual “Tyrants” would seize upon the
sovereignty. Thus we find towards the end of the second, and in the beginning of
the first century before Christ, a tyrant, Zeno Kotylas in Philadelphia, his son
Theodorus in Amathus on the Jordan, Zoilus in Straton’s Tower and Dora,
Demetrius in Gamala.[254] And there is no lack of evidence that the Romans at
their entry into Syria found there a number of independent petty princes.[255]
[254] Stark, p. 478 sq. Kuhn, ii. 162. [255] Josephus speaks quite generally of
μόναρχοι (Antt. xiii. 16. 5). Appian. Syr. 50, testifies that Pompey τῶν ὑπὸ
τοῖς Σελευκίδαις γενομένων ἐθνῶν τοῖς μὲν ἐπέστησεν οἰκείους βασιλέας ἢ
δυνάστας, whom however Pompey certainly was not the first to create. Plinius,
Hist. Nat. v. 23, 82, still knows in Syria of seventeen tetrarchias in regna
descriptas barbaris nominibus. The strengthening of the Jewish power was in
those times fatal for the towns in the neighbourhood of Palestine. Even the
earlier Maccabees, and subsequently John Hyrcanus, subjected several towns. But
it was especially Alexander Jannaeus who made conquests on a large scale. At the
end of his rule all the coast towns from Raphia to Carmel, with the sole
exception of Ascalon, almost all the towns of the country east of Jordan, and of
course those also which were situated in the interior, such as Samaria and
Scythopolis, as far north as the Lake of Merom,[256] were subject to the Jews.
[256] Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 4. See above, § 10. The conquest of Syria by
Pompey put an end again at a stroke to the independence of all the small towns,
which had separated themselves from the empire of the Seleucidae. The only
consequence to the autonomic towns was, that they now entered into the same
relations of voluntary dependence towards the Romans, in which they had hitherto
stood towards the Seleucidae. To those towns however, which had been subjected
by the Jews, the Roman invasion had even the character of a deliverance from a
hated rule. For Pompey again separated from the Jewish region all those towns
which had been subjected to the Jews since the time of the Maccabees and
restored to them their freedom.[257] Josephus enumerates as such “liberated”
towns, which had of course to acknowledge the Roman supremacy, the following:
Gaza, Azotus, Jamnia, Joppa, Straton’s Tower, Dora, Samaria, Scythopolis,
Hippus, Gadara, Pella, Dium.[258] The list is, however, incomplete. For besides
the above-named, others also used the Pompeian era, i.e. the computation since
the liberation by Pompey, and many of these towns retained it till far into the
imperial period. Those lying in the region east of the Jordan, together with
Scythopolis, then united with each other in the “ten cities alliance,” the
so-called Decapolis. The proconsul Gabinius was another benefactor to many of
these towns. In the years 57-55 B.C. he rebuilt the towns of Raphia, Gaza,
Anthedon, Azotus, Jamnia, Apollonia, Dora, Samaria and Scythopolis, some of
which had been entirely destroyed by the Jews.[259] The Roman civil wars
however, with their exhaustion of the provinces and the arbitrary rule of Antony
in the East, brought bad times to these towns. He bestowed upon Cleopatra the
entire Philistinian and Phoenician coast, from the borders of Egypt to
Eleutherus, with the sole exception of Tyre and Sidon.[260] Even when, after the
fall of Antony and Cleopatra, whose authority had ceased of itself, a more quiet
era had been established by Augustus, many of these towns again changed
masters.[261] Augustus bestowed upon Herod all the coast towns from Gaza to
Straton’s Tower, with the exception of Ascalon, together with the towns of
Samaria, Hippus and Gadara in the interior.[262] After the death of Herod these
towns again experienced different fates. Gaza, Hippus and Gadara were placed
under the immediate government of the Roman legate of Syria (on Anthedon, see
below the section respecting it); Azotus and Jamnia with Phasaelis, which was
built by Herod, were given to his sister Salome, while Joppa, Straton’s Tower
and Samaria fell with the rest of Judaea to Archelaus.[263] The towns belonging
to Salome came after her death to the Empress Livia.[264] After the death of
Livia, they seem to have been transferred to the private possession of her son
Tiberius, on which account we find an imperial ἐπίτροπος in his time in
Jamnia.[265] The towns bestowed upon Archelaus, together with the rest of his
district, came after his deposition under the oversight of a Roman procurator,
then in the years 41-44 A.D. to King Agrippa I., and were again after his death
under Roman procurators. This frequent change of masters was however of little
more consequence to these towns, than that the taxes had to be paid now to one
now to another governor. For they had, on the whole, the independent management
of their own affairs, even though the supremacy of their different masters made
itself sometimes more and sometimes less noticed. Finally, it was of importance
to the development of their communal life that Herod and his sons refounded a
great number of towns, so especially Caesarea (= Straton’s Tower), Sebaste (=
Samaria), Antipatris, Phasaelis, Caesarea Philippi, Julias, Sepphoris, Livias,
Tiberias. [257] Compare on the Roman custom of giving their freedom to the towns
of conquered regions, Kuhn, ii. 15-19. [258] Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7.
7. [259] Antt. xiv. 5. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 4. [260] Antt. xv. 4. 1, fin.; Bell.
Jud. i. 18. 5. [261] The different changes of possessors subsequently to
Alexander Jannaeus are visibly represented by the numerous special maps in
Menke’s Bibelatlas, plates iv. and v. [262] Antt. xv. 7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3.
Of the coast towns Josephus names only Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Straton’s
Tower. But Azotus and Jamnia, which after the death of Herod fell to his sister
Salome, must then have come into Herod’s possession. [263] Antt. xvii. 11. 4, 5;
Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 4. [264] Antt. xviii. 2. 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 1. Azotus is not
expressly named but is certainly intended. [265] Antt. xviii. 6. 3. Comp.
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, ii. 248 sq. The kind of dependence of
these towns upon the Roman power both in name and in fact differed
considerably.[266] There were in the Roman Empire both free and subject
communities. The former (civitates liberae, ἐλεύθεροι) had not only their own
judicature and administration of finance, but were also free from taxation
proper and only bound to certain definitely appointed contributions; they were
αὐτόνομοι καὶ φόρων ἀτελεῖς (Appian. Civ. i. 102).[267] Again there was among
these a privileged class, the civitates foederatae or such as had their freedom
guaranteed by a foedus. All these free cities were indeed dependent upon Rome,
but were not regarded as belonging in the strict sense to the province. From
them must then be distinguished the subject towns (ὑπήκοοι) properly belonging
to the province, the specific difference of which from the former consisted in
their liability to taxation. For αὐτονομία, or the privilege suis legibus uti,
was often conceded to them, though under the control of the Roman
proconsul.[268] All the varieties of civic position here alluded to were
represented among the Syrian towns. Tyre e.g. was one of the privileged
civitates foederatae.[269] Ascalon was an oppidum liberum. But just because this
is mentioned of Ascalon as something special, the greater number are not to be
regarded as free communities in the technical sense of the word. Nor is it,
according to what has just been said, opposed to this that many of them are
designated as αὐτόνομοι. And still less does it signify, when Josephus says that
Pompey made these towns free (ἐλευθέρας). For this means only their liberation
from Jewish sway. Their political condition is correctly pointed out by Josephus
by the expressions προσένειμε τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ and κατέταξεν εἰς τὴν Συριακὴν
ἐπαρχίαν.[270] These slight political distinctions were not indeed of much
practical importance. For the most privileged towns were taxed for certain
requirements, and on the other hand many of the subject towns, at least in
Syria, had a jurisdiction and administration of their own. Least of all were
these distinctions paid respect to with regard to military affairs. It would be
a great mistake to suppose, that in war all or most of these towns were released
from the obligation of furnishing auxiliaries. At least Josephus speaks quite
generally of the auxiliaries, which had been furnished by “the towns” at the
campaign of Cestius Gallus against Jerusalem.[271] When in the year 4 B.C.
Berytus with its district furnished 1500 auxiliaries to the army of Varus,[272]
this certainly is not a case in point, inasmuch as Berytus was then already a
Roman colony and was therefore under different legal regulations from the other
towns. But we also know e.g. that from A.D. 44-67 there was in Caesarea a
garrison of five cohorts and a wing of cavalry, which was formed for the most
part of Caesareans and Sebastenians (inhabitants of the towns of Caesarea and
Sebaste and their respective districts).[273] Nay we find towards the end of the
first century after Christ a cohors I. Tyriorum already in Moesia.[274] So too
in occupying the towns with garrisons regard was certainly had less to political
distinctions than to military requirements. “Free” Antioch became the chief seat
of the Roman military force in Syria, and we know of Ascalon, that though an
oppidum liberum, it received a Roman garrison, though but a small one.[275]
[266] Comp. on what follows, Kuhn, ii. 14-41. Marquardt, i. 71-86, 396. Also
Stark, Gaza, pp. 522-525. [267] See especially Marquardt, i. 78 sq., 84 sq.
[268] See especially Kuhn, ii. 34 sqq. [269] Marquardt, i 75. [270] Antt. xiv.
4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7. [271] Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 19: Πλεῖστοι δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν
πόλεων ἐπίκουροι συνελέγησαν, ἐμπειρίᾳ μὲν ἡττώμενοι τῶν στρατιωτῶν, ταῖς δὲ
προθυμίαις καὶ τῷ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων μίσει τὸ λεῖπον ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις
ἀναπληροῦντες. [272] Antt. xvii. 10. 9; Bell. Jud. ii. 5. 1. [273] Antt. xix. 9.
1, 2, xx. 6. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 5, iii. 4. 2, and especially xx. 8. 7: μέγα
δὲ φρονοῦντες ἐπὶ τῷ τοὺς πλείστους τῶν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίους ἐκεῖσε στρατευομένων
Καισαρεῖς εἶναι καὶ Σεβαστηνούς. Further particulars in the Zeitschr. für
wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1875, p. 419 sqq. [274] Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. iii.
p. 863 (Diplom, xx. of the year A.D. 99). [275] Bell. Jud. iii. 2. 1. The Roman
colonies occupied among the towns of the Roman Empire an exempt position from
taxes.[276] There had been such both in Palestine and Phoenicia since the time
of Augustus. The oldest were Berytus, founded by Augustus, Ptolemais by
Claudius, Caesarea by Vespasian. All the colonies of the imperial period were
military colonies, i.e. they consisted of superannuated soldiers, to whom
possession of lands was awarded as payment for their services, and indeed in
such wise, that this was always done to a large number at one place
contemporaneously, thereby founding the colony. The lands required for the
purpose were in earlier times simply taken from their possessors. Afterwards
(i.e. after Augustus) it was customary to compensate the owners or to give the
veterans such land as was already state property. The colonists either formed a
new community beside the older one, or themselves entered into the older
community, in which case the latter received in its entirety the Roman municipal
constitution.[277] Thus the plantation of a colony, which had formerly been an
act of cruel plunder, gradually became an actual favour to a town. The rights of
colonies also differed. Those were in the most favoured position, which had
received the full jus Italicum and with it exemption from poll taxes and land
taxes.[278] Herod imitated Augustus in his system of establishing military
colonies.[279] [276] See on this subject in general, Rein, art. “Colonia” in
Pauly’s Real-Enc. ii. 504-517. Kuhn, Die städt. und bürgerl. Verf. i. 257 sqq.
Marquardt, i. 35 sqq. 86 sqq., 92-132. [277] Marquardt, i. 118 sq. [278]
Marquardt, i. 89. [279] Antt. xv. 8. 5. See below, Samaria, Geba, Heshbon. The
position of those towns, which were temporarily under the Herodian princes, did
not essentially differ from that of those directly under Roman governors. It is
certainly possible, that the Herodian princes made their power more directly
felt, but this cannot be proved. For the security of their sovereignty, they
appointed governors of their own in the towns; thus Herod the Great placed an
ἄρχων in Idumaea and Gaza,[280] Agrippa I. a στρατηγός in Caesarea[281] and an
ἔπαρχος in Tiberias,[282] Agrippa II. a viceroy in Caesarea Philippi[283] and an
ἔπαρχος in Gamala.[284] Such a viceroy was also the ἐθνάρχης of King Aretas in
Damascus, 2 Corinthians 11:32. [280] Antt. xv. 7. 9. [281] Antt. xix. 7. 4.
[282] Joseph. Vita, 9; whether Agrippa I. or II. is spoken of is uncertain.
[283] Vita, 13. Comp. Kuhn, ii. 346. [284] Vita, 11. The great independence of
these towns involves the fact, that each had its special history. In following
this in each separate case, we shall begin with the towns of the Philistinian
and Phoenician coast, advancing from south to north. Many of these had at the
commencement of the Hellenistic period a brilliant past behind them and
continued to be of prominent importance during the whole Graeco-Roman period. 1.
Raphia, Ῥαφία (so is it written on the coin), may still be pointed out in the
ruins of Kirbeth bir Refah, situated according to Guérin about half a league
from the sea, but upon a flat harbourless shore,[285] and therefore regarded by
Pliny and Ptolemy as an inland town.[286] It was the first Syrian town after
leaving Egypt.[287] Apart from the cuneiform inscriptions,[288] it is first
mentioned in history in the campaign of Antigonus against Egypt, B.C. 306, when
the fleet of Antigonus, under the command of his son Demetrius, was here
destroyed by a storm.[289] It then became famous chiefly through the victory,
which was here gained by the unwarlike Ptolemy Philopater over Antiochus the
Great, and which resulted in the loss of Palestine and Phoenicia by the
latter.[290] In the year 193 the marriage of Ptolemy Philopater with Cleopatra,
daughter of Antiochus the Great, was celebrated here.[291] In the beginning of
the first century before Christ Raphia was conquered by Alexander Jannaeus
(Joseph. Antt. xiii. 13. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 4. 2; comp. Antt. xiii. 15. 4), was
afterwards, like the neighbouring towns, separated by Pompey from the Jewish
district and was rebuilt by Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 4).
Hence the coins of Raphia, of the imperial age (from Commodus to Philip the
Arabian), have an era commencing with the refoundation by Gabinius (57
B.C.).[292] It seems never to have been in the possession of the Herodian
princes. [285] Diodor. xx. 74 calls Raphia δυσπροσόρμιστον καὶ τεναγώδη. [286]
Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 13. 68. Ptolem. (ed. Nobbe), v. 16. 6. Comp. also, Strabo,
xvi. 2. 31; Itinerar. Antonini (ed. Parthey et Pinder, 1848), p. 69. Sozomenus,
Hist. eccl. vii. 15. Hierocles, Synecdemus (ed. Parthey, 1866), p. 44. Reland,
Palaestina, p. 967 sq. Ritter, Erdkunde, xiv. 138 sqq., xvi. 39. Raumer,
Palästina, p. 219. Guérin, Judée, ii. 233-235. Le Quien, Oriens christianus,
iii. 630. [287] Polyb. v. 80: II Πρώτη τῶν κατὰ Κοίλην Συρίαν πόλεων ὡς πρὸς τὴν
Αἴγυπτον. Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 11. 5: ἔστι δὲ ἡ πόλις αὕτη Συρίας ἀρχή. [288]
Friedr. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? (1881), p. 291. [289] Diodor. xx. 74.
Droysen, Gesch. des Hellenismus (2nd ed.), ii. 2. 147. Stark, Gaza, p. 358.
[290] The battle is fully described Polyb. v. 82-86. Comp. Stark, Gaza, p.
382-386. [291]a Livius, xxxv. 13. [292] This may now be considered as certain,
though Noris and Eckhel still hesitate, whether the era of Pompey or of Gabinius
was to be accepted. See Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, v. 4.2 (ed. Lips
p. 515-521). Eckhel, Doctrina numorum, iii. 454 sq. Mionnet, Description de
médailles, v. 551 sq.; Suppl. viii. 376 sq.; Kenner, Die Münzsammlung des Stifts
St. Florian in Ober-Oesterreich (1871), pp. 179-182, Plate vi. n. 17-18. De
Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 237-240, pl. xii. n. 7-9. Stark,
Gaza, p. 515. 2. Gaza, Γάζα, Hebr. עַזָּה,[293] the ancient and important city
of the Philstines, so often mentioned in the Old Testament.[294] Herodotus knows
it by the name of Κάδυτις, and remarks, that it is not much smaller than
Sardis.[295] Already in the times of Persian supremacy it must—as the coins
testify—have been in active intercourse with Greece.[296] In the time of
Alexander the Great it was next to Tyre the most important fortress on the
Philistinian-Phoenician coast. Alexander did not take it till after a three
months’ troublesome siege (332 B.C.).[297] After that time it became more and
more a Greek town.[298] The contests of Ptolemy Lagos with the other Diadochoi
for the possession of Coelesyria of course affected Gaza in the highest degree.
In 315 B.C. it was conquered by Antigonus.[299] In 312 it again fell into the
hands of Ptolemy in consequence of his victory gained at Gaza over Demetrius the
son of Antigonus.[300] In the same year however he renounced the possession of
Coelesyria, and on his retreat had the most important fortresses, Gaza among
them, demolished.[301] The sovereignty over these districts changed several
times during the decades next following, till at length they were for a longer
period in the possession of the Ptolemies about 240 B.C. In the years 218-217
Gaza, like the rest of Syria, was temporarily in the possession of Antiochus the
Great.[302] Twenty years later Coelesyria came permanently under the dominion of
the Seleucidae through the victory of Antiochus the Great at Panias (198 B.C.).
Gaza also must then have been conquered after a difficult siege, to which indeed
we have only allusions in Polybius.[303] The sway of the Seleucidae is evidenced
among other things by a coin of Demetrius I. (Soter) minted at Gaza.[304] During
the contests in the Syrian kingdom between Demetrius II. (Nicator) and Antiochus
VI. respecting Trypho (145-143 B.C.), Gaza refusing to join the party of
Antiochus, was besieged by Jonathan the Maccabee in concert with him, and its
environs laid waste, whereupon it gave up its opposition and delivered hostages
to Jonathan as a pledge of its adherence to Antiochus.[305] With respect to the
constitution of Gaza at this time we learn incidentally, that it had a council
of 500 members.[306] About the year 96 B.C. Gaza as well as the neighbouring
cities of Raphia and Anthedon fell into the hands of Alexander Jannaeus.
Alexander conquered it after a siege of one year, though at last only through
treachery, and abandoned the city and its inhabitants to destruction (Joseph.
Antt. xiii. 13. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 4. 2; comp. Antt. xiii. 15. 4. Stark, p. 499
sqq.). When Pompey conquered Syria, Gaza also—so far as its existence can be
then spoken of—obtained its freedom (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7). The
newly built town consequently began a new era from the time of Pompey (52
B.C.).[307] The rebuilding itself did not take place till the time of Gabinius
(Antt. xv. 5. 3). Probably the ancient Gaza was then forsaken and the new town
built somewhat farther southwards.[308] In the year 30 B.C. Gaza came under the
authority of Herod the Great (Antt. xv. 7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3). After his
death it was again added to the province of Syria (Antt. xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud.
ii. 6. 3). With this agrees the fact, that the imperial coins of Gaza do not
begin till after the death of Herod the Great. The oldest known are two coins of
Augustus of the years 63 and 66 aer. Gaz.[309] In the time of Claudius, Gaza is
spoken of as an important city by the geographer Mela.[310] In A.D. 66 it was
attacked and destroyed by the rebellious Jews (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1).
This must however have been a very partial destruction. For so strong a fortress
could not have been actually destroyed by a band of insurrectionary Jews. Coins
too of the years 130, 132, 135 aer. Gaza. (= A.D. 68/69, 70/71, 73/74) testify
to the lasting prosperity of the city.[311] Special tokens of favour seem to
have been bestowed upon it by Hadrian.[312] It is called on an inscription of
the time of Gordian (A.D. 238-244) ἱερὰ καὶ ἄσυλος καὶ αὐτόνομος.[313] It must
have subsequently become a Roman colony.[314] Eusebius speaks of it as a πόλις
ἐπίσημος.[315] And this too it remained for a considerable period.[316] The
independence of these great cities is shown in perhaps the most striking manner
by the fact, that Gaza as well as Ascalon, Tyre and Sidon had each its own
calendar.[317] [293] On the Hebrew form, comp. Steph. Byz. s.v. Γάζα· ἐκλήθη καὶ
Ἄζα· καὶ μέχρι νῦν Σύροι Ἄζαν αὐτὴν καλοῦσιν. [294] See Reland, Palaestina, pp.
787-800. Robinson’s Palestine, ii. pp. 36-43. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 45-65.
Raumer, Palästina, pp. 192-194. Winer, RWB. s.v. Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Enc.,
1st ed. iv. 671-674. Sepp, Jerusalem und das heilige Land, 2nd ed. ii. 617 sqq.
Guérin, Judée, ii. 178-211, 219-221. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by
Conder and Kitchener, iii. 234 sq., 248-251, and pl. xix. of the large English
chart. Gatt, Bemerkungen über Gaza und seine Umgebung (Zeilschr. des deutschen
Pal. Ver. vii. 1-14). For the history, see especially Stark, Gaza. Also Alb. v.
Hormann, Gaza, Stadt, Umgebung und Geschichte, 1876 (Progr. des Knabenseminars
der Diöcese Brixen zu Rothholz, see the notice in Zeitschr. f. die österreich.
Gymnasien, 1877, p. 142 sq.). [295]a Herodot. ii. 159, iii. 5: Σαρδίων οὐ κολλῷ
ἐλάσσονος. [296]b Comp. on these exceedingly interesting coins the learned
article of Six, Observations sur les monnaies phéniciennes (Numismatic
Chronicle, new series, vol. xvii. 1877, pp. 177-241; on Gaza, pp. 221-239). The
coins have partly Greek, partly Phoenician inscriptions. The name of the town
(עז or עזה) is to be seen at all events on several of them. Their most
interesting feature however is, that they are coined according to an Athenian
standard and with Athenian types, evidently for commerce with Greece. It is
probable, that genuine Athenian coins first came to Palestine in the period of
the hegemony of Athens in the fifth century before Ohrist, and that henceforth
others were coined after their pattern. See Six, as above, pp. 230 sq., 234-236.
[297] The two months’ duration of this siege is testified by Diodor. xvii. 48
and Josephus, Antt. xi. 8. 3, 4. Comp. also Arrian, ii. 26, 27. Curtius, iv. 6,
and Plutarch. Alexander, 25. Polyb. xvi. 40 (= ed. Hultsch. xvi. 22a). Droysen,
Gesch. d. Hellenismus, 2nd ed. i. 1, 297-301. Stark, Gaza, pp. 236-244. [298] It
is expressly designated a πόλις Ἐλληνίς, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud.
ii. 6. 3. [299] Diodor. xix. 59. Droysen, ii. 2. 11. Stark, p. 350. [300]
Diodor. xix. 84. On the battle, Droysen, ii. 2. 42 sqq. Stark, pp. 351-354.
[301] Diodor. xix. 93: κατέσκαψε τὰς ἀξιολογωτάτας τῶν κεκρατημένων πόλεων, Ἀκην
μὲν τῆς Φοινίκης Συρίας, Ἰόπην δὲ καὶ Σαμάρειαν καὶ Γάζαν τῆς Συρίας. Comp.
Stark, p. 355 sq. [302] Polyb. v. 80. Stark, pp. 382-385. [303] Polyb. xvi. 18,
xvi. 40 (ed. Hultsch, xvi. 22a), xxix. 6a (ed. Hultsch, xxix. 12). Stark, p. 204
sq. [304] Gardner, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Seleucid
kings of Syria (1878), p. 47. [305] 1Ma_11:61-62. Joseph. Antt. xiii. 5. 5.
Stark, p. 492. No conquest of Gaza took place in the Maccabean period. For in
the passage 1Ma_13:43-48 we must read Gazara. [306] Joseph. Antt. xiii. 13. 3.
[307] On the era of Gaza, comp. Noris, Annus et epocliae Syromaced. v. 2, 3 (ed.
Lips. pp. 476-502). Eckhel, Doct. Num. iii. 448-454. Ideler, Handb. der Chronol.
i. 474 sq. Stark, Gaza, pp. 513-515. The coins in Mionnet, v. 535-549; Suppl.
viii. 371-375. De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 209-233, pl. xi.
The Chronicon paschale (ed. Dindorf, i. 352) remarks on Olymp. 179. 4 = 61 B.C.:
Ἐντεῦθεν Γαζαῖοι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν χρόνους ἀριθμοῦσιν. Hence Noris and Eckhel place
the beginning of the era in the year 61 B.C. According however to Ideler and
Stark, the year 62 must according to the coins be regarded as the starting-point
of the era. [308] On the distinction between Old and New Gaza, comp. especially
Stark, pp. 352 sq., 509-513. The town near which Ptolemy Lagos conquered
Demetrius Poliorcetes, 312 B.C., is expressly called Old Gaza by Diodorus and
Porphyry; see Diodor. xix. 80 (τὴν παλαιὰν Γάζαν); Porphyry in the fragment in
Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene, i. col. 249-250 (according to the Armenian veterem
Gazam, in Greek in Syncellus, Παλαίγαζαν, or as Gutschmid reads Παλαιγάζην). It
is to just this Old Gaza that the notice of Strabo, that Gaza was destroyed by
Alexander and has since lain waste, refers; Strabo, xvi. 2. 30, p. 759:
κατεσπασμένη δʼ ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ μένουσα ἔρημος. [The remark in Acts 8:26 :
αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, is on the contrary not in point here, because αὕτη there more
probably refers to όδός.] Strabo is indeed so far mistaken, that he seems to
know nothing of New Gaza, his remark being based upon the statement of an older
geographer, in whose time New Gaza did not as yet exist. The existence of a New
Gaza, somewhat to the south of Old Gaza, is however chiefly evidenced by an
anonymous geographical fragment (Αποσπασματια τινα γεωγραφικα, ed. Hudson [in
the appendix to his edition of Dionysius Perieget., Geographiae vet. scriptores
Graeci minores, vol. iv., Oxon. 1717], p. 39: μετὰ τὰ Ῥινοκόρουρα ἡ νέα Γάζα
κεῖται πόλις οὖσα καὶ αὐτὴ εἶθʼ ἡ ἔρημος Γάζα, εἶτα ἡ Ἀσκάλων πόλις) and by
Hieronymus (Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 125: antiquae civitatis locum vix
fundamentorum praebere vestigia, hanc autem quae nunc cernitur, in alio loco pro
ilia, quae conruit, aedificatam). If then the local distinction of Old and New
Gaza is beyond question, we must also with Stark consider it most probable, that
the foundation of New Gaza must be referred to Gabinius. For an entire
destruction of Old Gaza did not, as Strabo seems to suppose, result from its
conquest by Alexander the Great, but from that by Alexander Jannaeus. For the
rest both Old and New Gaza lay twenty stadia inland (see on Old Gaza, Arrian,
II. 26; on New Gaza, Sozom. Hist. eccl. v. 3; Strabo, p. 759, erroneously seven
stadia, Antoninus Martyr, c. 33, mil. pass.). From both too must be
distinguished the port of Gaza, which indeed remained the same for both, Γαζαίων
λιμήν, Strabo, p. 759; Ptolemaeus, v. 16. 2. This port was raised to a city
under the name of Κωνστάντεια by Constantine the Great (Euseb. Vita Constantin.
iv. 38; Sozomenus, Hist. eccl. ii. 5), but lost this name again together with
the rights of a city through Julian and was afterwards called again only
Μαϊουμᾶς (= seaport town); see Sozom. Hist. eccl. v. 3. Marci Diaconi Vita
Porphyrii, ed. Haupt (an article of the Berlin Acad. 1874), c. 57. Antoninus
Martyr, c. 33. Reland, p. 791 sqq. Stark, p. 513. Kuhn, ii. 363. Guérin, Judée,
ii. 219-221. [309] Eckhel, iii. 453 sq. Mionnet, v. 536. De Sauloy, p. 213.
[310] Mela, i. 11: in Palaestina est ingens et munita admodum Gaza. [311]
Mionnet, v. 537 sq.; Suppl. viii. 372. De Saulcy, p. 214. [312] The coins of
Hadrian’s time have a new Hadrianic era as well as the usual town era. The
Chronicon paschale (ed. Diudorf, i. 474) mentions besides a πανήγυρις Ἀδριανή,
as celebrated since the time of Hadrian. See Stark, p. 550. [313] Corp. Inscr.
Graec. n. 5892. Comp. Stark, p. 554 sq. [314] Le Bas et Waddington,
Inscriptions, vol. iii. n. 1904: Καλωνίας Γάζης. The mention also of a Gazensis
Duumvir by Jerome, Vita Hilarionis, c. 20 (Vallarsi, ii. 22), points to a Roman
municipal constitution. Comp. Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung, i. 429. [315]
Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 242. [316] Antoninus Martyr (about A.D. 570, De
locis sanctis, c. 33; Tobler et Molinier, Itinera, i. 109): Gaza autem civitas
est splendida, deliciosa, homines in ea honestissimi, omni liberalitate decori,
amatores peregrinorum. [317] See on the whole, Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie,
i. 410 sq., 434 sq., 438 sq. On Gaza also, Noris, v. 2 (ed. Lips. p. 476 sqq.).
Stark, p. 517 sq. 3. Anthedon, Ἀνθηδών, situate on the sea, erroneously called
an inland town by Pliny,[318] was according to Sozomen only twenty stadia from
Gaza, probably in a northerly (northwesterly) direction.[319] Its very name
shows it to have been founded in the Greek period. It is first mentioned in the
time of Alexander Jannaeus, who conquered it about the same time as Raphia
(Joseph. Antt. xiii. 13. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 4. 2; comp. Antt. xiii. 15. 4). Like
the other coast towns it was undoubtedly retaken from the Jews by Pompey.
Gabinius rebuilt it (Antt. xiv. 5. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 4). Augustus bestowed it
on Herod (Antt. xv. 7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3), who again restored it and gave
it the name of Agrippias or Agrippeion in honour of Agrippa (Antt. xiii. 13. 3;
Bell. Jud. i. 4. 2, 21. 8). It is not expressly mentioned in the partition of
Herod’s inheritance. Hence it is uncertain whether, like its neighbour Gaza, it
was united to the province of Syria, or passed like Joppa and Caesarea to
Archelaus (see Stark, p. 542 sq.). In the latter case it would have shared the
fate of the rest of Judaea and therefore have come, after the deposition of
Archelaus, under Roman procurators and have been from A.D. 41-44 under the rule
of King Agrippa. The existence of a coin of Anthedon with the name of Agrippa
would give evidence of the latter, if its reading were certain.[320] At the
beginning of the Jewish war Anthedon was attacked and partially devastated by
the revolted Jews (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1). The name Agrippias was never
naturalized; Josephus already and all subsequent authors call it Anthedon
again.[321] On coins too only this name occurs.[322] [318] Plin. Hist. Nat. v.
13. 68: intus Anthedon. That it was on the coast is however certain from the
unanimous testimony of all other authors; see Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 4, xviii.
6. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 8; Ptolem. v. 16. 2; Steph. Byz. s.v.; Sozomenus, Hist.
eccl. v. 9. See on the subject in general, Reland, Palaestina, pp. 566-568.
Raumer, Palästina, p. 171. Pauly’s Real-Encycl. i. 1. 1087 sq. Guérin, Judée,
ii. 215-218. Le Quien, Oriens christianus, iii. 631. [319]a Sozomenus, v. 9.
Anthedon is according to Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 4 generally placed south of
Gaza. But the majority of the passages from Josephus speak of it as north of
Gaza (Antt. xv. 7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 4. 2, 20. 3, ii. 18. 1); so too Plinius, v.
13. 68. The note of Theodosius is decisive for its lying between Gaza and
Ascalon; Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae (ed. Gildemeister, 1882), § 18:
inter Ascalonain et Gazam civitates duae, id est Anthedon et Maioma. Rightly
therefore has Gatt (Zeitschr. des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp.
5-7) identified the ruins of el-Blachije, one league north-west of Gaza, for
which a native gave him the name of Teda, with Anthedon. Comp. also the remarks
of Nöldeke and Gildemeister, Zeitschr. d. DPV. vii. 140-142. [320] The coins in
Mionnet, Suppl. viii. 364. Against the correctness of the reading see Madden,
Coins of the Jews (1881), p. 134. [321] So Plinius, Ptolemaeus, Steph. Byz.,
Sozomenus in the passages cited; Hierocles, Synecd. p. 44; the Acts of the
Councils in Le Quien, as above. The isolated assertion of Tzetzes (in Reland, p.
567), that the former Anthedon is “now” called Agrippias, is based upon Josephus
only. [322] Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 443 sq. Miounet, Descript. v. 522 sq.;
Suppl. viii. 364. De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 234-236, pl.
xii. n. 1-4. All three indeed give also coins with the legend Ἀγριππέων. But
these do not belong to Anthedon; sea Stark, p. 515. 4. Ascalon, Ἀσκάλον, Hebr.
אַשְׁקְלוֹן, was like Gaza an important town of the Philistines, repeatedly
mentioned in the Old Testament and also already known to Herodotus.[323] The
present Ascalon lies close to the sea, and Ptolemy also mentions Ascalon as a
coast town.[324] But the old town must have lain inland, if ever so little,
since even in the sixth century after Christ Ascalon and Majuma Ascalonis (the
port of Ascalon) are distinguished.[325] In the Persian period Ascalon belonged
to the Tyrians.[326] Coins of Alexander the Great coined at Ascalon mark the
commencement of the Hellenistic period.[327] Like all Palestine and Phoenicia it
was in the third century before Christ under the dominion of the Ptolemies, and
had consequently to pay them yearly tribute.[328] With Antiochus III. began its
subjection to the Seleucidae, which is also evidenced by Ascalonian Seleucid
coins from Antiochus III. to Antiochus IX.[329] Ascalon was able by prudent
concessions to protect itself against the increasing power of the Jews. The
Maccabaean Jonathan did indeed march twice against the town, but was on both
occasions pacified by a respectful welcome on the part of the inhabitants.[330]
Ascalon was also the only coast town, which remained unmolested by Alexander
Jannaeus. It was able in the year 104 B.C. to attain to independence and
thenceforth began a computation of time of its own, which it made use of even in
the times of the Roman Empire.[331] The Romans acknowledged its independence at
least formally.[332] Besides the usual era of the year 104 B.C. another of 57
B.C. occurs in several instances, which proves that Ascalon was favoured by
Gabinius.[333] On some of the coins of Ascalon the heads have been taken for
those of Cleopatra and a Ptolemy, which would point to their sovereignty or
claims to sovereignty over this region.[334] Ascalon was never in the possession
of Herod and his successors, although it was indeed adorned with public
buildings by Herod,[335] who seems also to have had a palace there, which after
his death passed into the possession of his sister Salome.[336] The ancient
enmity of the Jews and Ascalonians made the breaking out of the Jewish war in
A.D. 66 fatal for both. At first Ascalon was devastated by the Jews;[337] then
the Ascalonians put to death all the Jews dwelling in their city, 2500 in
number;[338] finally, the Jews made a second attack upon the town, which was
indeed easily repelled by the Roman garrison stationed there.[339] Ascalon long
remained a flourishing Hellenistic city with celebrated religious rites and
games.[340] Many individuals famous in Greek literature were natives of this
town.[341] [323] Herodot. i. 105. See on Ascalon in general, Reland, Palaestina,
pp. 586-596. Winer, RWB., and Pauly, Real-Enc. s.v. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi.
70-89. Raumer, Paläst. p. 173 sq. Tobler, Dritte Wanderung nach Palästina
(1859), pp. 32-44. Sepp, Jerusalem (2nd ed.), ii. 599 sqq. Guérin, Judée, ii.
135-149, 153-171. Guthe, Die Ruinen Askalon’s, with a plan (Zeitschr. d.
deutschen Palästina-Vereins, ii. 164 sqq.). The Survey of Western Palestine,
Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 237-247 (with a plan), also plate xix. of
the large English chart. [324] Ptolem. v. 16. 2. [325] Antoninus Martyr, c. 33
(in Tobler and Molinier, Itinera, i. 109): Ascalonem … In proximo civitatis
Maiuma Ascalonis. In A.D. 518 a bishop of Ascalon and a bishop of Majuma
Ascalonis are mentioned contemporaneously; see Le Quien, Oriens christ. iii. 602
sq. Kuhn, ii. 363. [326] Scylax in Geographi graeci minores, ed. Müller, i. 79:
Ἀσκάλων πόλις Τυρίων καὶ βασίλεια. Movers (Phönicier, ii. 2. 177 sq.) insists on
referring this notice only to the harbour of Ascalon (Majuma Ascalonis) which he
considers to be a foundation of the Tyrians. But this lay in the immediate
neighbourhood of the town (see the preceding note) and could hardly have been in
the possession of any, who did not own the town itself. It is on the contrary to
be supposed, that Ascalon was, in the Persian period (to which the statements of
Scylax refer) under the rule of the Tyrians as Joppa and Dora were under that of
the Sidonians. [327]a L. Müller, Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand (1855), p.
308, planches, n. 1472 sqq. The coins communicated by Mionnet, i. 522, Suppl.
iii. 199, belong, according to Müller, p. 267, to the town of Aspendos in
Pamphylia. [328] Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 5; see above, p. 52 sq. If it is correct,
that a coin of Antiochus, coined at Ascalon, is in existence (as Mionnet, v. 8,
No. 59, states), Ascalon must at that time have been under Syrian sway. But
comp. on the other side, Stark, Gaza, p. 476; Droysen, iii. 1. 274. [329]
Mionnet describes Ascalonian coins of Antiochus III. and IV., of Trypho and
Antiochus VIII. (Descript. de médailles, v. p. 25, No. 219, pp. 38, 72, No. 625,
p. 525; Suppl. viii. 366). The catalogue of the British Museum gives such of
Trypho, Alexander Zebinas, Antiochus VIII. and IX. (Gardner, Catalogue of the
Greek Coins, Seleucid Kings, 1878, pp. 68, 69, 81-88, 91); de Saulcy, one of
Trypho (Mélanges de Numismatique, vol. ii. 1877, p. 82 sq.). See on the subject
generally, Stark, Gaza, pp. 474-477. [330] 1Ma_10:86; 1Ma_11:60. Stark, Gaza,
pp. 490 sq., 492. [331] See on the era 104 B.C., Chron. paschale on Olymp. 169.
1 = 104 B.C. (ed. Dindorf, i. 346): Ἀσκαλωνῖται τοὺς ἑαυτῶν χρόνους ἐντεῦθεν
ἀριθμοῦσιν. Hieron. Chron. ad ann. Abrah. 2295 (in Euseb. Chron., ed Schoene,
ii. 185): The second year of Probus (1080 A.V.C) = 380 aer. Ascal. Noris, Annus
et epochae, v. 4. 1 (ed. Lips. pp. 503-515). Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 444-447.
Coins in Mionnet, Descr. v. 523-533; Suppl. viii. 365-370. De Saulcy,
Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 178-208, 406, pl. ix. x. The same, Mélanges
de Numismatique, vol. ii. 1877, pp. 148-152. [332] Plinius, Hist. Nat. v. 13.
68: oppidum Ascalo liberum. In the earlier imperial period (down to the middle
of the 2nd century after Christ) Ascalon used autonomic as well as imperial
coins, the former however of only the smallest kind and least value; see de
Saulcy, p. 187. [333] The double date 56 and 102 is found on a coin of Augustus.
On another (in de Saulcy, p. 189, No. 8), 55 and 102. The year 102 is according
to the usual era of Ascalon 3/2 B.C. If however this, according to the second
era = 55/56, then the year 1 of this latter era = 57 B.C. (not 58, as was before
supposed on the strength of the coin of the year 56). [334]a De Saulcy, Note sur
quelques monnaies inédites d’Ascalon (Revue Numismatique, 1874, pp. 124-135).
Feuardent, the same, pp. 184-194. Comp. Bursian’s philol. Jahresbericht, vii.
467 sq. [335] Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 21. 11. [336] Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11. 5;
Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3. Comp. Stark, p. 542. On the question, whether Herod was
born at Ascalon, see above, § 12. De Saulcy thinks the use of certain supposed
Jewish symbols (two cornucopias crossing each other with a lemon (?) in the
middle) upon certain coins of Ascalon of the time of Augustus must be referred
to the influence of Herod; see his Note sur quelques monnaies d’Ascalon, in the
Annuaire de la Société Française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, iii. 253-258.
[337] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1. [338] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 5. [339]
Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 2. 1, 2. On the enmity of the Ascalonians to the Jews,
see also Philo, ii. 576, ed. Mangey. [340] The games are mentioned in the
inscription Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4472; Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions,
vol. iii. n. 1839 (comp. above, p. 24 sq.). Ammian. Marcellin. xiv. 8. 11
mentions Caesarea, Eleutheropolis, Neapolis, Ascalon and Gaza as the most
important towns of Palestine. To this very day “the ruins of Ascalon and
Kaisarieh are the moat considerable on the whole coast from Ghâseh to Bêrût”
(Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, p. 44). [341] Steph. Byz. s.v. reckons four
philosophers, two grammarians, and two historians of Ascalon (comp. above, p.
26); and the catalogue is not yet complete (see Reland, p. 594). 5. Azotus,
Ἄζωτος, or Ashdod, Hebr. אַשְׁדּוֹד, like Gaza and Ascalon, an old Philistine
town frequently mentioned in the Old Testament and already known to
Herodotus.[342] Ptolemy speaks of it as a coast town;[343] Josephus at one time
as a coast, at another as an inland town.[344] The latter is more accurate, for
it lay, as the present Asdud does, more than a league inland, on which account
Ἄζωτος παράλιος is in Christian times distinguished from Ἄζωτος μεσόγειος.[345]
The district of Azotus is frequently mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees;
but no certain conclusions can be drawn therefrom as to its extent.[346] Nor are
any further details of its fate under the Ptolemies and Seleucidae known.[347]
At the time of the rising of the Maccabees Azotus was unable to maintain itself
against Jewish supremacy. Judas already destroyed its altars and images
(1Ma_5:68). Jonathan, however, devastated the city, together with its temple of
Dagon, by fire. (1Ma_10:84; 1Ma_11:4). At the time of Alexander Jannaeus the
city, or rather its ruins, belonged to the Jewish region (Joseph. Antt. viii.
15. 4). Pompey again separated it from this latter, and made it a free town
(Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7). But the ruined city was not restored till
Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 4). It possibly came, together with
the other maritime towns, under the dominion of Herod (B.C. 30), from whom it
passed after his death to his sister Salome (Antt. xvii. 8. 1, 11. 5; Bell. Jud.
ii. 6. 3). Whether, like Jamnia, it fell after her death to the Empress Livia is
not quite certain, since Azotus is not expressly named (Antt. xviii. 2. 2; Bell.
Jud. ii. 9. 1). It is probable that a considerable portion of its population was
Jewish, on which account Vespasian was obliged, during the Jewish war, to place
a garrison in it (Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 2). Coins of Azotus during the Roman period
seem not to have been preserved.[348] [342] Herodot. ii. 157. See on the subject
generally, Reland, Palaestina, pp. 606-609. Winer, RWB., s.v. Asdod. Pauly,
Real-Enc. i. 2. 2208 sq. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 94-100. Raumer, Paläst. p. 174;
Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, pp. 26-32. Guérin, Judée, ii. 70-78; The Survey of
Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 409 sq., 421 sqq., also
sheet xvi. of the large English chart. [343] Ptolem. [344] As a coast town,
Antt. xiii. 15. 4; as an inland town, Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7; comp.
Kuhn, ii. 362, 364. [345] Hieroclis, Synecdemus, ed. Parthey (1866), p. 43.
[346] 1Ma_14:34; 1Ma_16:10. [347]a On two interesting coins of Asdod, probably
of the first Diadochian period, see Georg Hoffmann in Sallet’s Zeitschr. für
Numismatik, vol. ix. 1882, p. 96 sq. The superscription of the coins is Hebrew,
bnt in Greek characters. On the one is ΑΣΔΩΔ ΑΣΙΝΑ, i.e. עיר אשדוד חסינה (the
strong city of Ashdod); on the other ΙΡ ΑΣ ΙΡΟΜ Η, i.e. probably the city of
Ashdod in the eighth year of Hirom (the king of the city). [348] The coins with
the legend Τυχὴ Ἀσωτίων, which older numismatics have referred to this town
(Eckhel, iii. 448; Mionnet, v. 534; Suppl. viii. 370), are rightly denied to
belong to it by de Saulcy (Numism. p. 282 sq.), even on account of the σ instead
of ζ [also in the Pseudo-Aristeas Ἀσωτίων χώραν is, according to Mor. Schmid in
Merx’s Archiv, i. 275, 6, the correct reading, instead of Ἀζωτίων χώραν]. 6.
Jamnia, Ἰάμνεια, in the Old Testament Jabneh, יַבְנֶה (2 Chronicles 26:6), under
which name it frequently occurs in Rabbinic literature.[349] Jamnia, like
Azotus, is sometimes called a maritime, sometimes an inland town,[350] for it
lay considerably inland, but had a port. Both are correctly distinguished by
Pliny and Ptolemy.[351] There is express testimony that Jamnia had a
district.[352] According to Strabo, it was so densely populated that Jamnia and
its neighbourhood were able to furnish 40,000 fighting men.[353] In the
Maccabaean period Jamnia was—at least according to the second Book of the
Maccabees—attacked by Judas, and its port together with the fleet burnt.[354]
The town itself however did not come into the possession of the Jews either
then, or, as Josephus asserts, under Simon.[355] It was not till Alexander
Jannaeus that it formed a portion of the Jewish territory (Antt. xiii. 15. 4).
Pompey again separated it from the latter (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7),
Gabinius restored it. Like Azotus, Jamnia must also have come into the
possession of Herod, since it was left by him to his sister Salome (Antt. xvii.
8. 1, 11. 5; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3). The Empress Livia received it from the latter
(Antt. xviii. 2. 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 1), and after her death it seems to have
become a private possession of Tiberius (Antt. xviii. 6. 3; see above, p. 55).
The population was then a mixed one of Jews and heathen, but with a
preponderance of the Jewish element.[356] This explains the fact, that Vespasian
twice found himself obliged to garrison the city,[357] and that Jamnia, after
the destruction of Jerusalem, soon became a headquarter of Jewish learning.
[349] Mishna, Shekalim i. 4; Rosh hashana ii. 8, 9, iv. 1, 2; Kethuboth iv. 6;
Sanhedrin xi. 4; Edujoth ii. 4; Aboth iv. 4; Bechoroth iv. 5, vi. 8; Kelim v. 4;
Para vii. 6. For the passages of the Tosefta, see the index to Zuckermandel’s
edition (1882). Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud, 1868, pp. 73-76. [350]
Maritime town, Antt. xviii. 15. 4. Inland town, Antt. iv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7.
7; comp. Kuhn, ii. 362 sq. [351] Plinius, H. N. v. 13. 68: Jamneae duae, altera
intus. Ptolem. v. 16.2: Ἰαμνειτῶν λιμήν v. 16. 6: Ἰάμνεια. See generally,
Reland, p. 823 sq. Winer, RWB., s.v. “Jabne.” Pauly, Real-Enc. iv. 17. Raumer,
p. 203 sq. Ritter, xvi. 125 sq. Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, pp. 20-25. Guérin,
Judée, ii. 53-65. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, ii 414, 441-433; also sheet xvi. of the large English chart. [352]
Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 5: Ἰάμνεια καὶ Ἰόπη τῶν περιοίκων ἀφηγοῖνται. [353]
Strabo, xvi. p. 759. Strabo here indeed erroneously calls Jamnia a κώμη. [354]
2Ma_12:8 sq., 2Ma_12:40; comp. Stark, Gaza, p. 487. [355] Joseph. Antt. xiii. 6.
6; Bell. Jud. i. 2. 2. See, on the other hand, 1Ma_10:69; 1Ma_15:40. [356]
Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 30 (Mang. ii. 575): ταύτην μιγάδες οἰκοῦσιν οἱ πλείους
μὲν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἕτεροι δέ τινες ἀλλόφυλοι παρεισφθαρέντες ἀπὸ τῶν πλησιοχώρων, οἱ
τοῖς τρόπον τινὰ αὐθιγενέσιν ὄντες μέτοικοι, κακὰ καὶ πράγματα παρέχουσιν, ἀεί
τι παραλύοντες τῶν πατρίων Ἰουδαίοις. Philo, indeed, by here assigning the part
of natives to the Jews, and that of metoikoi to the heathen, reverses the true
order of things. For even in the Maccabaean period Jamnia was a chiefly heathen
city, nor was it till afterwards that its Jewish element increased. [357]
Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 2, 8. 1. 7. Joppa, Ἰόπη or Ἰόππη,[358] Hebr.
יָפוֹ,[359] the present Jaffa. The special importance of Joppa is found in the
fact that it was comparatively the best harbour on the coast of Palestine.[360]
It was therefore at almost all periods the chief place of debarkation for the
interior of Judaea, and its possession, especially on the greater development of
trade and commerce in later times, was almost a vital question for the Jews. In
the Persian period, and indeed in the time of the Sidonian King Eschmunazar,
Joppa was granted to the Sidonians by the “Lord of Kings,” i.e. by the Persian
monarch.[361] To the Greeks it was chiefly known as the scene of the myth of
Perseus and Andromeda, and is mentioned as such even before the time of
Alexander the Great by Scylax (see above, p. 15). In the Diadochian period it
seems to have been an important arsenal. When Antigonus wrested Coelesyria from
Ptolemy Lagos, he was obliged to take Joppa as well as other places by
force.[362] And when, three years later (312 B.C.), Ptolemy Lagos found he could
not hold the reconquered region against Antigonus, he had Joppa razed on his
retreat as one of the more important fortresses.[363] In the time of the
Maccabees the efforts of the Jews were especially directed to obtain possession
of this important place. It is true that Judas Maccabaeus—if the account is
quite trustworthy—only destroyed the port and fleet of Joppa during a nocturnal
attack (2Ma_12:3-7). Jonathan however, in the year 147 or 146 B.C., made a
serious assault of the town, in consequence of which the inhabitants opened the
gates to him and forced the Syrian garrison to depart (1Ma_10:75-76).
Thenceforward the Jews remained with but slight intermission in possession of
the town till the time of Pompey. From the same period also must be dated the
Judaizing of the city. For when, a few years after its conquest by Jonathan, the
inhabitants showed signs of again surrendering the town to the Syrians, Simon,
the brother of Jonathan, stationed a Jewish garrison in it (1Ma_12:33-34) and
compelled the heathen inhabitants to leave the town (1Ma_13:11 : ἐξέβαλε τοὺς
ὄντας ἐν αὐτῇ).[364] Simon afterwards enlarged and improved the harbour and
fortified the town (1Ma_14:5; 1Ma_14:34). When the energetic Antiochus VII.
(Sidetes) endeavoured again to retrench the power of the Jews, the possession of
Joppa was a main point of dispute. Even while Antiochus was contending with
Trypho, he demanded from Simon the surrender of Joppa (1Ma_15:28-30). The latter
however declared himself only ready to pay a sum of money instead (1Ma_15:35).
When, some years later, in the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus, all
Palestine was conquered and even Jerusalem besieged by Antiochus, it is probable
that Joppa had already been taken by him. He was nevertheless satisfied at the
conclusion of a peace with the payment of a tribute for Joppa (Joseph. Antt.
xiii. 8. 3).[365] Thus the town continued in the possession of the Jews, and in
later times even the payment of the tribute ceased. There is express testimony
that Alexander Jannaeus possessed Joppa (Antt. xiii. 15. 4). This maritime city
was however taken by Pompey from the Jews, who were thus entirely cut off from
the sea (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7). Among the favours bestowed by
Caesar on the Jews one of the most valuable was the restoration of Joppa (Antt.
xiv. 10. 6).[366] It is not quite certain whether Herod held Joppa from the
first. At any rate, like the other coast towns, it belonged, during the years
34-30 B.C., to Cleopatra (see above, § 15), and thenceforth to Herod (Antt. xv.
7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3).[367] From this time it was always united with Judaea
proper, and hence passed after Herod’s death to Archelaus (Antt. xvii. 11. 4;
Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3), and was after his deposition under Roman procurators. At
the beginning of the Jewish war, Joppa was, by reason of its mainly Jewish
population, a central seat of rebellion. It was destroyed at the very beginning
of the war by Cestius Gallus (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 10), but soon fortified again
and conquered a second time by Vespasian (Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 2-4). From that
time it probably again became a chiefly heathen town. It is shown by a coin
recently discovered, that it was also called Flavia, which leads to the
inference of its refoundation in the time of Vespasian.[368] Notwithstanding its
close connection with Judaea, Joppa formed an independent political community
after the manner of Hellenistic towns.[369] Of its coins few specimens have been
preserved.[370] [358] The orthography fluctuates. In the texts of non-biblical
authors the form Ἰόπη, which is required by Greek grammarians, is preferred (see
Movers, Phönicier, ii. 2. 176, note 78. Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societ.
philol. Lips. vol. v. p. 104) and corroborated by the usage of poets (Alexander
Ephesius in Steph. Byz., ed. Meineke, p. 255: Δῶρός τʼ ἀγχίαλός τʼ Ἰόπη
προύχουσα θαλάσσης, also Dionys. Perieg. in Müller, Geogr. gr. min. ii. 160:
οἵτʼ Ἰόπην καὶ Γάζαν Ἐλαΐδα τʼ ἐνναίουσι). The biblical manuscripts, on the
contrary, have, as it appears, universally Ἰόππη, whether in the Old or New
Testament (1 Maccabees and Acts). Of the few coins that have been preserved some
have one, some the other form. The Greek Ἰόπη is related to יָפוֹ as Ἄκη is to
עַכּוֹ. But it might also arise from the form יפי (concluding with Jod), as the
name is given on the inscription of Eschmunazar. See Schlottmann, Die Inschrift
Eschmunazars (1868), p. 150 sqq. [359] Joshua 19:46; Jonah 1:3; 2 Chronicles
2:15; Ezra 3:7. Mishna, Nedarim iii. 6; Tosefta, Demai i, 11 (ed. Zuckermandel,
p. 46, 1). Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud, p. 81 sq. [360] Joseph. Bell. Jud.
iii. 9. 3 indeed describes the harbour as dangerous, which it still is. It must,
however, have been comparatively the best According to Diodor. i. 13, there was
but one safe harbour (ἀσφαλῆ λιμένα), viz. the Pharos of Alexandria from
Paraetonium in Libya to Jopa in Coelesyria. Strabo too (xvi. p. 759) rightly
gives prominence to the importance of Joppa as a port for Judaea. See especially
1Ma_14:5. Compare on the subject in general, Reland, pp. 864-867. Winer, RWB.
Pauly, Real-Enc. Schenkel, Bibellex. s.v. Ritter, xvi. 574-580. Raumer, p. 204
sq. Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 576-637. Sepp, Jerusalem (2nd ed.),
i. 1-22. Guérin, Judée, i. 1-22 Bädeker-Socin., Palästina (1st ed.), p. 131
sqq., with plan. Schwarz, Jafa und Umgebung, mit Plan (Zeitschr. d. deutschen
Pal.-Ver. iii. 44 sqq.). The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, ii. 254-258, 275-278; also sheet xiii. of the large English chart.
[361]a See the inscription of Eschmunazar, line 18-19, and Schlottmann, as
above, pp. 83-147 sqq. The text is best given in the Corpus Inscriptionum
Semiticarum, vol. i. (1881) pp. 9-20. [362] Diodor. xix. 59. Comp. Droysen,
Hellenismus, ii. 2. 11. Stark, Gaza, p. 350. [363] Diodor. xix. 93. Comp.
Droysen, ii. 2. 54. Stark, p. 355 sq. [364] Comp. Stark, p. 493 sq. A similar
procedure was observed towards Gazara. [365] The seizure of Joppa by an
Antiochus is assumed in two Roman Senatus-consultus, in the latter of which its
surrender is commanded him by the Roman Senate (Joseph, Antt. xiii. 9. 2, xiv.
10. 22). Perhaps this explains the striking leniency of Antiochus in the
conditions of peace. It is however just questionable, whether Antiochus Sidetes
is meant. [366] For further details, see above, § 15. [367] The Jews having been
in possession of Joppa since Caesar, and it being expressly said of Joppa, that
Herod conquered it when he took possession of his kingdom (Antt. xiv. 15. 1;
Bell. Jud. i. 15. 3, 4), it must be supposed that it was his from the beginning
of his reign, and that he then obtained it again in the year 30, after the short
interregnum of Cleopatra. The only difficulty is, that at the enlargement of his
domains in the year 30, Joppa is named, not as a portion of the domains again
bestowed on Herod, but expressly as among the towns newly bestowed besides
these. [368]a Darricarrère, Sur une monnaie inédite de Joppe (Revue
archéologique, nouv. série, vol. xliii. 1882, p. 74 sq.). The coin is of the
time of Elagabalus, and bears the inscription: Ιπππης Φλαουιας. [369] This
appears chiefly from the manner in which Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 5)
mentions Joppa beside Judaea proper: μεθʼ ἃς Ἰάμνεια καὶ Ἰόπη τῶν περιοίκων
ἀφηγοῦνται. In Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 4 also, the κῶμαι and πολίχναι τῆς Ἰόπης are
mentioned. [370] Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 433. Mionnet, v. 499. De Saulcy, p.
176 sq., pl. ix. n. 3, 4. Reichardt, Numismatic Chronicle, 1862, p. 111; and
Wiener Numismat. Monatshefte, published by Egger, vol. iii. 1867, p. 192.
Darricarrère, as above. 8. Apollonia, Ἀπολλωνία. An Apollonia between Joppa and
Caesarea is mentioned by geographers down to the later imperial period.[371] It
occurs only twice in history: at the time of Alexander Jannaeus, when it
belonged to the Jewish region (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 4), and at the time of
Gabinius, who restored it (Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 8. 4). According to the
statement of distance in the Peutinger table (22 m. p. from Caesarea) it must
have been situate where the present Arsuf is.[372] Stark’s supposition, that it
is identical with Σώζουσα, is commended by the circumstance, that in Cyrenaica
also an Apollonia and a Sozusa appear, which are probably identical. Sozusa
would thus be the town of Apollo Σωτήρ.[373] The name Apollonia makes it
probable, that it was founded by Seleucus I. in the time of the definitive
occupation of Coelesyria by the Ptolemies.[374] [371] Plinius, H. N. v. 13. 69.
Ptolem. v. 16. 2. Tabula Peutinger. Segm. ix. Geographus Ravennas, ed. Pinder et
Parthey (1860), pp. 83 and 356. Guidonis Geogr. in the above-named edition of
the Geogr. Ravenn. p. 524. Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία, reckons twenty-five
towns of this name, No. 12 among them: περὶ τὴν Κοίλην Συρίαν; No. 13: κατὰ
Ἰόπην (this being the one now in question); No. 20: Συρίας κατὰ Ἀπάμειαν. [372]
See is general, Reland, p. 573. Ritter, xvi. 590. Pauly’s Enc. i. 2. 1308.,
Kuhn, ii. 362. Guérin, Samarie, ii. 375-382. The Survey of Western Palestine,
Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 135, 137-140 (with plan); also sheet x. of
the large English chart. De Saulcy, Numismatique, p. 110 sq., pl. vi. n. 1, 2.
[373] Σώζουσα in Hierocles, ed. Parthey, p. 44. Comp. Stark, Gaza, p. 452. On
Sozusa in Cyrenaica, Forbinger, Handb. ii. 829. [374] Appian. Syr. 57 does not
indeed mention our town, but speaks of Apollonia as a Macedonian town-name
transplanted into Syria by Seleucus I. Comp. Stark, as above. 9. Straton’s
Tower, Στράτωνος πύργος, afterwards Caesarea.[375] Like Apollonia, Straton’s
Tower may have been a foundation of the Hellenistic period, perhaps at first a
castle, so called, after a general of the Ptolemies. It is however possible,
that it was founded towards the end of the Persian period by a Sidonian king of
the name of Straton.[376] Artemidorus, about 100 B.C., is the first geographical
author by whom it is mentioned.[377] At that period too it first occurs in
history, being mentioned in the time of Aristobulus I., 104 B.C. (Antt. xiii.
11. 2). In the beginning of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, a “tyrant,” Zoilus
was master of Straton’s Tower and Dora (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 12. 2). He was soon
overthrown by Alexander Jannaeus (Antt. xiii. 12. 4), and hence Straton’s Tower
is named among the towns belonging to Alexander (Antt. xiii. 15. 4). It obtained
its freedom from Pompey (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7). It was bestowed
upon Herod by Augustus (Antt. xv. 7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3), and from this
period dates the special importance of the town. For it was rebuilt on the most
magnificent scale by Herod, and provided with artificial embankments and an
excellent harbour (Antt. xv. 9. 6, xvi. 5. 1; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 5-8).[378] He
called the town Καισάρεια in honour of the emperor, and the harbour Σεβαστὸς
λιμήν.[379] Hence on Nero’s coins we meet with Καισαρια ἡ προς Σεβαστω
λιμενι.[380] The designation Καισάρεια Σεβαστή occurs only once.[381] Elsewhere
the town is called in distinction from others Καισάρεια Στράτωνος,[382] and in
later times Καισάρεια τῆς Παλαιστίνης.[383] It quickly attained to great
prosperity, and remained for a long period one of the most important towns of
Palestine.[384] After the death of Herod it passed with the rest of Judaea to
Archelaus (Antt. xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3). It afterwards continued on
all occasions united with Judaea, and hence came after the deposition of
Archelaus under Roman procurators, then under Agrippa I., and then again under
procurators. Coins of Agrippa I., which were coined in Caesarea, are still in
existence.[385] His στρατηγός in Caesarea is incidentally mentioned (Antt. xix.
7. 4). It is well known that he himself died there (see above, § 18). He was
hated by the Caesareans for his Judaizing tendencies (Antt. xix. 9. 1). The
Roman procurators, both before and after the reign of Agrippa, took up their
abode at Caesarea (see above, § 17‌c). Hence the town is called in Tacitus,
Judaeae caput (Tac. Hist. ii. 78). It was also the chief garrison for the troops
under the command of the procurators, who were for the most part composed of
natives (see above, p. 65). The population being chiefly a heathen one (Bell.
Jud. iii. 9. 1), though mingled with a considerable Jewish fraction, disputes
easily occurred, and the more so that both had equal civil rights, and had
therefore to conduct the affairs of the town in common.[386] Neither the Jews
nor the heathen were satisfied with this state of things. Each of these parties
claimed the exclusive government of the town. Already towards the close of the
official career of Felix there were sanguinary contests on the subject, in
consequence of which Nero, whose adviser had been bribed by the heathen party,
deprived the Jews of their equality of right, and declared the heathen sole
governors of the town. The exasperation which ensued gave the first inducement
to the great rising of the Jews in A.D. 66 (Antt. xx. 8. 7 and 9; Bell. Jud. ii.
13. 7, 14. 4, 5). After the breaking out of the war, the Jews, as the minority,
fell victims to the fury of the heathen populace. It is said that all the Jewish
inhabitants, 20,000 in number, were then assassinated in an hour (Bell. Jud. ii.
18. 1 vii. 8. 7, ed. Bekker, p. 161). Caesarea was changed by Vespasian into a
Roman colony, though without the full jus Italicum.[387] On coins it bears the
title col(onia) prima Fl(avia) Aug(usta) Caesarensis or Caesarea. To this was
added after the time of Alexander Severus the title metropolis, or as it is more
completely given on coins after Decius, metropolis, pr. S. Pal. (= provinciae
Syriae Palaestinae.[388] [375] See generally, Reland, pp. 670-678. Raumer, p.
152 sq. Winer, RWB., and Schenkel’s Bibellex. s.v. Caesarea. Pauly, Real-Enc.
ii. 47. Kuhn, Die städt. und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 347-350. The same, Ueber
die Entstehung der Städte der Alten (1878), pp. 423-433. Ritter, xvi. 598-607.
Sepp, Jerusalem (2nd ed.), ii. 573 sqq. Guérin, Samarie, ii. 321. The Survey of
Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 13-29 (with plans), also
sheet vii. of the English chart. [376] In Justinian’s Novelle 103 praef. it is
said of Caesarea: Καίτοι γε ἀρχαία τέ ἐστι καὶ ἀεὶ σεμνή, ἡνίκα τε αὐτὴν Στράτων
ἰδρύσατο πρῶτος, ὃς ἐξ Ἑλλάδος ἀναστὰς γέγονεν αὐτῆς οἰκιστὴς ἡνίκα τε
Οὐεσπασιανος … εἰς τὴν τῶν Καισάρων αὐτὴν ὠνόμασε προσηγορίαν. The worthlessness
of this notice is shown already by the gross mistake with respect to Vespasian.
As there was a Straton’s Island on the Abyssinian coast of the Red Sea (Strabo,
xvi. p. 770), Straton’s Tower may have been a foundation of the Ptolemies. So
Stark, Gaza, p. 451. To me however it seems almost more probable, that it was
founded by the Sidonians. For towards the end of the Persian period they were in
possession of the nearest towns both northward and southward, viz. Dora and
Joppa (which see), and therefore presumably of the strip of coast also upon
which Straton’s Tower was built. Straton moreover was the name of one or more of
the last kings of Sidon (see Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 87, and also Böckh). At any
rate its designation as πύργος, tower, is not usual for a town of Hellenistic
foundation. Lastly, L. Müller thinks, that a coin of Alexander the Great with
the letters Στ may be referred to our Straton’s Tower (L. Müller, Numismatique
d’Alexandre le Grand, p. 306, plates, n. 1466), in which case it must already
have been in existence in the time of Alexander the Great, or at latest in the
Diadochian period (in which also coins of Alexander were issued). All this
combined favours the view, that it was already founded by the Sidonians. [377]
Artemidorus in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος (on Artemidorus, see Forbiger, Handbuch
der alten Geographie, i. 246 sqq., 255 sqq. Pauly’s Enc. s.v.). The latest
geographer who knows of Straton’s Tower by that name only is Strabo, xvi. p.
758. [378] Besides the above principal passages, compare also Joseph. Antt. xv.
8. 5. Plinius, v. 13. 69. On the time of its building, see above, § 15. On its
constitution and political position, see especially Kuhn’s above-named work.
[379] On the latter, see Antt. xvii. 5. 1; Bell. Jud. i. 31. 8. [380] These
coins are fully treated of by Belley in the Mémoires de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, old series, vol. xxvi. 1759, pp. 440-445. Comp.
also Eckhel, iii. 428 sq. Mionnet, Description, v. 486 sq. De Saulcy,
Numismatique, p. 116 sq. [381] Joseph. Antt. xvi. 5. 1. Philo, Legat, ad Cajum,
§ 38, ed. Mang. ii. 590. The designation Αὐγοῦστα Καισάρεια occurring on an
inscription (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4472 = Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions,
vol. iii. n. 1839) is an abbreviation of colonia prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea,
the official title of Caesarea as a colony since Vespasian; see below, p. 87,
and Kuhn, ii. 349. [382] Ptolem. v. 16. 2, viii. 20. 14. Clement. Homil. i. 15,
20, xiii. 7; Recogn. i. 12. Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, vol. iii. n.
1620b (Inscription of Aphrodisias in Caria of the second century after Christ,
comp. above, p. 24). [383] Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lagarde, pp. 207, 250. De
martyr. Palestinae, i. 2. [384] Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 1. Clement. Recogn.
i. 12. Apollonius, Tyan. epist. xi. (in Epistológraphi graeci, ed. Hercher,
Paris 1873, Didot). Totius orbis descriptio in Müller, Geogr. gr. minores, ii.
517. Ammian. xiv. p. 11. [385] Eckhel, iii. 491, 492. Madden, History of Jewish
Coinage, pp. 107, 109. The same, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 133, 136. The
coins with the legend Καισαρειας ασυλου are rightly denied by Eckhel to belong
to our Caesarea. [386]a The ἄνδρες οἱ κατʼ ἐξοχὴν τῆς πόλεως, mentioned Acts
25:23, must according to the context be regarded as heathen. This however does
not exclude Jews from a share in the government, but merely corresponds with,
the preponderance of the heathen element testified to by Josephus. [387]
Plinius, H. N. v. 13. 69: Stratonis turris, eadem Caesarea, ab Herode rege
condita, nunc colonia prima Flavia a Vespasiano imperatore deducta. Digest. lib.
xv. 8. 7 (from Paulus): Divus Vespasianus Caesarienses colonos fecit non
adjecto, ut et juris Italici essent, sed tributum his remisit capitis; sed divus
Titus etiam solum immune factum interpretatus est. Ibid. lib. xv. 1. 6 (from
Ulpianus): In Palaestina duae fuerunt coloniae, Caesariensis et Aelia
Capitolina, sed neutra jus Italicum habet. Comp. Zumpt, Commentationes epigr. i.
897 sq. On the jus Italicum, see Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 89
sqq. (1881), and the literature therein cited, p. 89, note 7, to which is to be
added: Beaudouin, Etude sur le Jus italicum, Paris (1883). Comp. Revue critique,
1884, No. 6, pp. 99-101. [388] On the coins in general, see Eckhel, iii.
428-442. Mionnet, v. 486-497; Suppl. viii. 334-343. De Saulcy, pp. 112-141, pl.
vii. 10. Dora, Δῶρα, in Polybius Δοῦρα, elsewhere also Δῶρος, in Pliny,
Dorum,[389] Hebr. דּוֹר or דֹּאר,[390] an old Phoenician settlement 8 or 9 miles
north of Caesarea.[391] It was known from ancient times to the Greeks, being
already mentioned by Hecataeus of Miletus, who lived 500 years before Christ, in
his description of the earth.[392] Nay, it is possible that it may, during the
hegemony of Athens in the Mediterranean in the 5th century B.C., have been
tributary to the Athenians.[393] In the time of the Sidonian King Eshmunazar it
was granted to the Sidonians by the “Lord of Kings,” i.e. by the Persian
monarch.[394] Hence Scylax, whose description refers to the Persian period,
rightly calls Dora a town of the Sidonians.[395] Although Dora was no large
city,[396] it was on account of its favourable position a strong fortress. When
Antiochus the Great made (219 B.C.) his first attack upon Coelesyria, he
besieged Dora, but in vain.[397] Eighty years afterwards (139-138 B.C.) Trypho
was here besieged by Antiochus Sidetes with a large army, but equally without
result. The siege ended with the flight of Trypho.[398] On a coin of Trypho’s
stamped at Dora the town is called ἱε(ρὰ) κ(αὶ) ἄ(συλος).[399] Some decades
afterwards we find it in the possession of the tyrant Zoilus (Joseph. Antt.
xiii. 12. 2), who was afterwards overthrown by Alexander Jannaeus (Antt. xiii.
12. 4). It must therefore have subsequently belonged to the Jewish region, but
was again separated from it by Pompey (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7).
Like many other towns, Dora also then began a new era, which it continued to use
on coins of the imperial age.[400] It was restored by Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5.
3). After Pompey it was under direct Roman government, and therefore never
belonged to Herod (whose dominions on the coast extended no farther northward
than Caesarea). It is called on coins of the imperial period ἱερὰ ἄσυλος
αὐτόνομος ναυαρχίς.[401] The existence of a Jewish community in Dora is
evidenced by an occurrence of the time of King Agrippa I.: a number of young
people once placed a statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue, and it
needed energetic intervention on the part of Petronius the governor, in a letter
addressed to the authorities of Dora (Δωριτῶν τοῖς πρώτοις), to secure to the
Jews that free exercise of their religion, which had been pledged to them (Antt.
xix. 6. 3). In the later imperial period, Dora seems to have fallen into
decay.[402] Christian bishops of Dora are however mentioned down to the 7th
century.[403] [389] The form Δῶρος occurs especially in older authors, but is
also preferred by Steph. Byz. Δῶρα was afterwards exclusively used. (1) Δῶρος is
found in Scylax (fourth century B.C.), Apollodorus (about 140 B.C.), Alexander
Ephesius (see on him Pauly’s Enc. s.v. Alex. n. 40), Charax (the three last
named in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος). To this series belongs also Pliny (H. N. v.
19. 75, Dorum). (2) Δῶρα or Δωρά found besides in 1 Macc., in Artemidorus (about
100 B.C.), Claudius Jolaus (both in Steph. Byz.), Josephus (constantly), on
coins of Caligula, Trajan, Elagabalus (in De Saulcy), Ptolemaeus (v. 15. 5),
Clement. Recogn. (iv. 1), Eusebius (Onom., ed. Lag. p. 250), Hieronymus (the
same, p. 115), Hierocles (ed. Parthey, p. 43), the lists of bishops (in Le
Quien, Oriens christ. iii. 574 sqq.), Geographus Ravennas (ed. Pinder et
Parthey, pp. 89, 357). To this series belong also Polybius (v. 66, Δοῦρα) and
Tab. Peuting. (Thora). Comp. also note 136, below. The first Book of the
Maccabees uses Δωρᾶ indecl., it is elsewhere treated as a neut. plur. (Josephus
usually; Eusebius, p. 280, the lists of bishops); sometimes also as a fem. sing.
(Joseph. Antt. xiii. 7. 2; c. Apion. ii. 9. Clement. Recogn. iv. 1). [390]
דּוֹר, Joshua 11:2; Joshua 12:23; Judges 1:27; 1 Chronicles 7:29. דֹּאר, Joshua
17:11; 1 Kings 4:11. Also upon the inscription of Eshmunazar, see below, note
137. In the O. T. נָפַת דּוֹר (Joshua 12:23; 1 Kings 4:11) or נָפוֹת דּוֹר
(Joshua 11:2), properly the height or heights of Dor, and therefore probably the
hill country, which lay inland from Dor, is distinguished from the town of Dor
(see Riehm’s Wörterbuch, s.v.). Only the former and not the maritime town was
possessed by Solomon. Less probable is Movers’ notion (Phönicier, ii. 2. 175
sq.), that Naphath-Dor is distinguished as an inland town from Dor as a coast
town. [391] The foundation by the Phoenicians is fully described by Claudius
Jolaus in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος (also in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 363).
Josephus also calls Dora a πόλις τῆς Φοινίκης (Vita, 8; c. Apion. ii. 9). The
distance from Caesarea, 8 m. p. according to Tab. Peuting.; 9 m. p. according to
Eusebius (Onom., ed. Lag. p. 283) and Jerome (the same, pp. 115, 142). According
to Artemidorus (in Steph. Byz. s.v.), Dora lay ἐπὶ χερσονησοειδοῦς τόπου. Comp.
generally, Reland, pp. 738-741; Raumer, p. 154; Winer, Schenkel, Pauly, s.v.;
Ritter, xvi. 607-612; Guérin, Samarie, ii. 305-315. The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. pp. 3, 7-11; also sheet vii. of
the English chart. [392] Hecataeus in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος (also in Müller,
Fragm. hist. graec. i. 17, n. 260): μετὰ δὲ ἡ πάλαι Δῶρος, νῦν δὲ Δῶρα καλεῖται.
The words cannot indeed have come down just as they stand from Hecataeus,
because they manifest a change in the usage of the language, which did not fully
take place till about 500 years later (see above, note 133). Hence the copy made
use of by Steph. Byz. must here have had an interpolation. On Hecataeus, see
Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geogr. i. 48 sqq. C. Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. t.
i. Proleg, pp. ix.-xvi. Westermann in Pauly’s Enc. iii. 1082 sq. [393]a The
Δῶρος tributary to the Athenians is indeed generally taken to be a town in Caria
(according to Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῶρος). Such an one however not being elsewhere
known of, and the power of the Athenians extending in any case to Cyprus, we may
perhaps suppose it to have been the Phoenician Doros. See Ulr. Köhler, Urkunden
und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Delisch-attischen Bundes (Transactions of
the Berlin Academy, 1869), pp. 121, 207. Six, Numismatic Chronicle, 1877, p.
235. [394] See the inscription of Eshmunazar, lines 18, 19, in the Corp.
Inscript. Semiticarum, vol. i. (1881) pp. 9-20; also Schlottmann, Die Inschrift
Eschmunazar (1868), pp. 82 sq., 146 sqq. [395] Scylax in Geographi graeci
minores, ed. Müller, i. 79: Δῶρος πόλις Σιδονίων. On Scylax, see e.g.
Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotlh. gr. iv. 606 sqq. Forbiger, Handb. d. alten Geogr.
i. 113 sqq., 123 sqq. Westermann in Pauly’s Enc. vi. 1. 891 sq. Nicolai, Griech.
Literaturgesch. i. 322 sq. Anonyini vulgo Scylacis Caryandensis periplum maris
interni cum appendice, iterum rec. Fabricius, Lips. 1878. [396] Artemidorus:
πολισμάτιον. Claudius Jolaus: βραχεῖα πολίχνη (both in Steph. Byz.). Clement.
Recogn. iv. 1: breve oppidum. [397] Polyb. v. 66. [398] 1Ma_15:11-37; Joseph.
Antt. xiii. 7. 2. [399] Mionnet, v. 72. Stark, p. 477. [400] The commencement of
the era cannot be strictly determined. At all events however it is that of
Pompey (B.C. 63?), not that of Gabinius, as De Saulcy, in spite of his own
objections assumes, for an era of Gabinius could not begin earlier than the
autumn of 58 B.C. = 696 A.U.C. and then 175 aer. Dor., of which year coins of
Trajan are in existence, would be = 870/871 A.U.C., while Trajan was already
dead before the autumn of 870. See generally, Noris, iv. 5. 5 (ed. Lips. pp.
453-458). Pellerin, Recueil de médailles de peuples et de villes (3 vols. Paris
1763), ii. 216 sq. Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 362 sq. Ideler, Handb. der
Chronologie, i. 459. The coins in Mionnet, v. 359-362; Suppl. viii. 258-260. De
Saulcy, pp. 142-148, pl. vi. n. 6-12. [401] See especially Mionnet and De
Saulcy, as above. [402] Hieronymus, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 115: Dora … nunc
deserta. Ibid. p. 142: Dor autem est oppidum jam desertum. The same,
Peregri-natio Paulae (in Tobler, Palacstinae descriptions, 1869, p. 13): ruinas
Dor, urbis quondam potentissimae. [403] Le Quien, Oriens christianus, iii.
574-579. 11. Ptolemais, Πτολεμαΐς.[404] The original name of the town was Akko,
עַכּוֹ (Richter 1. 31), or, as it reads in Greek, Ἄκη. By this name it was
already known to the Greeks in pre-Hellenistic times.[405] It was here that in
the year 374 B.C. the army of Artaxerxes Mnemnon assembled for the campaign
against Egypt.[406] Ake must have been an important town in the time of
Alexander the Great. For among the coins of Alexander stamped in Phoenicia those
of Ake especially are very numerous. They have the name of Alexander in Greek,
that of the town in Phoenician characters (Ἀλεξάνδρου, עכ, sometimes עכא), and
the year of an era beginning with Alexander the Great. As elsewhere so too in
Ake these coins were still issued long after the death of Alexander.[407] Ake
was levelled to the ground in the year 312 by Ptolemy Lagos, when he again
evacuated before Antigonus the district of Coelesyria, which he had just
conquered.[408] It probably received from Ptolemy II. the name of Πτολεμαΐς,
which was henceforth the prevailing one.[409] Still its original name Akko was
uninterruptedly maintained beside the Greek one, which it subsequently
supplanted.[410] In the Seleucid period also Ptolemais figures as one of the
most important cities of the Phoenician-Philistine coast. The conquest of this
region by Antiochus the Great in the year 219 was much facilitated by the
surrender to him of the towns of Tyre and Ptolemais by the Phoenician general
Theodotus.[411] Antiochus wintered in Ptolemais in 218/219.[412] The Seleucidae
after their definitive occupation of Phoenicia specially favoured Ptolemais. On
coins, especially those of the times of Antiochus IV. and VIII., the inhabitants
are called Ἀντιοχεῖς οἱ ἐν Πτολεμαΐδι, sometimes with the addition ἱερὰ ἂσυλος,
sometimes ἱερὰ αὐτόνομος. The bestowal of the title “Antiochians,” and with it
perhaps certain privileges, is to be regarded as a mark of favour, which was
aspired after by many other towns, e.g. Jerusalem, during the predominance of
the Hellenistic party.[413] Seleucid coins of Antiochus V., Demetrius I.,
Alexander Balas, and Trypho, minted at Ptolemais, are in existence.[414] The
town was used as a residence by the kings during their temporary abode in these
regions (1Ma_10:56-60; 1Ma_11:22; 1Ma_11:24). It always showed itself hostile to
the Jews. Even at the beginning of the Maccabaean rising, it was especially the
towns of Ptolemais, Tyre and Sidon, which fought against the Jews, who had
revolted from Syrian sovereignty (1Ma_5:15 sqq.). Jonathan was here
treacherously taken prisoner by Trypho (1Ma_12:45 sqq.). After the accession of
Alexander Jannaeus, B.C. 104, when the Seleucidae had already lost all authority
in the southern parts of their dominions, three neighbouring powers contended
for the possession of Ptolemais. At first Alexander Jannaeus entertained the
purpose of conquering it, but was prevented from carrying out his design by
Ptolemy Lathurus, the ruler of Cyprus, who himself took possession of the town
by force (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 12. 2-6). He was however soon deprived of it by
his mother Cleopatra, queen of Egypt (Antt. xiii. 13. 1-2). Ptolemais seems
never again to have come under the authority of the Selucidae, nay even the
still more northward towns of Tyre and Sidon had meantime made themselves
independent. On the contrary, we still find there, about 70 B.C., an Egyptian
princess, Selene, daughter of this Cleopatra, and widow of Antiochus Grypus, to
whom she had been given in marriage by her mother, when the latter entered into
alliance with him against Antiochus Kyzikenos, who ruled in Coelesyria.[415] At
the instance of this Selene Ptolemais closed its gates against Tigranes, king of
Armenia, the conqueror of the Seleucid kingdom; was thereupon conquered by
Tigranes, but again liberated when Tigranes found himself obliged to retreat by
reason of the attacks of the Romans upon his own kingdom (Joseph. Antt. xiii.
16. 4). Ptolemais seems to have experienced special favour from Caesar, when in
the year 47 he was over the affairs of Syria. For there are in existence some of
its coins of the imperial period with an era reaching back to Caesar.[416]
Probably the coins with the legend Πτολεμαι. ἱερας καὶ ἀσυλον (or the like)
belong also to this time (shortly after Caesar).[417] The Emperor Claudius
settled a colony of veterans in Ptolemais. Hence the town was henceforth called
colonia Ptolemais, though it did not possess the actual privileges of a
colony.[418] At the breaking out of the Jewish war, the Jews in Ptolemais, 2000
in number, were slaughtered by the inhabitants (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 5). The
district of Ptolemais is mentioned by Josephus as the western boundary of
Galilee (Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 1; comp. Vita, 24). The formula: Πτολεμαΐδα καὶ τὴν
προσκυροῦσαν αὐτῇ, scil. χώραν (1Ma_10:39), is characteristic. [404] For a
description of the situation, see Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 10. 2. Compare in
general, Reland, pp. 534-542. Pauly, Real-Enc. vi. 1. 243. Winer, s.v. “Acco.”
Raumer, p. 119 sq. Ritter, xvi. 725-739. Robinson, Recent Scriptural Researches
in Palestine, iii. 89-101. Sepp, Jerusalem, ii. 513 sqq. Guérin, Galilée, i.
502-525. Bädeker-Socin, Paläst. 1st ed. p. 369 sqq. (with plan of the present
Akka). The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 145,
160-167, also sheet iii. of the English chart. Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, vol.
ii. p. 450. [405] Scylax in Geogr. gr. min., ed. Müller, i. 79. Isaeus, Orat.
iv. 7. Demosthenes, Orat. 52 contra Callippum, § 24 (where indeed the word Ἄκην
is first restored in Dindorf’s edit, after the gloss in Harpocration, Lex. s.v.
Ἄκη, the earlier edition having Θρᾳκην). Diodor. xv. 41, xix. 93. Polyaen. iii.
9.56. Cornel. Nepos, xiv. Datames, c. 5. Comp. Strabo, xvi. p. 758. Plinius, H.
N. v. 19. 75. Charax in Steph. Byz. s.v. Δώρος. Claudius Jolaus in Steph. Byz.
s.v. Ἄκη. Steph. Byz. ibid. and s.v. Πτολεμαΐς. The Lexicographers, Etymolog.
magn., Harpocration, Suidas (see the passages in Reland, p. 536 sq.; also Kuhn,
ii. 331). A coin of Ακη in Mionnet, v. 473; De Saulcy, p. 154, pl. viii. n. 2;
some others in Reichardt, Numismatic Chronicle, 1862, p. 108; 1864, p. 187.
Wiener Numismat. Monatshefte, published by Egger, vol. ii. 1866, p. 3. On the
ancient history of Ake, comp. especially the fragment from Menander in Joseph.
Antt. ix. 14. 2 (Ake revolts from Tyre in the time of Shalmanezar, and goes over
to Shalmanezar). [406] Diod. xv. 41. This is referred to also by Polyaen. iii.
9. 56; Cornel. Nep. xiv. 5; comp. Strabo, xvi. p. 758: Εἶθʼ ἡ Πτολεμαΐς ἐστι
μεγάλη πόλις ἣν Ἄκην ὠνόμαζον, πρότερον ᾖ ἐχρῶντο ὁρμητηρίῳ πρὸς τὴν Αἴγυπτον οἱ
Πέρσαι. [407] See Eckhel, iii. 408 sq.; Mionnet, i. 520 sq.; also Recueil des
planches, pl. xxi. n. 1-10; Suppl. iii. 197 sq. and pl. ii. n. 1-6. Gesenius,
Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae monumenta, p. 269 sq. L. Müller, Numismatique
d’Alexandre le Grand (1855), p. 303; also planches, n. 1424-1463. Numerous
copies of these coins (gold staters of Alexander, especially those of the years
23 and 24) have become known by means of a large discovery of coins at Sidon in
the year 1863. See W(eckbecker) in the Wiener Numismatischen Monatsheften, pub.
by Egger, vol. i. 1865, pp. 5-11. Waddington in the Revue Numismatique, 1865,
pp. 8-25. Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus (2nd ed.), i. 1. 302-304. The
same, Monatsber. der Berliner Akademie, 1877, p. 40 sqq. Weckbecker in Egger’s
Wiener Numismat. Monatsheften, i. 98,99, tells of tetradrachmas of Ake of
Alexander the Great with the years 16, 22, 31, 32, which “were brought to market
in Beirut by an Armenian of Mossul at about the same time (1862-1863).” A
collection of the whole material may be expected in the Corp. Inscr.
Semiticarum. On the fact that coins were issued with the name of Alexander after
his death, see L. Müller, Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand, pp. 50-90. The
numbers of the years on the coins of Ake are 5-46. Since the year 334 or 333
must be accepted as the starting-point, these coins were issued not only till
306, when the Diadochoi assumed the royal title, but also till about two decades
afterwards. See especially, Müller, pp. 80-88. [408] Diodor. xix. 93. Comp.
above, note 52 (Gaza) and 109 (Joppa). [409] The founding and naming of the town
is expressly referred to Ptolemy in Pseudo-Aristeas (ed. Moritz Schmidt in Merx’
Archiv, vol. i. p. 274): Πτολεμαίδα τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐκτισμένην. This is
also probable in itself. Ptolemy II. was the first of the Ptolemies, who
continued in possession of Phoenicia and Coelesyria. That he there undertook the
founding of towns is proved by the example of Philadelphia (see below). Already
in 219-217 Ptolemais is mentioned under this name in Polybius, without his
pointing out that it was then not as yet known by this name (Polyb. v. 61-62.
71). Comp. also Droysen, iii. 2. 305. [410] The name עַכּוֹ occurs especially in
Rabbinic literature, see Mishna, Nedarim iii. 6; Gittin i. 2, vii. 7; Aboda sara
iii. 4; Ohaloth xviii. 9. The passages of the Tosefta in the Index to
Zuckermandel’s ed. (1882). Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 231 sq. To this
very day the town is called Akka (Acre). [411] Polyb. v. 61-62. Comp. Stark,
Gaza, p. 375 sqq. [412] Polyb. v. 71. [413] On the coins in question, see
Eckhel, iii. 305 sq. Mionnet, v. 37 sq., 88, 216-218. Gardner, Catalogue of the
Greek Coins in the British Museum, Seleucid Kings, p. 41. Even the circumstance
that ἱερὰ ἄσυλος appears as an apposition to Ἀντιοχεῖς (Ἀντιοχέων τῶν ἐν
Προλεμαΐδι ἱερᾶς ἀσύλου, and similarly on the coins of Hippus, see below, No.
13), proves that the town of Ptolemais and its citizens collectively, not a
colony of Antiochian merchants in Ptolemais, is intended (the latter is the view
of Eckhel and Kuhn, i. 22; see, on the other hand, Stark, p. 449; Droysen, iii.
2. 305). The title Antiochians was also aspired after by the Hellenistic party
in Jerusalem; see 2Ma_4:9, and Grimm (the passage should be translated, “and to
enroll the inhabitants of Jerusalem as Antiochians,” or “to receive the
inhabitants of Jerusalem into the list of Antiochians”). Whether, and what,
privileges were combined therewith can hardly be ascertained. [414] Gardner,
Catalogue of Greek Coins, etc., pp. 44, 47, 52. A coin of Trypho is given by De
Saulcy, Mélanges de Numism. vol. ii. 1877, p. 82. [415] Justin. Hist. xxxix. 4.
4. [416] See Eckhel, iii. 425. De Saulcy, pp. 162, 164, 166. Ptolemais was not
the only town which was favoured by Caesar; comp. Marquardt, i. 397. [417] See
these especially in De Saulcy, 154-156. [418] Plinius, v. 19, 75: colonia Claudi
Caesaris Ptolemais quae quondam Acce; comp. xxxvi. 26. 190. Digest. lib. xv. 1.
3 (from Ulpianus): Ptolemaeensium enim colonia, quae inter Phoenicien et
Palaestinam sita est, nihil praeter nomen coloniae habet (also Noris, p. 427
sq.). On coins: COL. PTOL., sometimes with the numbers of the vi. ix. x. xi.
legions. See in general. Noris, iv. 5. 2 (ed. Lips. pp. 424-430). Eckhel, iii.
423-425. Mionnet, v. 473-481; Suppl. viii. 324-331. De Saulcy, pp. 153-169. 405
sq., pl. viii. n. 2-11. The same, Mélanges de Numismatique, vol. ii. 1877, pp.
143-146. Zumpt, Commentat. epigr. i. 386. Marquardt, i. 428 Next to the great
maritime towns, the towns of the so-called Decapolis belong to the class of
independent Hellenistic communities. The organization alluded to in this word
was probably the work of Pompey. For we first meet with the term (ἡ Δεκάπολις)
during the Roman period;[419] and most of the towns of Decapolis owe their
independent political existence to Pompey. These were the Hellenistic towns of
the country east of Jordan, which, having been subjected by Alexander Jannaeus,
were again liberated from Jewish authority by Pompey. It is probable that they
then formed a kind of confederacy, which originally consisted of ten towns, and
was therefore called ἡ Δεκάπολις, but retained the name after the number was
enlarged by the accession of other towns. For the number did not always remain
the same, as Pliny, our chief authority, remarks, H. N. v. 18. 74: Decapolitana
regio a numero oppidorum, in quo non omnes eadem observant, plurimum tamen
Damascum, Philadelphiam, Rhaphanam, Scythopolim, Gadara, Hippon, Dion, Pellam,
Galasam (read: Gerasam), Canatham. Besides Pliny, only Ptolemy v. 15. 22-23
gives an enumeration of the several towns. It contains all the towns mentioned
by Pliny, with the exception of Raphana; and besides these, nine others
(situated chiefly in the north of Palestine in the neighbourhood of Damascus),
so that the number given by him amounts to eighteen. Hence we must keep to Pliny
for the original number. To those named by him, we add only Abila and Kanata
(another town than Kanatha), both which have also the Pompeian era. All the
towns except Scythopolis lie in the region east of the Jordan. The inclusion of
Damascus, lying so far to the north, is striking. Since however it is mentioned
by both Pliny and Ptolemy, it must be retained. In any case Decapolis, as such,
continued in existence in the second century after Christ (the time of the
geographer Ptolemy). Its dissolution took place in the course of the third
century, in consequence of the transference of some of its most important towns
(as Kanatha, Gerasa, Philadelphia) to the province of Arabia (constituted a
province A.D. 105). The mention of Decapolis by later authors, as Eusebius,
Epiphanius, Steph. Byz., rests therefore only on historical information. The
following enumeration is in geographical order from north to south. [419]
Matthew 4:25; Mark 5:20; Mark 7:31; Plinius, H. N. v. 18.74. Josephus, Bell.
Jud. iii. 9. 7; Vita, 65, 74. Ptolemaeus, v. 15. 22. Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4501
(inscription of the time of Hadrian). Eusebius, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 251.
Epiphanius, Haer. 29.7; de mens. et pond. § 15. Stephanus Byz. s.v. Γέρασα (the
text handed down has here τεσσαρεσκαιδεκαπόλεως, for which however Meineke
rightly reads δεκαπόλεως). Comp. in general, Winer, RWB., s.v. “Decapolis.”
Caspari, Chronologisch-geographische Einleitung in das Leben Jesu Christi
(1869), pp. 83-90. 12. Damascus, Δαμασκός, Hebr. דַּמֶּשְׂק. From the varied
history of this town, we can here bring forward only such particulars as are
important with respect to its constitution during the Hellenistic and Roman
periods.[420] The dominion of Alexander the Great over Damascus is evidenced not
only by the narratives of authors, but by coins of Alexander issued there.[421]
In the third century before Christ, Damascus seems to have belonged not, like
Phoenicia and Palestine, to the Ptolemies, but to the Seleucidae. It is true,
that when Ptolemy II. seized Phoenicia and Palestine, B.C. 280, he must also
have taken possession of Damascus. It was however reconquered by Antiochus I.
(280-262).[422] At the great invasion of the realm of the Seleucidae by Ptolemy
III., B.C. 246, in which all Syria was for some time lost to Seleucus II.,
Damascus seems to have been not once conquered, but only besieged. Seleucus
relieved it, when in the year 242/241 he again victoriously pressed
southwards.[423] The fact, that Damascus anciently formed part of the Seleucid
dominions, is indirectly confirmed by the circumstance, that Polybius, when
fully relating the particulars of the conquest of Phoenicia and Palestine by
Antiochus the Great (v. 61-71), mentions indeed the taking of the most important
Phoenician and Palestinian towns, but nowhere speaks of Damascus. When in 111
B.C. the Syrian kingdom was, in consequence of the strife between the brothers
Antiochus VIII. (Grypos) and Antiochus IX. (Kyzikenos), divided, and Antiochus
Kyzikenos established himself in the southern part,[424] Damascus probably
became the capital of his small kingdom. At all events it was about 95-85 B.C.
repeatedly the capital of a kingdom of Coelesyria separated from the kingdom of
Syria, first under Demetrius Eukaerus a son of Antiochus Grypos (Joseph. Antt.
xiii. 13. 4), then under Antiochus XII. also a son of Grypos (Antt. xiii. 15.
1). Antiochus XII. fell in battle against the Arabian king Aretas; and Damascus
continued henceforth under his authority (Antt. xiv. 15. 1, 2; Bell. Jud. i. 4.
7, 8). When Pompey penetrated into Asia, Damascus was first of all occupied by
his legates (Antt. xiv. 2. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 6. 2). Apparently it was not
restored to the Arabian king, but united to the province of Syria.[425] In the
time of Cassius (44-42 B.C.) we find a Roman commander, Fabius, in Damascus
(Antt. xiv. 11. 7, 12. 1; Bell. Jud. i. 12. 1, 2). Already in the times of
Augustus and Tiberius there were Roman imperial coins of Damascus, but at the
same time, as in the case of Ascalon, autonomic ones also. The Seleucid era is
used on both, and this continued to be the prevailing one at Damascus.[426]
There are no coins of the times of Caligula and Claudius, though there are coins
from Nero onwards. With this circumstance must be combined the fact, that
Damascus, when St. Paul fled from it (probably in the time of Caligula), was
under a viceroy (ἐθνάρχης) of the Arabian king Aretas (2 Corinthians 11:32).
Hence it then belonged temporarily to the Arabian king, whether he seized it by
violence or obtained it by imperial favour. That there was a Jewish community in
Damascus is already evident from the New Testament (Acts 9:2; 2 Corinthians
11:32). That it was numerous may be inferred from the number of Jews slain at
Damascus at the breaking out of the great war. This amounted to 10,000, or
according to another statement 18,000 (the former, Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 2; the
latter, Bell. Jud. vii. 8. 7). After Hadrian the town bore the title μητρόπολις,
after Alexander Severus it was a colony (not first after Philip the Arabian, as
even Eckhel supposes), both facts being witnessed to by the coins.[427] We are
informed (Antt. xviii. 6. 3) of a dispute concerning boundaries between the
Damascenes and Sidonians in the time of Tiberius, which is chiefly of interest
as showing, how extensive the district pertaining to this town must have been,
since it bordered upon that of Sidon. [420] See in general, Rödiger in Ersch and
Gruber’s Encycl. sect. i. vol. 22, Div. 2, pp. 113-116. Arnold in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl. 1st ed. iii. 259-262. Winer, s.v. Nöldeke in Schenkel’s Bibellex.
s.v. Robinson, Recent Scriptural Researches, iii. 442-468. Ritter, Erdkunde
xvii. 2. 1332 sqq. Kremer, Topographie von Damascus (Records of the Viennese
Academy, phil.hist. Cl. vol. v. and vi. 1854-55). Porter, Five Years in
Damascus, 2 vols. 1855. Sepp, Jerusalem (2nd ed.), ii. 358-385. Bädeker-Socin,
Palästina in Bild und Wort, vol. i. (1883) pp. 389-442 and 504. [421]a Curtius,
iii. 13, iv. 1. Arrian, ii. 11. 9 sq., 15. 1. The coins in L. Müller,
Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand, p. 287 sq., pl. n. 1338-1346. [422] Polyaen.
iv. 15; comp. Droysen, Gesch. d. Hellenismus, iii. 1. 256, 274. Stark, Gaza, pp.
366, 367. [423] Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 251 (Armenian text according to
Petermann’s translation): Ptolemaeus autem, qui et Triphon, partes (regiones)
Syriorum occupavit: quae vero apud (ad contra) Damaskum et Orthosiam obsessio
fiebat, finem accepit (accipiebat) centesimae tricesimae quartae olompiadis anno
tertio, quum Seleukus eo descendisset (descenderit). Olymp. 134, 3 = 242/241
B.C. Comp. Droysen, iii. 1. 390, 393. Stark adopts, according to Zohrab’s
translation of the Armenian text, the view of an actual taking of Damascus by
Ptolemy. [424] Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 260. [425] Hieronymus, Comment. in
Jesaj. c. 17 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iv. 194): Alii aestimant de Romana captivitate
praedici, quoniam et Judaeorum captus est populus, et Damascus, cui imperabat
Areta, similem sustinuit servitutem. I cannot think Marquardt (i. 405) correct
in adopting the notion, that the Arabian kings kept possession of Damascus in
exchange for the payment of a tribute till A.D. 106. [426] See on the coins in
general, Noris ii. 2. 2 (ed. Lips. pp. 87-93). Eckhel, iii. 329-334. Mionnet, v.
283-297; Suppl. viii. 193-206. De Saulcy, pp. 30-56, 404, pl. ii. n. 1-10.
Kremer, Die Münzsammlung des Stifts St. Florian (1871), pp. 167-170, table vi.
n. 7, 8. [427] On the title μητρόπολις, see Eckhel, iii. 331. Kuhn, ii. 192.
Marquardt, i. 430. 13. Hippus, Ἵππος, is properly the name of a mountain or
hill, on which stood the town of the same name.[428] Identical with it is
probably the Hebrew Susitha (סוסיתא), which is frequently mentioned in
Rabbinical authorities as a Gentile town of Palestine,[429] and Susije,[430]
which frequently occurs in Arabic geographers. The following statements serve to
determine the locality. According to Pliny, it stood on the eastern shore of the
Lake of Gennesareth;[431] according to Josephus, only 30 stadia from
Tiberias;[432] according to Eusebius and Jerome, near a certain city and castle
of Afeka.[433] According to these data the ruins of el-Hösn on a hill on the
eastern shore of the Lake of Gennesareth are probably to be regarded as marking
the position of the ancient Hippus; a village of the name of Fik, which must be
identical with the ancient Afeka, is three-quarters of a league off.[434] The
supposed identity of the name Hippos with el-Hösn (the horse) is certainly
questionable.[435] But little is known of the history of Hippus.[436] It
received its freedom from Pompey (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7).
It was bestowed by Augustus upon Herod (Antt. xv. 7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3),
after whose death it was again separated from the Jewish region (Antt. xvii. 11.
4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3). On this occasion it is expressly called a Greek city
(l.c.). At the outbreak of the Jewish revolt the district of Hippus as well as
that of Gadara was devastated by the Jews under the leadership of Justus of
Tiberias (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1; Vita, 9). The inhabitants of Hippus retaliated
by slaying or casting into prison all the Jews dwelling in the city (Bell. Jud.
ii. 18. 5). In Christian times Hippus was the see of a bishop.[437] The name of
the town has as yet been only once shown to exist upon coins (viz. on one of
Nero’s time).[438] But coins with the legend Ἀντιοχέων τῶν πρὸς Ἵπ(πον) τῆς
ἱερ(ᾶς) κ(αὶ) ἀσύλου have been rightly referred by numismatists to Hippus. They
have as might be expected the Pompeian era, and on most is the image of a
horse.[439]—The district of Hippus is mentioned Vita, 9, 31; Bell. Jud. iii. 3.
1. Vita, 9: Ἐμπίπρησι τάς τε Γαδαρηνῶν καὶ Ἱππηνῶν κώμας, αἳ δὴ μεθόριοι τῆς
Τιβεριάδος καὶ τῆς τῶν Σκυθοπολιτῶν γῆς ἐτίγχανον κείμεναι, is most instructive
as showing, that the districts of these four towns were so extensive as to form
a connected whole. [428] Ptolemaeus, v. 15. 8. [429] In the Tosefta, Ohaloth
xviii. 4 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 616, 23), Susitha is mentioned together with
Ascalon as an example of a heathen town “girt about” by the land of Israel. It
is elsewhere frequently named in conjunction with Tiberias. Comp. Lightfoot,
Centuria chronographica Matthaeo praemissa, c. 77; decas Marco praemissa, c. 5.
1 (Opp. ii. 226, 413). Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, pp. 238-240. [430]a
Clermont-Ganneau, Où était Hippos de la Décapole? (Revue archéologique, nouvelle
série, vol. xxix. 1875, pp. 362-369). Furrer, Zeitschr. d. deutschen
Palästina-Vereins, ii. 74. [431] Plinius, v. 15. 71: in lacum … Genesaram …
amoenis circumsaeptum oppidis, ab oriente Juliade et Hippo. [432] Joseph. Vita,
65. The statements of Josephus are here indeed very systematic, Hippus 30,
Gadara 60, Scythopolis 120 stadia from Tiberias. He is here following the
tendency of stating distances as low as possible. His figures must therefore be
anything but strictly taken. Besides it is clear also from Josephus, that the
district of Hippus lay by the lake, opposite Tarichea (Vita, 31) in the
neighbourhood of Gadara (Vita, 9). [433] Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lag. p. 219.
Hieron. ibid. p. 91. [434] The situations of Fik and el-Hösn are already
described by Burckhardt, Reisen in Syrien, i. 438. That it is here that the
ancient Hippus must be sought is the view also of Raumer, p. 250. Ritter, xv. 1.
352 sq. Furrer, Zeitschr. d. deutschen Pal.-Vereins, ii. 73 sq. Others identify
el-Hösn with Gamala, and find Hippus either in Fik (so Merrill, East of the
Jordan, 1881, pp. 168-169) or in Sumra, lying far more to the south (so Guérin,
Galilée, i. 310-312). [435]A Clermont-Ganneau (as above, p. 364) explains Hösn
as the common pronunciation of Hisn (fortress). The name occurs elsewhere also
as an Arabic local name in modern Palestine. [436] Comp. besides the literature
in note 175, Reland, p. 821 sq. [437] Epiphan. Haer. 73, 26. Le Quien, Oriens
christianus, iii. 710 sq. Hierocles, Synecd., ed. Parthey, p. 44. The Notit.
episcopat., the same, p. 144. [438]a The coin is given by Muret, Revue
Numismatique, troisième série, vol. i. 1883, p. 67, and pl. ii. n. 9. It has on
one side a head of Nero with the superscription Αυτ. Καισ., on the other a horse
with the superscription Ιππηνων and the date ΑΛΡ (131), the latter according to
the Pompeian era. [439] Noris, iii. 9. 5 (ed. Lips. pp. 331-334). Eckhel, iii.
346 sq. Mionnet, v. 319 sq.; Suppl. viii. 224. De Saulcy, pp. 344-347, pl. xix.
n. 10-15. 14. Gadara, Γαδαρά. The position of Gadara on the site of the present
ruins of Om-Keis (Mkês), to the south-east of the Lake of Gennesareth, was
recognised by Seetzen so early as 1806, and may now be regarded as settled.[440]
The main point of connection is furnished by the warm springs for which Gadara
was famous, and which are still found in this region.[441] They lie on the
northern bank of the Scheriat el-Mandur; on the southern bank, at about a
league’s distance from the springs, are found on the lofty ridge of the hill the
ruins of the town. Hence the Scheriat el-Mandur is identical with the
Hieromices, which according to Pliny flowed past the town.[442] Gadara was in
the time of Antiochus the Great already an important fortress. It was conquered
by Antiochus both at his first invasion (B.C. 218),[443] and when he finally
took possession of Palestine after his victory at Panias, B.C. 198.[444] It was
taken by Alexander Jannaeus after a ten months’ siege (Antt. xiii. 13. 3; Bell.
Jud. i. 4. 2). It consequently belonged under him and his successors to the
Jewish region (Antt. xiii. 15. 4), but was separated from it by Pompey (Antt.
xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 7). On this occasion Pompey, out of regard for his
freedman Demetrius of Gadara, rebuilt the city, which had been destroyed by the
Jews (Alexander Jannaeus?). Hence upon the numerous coins of the town extending
from Augustus to Gordian, the Pompeian era is used. It begins in the year 690
A.U.C., so that 1 aer. Gadar. = 64/63 B.C.[445] The memory of its rebuilding by
Pompey is also perpetuated upon coins from Antoninus Pius to Gordianus by the
legend Πομπηιέων Γαδαρέων.[446] The notion that Gadara was the seat of one of
the five Jewish Sanhedrin established by Gabinius is incorrect (see above, §
13). In the year 30 B.C., Gadara was bestowed upon Herod by Augustus (Antt. xv.
7. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3). The town was however very discontented with his
government. So early as the year 23-31 B.C., when M. Agrippa was staying at
Mytilene, certain Gadarenes there brought complaint against Herod (Antt. xv. 10.
2). Complaints were repeated when Augustus in the year 20 personally visited
Syria (Antt. xv. 10. 3). In both cases those who made them were dismissed. It is
quite in accordance with this, that we find Gadarene coins of just the year 20
B.C. (44 aer. Gadar.) with the image of Augustus and the inscription
Σεβαστός—Herod being desirous, by stamping such coins at Gadara, to show his
gratitude to the emperor.[447] After the death of Herod, Gadara regained its
independence under Roman supremacy (Antt. xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3). At
the beginning of the Jewish revolt the district of Gadara, like that of the
neighbouring Hippus, was devastated by the Jews under the leadership of Justus
of Tiberias (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1; Vita, 9). The Gadarenes, like their
neighbours of Hippus, avenged themselves by slaying or imprisoning the Jews
dwelling in their town (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 5). Such of the inhabitants however
as were friendly to the Romans, not feeling themselves secure against the
turbulent elements in their own city, requested and received a Roman garrison
from Vespasian in the later period of the war (Bell. Jud. iv. 7. 3, 4).[448] In
what sense Josephus can designate Gadara as the μητρόπολις τῆς Περαίας (Bell.
Jud. iv. 7. 3) cannot be further ascertained.[449] On coins, especially of the
time of the Antonines, it is called ἱε(ρὰ) ἄσ(υλος) α(ὐτόνομος) γ(…?) Κοί(λης)
Συρ(ίας).[450] According to an inscription discovered by Renan, it was during
the later imperial period a Roman colony.[451] The information of Stephanus Byz.
(s.v.), that it was also called Ἀντιόχεια and Σελεύκεια, stands quite alone, and
certainly refers only to temporary official designations, not to such as had
come into common use. There is abundant evidence that it was already in
pre-Christian times a flourishing Hellenistic town. Josephus calls it at the
death of Herod a πόλις Ἑλληνίς (Antt. xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3); Strabo
mentions as renowned natives of Gadara, Philodemus the Epicurean, the poet
Meleager, and Menippus the Cynic, who on account of his witty style was often
called ὁ σπουδογελοῖος, and Theodorus the orator.[452] Of later times must also
be added Oenomaus, the cynic and the orator Apsines.[453] Meleager says of
himself that he came of “an Attic race, dwelling in Assyrian Gadara.”[454] The
district of Gadara formed the eastern boundary of Galilee (Bell. Jud. iii. 3.
1). On its extent, comp. Vita, 9, and above, p. 100. That it reached to the Lake
of Gennesareth may not only be inferred from Matthew 8:28 (where the reading is
uncertain), but also from the coins, on which a ship is often portrayed, nay
once (on a coin of Marc. Aurel.) a ναυμα(χία) mentioned.[455] [440] Seetzen,
Reisen durch Syrien (ed. by Kruse, 4 vols. 1854-59), i. 368 sqq., iv. 188 sqq.
Burckhardt, Reisen in Syrien, i. 426 sqq., 434 sqq., 537 sq. (who indeed takes
Om-Keis for Gamala, but is corrected by his editor Gesenius). Buckingham,
Travels in Palestine, 1821, pp. 414-440 (like Burckhardt). Winer, s.v. “Gadara.”
Raumer, p. 248 sq. Ritter, xv. 1. 371-384, xv. 2. 1052 sq. Sepp, Jerusalem, ii.
211-216. Bädeker-Socin, p. 415 sq. Guérin, Galilée, i. 299-308. Merrill, East of
the Jordan (1881), pp. 145-158. For the history, Reland, pp. 773-778. Kuhn, ii.
365 sq., 371. [441] Comp. on the situation, Euseb. Onomast. p. 248: Γάδαρα,
πόλις ὑπὲρ τὸν Ἰορδάνην, ἀντικρὺ Σκυθοπόλεως καὶ Τιβεριάδος πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἐν τῷ
ὄρει, οὗ πρὸς ταῖς ὑπωρείαις τὰτῶν θερμῶν ὑδάτων λουτρὰ παράκειται. Ibid. p.
219: Αἰμάθ … κώμη πλησίον Γαδάρων, ἥ ἐστιν Ἐμμαθᾶ, ἔνθα τὰ τῶν θερμῶν ὑδάτων
θερμὰλουτρά. On the baths, see also especially the passages from Epiphanius,
Antoninus Martyr and Eunapius (who declares them to have been the most important
after those of Baiae), in Reland, p. 775. Also Origenes in Joann. vol. vi. c. 24
(ed. Lommatzsch, i. 239): Γάδαρα γὰρ πόλις μέν ἐστι τῆς Ἰουδαίας, περὶ ἣν τὰ
διαβόητα θερμὰ τυγχάνει. The place where the springs are situated occurs in the
Talmud under the name חמתה. See the passages in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, ii.
69 sq. Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 74 (Opp. ii 224 sq.).
Hamburger, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art “Heilbäder.” Grätz,
Monatschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1880, pp. 487-495. [442]
Plinius, v. 18. 74: Gadara Hieromice praefluente. The form Hieromax, which still
appears in handbooks, is derived from the incorrect reading Hieromace. That
Hieromices must be adopted as the nominative is proved by the occurrence
elsewhere of the forms Hieromicas (Tab. Peuting.) and Jeromisus (Geogr.
Ravennas, ed. Pinder et Parthey, p. 85). The native name is Jarmuk, יַרְמוּךְ,
Mishna, Para viii. 10, and Arabic geographers (see Arnold in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl. 1st ed. vii. 10, xi. 20). [443] Polyb. v. 71. Stark, Gaza, p. 381.
Polybius says of Gadara on this occasion: ἃ δυκεῖ τῶν κατʼ ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους
ὀχυρότητι διαφέρειν. [444] Polyb. xvi. 39 = Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 3. Stark, p.
403. [445] On the era and the coins, see Noris, iii. 9.1 (ed. Lips. pp.
297-308). Eckhel, iii. 348-350. Mionnet, v. 323-328; Suppl. viii. 227-230. De
Saulcy, pp. 294-303, pl. 15. Kenner, Die Münzesammlung des Stifts St. Florian
(1871), p. 171 sq., Taf. vi. n. 10. [446] As the legend is generally abbreviated
(Πο. or Πομπ. Γαδαρεων), the reading is not quite certain. The older numismatics
give for a coin of Caracalla the reading Πομπηιτεων Γαδαρεων; De Saulcy, on the
contrary (p. 302, and pl. xv. n. 9), gives Πομπηιεων Γαὸαρεων, which is
certainly correct. [447] Comp. De Saulcy, p. 295. The coins in Mionnet, v. 323;
Suppl. viii. 227. [448] From Joseph. Vita, 15, it might appear as though
Josephus also, as ruler of Galilee, had once taken possession of Gadara by
force. But the reading there should certainly be Γαβαρεῖς, instead of Γαδαρεῖς;
comp. Vita, 25, 45, 47. In Bell. Jud. iii. 7. 1, also Γαβαρέων must be read for
Γαδαρέων. Lastly, in Antt. xiii. 13. 5, either the reading is corrupt or another
Gadara is meant. [449] Eckhel (iii. 349) supposes that it was the place of
assembly of some association for the celebration of periodical games, in which
sense the word μητρόπολις is certainly often used. [450] See in De Saulcy
especially the coins of Commodus, n. 2 (p. 301), and Elagabalus, n. 5 (p. 303).
The predicate ἱερα is also found in an epigram of Meleager, where he says of
himself: ὃν θεόπαις ἤνδρωσε Τύρος, Γαδάρων θʼ ἱερὰ χθών (Anthologia palatina,
vii. 419, ed. Jacobs, vol. i. p. 431). Gadara is also designated by Steph. Byz.
as πόλις Κοίλης Συρίας. [451] Renan, Mission de Phénicie, p. 191 = Corp. Inscr.
Lat. vol. iii. n. 181 (epitaph at Byblue): col(onia) Valen(tia) Gadara. [452]
Strabo, xvi. p. 759. Strabo indeed frequently confuses our Gadara with Gadaza =
Gadara. That the latter cannot be regarded as the native place of these men is
self-evident. The individuals in question are all known to us elsewhere (see
above, p. 29). The orator Theodorus was the tutor of the Emperor Tiberius
(Sueton. Tiber. 57), and afterwards lived at Rhodes, where Tiberius frequently
visited him during his exile (Pauly’s Enc. vi. 2, 1819). [453] Reland, p. 775.
[454] Anthologia palatina, vii. 417, ed. Jacobs, vol. i. p. 480 (ed. Dübner, i.
352, where however, without reason, Γαδάροις is changed into Γάδαρα): [455] On
the latter, comp. especially Eckhel, iii. 348 sq. A ship is seen in the
illustrations in De Saulcy, pl. xv. n. 9-11. Νᾶσος ἐμὰ θρέπτειρα Τύρος· πάτρα δέ
με τεκνοῖ Ατθὶς ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις ναιομένα Γαδάροις. 15. Abila, Ἄβιλα. The local name
Abel (אָבֵל) or Abila is very frequent in Palestine. Eusebius knows of three
places of this name celebrated for the cultivation of the vine: (1) A village in
South Peraea, 6 mil. pass. from Philadelphia; (2) A πόλις ἐπίσημος, 12 mil.
pass. from Gadara; (3) A place between Damascus and Paneas.[456] Of these the
second town on the east of Gadara is the one with which we are here concerned.
Its situation, on the south bank of the Scheriat el-Mandur, was discovered, as
well as that of Gadara, by Seetzen.[457] Pliny does not mention this Abila among
the cities of Decapolis. Its inclusion among them is however evidenced by an
inscription of the time of Hadrian.[458] An Ἄβιδα by which our Ἄβιλα is
certainly intended is also placed by Ptolemy among the cities of Decapolis.[459]
It first appears in history in the time of Antiochus the Great, who occupied
Abila as well as its neighbour Gadara at both his first and his second conquest
of Palestine, 219 and 198 B.C.[460] On the whole it seems to have frequently
shared the lot of Gadara. Like the latter, Abila received its liberty through
Pompey. For the coins of Abila with the Pompeian era are rightly ascribed to
this town.[461] Its titles also are the same as those of Gadara: ἱ(ερὰ) ἄ(συλος)
α(ὐτόνομος) γ(…?) Κοί(λης) Συ(ρίας). The coins show that the town was also
called Σελεύκεια, the inhabitants were called Σελευκ(εῖς) Ἀβιληνοί.[462] In
Nero’s time Abila was given to Agrippa II., unless the notice of Josephus to
that effect rests upon an error.[463] In the sixth century after Christ
Christian bishops of Abila, who may with tolerable certainty be referred to our
Abila, are mentioned.[464] [456] Euseb. Onomast., ed. Legarde, p. 225: Ἄβελ
ἀμπέλων. ἔνθα ἐπολέμησεν Ἰεφθάε. γῆς υἱῶν Ἀμμών, ἥ ἐστιν εἰς ἔτι νῦν κώμη
ἀμπελοφόρος Ἄβελ ἀπὸ ςʹ σημείων Φιλαδελφίας. καὶ ἄλλη πόλις ἐπίσημος Ἀβελὰ
οἰνοφόρος καλουμένη, διεστῶσα Γαδάρων σημείοις ιβʹ πρὸς ἀνατολάς. καὶ τρίτη τις
αὐτὴ Ἀβελὰ τῆς Φοινίκης μεταξὺ Δαμασκοῦ καὶ Πανεάδος. [457] Seetzen, Reisen
durch Syrien (edited by Kruse), i. 371, iv. 190 sq. Comp. also Burckhardt,
Reisen in Syrien, i. 425, 537. Raumer, p. 241. Ritter, xv. 2. 1058-1060. On the
history, Reland, p. 525 sq. Kuhn, ii. 335, 371 sq. [458] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
4501 (inscription of Palmyra of the year 445 aer. Sel. = 133-134 A.D.):
Ἀγαθάγγελος Ἀβιληνὸς τῆς Δεκαπόλεος. [459] Ptolem. v. 15. 22. The Codex of
Vatopedi also has here Ἄβιδα; see Géographie de Ptolémée, reproduction
photolithogr. du manuscrit grec du monastère de Vatopédi (Paris 1867), p. lvii.
line 4. [460] Polyb. v. 71 and xvi. 39 = Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 3. [461] See on
these, especially Belley in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres, ancient series, vol. xxviii. 1761, pp. 557-567. Eckhel, iii. 345
sq. Mionnet, v. 318; Suppl. viii. 223 sq. De Saulcy, pp. 308-312, pl. xvi. n.
1-7. [462] This is now confirmed by a coin of Faustina, jun., given by De Saulcy
(p. 310, and pl. xvi. n. 2). The coins formerly known give either the
abbreviated Σε. Ἀβιληνων or (a damaged one of Faustina) … λευκ. Αβιλας, the
former of which was completed as Σεβαστων, the latter as Λευκαδος, both
erroneously, as is now shown. [463] Bell. Jud. ii 13. 2. In the parallel
passage, Antt. xx. 8. 2, Josephus says nothing of it; and it is striking that
Abila should not (like the other towns there named: Julias-Bethsaida, Tarichea,
Tiberias) be connected with the rest of Agrippa’s dominions. Besides Antt. xii.
3. 3 and Bell. Jud. ii. 13. 2 are the only passages in which our Abila is
mentioned by Josephus. For in Antt. iv. 8. 1, v. 1. 1, Bell. Jud. iv. 7. 6,
another Abila, near the Jordan, and opposite Jericho, not far from
Julias-Livias, and not identical with either of the three places of the same
name mentioned by Eusebius, is meant. Again, the well-known Abila Lysaniae is
different. Nor is the list by any means thereby exhausted. See Winer, RWB., s.v.
“Abila.” [464] Le Quien, Oriens christianus, iii. 702 sq. Comp. Hierocles,
Synecd., ed. Parthey, p. 44. Notit. episcopat., the same, p. 144. 16. Raphana,
not to be confounded with the Syrian Ῥαφάνεια in Cassiotis, is mentioned only by
Pliny (v. 18. 74).[465] The Ῥαφών however of the first Book of the Maccabees
(5:37 = Joseph. Antt. xii. 8. 4), which, according to the context of the
narrative (comp. 5:43) lay in the neighbourhood of Astaroth-Karnaim, and
therefore in Batanaea, is probably identical with it. Since Ptolemy has not the
name of Raphana among the towns of Decapolis, it is probable that he mentions
the town by another name; and it is at least possible, though only possible,
that Raphana is, as Quandt supposes, identical with the Capitolias mentioned by
Ptolemy (v. 15. 22), and so frequently elsewhere since the second century after
Christ.[466] [465] On the Syrian Raphaneia, see Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 1. 3, 5.
1. Ptolem. v. 15. 16. Tab. Peuting. Hierocles, ed. Parthey, p. 61. Steph. Byz.
s.v. Eckhel, iii. 323. Mionnet, v. 268; Suppl. viii. 168. Pauly’s Encycl. s.v.
Ritter, xvii. 1. 940 sq. [466] Quandt, Judäa und die Nachbarschaft im Jahrh. vor
und nach der Geburt Christi (1873), p. 40 sq. Capitolias was (according to Tab.
Peuting.) 16 m. p. from Adraa. Since then Raphana was in the neighbourhood of
Astaroth-Karnaim, and the latter (according to Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lag. p. 213)
6 m. p. distant from Adraa, Capitolias and Raphana may in fact be identical. The
situation of almost all these places is indeed not yet certainly determined. It
seems to me incorrect to seek Capitolias, as is frequently done, to the
south-east of Gadara. For, according to the Itinerarium Antonini (ed. Parthey et
Pinder, pp. 88, 89), it lay on the direct route from Gadara to Damascus, and
therefore to the north-east of the former. With this agree also the astronomical
definitions of Ptolemy (north-east of Gadara, under the same geographical
latitude as Hippus). The roadway too given in the l’eutinger Table,
Gadara-Capitolias-Adraa-Bostra, has therefore not a south-eastern, but a
north-eastern direction. On the whole Raumer is correct, although his more
particular determination of the locality is very problematical. Compare on
Capitolias in general, Noris, iii. 9. 4 (ed. Lips. pp. 323-331). Eckhel, 328 sq.
Mionnet, v. 281-283; Suppl. viii. 192. De Saulcy, pp. 304-307, pl. xvi. n. 9.
Reland, p. 693 sq. Ritter, xv. 356, 821, 1060. Raumer, p. 246. Seetzen, Reisen
(edited by Kruse), iv. 185 sqq. Kuhn, ii. 372. Le Quien, Oriens christ. iii. 715
sq. 17. Kanata. The existence of this town, as distinct from Kanatha, has but
recently been ascertained on the ground of inscriptions by Waddington.[467] Upon
an inscription at el-Afine (on the south-western declivity of the Hauran, to the
west of Hebran) is mentioned an ἀγωγὸς ὑδάτων εἰσφερομένων εἰς Κάνατα built by
Cornelius Palma, governor of Syria in the time of Trajan.[468] This Kanata
cannot be identical with Kanatha = Kanawat, for the latter, lying higher than
el-Afine, and being itself abundantly supplied with water, an aqueduct from
el-Afine thither is inconceivable. The situation of Kanata is however also
determined by an inscription discovered by Wetzstein at Kerak (in the plain
west-south-west of Kanawat): Διῒ μεγίστ[ῳ] Κανατηνῶν ὁ [δῆμος].[469] According
to this Kanata is identical with the present Kerak, to whose former Greek
culture other inscriptions also bear testimony.[470] The few coins of Kanata,
which were by former numismatists wrongly attributed to the better known
Kanatha, prove at least that Kanata had the Pompeian era, and therefore very
probably belonged to Decapolis.[471] The coins belong to the times of Claudius
and Domitian.[472] That Kerak was once a town is confirmed by the mention of a
βουλευτής upon an inscription.[473] On the other hand, another inscription of
the middle of the third century after Christ calls it a κώμη.[474] It had thus
already lost the rights of a town. The date on this inscription is according to
the era of the province of Arabia, hence we may conclude, that at the
establishment of this province (105 B.C.) it was allotted to it. [467] Le Bas et
Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, vol. iii., descriptions of n.
2296, 2329, and 2412d. Comp. also Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 395,
note 17. [468] Le Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. n. 2296. [469] Wetzstein,
Ausgewählte griechischc und lateinische Inschriften (Transactions of the Berlin
Academy, 1863, philol.-histor. Cl.), n. 185 = Waddington, n. 2412d. [470]
Wetzstein, n. 183-186 = Waddington, n. 2412d-2412g. [471] Belley in the Mémoires
de l’Académie des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, ancient series, vol. xxviii. 568
sqq. Eckhel, iii. 347. Mionnet, v. 231; Suppl. viii. 225. De Saulcy, p. 339 sq.,
pl. xxiii. n. 8, 9. Reichardt in the Wiener Numismat. Zeitsch. 1880, pp. 68-73.
De Saulcy and Reichardt were the first to distinguish correctly the coins of
Kanata and Kanatha. Among the older numismaticians are also other mistakes.
[472] Mionnet, Suppl. viii. 225, gives a coin of Maximinus, which however does
not belong to Kanata, but to Ascalon (see De Saulcy, p. 208). De Saulcy and
Reichardt give each a coin of Elagabalus, the reading of which is however very
uncertain. [473] Wetzstein, n. 184 = Waddington, n. 2412e. [474] Wetzstein, n.
186 = Waddington, n. 2412f. 18. Kanatha. On the western declivity of the Hauran
range is the place now called Kanawat, whose ruins are among the most important
of the country east of the Jordan. Numerous inscriptions, well preserved remains
of temples and other public buildings, prove that an important town once stood
here; and both ruins and inscriptions point to the first centuries of the Roman
imperial period. The ruins have, since Seetzen’s first hasty visit, been
frequently described.[475] The inscriptions have been most completely collected
by Waddington.[476] It is rightly and almost universally admitted, that the
Kanatha so often mentioned by ancient authors, and with which the Old Testament
קְנָת (Numbers 32:42; 1 Chronicles 2:23) is probably identical, is to be sought
for here.[477] The form of the name fluctuates between Κάναθα and Κάνωθα;
Κεναθηνός also occurs upon an inscription.[478] Apart from the Old Testament
passages, the history of Kanatha cannot be traced farther back than the time of
Pompey; its coins have the Pompeian era,[479] and it is reckoned by both Pliny
(v. 18. 74) and Ptolemy (v. 15. 23) among the towns of Decapolis. On the coins
of Commodus given by Reichardt the inhabitants are called Γαβειν(ιεῖς)
Καναθ(ηνοί); the town therefore seems to have been restored by Gabinius. Herod
experienced a mortifying defeat at Kanatha in a battle against the
Arabians.[480] On the civic constitution of Kanatha in imperial times we get
some information from inscriptions, βουλευταί being frequently mentioned,[481]
and once an ἀγορανόμος.[482] A Graeco-Latin epitaph of a Syrian merchant,
discovered in 1862 in the neighbourhood of Trevoux in France, is of special
interest. He is designated in the Greek text as βουλευτὴς πολίτης τε Κανωθαί[ω]ν
ἐ[…] Συρίης, in the Latin as decurio Septimianus Canotha.[483] What the latter
title denotes is indeed very doubtful.[484] If the Συρία of the Greek text is to
be understood in the strict sense of the province of Syria, it follows from the
combination of the two texts, that Kanatha belonged to the province of Syria
down to the time of Septimius Severus.[485] In the time of Eusebius it belonged
to the province of Arabia. It is striking that Eusebius calls it a κώμη.[486]
Could it in his time have no longer had a civic constitution?[487] A Christian
bishop of Kanotha was present at the Councils of Ephesus (A.D. 449), Chalcedon
(A.D. 451) and Constantinople (A.D. 459).[488] [475] Seetzen, Reisen durch
Syrien (edited by Kruse), i. 78 sqq., iv. 40, 51 sqq. Burckhardt, Reisen in
Syrien, i. 157 sqq., 504 sq. Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2. 931-939. Porter, Five
Years in Damascus, 1855, ii. 89-115 (with plan). Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, p.
433 sqq. (with plan). Merrill, East of the Jordan (1881), pp. 36-42. Views of
the ruins in Laborde, Voyage en Orient, Paris (1837-1845), livraison 21, 22, 26;
and in Rey, Voyage dans le Haouran et aux bords de la mer morte exécuté pendant
les années 1857 et 1858, Paris. Atlas, pl. v.-viii. (pl. vi. plan). [476] Le Bas
et Waddington, Inscriptions, vol. iii. n. 2329-2363. Older information in Corp.
Inscr. Graec. 4612-4615. Wetzstein, Ausgewählte Inschriften (Transactions of the
Berlin Academy, 1863), n. 188-193. [477] The identity of Kanatha with the
present Kanawat is best proved in Porter’s Five Years in Damascus, ii. 110 sqq.
The statements in Eusebius and the Tab. Peuting. are especially convincing.
Compare also for the history, Reland, pp. 681 sq., 689. Winer, RWB., s.v.
“Kenath.” Raumer, p. 252. Ritter, as above. Kuhn, ii. 385 sq. Waddington’s
explanations on n. 2329. [478] The form Kanatha is found in Josephus (Bell. Jud.
i. 19. 2), Plinius (v. 18. 74), Ptolemaeus (v. 15. 23), Stephanus Byz. (Lex.
s.v.), Eusebius (Onomast., ed. Lag. p. 269); on coins (see the next note),
inscriptions (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4613: Καναθηνῶν ἡ πόλις; Waddington, n.
2216: Καναθηνὸς βουλευτής; Renier, Inscr. de l’Algérie, n. 1534 and 1535 = Corp.
Inscr. Lat. vol. viii. n. 2394, 2395: cohors prima Flavia Canathenorum); also
the Tabula Peuting. (Chanata). The form Kanotha is found in Hierocles, ed.
Parthey, p. 46 (Κανοθά); a Notitia episcopal., the same, p. 92 (Κανοθάς); the
Acts of the Council of Chalcedon in Le Quien, Oriens christianus, ii. 867 (gen.
Κανώθας); an inscription in the Bullettino dell’ Instituto di corrisp. archeol.
1867, p. 204 (βουλευτὴς πολίτης τε Κανωθαί[ω]ν). Lastly, Κεναθηνός in
Waddington, n. 2343. On the present form of the name Kanawat, see Wetzstein,
Reisebericht über Hauran und die Trachonen (1860), p. 77 sq. [479] See De
Saulcy, pp. 399-401, pl. xxiii. n. 10; and especially Reichardt, Die Münzen
Kanatha’s (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschr. 1880, pp. 68-72). [480] Bell. Jud. i. 19.
2. In the parallel passage, Antt. xv. 5. 1, the place is called Κανά. [481]
Waddington, n. 2216, 2339 (= Wetzstein, n. 188). Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4613 (=
Waddington, n. 2331a). The last-named inscription was discovered by Seetzen, not
in Kanawat (as is erroneously stated in the Corp. Inscr. Graec. and in
Waddington), but in Deir el-Chlef; see Kruse in his edition of Seetzen’s
Travels, iv. 40, note. [482] Corp. Inscr. Graec. 4912 = Waddington, n. 2330.
[483] The inscription is given by Henzen in the Bullettino dell’ Institute di
corrisp. archeol. 1867, pp. 203-207. [484] See Henzen as above, and Waddington’s
explanations on 2329. [485]a So also Waddington on n. 2329, and Marquardt, i.
396. Still Marquardt is inclined, by reason of the circumstances of the
garrison, to the view that Kanatha was, in the time of Caracalla, already united
to the province of Arabia; see p. 433, note 3. [486] Euseb. Onomast., ed.
Lagarde, p. 269: Κανάθ. κώμη τῆς Ἀραβίας εἰς ἔτι Καναθὰ λεγομένη … κεῖται δὲ καὶ
ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐν Τραχῶνι πλησίον Βοστρῶν. [487]a The statements of Eusebius are
not quite trustworthy. He calls e.g. Jabis at one time πόλις (p. 225), at
another κώμη (p. 268). [488] Le Quien, Oriens christ. ii. 867. 19. Scythopolis,
Σκυθόπολις, one of the most important Hellenistic towns of Palestine, the only
one among the towns of Decapolis which lay westward of the Jordan.[489] The
ancient name of the town was Beth-sean, בֵּית שְׁאָן or בֵּית שָׁן, in the
Septuagint and in the first Book of Maccabees (v. 52, 12:40 sq.), Βαιθσάν.[490]
The ancient name was always maintained beside the Greek one,[491] nay at last
supplanted it. To this very day the desolate ruins of Beisan in the valley of
the Jordan south of the Lake of Gennesareth mark the position of the ancient
city. The name Σκυθόπολις is undoubtedly equal to Σκυθῶν πόλις, as indeed it is
frequently written.[492] The reason for this name is very obscure, probably it
must be explained as by Syncellus, by the fact that a number of Scythians
settled here on the occasion of their great invasion of Palestine in the seventh
century before Christ.[493] On the name Nysa, which Scythopolis also bore
according to Pliny, Stephanus Byz., and which is found upon coins, see above, p.
20. The town was perhaps already known by its Greek name Scythopolis in the time
of Alexander the Great, or at any rate in the third century before Christ, when
it was tributary to the Ptolemies.[494] When in 218 B.C. Antiochus the Great
invaded Palestine, the town willingly (καθʼ ὁμολογίαν) surrendered to him.[495]
Like the rest of Palestine however it did not come permanently under Syrian
dominion till twenty years later (198 B.C.). In the time of the Maccabees
Scythopolis is mentioned as a heathen town, but not as one hostile to the Jews
(2Ma_12:29-31). Towards the end of the second century (about 107 B.C.) it came
under Jewish rule, the weak Antiochus IX. (Kyzikenos) being unable to offer
effectual resistance to the advance of John Hyrcanus, nay his general Epicrates
treacherously surrendering Scythopolis to the Jews (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 10. 3;
Bell. Jud. i. 2. 7 speaks otherwise).[496] Hence we find it also in the
possession of Alexander Jannaeus (Antt. xiii. 15. 4). It was again separated
from the Jewish region by Pompey (Antt. xiv. 5. 3, xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7.
7), and restored by Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 4). It
afterwards continued to be an independent town under Roman supremacy. Nor did
either Herod or his successors ever possess the town. Its membership among the
cities of Decapolis is testified by Josephus, who calls it “one of the largest
towns of Decapolis” (Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 7: ἣ δέ ἐστι μεγίστη τῆς Δεκαπόλεως). It
is not quite certain what era it made use of. The Pompeian era is evidently used
on a coin of Gordianus; while upon others a later one seems adopted. The titles
of the town, especially upon the coins of Gordianus, are ἱερὰ ἄσυλος.[497] At
the beginning of the Jewish war, A.D. 66, the revolted Jews attacked the
district of Scythopolis (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1). The Jewish inhabitants found
themselves obliged, for the sake of safety, to fight on the side of the heathen
against their fellow-countrymen, who were attacking the town. The heathen
inhabitants however afterwards requited this alliance by faithless treachery,
luring them into the sacred grove, and then surprising them by night and
massacring them to the number, as it is said, of 13,000 (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 3,
4, vii. 8. 7; Vita, 6). When Josephus says with respect to the period of the
Jewish war, that Scythopolis was then obedient to King Agrippa (Vita, 65, ed.
Bekker, p. 341, 20: τῆς ὑπηκόου βασιλεῖ), this is certainly not to be understood
in the sense of actual subjection, but only means, that Scythopolis was on the
side of Agrippa and the Romans.[498] The district of Scythopolis must be
regarded as very extensive. At the taking of Scythopolis and Philoteria (a town
of that name on the Lake of Gennesareth of which we know nothing else) by
Antiochus the Great, in the year 218, Polybius remarks, that the district
subject to these two towns could easily furnish abundant support for the whole
army.[499] We have also similar testimony at a later date, viz. that of Josephus
(Vita, 9), that the district of Scythopolis bordered on that of Gadara (see
above, p. 88). The district of this town is also mentioned Bell. Jud. iv. 8. 2.
The subsequent history of Scythopolis, which remained for centuries an important
and flourishing town, cannot be further pursued here. On its religious rites,
games and industry, compare above, pp. 19, 27, 41. [489] See in general, Reland,
pp. 992-998. Winer, s.v. “Beth-sean.” Raumer, p. 150 sq. Pauly’s Enc. vi. 1.
729. Robinson, Palestine, iii. 326-332. Ritter, xv. 1. 426-435. Kuhn, ii. 371.
Guérin, Samarie, i. 284-299. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder
and Kitchener, ii. 83, 101-114 (with plans); also sheet ix. of the large English
chart. [490] In the Old Test., Joshua 17:11; Joshua 17:16; Judges 1:27; 1 Samuel
31:10; 1 Samuel 31:12; 2 Samuel 21:12; 1 Kings 4:12; 1 Chronicles 7:29. On the
identity of Bethsean and Scythopolis, sec Joseph. Antt. v. 1. 22, vi. 14. 8,
xii. 8. 5, xiii. 6. 1. The gloss of the LXX. on Judges 1:27. Euseb. Onomast.,
ed. Lag. p. 237. Steph. Byz. (see next note). [491] בית שאן in the Mishna, Aboda
sara i. 4, iv. 12. The adj. בישני, Pea viii. 1. Comp. Neubauer, Géographie du
Talmud, p. 174 sq. Steph. Byz. s.v. Σκυθόπολις, Παλαιστίνης πόλις ἣ Νύσσης (l.
Νύσσα) Κοίλης Συρίας, Σκυθῶν πόλις, πρότερον Βαίσων λεγόμενη ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων.
The form Beisan is contracted from Beth-sean. [492] Σκυθῶν πόλις, Judith 3:11;
2Ma_12:29; LXX. Judges 1:27. Polybius, v. 70. Aristides, ed. Dindorf, ii. 470.
[493] Syncell. ed. Dindorf, i. 405: Σκύθαι τὴν Παλαιστίνην κατέδραμον καὶ τὴν
Βασὰν (l. Βαισὰν) κατέσχον τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν κληθεῖσαν Σκυθόπολιν. On the invasion of
the Scythians, see especially Herodotus, i. 105. Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, ii.
88 sq. Pliny too and his successor Solinus derive the name from the Scythians,
but indeed from those whom the god Dionysius settled there for the protection of
the grave of his nurse: Plinius, v. 18. 74: Scythpolim, antea Nysam, a Libero
Patre sepulta nutrice ibi Scythie deductis. Solinus (ed. Mommsen), c. 36: Liber
Pater cum humo nutricem tradidisset, condidit hoc oppidum, ut sepulturae titulum
etiam urbis moenibus ampliaret. Incolae deerant: e comitibus suis Scythas
delegit, quos ut animi firmaret ad promptam resistendi violentiam, praemium loci
nomen dedit. For another and equally mythological derivation from the Scythians,
see Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 140, and Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, i. 237. In general
Steph. Byz. also explains the name by Σκυθῶν πόλις (see note 228). The
derivation from Sukkoth is obviated by the fact, that the Hebrew name of the
town is not Sukkoth but Beth-sean. [494] Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 5. Comp. above,
p. 53. It would be a more ancient testimony to the use of the Greek name, if the
reference of the letters Σκ on certain coins of Alexander the Great to
Scythopolis were certain. See L. Müller, Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand, p.
304, planches, n. 1429, 1464. [495] Polyb. v. 70. Stark, Gaza, p. 381. [496] On
the chronology, comp. above, § 8. [497] See on the coins and the era, Belley in
the Mémoires des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, ancient series, vol. xxvi. 1759, pp.
415-428. Eckhel, iii. 438-440. Mionnet, v. 511 sq.; Suppl. viii. 355 sq. De
Saulcy, pp. 287-290, pl. xiv. n. 8-13. [498] This is all that Josephus is in the
context concerned with. It is highly improbable that Scythopolis really belonged
(as Menke in his Bibel-Atlas supposes) to the dominions of Agrippa, since
Josephus in the passages in which he is describing accurately the realm of
Agrippa does not mention it. [499] Polyb. v. 70: εὐθαρσῶς ἔσχε πρὸς τὰς
μελλούσας ἐπιβολὰς διὰ τὸ τὴν ὑποτεταγμένην χώραν ταῖς πόλεσι ταύταις ῥᾳδίως
δύνασθαι παντι τʼ# στρατοπέδῳ χορηγεῖν καὶ δαψιλῆ παρασκευάζειν τὰ κατεπείγοντα
πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. 20. Pella, Πέλλα. The district of Pella is designated by
Josephus as the northern boundary of Peraea.[500] According to Eusebius, the
Jabesh of Scripture was only 6 m. p. from Pella, on the road from this latter to
Gerasa.[501] Now as Gerasa lies south of the present Wadi Jabis, Pella must have
lain a little to the north of it, and hence it is almost certain, that the
important ruins at Fahil, on a terrace over the Jordan valley opposite
Scythopolis in a south-easterly direction, mark the position of the ancient
Pella.[502] That it stood here is further borne out by the fact that Pliny
describes Pella as aquis divitem.[503] Whether the original Semitic name was
Fahil (פחלא ?), and the name Pella chosen by the Greeks on account of its
similarity of sound, may be left uncertain.[504] In any case the name Pella was
borrowed from the famous Macedonian town of the same name. The latter being the
birthplace of Alexander the Great, it is not improbable that our Pella as well
as the neighbouring Dium was founded by Alexander the Great himself, as indeed
the somewhat corrupt text of Stephanus Byz. declares.[505] According to another
passage of Stephanus Byz. our Pella was also called Βοῦτις.[506] Pella is first
mentioned in history at the conquest of Palestine by Antiochus the Great, B.C.
218, when after taking Atabyrion (Tabor) he turned towards the country east of
the Jordan and seized Pella, Kamus, and Gephrus.[507] Alexander Jannaeus
conquered and destroyed the town, because its inhabitants would not adopt
“Jewish customs” (Bell. Jud. i. 4. 8; Antt. xiii. 15. 4).[508] It was again
separated from the Jewish region by Pompey (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7.
7). The fact of its having belonged to Decapolis is attested by Eusebius and
Epiphanius as well as by Pliny and Ptolemy.[509] The few coins which have been
preserved bear, as might be expected, the Pompeian era.[510] When Pella is named
in Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 5) among the chief places of the eleven
toparchies of Judaea, this must be ascribed either to a mistake on the part of
Josephus himself or to an error in the text. At the commencement of the Jewish
war Pella was attacked by the insurgent Jews (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1). During the
war the Christian Church fled thither from Jerusalem.[511] Christian bishops of
Pella are mentioned in the fifth and sixth centuries after Christ.[512] [500]
Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 3. Peraea is here taken in its political meaning, i.e. with
the exclusion of the towns of Decapolis (comp. above, p. 2). In a geographical
sense, it reaches much farther northward, comprising e.g. even Gadara (Bell.
Jud. iv. 7. 3). [501] Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lag. p. 225: ἡ δὲ Ἰάβις ἐπέκεινα τοῦ
Ἰορδάνου νῦν ἐστὶ μεγίστῃ πόλις, Πέλλης πόλεως διεστῶσα σημείοις δʹ ἀνιόντων ἐπὶ
Γερασάν. Similarly, p. 268 (where however Jabis is more correctly called a
κώμη). [502] Comp. Robinson’s Palestine, iii. 320-325. Ritter, xv. 2. 1023-1030.
Raumer, p. 254. Guérin, Galilée, i. 288-292. Merrill, East of the Jordan (1881),
pp. 442-447. On the history, Reland, p. 924 sq. Droysen, Hellenismus, iii. 2.
204 sq. Kuhn, ii. 374. There is but slight foundation for the objection raised
by Kruse (Seetzen’s Reisen, iv. 198 sqq.) to the above determination of the
locality. Korb’s thorough discussion of the situation of Pella (Jahn’s Jahrb.
für Philologie und Paedagogik, 4th year, vol. i. 1829, pp. 100-118) places the
situation too far northward by partially placing in the foreground the
statements of Josephus, and neglecting to do justice to the more precise
statements of Eusebius. [503] Plinius, v. 18. 74. [504]a Tuch, Quaestiones de
Flavii Josephi libris historicis (Lips. 1859), p. 18, altogether regards Pella
as only the Greek pronunciation for פחלא, and scouts the idea of any connection
with the name of the Macedonian town. This is however more than improbable.
[505] Steph. Byz. ed. Meineke, s.v. Δῖον, πόλις … Κοίλης Συρίας, κτίσμα
Αλεξάνδρου, καὶ Πέλλα. The words καὶ Πέλλα are probably the gloss of some
learned reader, who thus meant to say that Pella as well as Dium was founded by
Alexander the Great. The reading ἡ καὶ Πέλλα is an erroneous emendation by some
former editor. Comp. also Droysen, iii. 2. 204 sq. A Syrian Pella is also
mentioned among the cities founded by Seleucus I. in Appian. Syr. 57, and Euseb.
Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 116 sq. According to the Latin text of Jerome: Seleucus
Antiochiam Laodiciam Seleuciam Apamiam Edessam Beroeam et Pellam urbes condidit.
So also Syncell., ed. Dindorf, i. 520, and the Armenian text of Eusebius, in
which only Seleucia is missing. By this Pella however we must probably
understand the town of Apamea on the Orontes, which was at first called by its
founder Seleucus I. Apamea, and afterwards Pella, which name was subsequently
lost (see especially Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 203 [according to Pausanias
Damascenus, comp. Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 470]; also Strabo, xvi. p.
752; Stephanus Byz. s.v. Ἀπάμεια; in Diodor. xxi. 25, Apamea occurs under the
name of Pella, see Wesseling’s note on the passage). It is true that the lists
in Appian and Eusebius mention Pella along with Apamea as though they were two
different cities. This mistake has however arisen from the circumstance, that
the change of name has been looked upon as a second founding, and treated
accordingly in the lists of foundations of towns. Hence indeed our Pella (in
Decapolis) is out of question. [506] Steph. Byz. s.v. Πέλλα, πόλις … Κοίλης
Συρίας, ἡ Βοῦτις λεγομένη. [507] Polyb. v. 70. [508]a In the last passage also
our Pella is certainly intended, and not another Moabite one. Josephus only
names Pella quite at the end of the list after enumerating the Moabite towns,
because he desires to append a special remark concerning it. Comp. Tuch,
Quaestiones, etc., pp. 17-19. [509] Plin. v. 18. 74. Ptolem. v. 15. 23. Euseb.
Onomast., ed. Lag. p. 251. Epiphanius, Haer. 29. 7; de mensuris et ponder. § 15.
[510] See Belley in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres,
ancient series, vol. xxviii. 568 sqq. Eckhel, iii. 350. Miennet, v. 329; Suppl.
viii. 232. De Saulcy, pp. 291-293, pl. xvi. n. 8. [511] Euseb. Hist. eccl. iii.
5. 2, 3; Epiphanius, Haer. 29. 7; de mensuris et ponder. § 15. [512] Le Quien,
Oriens christ. iii. 698 sq. 21. Dium, Δῖον. Among the towns of this name, of
which Steph. Byz. enumerates seven, that in Macedonia at the foot of Olympus is
the best known. Hence it is very credible, that our Dion in Coelesyria was a
foundation of Alexander the Great.[513] According to the astronomical
definitions of Ptolemy (v. 15. 23), Dium lay under the same degree of latitude
as Pella, but 1/6 of a degree farther eastward. With this agree the statements
of Josephus concerning Pompey’s route, that the Jewish king Aristobulus
accompanied Pompey on his march from Damascus against the Nabataeans as far as
Dium, that here he suddenly separated from Pompey, who therefore now turned
suddenly westward and came by Pella and Scythopolis to Judaea.[514] Little is
known of the history of Dium.[515] It was conquered by Alexander Jannaeus (Antt.
xiii. 15. 3), liberated by Pompey (Antt. xiv. 4. 4), and then belonged to
Decapolis (Plin. v. 18. 74; Ptolem. v. 15. 23). The coins of Dium, with the
legend Δειηνων, have the Pompeian era. Some of those belonging to the time of
Caracalla and Geta are still in existence.[516] The Δία mentioned by Hierocles
is certainly identical with this Dium.[517] [513] So Steph. Byz. s.v. Δῖον (see
above, note 241). Stephanus remarks ἦς τὸ ὕδωρ νοσερόν, and quotes the following
epigram:— [514] Joseph. Antt. xiv. 3. 3, 4; Bell. Jud. i. 6. 4, fin. Also
Menke’s Bibel-Atlas, sheet iv. In both passages indeed Dium first came into the
text through Dindorf’s emendations. The older editions have, Antt. xiv. 3. 3:
εἰς Δήλιον πόλιν; Bell. Jud. i. 6. 4: ἀπὸ Διοσπόλεως. As certain manuscripts
have ἀπὸ διὸς ἡλιουπόλεως (see Cardwell’s ed.) we might feel inclined to read
Heliopolis in both passages. But the context makes this impossible. [515] Comp.
Reland, p. 736 sq. Raumer, p. 247. Kuhn, iii. 382 sq. [516] See Belley in the
Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, ancient series, vol.
xxviii. 568 sqq. Eckhel, iii. 347 sq. Mionnet, v. 32; Suppl. viii. 26. De
Saulcy, pp. 378-383, pl. xix. n. 8, 9. [517] Hierocles, Synecd., ed. Parthey, p.
45. The Notitia episcopat., the same, p. 92. Also in Joseph. Antt. xii. 15. 3
the manuscripts have Δίαν. νᾶμα τὸ Διηνὸν γλυκερὸν ποτόν, ἠνιδὲ πίῃς, παύσει μὲν
δίψης, εὐθὺ δὲ καὶ βιότου. 22. Gerasa, Γέρασα. The ruins of the present
Dscharásch are the most important in the region east of the Jordan, and are
indeed (with those of Palmyra, Baalbec and Petra) among the most important in
Syria. There are still in existence considerable remains of temples, theatres
and other public buildings. About one hundred columns of a long colonnade, which
ran through the middle of the town, are still standing. The buildings seem from
their style to belong to the second or third century after Christ.[518] Few
inscriptions have as yet been published.[519] There can be no doubt that here
was the ancient Gerasa.[520] The derivation of the name from γέροντες (veterans)
of Alexander the Great, who settled here, is based only upon etymological
trifling.[521] It is certainly possible, that the foundation of Gerasa as a
Hellenistic town may reach as far back as Alexander the Great. It is first
mentioned in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, when it was in the power of a
certain Theodorus (a son of the tyrant Zeno Kotylas of Philadelphia). It was
conquered after an arduous siege by Alexander Jannaeus towards the end of his
reign.[522] It was while still defending the fortress Ragaba “in the district of
Gerasa (ἐν τοῖς Γερασηνῶν ὅροις)” that he died.[523] Gerasa was undoubtedly
liberated by Pompey, for it belonged to Decapolis.[524] At the outbreak of the
Jewish war it was attacked by the Jews (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1); yet the Jews
dwelling in the town were spared by the inhabitants (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 5). The
Gerasa conquered and destroyed by Lucius Annius at the command of Vespasian
(Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 1) cannot be this Gerasa, which as a Hellenistic town was
certainly friendly to the Romans. The few coins of Gerasa (from Hadrian to
Alexander Severus) have no era and contain no epithet of the city, They almost
all have the superscription Ἄρτεμις τύχη Γεράσων.[525] On an inscription of the
time of Trajan the inhabitants are called Ἀντιοχεῖς πρὸς τῷ Χρυσορόᾳ.[526] Upon
another inscription, also of the Roman period, the town is called Γέρασα
Ἀντιόχεια.[527] In an ethnographic sense Gerasa must be reckoned part of
Arabia,[528] but seems even in the second century after Christ to have belonged
to the province of Syria and only subsequently to have been incorporated in that
of Arabia.[529] In the fourth century after Christ it was one of the most
important towns of this province.[530] Its district was so large, that Jerome
could say, that what was formerly Gilead was now called Gerasa.[531] Famous men
of Gerasa are mentioned by Steph. Byz.[532] The names too of certain Christian
bishops are well known.[533] [518] See in general, Seetzen, Reisen, i. 388 sq.,
iv. 202 sqq. Burckhardt, Reisen, i. 401-417, 530-536 (with plan). Buckingham,
Travels in Palestine, 1821, pp. 353-405. Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2. 1077-1094.
Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 408 sqq. (with plan). Merrill, East of the Jordan,
pp. 281-290. Illustrations, Laborde, Voyage en Orient (Paris 1887 sq.),
livraison 9, 16, 34, 85. Rey, Voyage dans le Haouran et aux bords de la mer
morte exécuté pendant les années 1857 and 1858 (Paris), Atlas pl. xix.-xxiii.
(pl. xxi. plan). Duc de Luynes, Voyage d’Exploration à la mer morte à Petra et
sur la rive gauche du Jourdain, Paris s. a. (1874), Atlas, pl. 50-57. Also
Riehm’s Wörterb. s.v. “Gadara.” [519] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4661-4664. Corp.
Inscr. Lat. vol. iii. n. 118, 119. Wetzstein, Ausgewählte Inschriften (Trans. of
the Berlin Acad. 1863), n. 205-207. Böckh, Report of the Berlin Acad. 1835, p.
14 sqq. Allen, American Journal of Philology, vol. iii. (Baltimore 1882), p.
206. Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1882, p. 218 sqq.;
1883, p. 107 sq. [520] Compare on the history, Reland, p. 806 sqq. Pauly’s
Encycl. iii. 770. Winer, s.v. “Gadara.” Raumer, p. 249 sq. Ritter, as above.
Kuhn, ii. 370, 383. [521] See the passages from Jamblicus and the Etymolog.
magnum in Droysen, Hellenismus, iii. 2. 202 sq. Also Reland, p. 806. [522] Bell.
Jud. i. 4. 8. In the parallel passage Antt. xiii. 15. 3, Ἔσσαν stands instead of
Γέρασαν. The reading in Bell. Jud. is however certainly the correct one. [523]
Antt. xiii. 15. 5. Ragaba can hardly be identical with the Ἐργά of Eusebius (p.
216), which lay 15 m. p. westward of Gerasa, and was therefore certainly under
the power of Alexander Jannaeus before the conquest of Gerasa. [524] Ptolem. v.
15. 23. Steph. Byz. s.v. Γέρασα, πόλις τῆς Κοίλης Συρίας, τῆς δεκαπόλεως (for
such is the reading, as by Meineke, instead of the traditional
τεσσαρεσκαιδεκαπόλεως). Plinius, v. 18. 74, names Galasa, for which we must read
Gerasa, among the cities of Decapolis. [525] Eckhel, iii. 350. Mionnet, v. 329;
Suppl. viii. 230 sq. De Saulcy, p. 384 sq., pl. xxii. n. 1, 2. [526] Mommsen,
Berichte der sächsisch. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch., philol.-hist. Classe, vol. ii.
1850, p. 223. Waddington, n. 1722. The inscription was set up in honour of A.
Julius Quadratus, the imperial legate of Syria, and indeed in his native
Pergamos (where the inscription was discovered). The Gerasenes designate
themselves according to Waddington’s completion, [Ἀντιο]χέων τῶν [πρὸς τ]ῷ
Χρυσορόᾳ τῶν π[ρότ]ερον [Γε]ρασηνῶν ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆ[μος]. No other place in
Syria is known by the name of Chrysorrhoas except the Nahr Barada near Damascus
(Strabo, xvi. p. 755. Plin. v. 18. 74. Ptolem. v. 15. 9). It is self-evident
that this cannot, as Mommsen strangely assumes, be intended here. On the
contrary, we find that the rivulet Kerwân running through Gerasa was also called
Chrysorrhoas (see Bädeker, p. 409). [527]a American Journal of Philology, vol.
iii. (Baltimore 1882) p. 206, communicated by Allen, from a copy by Merrill. The
inscription was found in Gerasa itself. It is an epitaph consisting of four
distichs on a woman of the name of Juliana from Antioch. She died in the course
of her journey in Gerasa and was buried there, and it is said of her in the
epitaph that she will not now return to her home in Antioch. ἀλλʼ ἔλαχεν γαί[η]ς
[Γ]ερ[ά]σ[ης] μέρος Ἀντιοχείης. That the inscription belongs to the Roman period
is shown by the name Juliana. [528] Origenes in Joann. vol. vi. c. 24 (Opp. ed.
Lommatzach, i. 239), Γέρασα δὲ τῆς Ἀραβίας ἐστὶ πόλις. [529] See Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 433, note 1. [530] Ammian. Marc. xiv. 8. 13: Haec
quoque civitates habet inter oppida quaedam ingentes Bostram et Gerasam atquo
Philaaelphiam murorum firmitate cautissimas. Comp. Euseb. Onomast. p. 242.
Γέρασα, πόλις ἐπίσημος τῆς Ἀραβίας. [531]a Hieronymus in Obadjam v. 19
(Vallarsi, vi. 381): Benjamin autem … cunctam possidebit Arabiam, quae prius
vocabatur Galaad et nunc Gerasa nuncupatur. Comp. also Neubauer, Géographie du
Talmud, p. 250. [532] Steph. Byz. s.v. Γέρασα· ἐξ αὐτῆς Ἀρίστων ῥήτωρ ἀστεῖός
ἐστιν … καὶ Κήρυκος σοφιστὴς καὶ Πλάτων νομικὸς ῥήτωρ. To these must also be
added the Neo-Pythagorean philosopher and mathematician Nicomachus of Gerasa,
second century after Christ (Fabric. Bibl graec., ed. Harless, v. 629 sqq.).
[533] Epiphan. Haer. 73. 26. Le Quien, Oriens christ. ii. 859 sq. 23.
Philadelphia, Φιλαδέλφεια, the ancient capital of the Ammonites called in the O.
T. “Rabbah of the Ammonites” (רַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן), i.e. the chief city of the
Ammonites, or more shortly “Rabbah” (רַבָּה).[534] In Polybius it is called
Rabbat-Amana,[535] in Eusebius and Steph. Byz. Amman and Ammana.[536] The
situation of the town is certainly evidenced by the ruins south of Gerasa, which
to this day bear the name of Ammana. The ruins belong, like those of Kanatha, to
the Roman period.[537] The town received the name of Philadelphia from Ptolemy
II. (Philadelphus), to whom consequently its Hellenization is to be
referred.[538] In the time of Antiochus the Great it was a strong fortress,
which in the year 218 B.C. he vainly endeavoured to take by storm, and of which
he vainly unable to get possession, till a prisoner showed him the subterranean
path, by which the inhabitants came out to draw water. This being stopped up by
Antiochus, the town was forced to surrender for want of water.[539] About 135
B.C. (at the death of Simon Maccabaeus) Philadelphia was in the power of a
certain Zenos Kotylas (Antt. xiii. 8. 1; Bell. Jud. i. 2. 4). It was not
conquered by Alexander Jannaeus, though he had possession of Gerasa to the north
and Esbon to the south of it. Hence Philadelphia is not named among the towns
which were separated by Pompey from the Jewish region. It was however joined by
him to the confederacy of Decapolis[540] and had therefore the Pompeian
era.[541] It was in its neighbourhood that Herod fought against the
Arabians.[542] In A.D. 44 sanguinary contests took place between the Jews of
Peraea and the Philadelphians concerning the boundaries of a village called Mia
in our present text of Josephus, but for which Zia is probably the correct
reading (Antt. xx. 1. 1).[543] At the outbreak of the Jewish war, Philadelphia
was attacked by the insurgent Jews (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1). Upon an inscription
of the second century after Christ our Philadelphia is called Φιλαδέλφεια τῆς
Ἀραβίας.[544] This is however meant only in an ethnographical sense. For coins
down to Alexander Severus have the superscription Φιλαδελφέων, Κοίλης
Συρίας.[545] The town therefore still belonged to the province of Syria and was
probably allotted to the province of Arabia towards the close of the third
century.[546] In the fourth century it was one of the most important towns of
this province.[547] Josephus mentions the district of Philadelphia (Φιλαδελφηνή)
as the eastern boundary of Peraea (Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 3). If the supposition be
warranted, that Zia is the correct reading in Joseph. Antt. xx. 1. 1, the
district of Philadelphia must have extended to about 15 m. p. westward of the
town, in other words, full half of the land lying between the Jordan and the
town must have belonged to the Philadelphian district. [534] Deuteronomy 3:11;
Joshua 13:25; 2 Samuel 11:1; 2 Samuel 12:26-29; 2 Samuel 17:27; Jeremiah 49:2-3;
Ezekiel 21:25; Ezekiel 25:5; Amos 1:14; 1 Chronicles 20:1. On the identity of
Rabbah of the Ammonites with Philadelphia, see below the passages from Eusebius
(note 269), Steph. Byz. and Jerome (note 271). [535] Polyb. v. 71, Ῥαββατάμανα.
So too Steph. Byz. s.v. Ῥαββατάμμανα, πόλις τῆς ὀρεινῆς Ἀραβίας. [536] Euseb.
Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 215, Ἀμμᾶν ἡ νῦν Φιλαδελφία, πόλις ἐπίσημος τῆς
Ἀραβίας. Ibid. p. 219, Ἀμμών … αὔτη ἐστὶν Αμμᾶν ἡ καὶ Φιλαδελφία, πόλις ἐπίσημος
τῆς Αραβίας. Comp. ibid. p. 288, Ῥαββά, πόλις βασιλείας Ἀμμών, αὕτη ἐστὶ
Φιλαδελφία. Steph. Byz., see note 271. [537] See in general, Seetzen, Reisen, i.
396 sqq., iv. 212 sqq. Burckhardt, Reisen, ii. 612-618. Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2.
1145-1159. De Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte, 1865, i. 237 sqq. (with plan).
Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 318 sqq. (with plan). Merrill, East of the Jordan,
p. 399 sqq. Conder, Quarterly Statement, 1882, pp. 99-112. Illustrations,
Laborde, Voyage en Orient (Paris 1837 sqq.), livr. 28, 29. On the history,
besides Ritter, the article on “Rabbath Ammon” in Winer’s Realwörterb., Herzog’s
Real-Encycl. (1st ed. xii. 469 sq.), Schenkel’s Bibellex., Riehm’s WB. Kuhn, ii.
383 sq. [538] Steph. Byz. s.v. Φιλαδέλφεια … τῆς Συρίας ἐπιφανὴς πόλις, ἡ
πρότερον Ἄμμανα, εἶτʼ Ἀστάρτη, εἶτα Φιλαδέλφεια ἀπὸ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου.
Hieronymus in Ezek. c. 25 (Vallarsi, v. 285): Rabbath, quae hodie a rege Aegypti
Ptolemaeo cognomento Philadelpho, qui Arabiam tenuit cum Judaea, Philadelphia
nuncupata est. L. Müller (Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand, p. 309, pl. n. 1473
sqq.) refers certain coins of Alexander the Great, with the letters Φι to our
Philadelphia. Although it would not be impossible for coins with the name of
Alexander to be issued in the days of Ptolemy II. (see note 150, above), yet the
correctness of this explanation seems to me very questionable. Philoteria e.g.
(Polyb. v. 70) might be intended. [539] Polyb. v. 71. Conder found in his
surveys at Amman a path, which is possibly identical with that mentioned by
Polybius, see Athensæum, 1883, n. 2905, p. 832: The discovery at Ammân. Comp.
also Quarterly Statement, 1882, p. 109. [540] Plinius, v. 18. 74. [541] Chron.
paschale (ed. Dindorf, i. 351), ad Olymp. 179. 2 = 63 B.C., Φιλαδελφεῖς ἐντεῦθεν
ἀριθμοῦσι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν χρόνους. The era is also frequently found upon coins. See
Noris, iii. 9. 2 (ed. Lips. pp. 308-316). Eckhel, iii. 351. Mionnet, v. 330-333;
Suppl. viii. 232-236. De Saulcy, pp. 386-392, pl. xxii. n. 3-9. [542] Bell. Jud.
i. 19. 5. In the parallel passage Antt. xv. 5. 4, Philadelphia is not mentioned.
[543] A village of Zia lying 15 m. p. west of Philadelphia is mentioned by
Eusebius, Onomast. p. 258, καὶ ἔστι νῦν Ζία κώμη ὡς ἀπὸ ιεʹ σημείων Φιλαδελφίας
ἐπὶ δυσμάς. The supposition that Zia is the correct reading in this passage has
been already expressed by Reland (p. 897), Havercamp (on Joseph. l.c.) and Tuch,
Quaestiones de Fl. Josephi libris historicis, Lips. 1859, p. 19 sq. [544] Le Bas
et Waddington, Inscr. vol. iii. n. 1620b; comp. above, p. 25. [545] See Mionnet,
Suppl. viii. 236. De Saulcy, p. 392. [546] Comp. Marquardt, i. 433, note 1.
[547] Ammian. Marcellin. xiv. 8. 13 (see above, note 264). Comp. also the
passages from Eusebius (note 269). It is an undoubted fact, that all the cities
hitherto described formed independent political communities, which—at least
after the time of Pompey—were never internally blended into an organic unity
with the Jewish region, but were at most externally united with it under the
same ruler. Almost all of them had a chiefly heathen population, which after the
third century before Christ became more and more Hellenistic in its character.
It was only in Joppa and Jamnia and perhaps Azotus, that the Jewish element
obtained during and after the Maccabean period the ascendancy. But even these
towns with their respective districts formed both before and after that time
independent political units.—To the same category belonged also, as Kuhn
correctly admits,[548] the towns which were refounded by Herod and his sons. It
is true, that in many of these the population was mainly Jewish. But even where
this was the case, the constitution was of Hellenistic organization, as is shown
especially in the case of Tiberias. In most of them however the heathen
population preponderated. Hence we must not assume, that they were organically
incorporated with the Jewish realm, but that they occupied within it au
independent position similar to that of the older Hellenistic towns. Nay in
Galilee, where it was indeed impregnated with heathen elements, the Jewish
country seems, on the contrary, to have been subordinate to the newly built
capitals—first to Sepphoris, then to Tiberias, then again to Sepphoris (see the
articles concerning them), Among the towns built by Herod certainly the two most
important were Sebaste, i.e. Samaria, and Caesarea, the latter of which has been
already spoken of (No. 9). Of less importance were Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in
Peraea (Antt. xv. 8. 5), which must also be regarded as chiefly heathen towns,
for at the outbreak of the Jewish war they, like Ptolemais and Caesarea, Gerasa
and Philadelphia, were attacked by the insurgent Jews (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1).
Lastly, we have to mention as towns founded by Herod, Antipatris and Phasaelis,
Kypros named together with the latter being a mere castle near Jericho and not a
πόλις (Bell. Jud. i. 21. 9; Antt. xvi. 5. 2), which also applies to the
fortresses of Alexandreion, Herodeion, Hyrcania, Masada and Machaerus. Among the
sons of Herod, Archelaus founded only the village (κώμη) of Archelais.[549]
Philip, on the other hand, built Caesarea = Panias and Julias = Bethsaida, and
Herod Antipas the cities of Sepphoris, Julias = Livias and Tiberias. These ten
cities still remain to be treated of: [548] Die städtische und bürgerliche
Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 346-348. [549] Comp. Joseph. Antt. xvii. 13. 1;
Antt. xviii. 2. 2. Pilnius, xiii. 4, 44. Ptolem. v. 16. 7. According to the
Tabula Peutinger., Archelais lay on the road from Jericho to Scythopolis 12 m.
p. from Jericho and 24 m. p. from Scythopolis. See also Robinson’s Palestine,
iii. 569. Ritter, xv. i. 457. Guérin, Samarie, i. 235-238. The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 387, 395 sq., and sheet xv. of
the chart. 24. Sebaste = Samaria.[550] The Hellenization of the town of Samaria
(Hebr. שֹׁמְריֹן) was the work of Alexander the Great. The Samaritans had during
his stay in Egypt, B.C. 332-331, assassinated Andromachus his governor in
Coelesyria. Consequently when Alexander returned from Egypt (B.C. 331), he
executed strict justice upon the offenders and planted Macedonian colonists in
Samaria.[551] The Chronicle of Eusebius speaks also of a refoundation by
Perdiccas,[552] which could only have taken place during his campaign against
Egypt (B.C. 321); this is however very improbable so soon after the colonization
by Alexander the Great. As in old times so now also Samaria was an important
fortress. Hence it was levelled by Ptolemy Lagos, when in the year B.C. 312 he
again surrendered to Antigonus the land of Coelesyria, which he had shortly
before conquered.[553] Some fifteen years later (about 296 B.C.) Samaria, which
had meanwhile been restored, was again destroyed by Demetrius Poliorcetes in his
contact with Ptolemy Lagos.[554] Thenceforward we are for a long time without
special data for the history of the town. Polybius indeed mentions, that
Antiochus the Great in both his first and second conquest of Palestine 218 and
198 B.C. occupied the country of Samaria,[555] but the fate of the town is not
further indicated. It is of interest to find, that the country of Samaria, under
the Ptolemies as well as under the Seleucidae, formed like Judaea a single
province, which again was subdivided into separate νομοί.[556] Towards the end
of the second century before Christ, when the Seleucidian Epigonoi were no
longer able to prevent the encroachments of the Jews, the town fell a victim to
their policy of conquest; and Samaria—then a πόλις ὀχυρωτάτη—was again conquered
in the reign of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 107) by his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus
after a siege of a year, and entirely given up to destruction (Antt. xiii. 10.
2, 3; Bell. Jud. i. 2. 7).[557] Alexander Jannaeus had possession of the town or
its ruins (Antt. xiii. 15. 4). It was separated from the Jewish region by Pompey
and never henceforth organically combined with it (Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud.
i. 7. 7). Its rebuilding was the work of Gabinius (Antt. xv. 14. 3; Bell. Jud.
i. 8. 4), on which account its inhabitants were for a while called
Γαβινιεῖς.[558] The town was bestowed upon Herod by Augustus (Antt. xv. 7. 3;
Bell. Jud. i. 20. 3); and by his means it first regained prosperity. For while
it had hitherto been a comparatively small though strong town, its extent was so
greatly increased by Herod, that it was now twenty stadia in circumference and
not inferior to the most important towns. In the city thus enlarged Herod
settled six thousand colonists, composed partly of disbanded soldiers, partly of
people from the neighbourhood. The colonists received excellent estates. The
fortifications too were rebuilt and extended, and finally the town obtained
also, by the erection of a temple to Augustus and other magnificent edifices,
the splendour of modern culture.[559] Herod gave to the newly-rebuilt town the
name of Σεβαστή (Antt. xv. 8. 5; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 2. Strabo, xvi. p. 860) in
honour of the emperor, who had recently assumed the title of Augustus. The coins
of the town bear the inscription Σεβαστηνῶν or Σεβαστηνῶν Συρ(ίας) and a special
era commencing with the year of the rebuilding of the city, i.e. according to
the usual view 25 or perhaps more correctly 27 B.C.[560] The town is also
mentioned in Rabbinical literature by its new name of Sebaste (סבסטי).[561] When
Josephus says, that Herod granted it “an excellent constitution,” ἐξαίρετον
εὐνομίαν (Bell. Jud. i. 21. 2), he makes indeed no great addition to our
knowledge. It is however probable from other reasons, that the country of
Samaria was subordinated to the town of Sebaste precisely as Galilee was to the
capitals Sepphoris and Tiberias respectively and Judaea was to Jerusalem. For on
the occasion of the tumults of the Samaritans under Pilate a “council of
Samaritans,” Σαμαρέων ἡ βουλή, is mentioned, which seems to point to a United
organization of the country (Antt. xviii. 4. 2).[562] Sebastenian soldiers
served in the army of Herod and embraced the party of the Romans against the
Jews in the conflicts which broke out at Jerusalem after his death (Bell. Jud.
ii 3. 4, 4. 2, 3; comp. Antt. xvii. 10. 3). At the partition of Palestine after
the decease of Herod, Sebaste with the rest of Samaria fell to Archelaus (Antt.
xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3), after whose banishment it remained for a time
under Roman procurators, was then temporarily under Agrippa, and then again
under procurators. During this last period Sebastenian soldiers formed a main
element in the Roman troops stationed in Judaea (see above, p. 65). At the
outbreak of the Jewish war Sebaste was attacked by the insurgent Jews (Bell.
Jud. ii 18. 1). The town of Sebaste, with its chiefly heathen population, then
remained as during the disturbances that followed the death of Herod (Antt.
xvii. 10. 9; Bell Jud. ii. 5. 1) undoubtedly on the side of the Romans, while
the native Samaritans in the district of Sichem certainly occupied a difficult
position (Bell. Jud. iii. 7. 32). Sebaste became a Roman colony under Septimius
Severus.[563] But its importance henceforth declined before the prosperity of
Neapolis = Sichem.[564] Eusebius and Stephanus Byz. still call Sebaste only “a
small town.”[565] Its district was nevertheless so large, that it comprised e.g.
Dothaim, which lay 12 m. p. northward of the town.[566] [550] Compare in
general, Reland, pp. 979-983. Pauly’s Encycl. vi. 1. 727 sq. Winer, s.v.
“Samaria.” Raumer, p. 159 sq. Robinson’s Palestine, iii. 126, 127. Ritter,
Erdkunde, xvi. 658-666. Guérin, Samarie, ii. 188-210. Bädeker-Socin, p. 354 sqq.
Sepp, Jerusalem, ii. 66-74. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder
and Kitchener, ii. 160 sq., 211-215 (with plan), also sheet xv. of the large
English chart. [551] Curtius, Rufus, iv. 8: Oneravit hunc dolorem nuntius mortis
Andromachi, quern praefecerat Syriae: vivum Samaritae cremaverant. Ad cujus
interitum vindicandum, quanta maxime celeritate potuit, coutendit, advenientique
sunt traditi tanti sceleris auctores. Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 114 (ad
ann. Abr. 1680, according to the Armenian): Andromachum regionum illorum
procuratorem constituit, quem incolae urbis Samaritarum interfecerunt: quos
Alexander ab Egipto reversus punivit: capta urbe Macedonas ut ibi habitarent
collocavit.—So too Syncell., ed. Dindorf, i. 496: τὴν Σαμάρειαν πόλιν ἑλὼν
Ἀλέξανδρος Μακεδόνας ἐν αὐτῇ κατῴκισεν. [552] See below, note 287, and also
Droysen, iii. 2. 204. Ewald’s Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iv. p. 293. [553]
Diodor. xix. 93. Comp. above, note 52 (Gaza), 109 (Joppa), 151 (Ptolemais).
[554] Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 118 (ad Olymp. 121. 1 = 296 B.C. according
to the Armenian): Demetrius rex Asianorum, Poliorcetes appellatus, Samaritanorum
urbem a Perdica constructam (s. incolis frequentatam) totam cepit. Syncell., ed.
Dindorf, i. 519: Δημήτριος ὁ Πολιορκητὴς τὴνπόλιν Σαμαρέων ἐπόρθησεν. So too i.
522. Comp. Droysen, ii. 2. 243, 255. Stark, p. 361. [555] Polyb. v. 71. 11, xvi.
49 = Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 3. [556] See in general, Antt. xii. 4. 1, 4;
1Ma_10:30; 1Ma_10:38; 1Ma_11:28; 1Ma_11:34. [557] On the chronology, comp.
above, § 8. [558] Cedrenus, ed. Beker, i. 323: τὴν τῶν Γαβινίων (l. Γαβινιέων)
πόλιν, τήν ποτε Σαμάρειαν (Herodes) ἐπικτίσας Σεβαστὴν αὐτὴν προσηγόρευσε.
Cedrenus here indeed mistakes Herod the Great for Herod Antipas and the latter
again for Herod Agrippa. [559] Considerable remains of a large colonnade running
along the hill, the building of which is probably to be ascribed to Herod, are
still in existence. See the literature cited in note 283. [560] On the date of
the rebuilding, see § 15. On the coins in general, Noris, v. 5 (ed. Lips. pp.
531-536). Eckhel, iii. 440. Mionnet, v. 513-516; Suppl. viii. 356-359. De
Saulcy, pp. 275-281, pl. xiv. n. 4-7. [561] Mishna, Arachin iii. 2 (the
“pleasure gardens of Sebaste,” פרדסוח סבסטי, are here adduced as an example of
specially valuable property, See the commentary of Bartenora in Surenhusius’
Mishna, v. 198). Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 171 sq. [562]a On the
constitution and political position given by Herod to the town; see especially
Kuhn, Ueber die Entstehung der Städte der Alten (1878), pp. 422 sq., 428 sqq.
[563] Digest, lib. xv. 1. 7 (from Ulpianus): Divus quoque Severus in Sebastenam
civitatem coloniam deduxit. On coins, COL. L. SEP. SEBASTE. Comp. Eckhel, iii.
441. Zumpt, Commentationes epigr. i. 432. Kuhn, ii 56 The coins in Mionnet and
De Saulcy, as above. [564] Ammianus Marcellinus, xiv. 8. 11, names Neapolis, but
not Sebaite, among the most important towns of Palestine. Comp. above, note 88.
[565] Euseb. Onomast. p. 292: Σεβαστήν, τὴν νῦν πολίχνην τῆς Παλαιστίνης. Steph,
Byz. s.v. Σεβαστή … ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ Σαμαρείτιδι πολίχνιον. [566] Euseb.
Onomast. p. 249: Δωθαείμ … διαμένει ἐν ὁρίοις Σεβαστῆς, ἀπέχει δὲ αὐτῆς σημείοις
ιβʹ ἐπὶ τὰ βόρεια μέρη. 25. Gaba, Γάβα or Γαβά. The name corresponds to the
Hebrew גֶּבַע or גִּבְעָה, a hill, and is a frequent local name in Palestine. We
are here concerned only with a Gaba, which according to the decided statements
of Josephus stood on Carmel, and indeed in the great plain near the district of
Ptolemais and the borders of Galilee, and therefore on the north-eastern
declivity of Carmel (see especially, Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 1, and Vita, 24). Herod
here settled a colony of retired knights, on which account the city was also
called πόλις ἱππέων (Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 1; Antt. xv. 8. 5).[567] From the manner
in which the town is mentioned in the two passages, Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 1; Vita,
24, it is evident that it did not belong to the district of Galilee. Its
population being chiefly heathen, it was attacked by the Jews at the beginning
of the Jewish insurrection (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1), while on the other hand it
took an active part in the struggle against the Jews (Vita, 24). This town is
probably the Geba on Carmel mentioned by Pliny.[568] Whatever other material has
been adduced to the contrary by scholars with respect to Gaba, has served to
complicate rather than throw light upon the questions concerning its situation
and history.[569] A Gabe 16 m. p. from Caesarea is mentioned by Eusebius, but
the distance stated is too short to suit the situation north-east of
Carmel.[570] Still more improbable is it, that the coins with the superscription
Κλαυδι(έων) Φιλιπ(πέων) Γαβηνῶν belong to our Gaba. These titles point rather to
a Gaba, which had belonged to the Tetrarch Philip;[571] and the Gabe, mentioned
by Pliny as near Caesarea Panias, may be identical with it.[572] Lastly, which
Gaba the Γάβαι in Palaestina secunda, mentioned by Hierocles, may be, must be
left uncertain.[573] Guérin thinks he has discovered our Gaba in the village of
Sheikh Abreik upon a hill near Carmel, with the situation of which the
statements of Josephus certainly agree.[574] [567] The latter passage (Antt. xv.
8. 5) is according to the usual text: ἔν τε τῷ μεγάλῳ πεδίῳ, τῶν ἐπιλέκτων
ἱππέων περὶ αὐτὸν ἀποκληρώσας, χωρίον συνέκτισεν ἐπίτετῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ Γάβα
καλούμενον καὶ τῇ Περαίᾳ τὴν Ἐσεβωνῖτιν. According to this it might be supposed
that Herod had founded three colonies: 1. an unknown place in the great plain;
2. a place called Gaba in Galilee; and 3. Esebonitis in Peraea. The two first
are, however, certainly identical; the τε after ἐπί must be omitted, and the
meaning of ἐπὶ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ is, as the whole context shows, “for the controlling
of Galilee.” This also confirms the view, that Gaba lay on the eastern declivity
of Carmel. For the rest, the reading here, as well as in Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 1,
fluctuates between Γαβα and Γαβαλα, but the former is preferable. [568] Plinius,
H. N. v. 19. 75. [569] See in general, Reland, p. 769. Pauly’s Encycl. iii. 563.
Kuhn, Die städt. und bürgerl. Verf. ii. 320, 350 sq. The same, Ueber die
Entstehung der Städte der Alten, p. 424. Quandt, Judäa und die Nachbarschaft im
Jahrh. vor und nach der Geburt Christi (1873), p. 120 sq. [570] Euseb. Onomast.,
ed. Lagarde, p. 246: καὶ ἔστι πολίχνη Γαβὲ καλουμένη ὡς ἀπὸ σημείων ιςʹ τῆς
Καισαρείας et alia villa Gabatha in finibus Diocaesareae παρακειμένη τῷ μεγάλῳ
πεδίῳ τῆς Λεγεῶνος. The words here interpolated in Latin from Hieronymus have
been omitted from the text of Eusebius through homoioteleuton. Through their
omission it came to appear, that the little town of Gabe was 16 m. p. from
Caesarea, and yet at the same time in the great plain of Legeon (Megiddo), which
is not possible. The Gabe of Eusebius seems, on the contrary, to be identical
with Jeba, which is marked on the large English chart directly north of Caesarea
on the western declivity of Carmel. Map of Western Palestine, sheet viii. to the
left, above; also Memoirs, ii. 42, where indeed this Jeba is identified with
πόλις ἱππέων. [571] See on the coins, Noris, iv. 5. 6 (ed. Lips. pp. 458-462).
Eckhel, iii. 344 sqq. Mionnet, v. 316-318; Suppl. viii. 220-222. De Saulcy, pp.
339-343, pl. xix. n. 1-7. The coins have an era commencing somewhere between 693
and 696 A.U.C. [572] Plinius, H. N. v. 18. 74. [573] Hierocles, Synecd., ed.
Parthey, p. 44. [574] Guérin, Galilé, i. 395-397. Sheikh Abreik lies upon an
isolated eminence close to Carmel, under the same degree of latitude as
Nazareth. Compare The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, i. 343-351, also the English map, sheet v. It is certainly incorrect
to seek for Gaba in the situation of the present Jebata, as Menke does in his
Bibel-Atlas. The latter is much too far from Carmel, in the midst of the plain;
and is, on the contrary, identical with the Gabatha of Eusebius (see note 302).
26. Esbon or Hesbon, Hebr. חֶשְׁבּוֹן, in the LXX. and Eusebius Ἐσεβών, Josephus
Ἐσσεβών, later Ἐσβοῦς. The town lay, according to Josephus, 20 m. p. east of the
Jordan, opposite Jericho.[575] With this agrees exactly the situation of the
present Hesbân, east of Jordan, under the same degree of latitude as the
northern point of the Dead Sea, where ruins are also found.[576] Hesbon is
frequently mentioned as the capital of an Amorite kingdom.[577] In Isaiah and
Jeremiah, on the other hand, it appears as a Moabite town.[578] And as such it
is also mentioned by Josephus even in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, by whose
victories it was incorporated in the Jewish region (Antt. xiii. 15. 4). Its
further history cannot be accurately followed. At all events it was in the
possession of Herod, when he refortified it for the control of Peraea, and
placed in it a military colony (Antt. xv. 8. 5).[579] The district of Esbon is
mentioned as the eastern boundary of Peraea by Josephus, hence it did not in a
political sense belong to Peraea.[580] At the outbreak of the Jewish war, it was
attacked by the insurgent Jews (Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1). At the creation of the
province of Arabia, A.D. 105, Esbon, or as it was now called Esbus, was probably
forthwith awarded to it, for Ptolemy already speaks of it as belonging to
Arabia.[581] The few coins as yet known are those of either Caracalla or
Elagabalus.[582] It was an important town in the time of Eusebius,[583] and
Christian bishops of Esbus (Esbundorum, Ἐσβουντίων) are mentioned in the fourth
and fifth centuries.[584] [575] Euseb. Onomast. p. 253: Ἐσεβών … καλεῖται δὲ νῦν
Ἐσβοῦς, ἐπίσήμος πόλις τῆς Ἀραβίας, ἐν ὄρεσι τοῖς ἀντικρὺ τῆς Ἱεριχοῦς κειμένη,
ὡς ἀπὸ σημείων κʹ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. [576] See Seetzen, Reisen, i. 497, iv. 220 sqq.
Burckhardt, Reisen, ii. 623 sq., 1063. Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 2. 1176-1181. De
Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte (1865), i. 279 sqq. (with a plan of the ruins).
Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, p. 318. On the history, Reland, p. 719 sq. Raumer, p.
262. The articles on “Hesbon,” in Winer, Schenkel, Riehm, Herzog’s Real-Encycl.
1st ed. vi. 21 sq. Kuhn, Die städt. und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 387, 386 sq.
[577] Numbers 21:26 sqq.; Deuteronomy 1:4; Deuteronomy 2:24 sqq., Deuteronomy
3:2 sqq., Deuteronomy 4:46; Joshua 9:9; Joshua 12:2 sqq., Joshua 13:10; Joshua
13:21; Judges 11:19 sqq. Comp. also Jdt_5:15. [578] Isaiah 15:4; Isaiah 16:8-9;
Jeremiah 48:2; Jeremiah 48:34-35; Jeremiah 49:3. [579] Thus certainly must the
passage cited be understood; see on its tenor, note 299. The form Ἐσεβωνῖτις is
the designation of the district of Esbon. The town itself is called Ἑσεβών or
Ἐσσεβών. Σεβωνῖτις occurs for Ἐσεβωνῖτις, Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1, iii. 3. 3. See
the following note. [580] Σεβωνῖτις is certainly the reading, as in Bell. Jud.
ii. 18. 1, instead of Σιλβωνῖτις. In Menke’s Bibel-Atlas, sheet v., Essebon is
correctly placed outside Peraea; on the other hand, it is incorrectly allotted
to the Nabataean realm instead of to that of Herod the Great. It is possible
that after the death of Herod it may have fallen into the hands of the Arabians,
as e.g. Machaerus also temporarily belonged to them (Antt. xviii. 5. 1). The
circumstance that Esbon, after the erection of Arabia to the rank of a province,
belonged thereto favours this supposition. Less convincing is the mention of the
Esbonitae Arabes in Plinius, v. 11. 65, since this is only said in an
ethnographical sense. In any case the Σεβωνῖτις formed in the time of Josephus a
town district proper, which though perhaps subject to the Arabians, was still
distinct from the other Arabias, Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 3. [581] Ptolem. v. 17. 6.
The town is here called Ἔσβουτα (so also the Codex of Vatopedi, see Géographie
de Ptolémée, reproduction photolithographique, etc., Paris 1867, p. lvii.
below), which however is properly the accusative form of Ἔσβους. [582] Eckhel,
iii. 503. Mionnet, v. 585 sq.; Suppl. viii. 387. De Saulcy, p. 393, pl. xxiii.
n. 5-7. [583] See above, note 307. Eusebius also frequently mentions the town
elsewhere in the Onomasticon. See Lagarde’s Index, s.v. εσβουν, εσεβουν and
εσεβους. [584] Le Quien, Orient christianus, ii. 863. 27. Antipatris,
Ἀντιπατρίς.[585] The original name of this town was Καφαρσαβά,[586] or
Καβαρσαβά,[587] sometimes Καπερσαβίνη,[588] Hebrew כפר סבא, under which name it
also occurs in Rabbinical literature.[589] Its situation is evidenced by the
present Kefr-Saba, north-eastward of Joppa, the position of which agrees with
the statements of ancient writers concerning Antipatris, that it was 150 stadia
from Joppa,[590] at the entrance of the mountainous district,[591] and 26 m. p.
south of Caesarea, on the road thence to Lydia.[592] Herod here founded in a
well-watered and well-wooded plain a new city, which he called Antipatris in
honour of his father Antipater (Antt. xvi. 5. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 9). The town
is also mentioned in Rabbinical literature under this name, אנטיפטרט;[593] also
by Ptolemy, Eusebius, and Stephanus Byzantinus.[594] It was much reduced in the
fourth century after Christ, being spoken of in the Itinerar. Burdig., not as a
civitas, but only as a mutatio (stopping place), and designated by Jerome as a
semirutum opidulum.[595] Yet a Bishop of Antipatris still occurs in the Acts of
the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451.[596] Its existence in these later times is
also elsewhere evidenced.[597] Nay, so late as the eighth century after Christ
it is still spoken of as a town inhabited by Christians.[598] [585] See on the
subject generally, Reland, p. 569 sq., 690. Pauly’s Enc. i. 1. 1150. Kuhn, ii.
351. Winer, s.v. “Antipatrie.” Raumer, p. 147. Robinson’s Palestine, ii. p. 242,
iii. pp. 138, 139. Ritter, xvi. 569-572. Guérin, Samarie, ii. 357-367; comp. ii.
132 sq. Wilson, Quarterly Statement, 1874. pp. 192-196. The Survey of Western
Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 134, 258-262; the English map,
sheets x. and xiii. Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, vol. ii. p. 452. [586] Joseph.
Antt. xvi. 5. 2. [587] Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 1. The reading here fluctuates
between Καβαρσαβα, Χαβαρσβα, and Χαβαρζαβα. [588] Such is undoubtedly the
reading instead of και περσαβινη in the passage of the Chronicon Paschale, ed.
Dindorf, i. 367: ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ Ἀνθηδόνα ἐπικτίσας Ἀγρίππειαν ἐκάλεσεν, ἔτι δὲ
καὶ περσαβίνην εἰς ὄνομα Ἀντιπάτρου τοῦ ἰδίου πατρός. Comp. Reland, pp. 690,
925. In the parallel passage in Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 595, it is said: ἔτι
τε Παρσανάβαν εἰς τιμὴν Ἀντιπάτρον τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἀντιπατρίδα ὠνόμασε. [589]
Tosefta, Nidda 649. 35 (ed. Zuckermandel); Bab. Nidda 61a; Jer. Demai ii. 1,
fol. 22c. Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, ii. 637, art. “Kephar
Saba.” [590] Antt. xiii. 15. 1. [591] Bell. Jud. i. 4. 7. [592] The Itinerarium
Burdigalense (in Tobler and Molinier, Itinera, etc., p. 20) gives the distance
from Caesarea to Antipatris at 26 m. p., that from Antipatris to Lydda at 10 m.
p. The former number agrees almost exactly with the situation of Kefr-Saba, the
latter is in consequence of a clerical error too little. The general situation
of Antipatris, as on the road from Caesarea to Lydda, is also elsewhere
testified; see Antt. xxiii. 31; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 19. 1, 9, iv. 8. 1.
Hieronym. Peregrinatio Paulae (in Tobler, Palaestinae descr. p. 13). The reasons
brought forward by Guérin, Wilson, Conder, and Mühlau (Riehm’s Wörterb.) against
the identity of Kefr-Saba and Antipatris do not seem to me decisive. [593]
Mishna, Gittin vii. 7; Bab. Gittin 76a. Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo praemissa,
c. 58 (Opp. ii. 214). Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, pp. 86-90. Hamburger,
Real-Encycl. ii. 63, art. “Antipatris.” [594] Ptolemaeus, v. 16. 6. Eusebius,
Onomast. pp. 245, 246. Steph. Byz. s.v. [595] See the passages cited, note 324.
[596] Le Quien, Oriens christianus, iii. 579 sq. [597] Hierocles, Synecd. (ed.
Parthey) p. 43. The Notitia episcopat. (the same), p. 143. [598] Theophanis,
Chronographia, ad ann. Dom. 743 (ed. Bonnens. i. 658). 28. Phasaelis,
Φασαηλίς.[599] It was in honour of his brother Phasael that Herod founded in the
Jordan valley, in a hitherto untilled but fertile region, which was thus gained
for cultivation, the city of Phasaelis (Antt. xvi. 5. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 9).
After his death the town, with its valuable palm plantations, came into the
possession of his sister Salome (Antt. xviii. 8. 1, 11. 5; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3);
and after her death into that of the Empress Livia (Antt. xviii. 2. 2; Bell.
Jud. ii. 9. 1). Pliny speaks of the excellent dates obtained from the palm trees
growing there.[600] The town is also mentioned by Ptolemy, Stephanus Byz., and
the geographers of Ravenna.[601] Its name has been preserved in the present
Karbet Fasail on the edge of the plain of the Jordan, in a fertile district. The
stream flowing thence to the Jordan is called Wadi Fasail.[602] [599] See in
general, Reland, p. 953 sq. Pauly’s Enc. v. 1439. Raumer, p. 216. Robinson’s
Palestine, i. p. 569, iii. p. 293. Ritter, xv. 1. 458 sq. Guérin, Samarie, i.
228-232. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii.
388, 392; and the large English map, sheet xv. [600] Plinius, H. N. xiii. 4. 44:
Sed ut copia ibi atque fertilitas, ita nobilitas in Judaea, nec in tota, sed
Hiericunte maxume, quamquam laudatae et Archelaide et Phaselide atque Liviade,
gentis ejusdem convallibus. [601] Ptolem. v. 16. 7. Steph. Byz. s.v. Geographus
Ravennas, edd. Pinder et Parthey (1860), p. 84. The town is also mentioned in
the Middle Ages (in Burchardus and Marinus Sanutus), see the passages in Guérin,
Samarie, i. 231 eq. [602] See especially the large English map, sheet xv., and
the description in Guérin and Conder, as above. 29. Caesarea Panias.[603] Τὸ
Πάνειον properly means the grotto dedicated to Pan at the source of the
Jordan.[604] It is first mentioned under this name by Polybius in the time of
Antiochus the Great, who there gained (198 B.C.) over the Egyptian general
Scopas the decisive victory, in consequence of which all Palestine fell into his
hands.[605] Even this early mention would lead us to infer a Hellenization of
the place in the third century before Christ. In any case the population of the
surrounding district, as its farther history also shows, was chiefly non-Jewish.
In the early times of Herod the country of Πανιάς (as it was called from the
Pan-Grotto there) belonged to a certain Zenodorus, after whose death, in the
year 20 B.C., it was given by Augustus to Herod (see above, § 15), who built a
splendid temple to Augustus in the neighbourhood of the Pan-Grotto (Antt. xv.
10. 3; Bell. Jud. i. 21. 3). The place, which lay there, was originally called
like the country, Πανιάς or Πανεάς.[606] It was first, however, transformed into
a considerable town by Philip the Tetrarch, the son of Herod, who rebuilt it and
called it Καισάρεια, in honour of Augustus (Antt. xviii. 2. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 9.
1). This refoundation belongs to the early times of Philip; for the coins of the
town have an era, the commencement of which probably dates from the year 3 B.C.
(751 A.U.C.), or at latest 2 B.C. (752 A.U.C.).[607] After the death of Philip,
his realm was for a few years under Roman administration, then under Agrippa I.,
then again under Roman procurators, and at last, in A.D. 53, under Agrippa II.,
who enlarged Caesarea and called it Νερωνιάς in honour of Nero (Antt. xv. 9. 4),
which name is occasionally found on coins.[608] That the town was then also
chiefly a heathen one appears from Joseph. Vita, 13. Hence both Titus and
Vespasian passed their times of repose during the Jewish war amidst games and
other festivities at this place.[609] The name Neronias seems never to have been
naturalized. In the first century after Christ this Caesarea was, to distinguish
it from others, usually called Καισάρεια ἡ Φιλίππου;[610] its official
designation upon coins, especially of the second century, is Καισ(άρεια)
Σεβ(αστὴ) ἱερ(ὰ) καὶ ἄσυ(λος) ὑπὸ Πανείω.[611] Elsewhere it has generally been
called since the second century Καισάρεια Πανιάς, which name also predominates
on coins of the third.[612] Since the fourth the name of Caesarea has been
wholly lost, and the town called only Panias.[613] This seems besides to have
always remained its prevailing name among the native population,[614] as it is
also that chiefly used (in the form פנייס) in Rabbinic literature.[615] When the
“villages of Caesarea Philippi” (αἱ κῶμαι Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου) are mentioned
in the New Testament, Mark 8:27, of course the genitive here expresses not a
merely “local reference” of the villages to the town,[616] but shows that they
belong and are subject to it,—in other words, that Caesarea had, like each of
these towns, a district of its own which it governed. [603] See on the general
subject, Reland, pp. 918-922. Winer’s RWB. and Schenkel’s Bibellex. s.v.
“Caesarea.” Kuhn, ii. 334. Robinson’s Palestine, iii. 397-413. Ritter, Erdkunde,
xv. 1. 195-207. Guérin, Galilée, ii. 308-323. The Survey of Western Palestine,
Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 95, 109-113, 125-128; the large English map,
sheet ii. Ebers and Guthe, Palästina in Bild und Wort, i. 356-366. Views of the
Pan-Grotto in the Duc de Luynes Voyage d’ Exploration, etc., Atlas, plates 62,
63. Inscriptions, Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 4537-4539. Le Bas et Waddington,
Inscriptions, vol. iii. n. 1891-1894. [604] The Paneion is described as a grotto
(σπήλαιον, ἄντρον) in Joseph, Antt. xv. 10. 3. Bell. Jud. i. 21. 3, iii. 10. 7:
δοκεῖ μὲν Ἰορδάνου πηγὴ τὸ Πανίου. Steph. Byz. s.v. Πανία. The mountain was
called by the same name as the grotto Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 17: ἐν ταῖς
ὑπωρείαις τοῦ καλουμένου Πανίου ὄρους (Τὸ Πάνειον is properly an adjective
requiring as a complement either ἄντρον or ὄρος. [605] Polybius, xvi. 18,
xxviii. 1. [606] Πανιάς or Πανεάς is properly an adjective and indeed the fem.
of Πάνειος (as ἀγριάς, λευκάς, ὀρειάς are the poetic feminines of ἄγριος,
λευκός, ὄρειος). Hence the same word serves to designate both the country (where
χώρα is the complement, Antt. xv. 10. 3, xvii. 8. 1. Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 1.
Plinius, v. 18. 74: Panias in qua Caesarea) and the town or village (where πόλις
or κώμη is the complement, Antt. xviii. 2. 1). [607] See Noris, iv. 5. 4. (ed.
Lips. pp. 442-453). Eckhel, iii. 339-344. Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione (Rome 1793), iii. 2, p. 322 sqq. The coins in Mionnet, v. 311-315;
Suppl. viii. 217-220. De Saulcy, pp. 313-324, pl. xviii. The addition to the
Chronicle of Eusebius, which transposes the foundation to the time of Tiberius,
is of no value. See below, note 390. Also Jerome in the Chronicle and Comment.
on Matth. xvi. 13 (see note 345). [608] Mionnet, v. 315. De Saulcy, pp. 316,
318. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 116, 117. The same, Coins of the
Jews, pp. 145, 146. [609] Joseph. Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 7, vii. 2. 1. [610] Matthew
16:13; Mark 8:27. Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 4; Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 7, vii. 2. 1; Vita,
13. [611] See the literature cited in note 339, especially Mionnet and De
Saulcy. [612] Ptolem. v. 15. 21, viii. 20. 12 (Καισάρεια Πανιάς). Corp. Inscr.
Graec. n. 4750 (upon the statue of Memnon at Thebes), and n. 4921 (at Philoe),
both times Καισαρείας Πανιάδος. Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions, vol. iii. n.
1620b (at Aphrodisias in Caria in the second century after Christ). Καισάρειαν
Πανιάδα. Tabula Peuting. (Caesareapaneas). Geographus Ravennas, edd. Pinder et
Parthey, p. 85. The coins in De Saulcy, pp. 317, 322 sq. [613] Eusebius, who
frequently mentions the town in the Onomasticon, always calls it Πανεάς only
(see the Index in Lagarde’s edition). And this is generally its name in
ecclesiastical literature; see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. vii. 17, 18. Hieron. in
Jesaj. xlii. 1 sqq., ed. Vallarsi, iv. 507 (in confinio Caesareae Philippi, quae
nunc vocatur Paneas). Idem in Ezek. xxvii. 19, ed. Vall. v. 317 (ubi hodie
Paneas, quae quondam Caesarea Philippi vocabatur); Idem in Matt. xvi. 13, ed.
Vall. vii. 121 (in honorem Tiberii (sic !) Caesaris Caesaream, quae nunc Paneas
dicitur, construxit). Sozom. v. 21. Philostorg. vii. 3 (comp. also Müller,
Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 546). Theodoret. Quaest. (see the passages in Reland, p.
919). Malalas, ed. Dindorf, p. 237. Glycas Theophanes (see the passages in
Reland, p. 922). Photius, Cod. 271, sub fin. The Acts of the Councils (in Le
Quien, Oriens christianus, ii. 831). Hierocles, Synecd., ed. Parthey, p. 43.
Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae, § 13 (ed. Gildemeister 1882). On the
supposed status of Christ at Paneas, see also Gieseler, Kirchengesch. i. 1. 85
sq. [614] Comp. Euseb. H. E. vii. 17: ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλίππου Καισαρείας, ἣν Πανεάδα
Φοίνικες προσαγορεύουσι. [615] Mishna, Para viii. 11; Tosefta, Bechoroth p. 542,
1, ed. Zuckermandel (in both passages the “Grotto of Panias,” מערת פנייס, is
mentioned). Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 1752. Levy, Chald. Wörterbuch, ii. 273 sq.
Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 67 (Opp. ii. 220). Neubauer,
Géographie du Talmud, pp. 236-238. The corrupted form פמייס does not belong to
the usage of the living language, but in the first instance to a later text. In
the passages cited from the Mishna the best authorities still have פנייס (so
Aruch, Cod. de Rossi 138, Cambridge University Additional, 470. 1). In Aruch
this form only is everywhere quoted. [616] So Winer, Grammatik, § 30. 2. 30.
Julias, formerly Bethsaida.[617] In the place of a village called Bethsaida,
lying to the north of the Lake of Gennesareth, a new town was built by Philip,
who called it Ἰουλιάς, in honour of Julia the daughter of Augustus (Antt. xviii.
2. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 1). Its situation eastward of the Jordan, just before
the latter flows into the Lake of Gennesareth, is placed beyond doubt by the
repeated and concurrent statements of Josephus.[618] The foundation of this city
also must have taken place in the earlier times of Philip. For in the year 2
B.C. (752 A.U.C.) Julia had already been banished by Augustus to the island of
Pandateria,[619] and it is not conceivable, that Philip should, after that date,
have named a town after her.[620] Of its subsequent history, nothing is known
but that it was given by Nero to Agrippa II. (Antt. xx. 8. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 13.
2). It is mentioned in Pliny, Ptolemy and the geographers of Ravenna.[621] From
the manner in which Josephus speaks of it (Antt. xviii. 2. 1), it might appear
as though Philip had only altered the name of the village of Bethsaida into
Julias, and thus, that the new place too was only a κώμη.[622] In another
passage however he explicitly distinguishes Julias from the surrounding villages
as a πόλις, hence the former was properly speaking a πόλις from the time of its
rebuilding. The question as to whether the Bethsaida of the New Testament was
identical with this—a question recently again decided in the
affirmative[623]—must here be left undiscussed. [617] See in general, Reland,
pp. 653 sqq., 869. Raumer, p. 122. Winer, s.v. “Bethsaida.” Kuhn, ii. 352.
Robinson, ii. pp. 405, 406, iii. pp. 358, 359. Ritter, xv. 1. 278 sqq. Guérin,
Galilée, i. 329-338. Furrer in the Zeitsch. of the German Pal.-Vereins, ii.
66-70. [618] See especially, Bell. Jud. iii. 10. 7; also Antt. xviii. 2. 1 (on
the Lake of Gennesareth); Vita, 72 (near the Jordan); Antt. xx. 8. 4; Bell. Jud.
ii. 13. 2 (in Peraea). Also Plinius, H. N. v. 15. 71, mentions Julias on the
eastern shore of the Lake of Gennesareth. [619] Velleius, ii. 100. Dio Cassius,
Leviticus 10. Comp. Sueton. Aug. 65. Tac. Annal. i. 53. Pauly’s Enc. v. 844 sq.
Lewin, Fasti sacri (1865), n. 961. [620] So also Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione, p. 327 sqq. Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 953. The Chronicle of Eusebius
erroneously places the foundation of Julias in the time of Tiberius; see below,
note 390. [621] Plinius, v. 15. 71. Ptolem. v. 16. 4. Geogr. Ravennas, edd.
Pinder et Parthey, p. 85. [622] Antt. xviii. 2. 1: κώμην δὲ Βηθσαϊδάν, πρὸς
λίμνῃ δὲ τῇ Γεννησαρίτιδι, πόλεως παρασχὼν ἀξίωμα πλήθει τε οἰκητόρων καὶ τῇ
ἄλλῃ δυνάμει, Ἰουλίᾳ θυγατρὶ τῇ Καίσαρος ὁμώνυμον ἐκάλεσεν. [623] Holtzmann,
Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1878, p. 383 sq. Furrer in the Zeitsch. of the German
Päl.-Ver. ii. 66-70. Against this identity, see especially Reland, Raumer and
Winer, as above. 31. Sepphoris, Σεπφώρις.[624] The Semitic form of this name
fluctuates between צִפּוֹרִין and צִפּוֹרִי. Perhaps the former is the older,
the latter the abbreviated form.[625] With the former correspond the Greek and
Latin Σεπφουρίν, Saphorim, Safforine;[626] with the latter Σαπφουρεί,
Sapori.[627] Josephus constantly uses the Graecized form Σεπφώρις. On coins the
inhabitants are called Σεπφωρηνοί.[628] The earliest mention is found in
Josephus in the beginning of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, when Ptolemy
Lathurus made an unsuccessful attempt to take Sepphoris by force (Antt. xiii.
12. 5). When Gabinius, about 57-55 B.C., divided the Jewish region into five
“Synedria,” he transferred the Synedrium for Galilee to Sepphoris (Antt. xiv. 5.
4; Bell. Jud. i. 8. 5); which shows that this town must then have been the most
important town of Galilee. It is also mentioned as a place of arms at the
conquest of Palestine by Herod the Great, who was only able to take it without
difficulty, because the garrison of Antigonus had evacuated the place (Antt.
xiv. 15. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 16. 2). At the insurrection, after the death of Herod,
Sepphoris seems to have been a main seat of the rebellion. Varus despatched
thither a division of his army, burnt the town and sold its inhabitants as
slaves (Antt. xvii. 10. 9; Bell. Jud. ii. 5. 1). This makes a turning-point in
its history; from a Jewish town adhering to the national party it now became a
town friendly to the Romans, with probably a mixed population. For Herod
Antipas, to whose possession it was transferred, rebuilt it and made it “the
ornament of all Galilee” (Antt. xviii 2. 1): πρόσχημα τοῦ Γαλιλαίου παντός. But
its population was—as was shown by its attitude during the great war, A.D.
66-70—no longer anti-Roman and hence no longer purely Jewish.[629] It is perhaps
this change, which is referred to in a passage of the Mishna, in which the
“ancient government of Sepphoris” is assumed to have been a purely Jewish
one.[630] At its rebuilding by Herod Antipas, Sepphoris seems to have been also
raised to the rank of capital of Galilee.[631] [624] See in general, Reland, pp.
999-1003. Pauly’s Enc. vi. 1. 1050. Raumer, p. 139. Kuhn, ii. 372. Robinson’s
Palestine, iii. 111, 112. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. 748 sq. Guérin, Galilée, i.
369-376. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i.
279 sq., 330-338; also sheet v. of the English map. [625] The place does not
occur in the Old Testament, but very frequently, on the other band, in
Rabbinical literature. In the Mishna it is found in the four following places:
Kiddushin iv. 5; Baba mezia viii. 8; Baba bathra vi. 7; Arachin ix. 6; very
often in the Tosefta (see the Index in Zuckermandel’s edition). Comp. also
Lightfoot, Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 82, 83 (Opp. ii. 229 sqq.). Neubauer,
Géographie du Talmud, ii. 1115. The orthography fluctuates between צפורין (or,
which is the same, ציפורין, צפורים) and (ציפורי) צפורי. The Cod. de Rossi 138
has in all the four places in the Mishna ציפורין; the Cambridge manuscript too
(University Additional, 470. 1) has throughout the plural form. This also
appears to be the prevailing form in the Jerusalemite Talmud (see the quotations
in Lightfoot, as above). Elsewhere, on the contrary, צפורי predominates,
especially in the Tosefta (according to Zuckermandel’s edition). [626]
Σεπφουρίν, Epiphan. Haer. 30. 11 (ed. Dindorf). Saphorim, Hieronymus praef. in
Jonam (Vallarsi, vi. 390). Safforine, Hieran. Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 88. In
John 11:54 the Greek and Latin text of the Cod. Cantabr. has the addition
Σαπφουρειν, Sapfurim, after χώραν. [627] Σαπφουρεἰ, Ptolem. v. 16. 4 (the Codex
of Vatopedi has Σαπφουρεί without the addition ἢ Σαπφουρίς; see Géographie de
Ptolémée reproduction photolithographique, etc., p. lvii.). Sapori, Geographus
Ravennas, edd. Pinder et Parthey, p. 85. [628] See Eckhel, iii. 425. Mionnet,
482. De Saulcy, p. 325 sq., pl. xvii. n. 1-4. [629]a That it was however still
chiefly Jewish is evident especially from Bell. Jud. iii. 2. 4: προθύμους σφᾶς
αὐτοὺς ὑπέσχοντο κατὰ τῶν ὁμοφύλων συμμάχους. [630] Kiddushin iv. 5. It is here
said, that every one is to be esteemed an Israelite of pure blood, who can prove
his descent from a priest or Levite, who has actually ministered as such, or
from a member of the Sanhedrim; nay every one whose ancestors were known to have
been public officials or almoners, in particular, according to Rabbi Jose, every
מי שהיה החום בארכי הישנה של ציפורין. In explanation of this difficult passage we
remark that חָתוּם, properly, “sealed,” is here equivalent to “confirmed,
acknowledged, accredited by documents” (compare the use of σφραγίζω, John 3:33;
John 6:27). The word עֵד, which the common text has after חתום, must according
to the best MSS. be expunged. ארכי = ἀρχή ישנה is certainly not the local name
Jeshana (for which older commentators have taken it), but the adjective “old.”
Hence two explanations are possible. Either—1. “Every one, who (with respect to
his ancestors) was recognised in the old government of Sepphoris as a member
thereof.” It would then be assumed that all the members of the old government
were Israelites of pure blood. Or 2. “Every one, who was acknowledged by the old
government of Sepphoris,” viz. as an Israelite of pure blood. In this case also
the old government of Sepphoris would be assumed to consist of purely
Israelitish officials. The first explanation seems to me to be preferable
according to the context. It may certainly be questionable, when the ancient
purely Jewish government of Sepphoris was replaced by another of mixed or
heathen composition. This might have taken place in the time of Hadrian, when
much may have been changed in consequence of the Jewish insurrection, at about
which period also, it should be observed, Sepphoris received the new name of
Diocaesarea (see below). According to all indications however, it seems to me
probable, that Sepphoris so early as its rebuilding by Herod Antipas was no
longer a purely Jewish town. Consider also the coins with the image of Trajan!
[631] Josephus says, Antt. xviii. 2. 1: ἦγεν αὐτὴν αὐτοκρατορίδα. This alone
tells us nothing more than that he granted it its autonomy (αὐτοκρατορίδα =
κὐτόνομον). But subsequent history makes it probable, that the rest of Galilee
was then already subordinated to it. The explanation of αὐτοκρατορίς as capital
can hardly be conceded. Some MSS. have αὐτοκράτορι, whence Dindorf conjectures:
ἀνῆκεν αὐτὴν αὐτοκράτορι, “he dedicated it to the emperor.” This rank was
however afterwards bestowed by the same prince upon the newly built city of
Tiberias, to which Sepphoris was subordinate.[632] It so continued until
Tiberias was, in the reign of Nero, separated from Galilee and bestowed upon
Agrippa II., when Sepphoris consequently again occupied the position of capital
of Galilee.[633] Thus these two towns alternately assumed the same position with
respect to Galilee, that Jerusalem did with respect to Judaea (see below, § 2).
Sepphoris was at that time the most important fortress in Galilee,[634] and,
after Tiberias, the largest town in the province.[635] Hence, at the outbreak of
the Jewish war, it was of the greatest consequence, that just this town did not
participate in the insurrection, but remained from the beginning on the side of
the Romans. So early as the time when Cestius Gallus marched against insurgent
Jerusalem, Sepphoris took up a friendly position towards him.[636] It remained
also faithful to its Romish tendencies during the winter of A.D. 66/67, when
Josephus was organizing the insurrection in Galilee.[637] Josephus therefore
took possession of it by force, in doing which he was unable to prevent its
being plundered by his Galilaean troops.[638] Cestius Gallus consequently sent a
garrison to the oppressed town, by which Josephus was repulsed, when he for the
second time entered it by force.[639] Vespasian soon after arrived in Galilee
with his army, and Sepphoris entreated and again received from him a Roman
garrison.[640] We have but fragmentary information of the further history of the
town. Its inhabitants are, on coins of Trajan, still called Σεπφωρηνοί. Soon
after however it received the name of Diocaesarea, which appears on coins since
Antoninus Pius. Its official designation upon coins is: Διοκαι(σάρεια) ἱερὰ
ἄσ(υλος) καὶ αὐτό(νομος).[641] The name of Diocaesarea remained the prevailing
one in Greek authors,[642] though its original appellation continued to exist,
and at last banished the new one.[643] The district of Diocaesarea was so
extensive, that it included e.g. the village of Dabira on Mount Tabor.[644]
[632] Vita, 9, Justus said of Tiberias: ὡς ἡ πόλις ἐστὶν ἀεὶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας,
ἄρξειεν δὲ ἐπί γε τῶν Ἡρώδου χρόνων τοῦ τετράρχου καὶ κτίστου γενομένου,
βουληθέντος αὐτοῦ τὴν Σεπφωριτῶν πόλιν τῇ Τιβεριέων ὑπακούειν. [633] Vita, 9:
ἄρξαι γὰρ εὐθὺς τὴν μὲν Σεπφώριν, ἐπειδὴ Ῥωμαίοις ὑπήκουσε, τῆς Γαλιλαίας. [634]
Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 11: ἡ καρτερωτάτη τῆς Γαλιλαίας πόλις Σεπφώρις. Comp. Bell.
Jud. iii. 2. 4. The ἀκρόπολις is mentioned Vita, 67. Comp. Mishna, Arachin ix.
6: קצרה הישנה של ציפורין, “the old citadel of Sepphoris.” Tosefta, Shabbath, p.
129, 27th ed. Zuckermandel, קצטרא שבציפורי. [635] Vita, 65 (ed. Bekker, p. 340,
32): τῶν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ πόλεων αἱ μεγίσται Σεπφώρις καὶ Τιβεριάς. Vita, 45: εἰς
Σεπφώριν, μεγίστην τῶν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ πόλιν. Bell. Jud. iii. 2. 4: μεγίστην μὲν
οὖσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας πόλιν, ἐρυμνοτάτῳ δὲ ἐπεκτισμένην χωρίῳ. Accordiug to Vita,
25, Tiberias, Sepphoris and Gabara were the three largest towns of Galilee.
[636] Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 11. [637] Joseph. Vita, 8, 22, 25, 45, 65. Two passages
indeed in the Bell. Jud. seem to contradict this: according to Bell. Jud. ii.
20. 6, Josephus committed to the Sepphorites themselves the charge of fortifying
their town, because he found them in other respects “ready for war” (προθύμους
ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεμον), i.e. against the Romans; and according to Bell. Jud. ii. 21.
7, Sepphoris, at the outbreak of the conflict between Josephus and the more
fanatical war party, stood on the side of the latter. The true relation however
between these two facts is seen from the more special statements of the Vita.
The Sepphorites alleged their readiness to attach themselves to the cause of the
revolution, solely for the purpose of keeping off from themselves the whole
revolutionary party; and fortified their city not against, but for the Romans
(see especially, Vita, 65). And when in the winter of 66/67 they had remained a
long time without Roman protection, they were obliged to tack between the two
revolutionary parties, which were mutually attacking each other, and as far as
possible to take up a friendly position towards both (see Vita, 25, and
especially, Vita, 45), to which circumstance what is said in Bell. Jud. ii. 21.
7 may be reduced. [638] Vita, 67. [639] Vita, 71. The remark, Vita, 15: δὶς μὲν
κατὰ κράτος ἑλὼν Σεπφωρίτας, refers to this double capture of Sepphoris. [640]
Vita, 74; Bell. Jud. iii. 2. 4, 4. 1. The former garrison sent by Cestius Gallus
had meantime either withdrawn or was now replaced or strengthened by the troops
of Vespasian. [641] See on the coins in general, Noris, v. 6, fin. (ed. Lips.
562-564). Eckhel, iii. 425 sq. Mionnet, v. 482 sq.; Suppl. viii. 331 sq. De
Saulcy, pp. 325-330, pl. xvii. n. 1-7. On a supposed coin of Seleucus I.
(Nikator), Eckhel, iii. 426. Mionnet, v. 4. On the identity of Sepphoris and
Diocaesarea, Epiphan. Haer. 30. 11, fin. Hieronymus, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p.
88. Idem, praefat. in Jonam (Vallarsi, vi 390). Hegesippus, De bello Jud. i. 30.
7. [642] Eusebius, in Onomast., calls the town exclusively Διοκαισάρεια (see the
Index in Lagarde). Compare also, beside the literature cited in the preceding
note, Socrates, Hist. eccl. ii. 33. Sozom. Hist. eccl. iv. 7. Theophanes,
Chronographia, ed. Bonnens. i. 61. Cedrenus, ed. Bekker, i. 524. Le Quien,
Oriens christ. iii. 714. [643] On the continued use of the name Sepphoris, see
above, notes 357-359. The place is still called Sefurije. [644] Euseb. Onomast.
p. 250: Δαβειρά … ἐν τῷ ὄρει Θαβώρ, ἐν ὁρίοις Διοκαισαρείας, Gabatha, the
present Jabata, about 7-8 mil. pass. from Diocaesarea, also belonged to its
district. See above, note 302. 32. Julias or Livias.[645] In the Old Testament,
a place called Beth-haram (בֵּית הָרָם or בֵּית הָרָן), in the country east of
the Jordan, in the realm of the Amorite kings of Hesbon, is mentioned (Joshua
13:27; Numbers 32:36). In the Jerusalemite Talmud בית רמתה is stated to be the
more modern name of this Beth-haram;[646] and both Eusebius and Jerome identify
the scriptural Beth-haram with the Βηθραμφθά or Bethrhamtha, which was known to
them.[647] The Βηθαράμαθος, where Herod the Great had a palace, which was
destroyed during the insurrection after his death, is at any rate identical with
the latter.[648] It was this very Bethramphtha, which was rebuilt and fortified
by Herod Antipas, and called Julias in honour of the wife of Augustus (Joseph.
Antt. xviii. 2. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 1). Eusebius and others give the name as
Livias instead of Julias,[649] and the town is elsewhere frequently mentioned by
this name.[650] Since the wife of Augustus was called by her own name Livia
during his lifetime, and did not bear the name of Julia till she was admitted
into the gens Julia by his testament,[651] we must conclude that Livias was the
older name of the town, and that this was after the death of Augustus altered
into that of Julias; but that this new official appellation was, as in the case
of Caesarea Philippi and Neronias, unable to banish the older and already
nationalized name. Only Josephus uses the official designation Julias. He still
mentions the town by this name at the time of the Jewish war, when it was
occupied by Placidus, a general of Vespasian.[652] The situation of the town is
most accurately described by Theodosius, the Palestinian pilgrim (sixth
century), and after him by Gregory of Tours: it lay beyond Jordan, opposite
Jericho, 12 m. p. from that town, in the neighbourhood of the warm springs.[653]
With this Eusebius, who places it opposite Jericho on the road to Hesbon,
coincides.[654] Its cultivation of dates is as much celebrated by Theodosius as
by Pliny.[655] [645] See in general, Reland, pp. 642, 874. Pauly’s Enc. iv.
1107. Winer, RWB. i. 171 (s.v. “Beth-haram”). Raumer, p. 260. Ritter, xv. 538,
578, 1186. Seetzen, Reisen, iv. 224 sq. Riehm’s Wörterb. s.v. Beth-haram. Kuhn,
Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 352 sq. Id. Ueber die Entstehung der
Städte der Alten (1878), p. 426. Tuch, Quaestiones de Flavii Josephi libris
historicis (1859), pp. 7-11. [646] Jer. Shebiith 38d (on Mishna, Shebiith ix. 2;
see the passage also in Reland, pp. 306-308). Peraea is here divided into three
parts, according to its physical conditions of mountain, plain, and valley (הר,
שפלה and עמק). In the mountainous part lies e.g. Machaerus, in the plain Hesbon,
in the valley בית הרן and בית רמתה .בית נמרה and בית נמרין are then stated to be
the more modern names of these last two places. In the Tosefta (p. 71, 22rd ed.
Zuckermandel) the two places are called בית נמרה רמתא. Has the בית been here
omitted before רמתא, or could the place have been called simply רמתא? [647]
Euseb. Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 234. Hieronymus, ibid. p. 103. [648] Bell. Jud.
ii. 4. 2. In the parallel passage, Antt. xvii. 10. 6, the name is corrupted.
Instead of ἐν Ἀμαθοῖς, as the traditional text has it, we must read either ἐν
Ἀραμαθοῖς (with the omission of Beth, so Tuch, Quaestiones, etc., p. 10) or just
ἐν Βηθαραμαθοῖς. [649] Euseb. Onomast. p. 234: Βηθραμφθά … αὐτὴ δὲ ἐστὶν ἡ νῦν
καλουμένη Λιβιάς, Hieronymus, ibid. p. 103: Bethramtha … ab Herode in honorem
Augusti Libias coguominata. Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 148 sq.: Herodes
Tiberiodem condidit et Liviadem (according to Jerome, also the Armenian).
Synecd., ed. Dindorf, i. 605: Ἡρώδης ἔκτισε Τιβεριάδα εἰς ὂνομα Τιβερίου
Καίσαρος, ὁ αὐτὸς Λιβιάδα. [650] Plinius, H. N. xiii. 4. 44. Ptolemaeus, v. 16.
9 (Λιβιάς according to the Cod. of Vatopedi). Euseb. in Onomast. frequently.
Hierocles, Synecd., ed. Parthey, p. 44. The Notitia episcopat., the same, p.
144. The Acts of the Councils (Le Quien, Oriens christ. iii. 655 sq.). The Vita
S. Joannis Silentiarii (in the Acta Sanctorum, see the passage in Reland, p.
874). Geographus Ravennas, ed. Pinder et Parthey, p. 84 (Liviada as nominat.).
Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae, § 65, ed. Gildemeister, 1882 (Liviada as
nominat.). Gregor. Turon. De gloria martyr. i. 18. On the nominative formation
Liviada, see Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata, p. 258 sq. [651] On the testament of
Augustus, see Tacit. Annal. i. 8: Livia in familiam Juliam nomenque Augustum
adsumebatur. The name Julia for Livia is found in authors (see e.g. Tacit.
Annal. i. 14, v. 1. Sueton. Calig. 16; Dio Cassius, lvi. 46. Plinius, H. N. x.
55. 154. Joseph. frequently), and upon coins and inscriptions. See Pauly’s Enc.
iv. 484, 1116. Palestinian coins of Julia, see in Madden, History of Jewish
Coinage, pp. 141-151. The same, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 177-182. [652]
Bell. Jud. iv. 7. 6, 8. 2. The town is not elsewhere mentioned by Josephus. For
in Antt. xx. 8. 4, Bell. Jud. ii. 13. 2, it is certainly Julias = Betheaida,
which is intended; and in Antt. xiv. 1. 4, Λιβιάς is probably the same place,
which is called Λέμβα in Antt. xiii. 15. 4, where it is questionable which form
is correct. Comp. Tuch, as above, pp. 11, 14. The Λυσιάς of Strabo, p. 763,
which also lay in the same district, and is distinct from Livias, might also be
compared, since it existed in the time of Pompey. [653] Theodosius, De situ
terrae sanctae (ed. Gildemeister, 1882), § 65: Civitas Liviada trans Jordanem,
habens de Hiericho milia xii.… ibi aquae calidae sunt, ubi Moyses lavit, et in
ipsis aquis calidis leprosi curantur. Gregr. Turon. De gloria martyrum, i. 18:
Sunt autem et ad Levidam (elsewhere Leviadem) civitatem aquae calidae … ubi
similiter leprosi mundantur; est autem ab Hiericho duodecim millia. [654] Euseb.
Onomast., ed. Lagarde, pp. 213, 216, 233. Comp. also the passage from the Vita
S. Joannis Silentiarii in Reland, p. 874. The data furnished are sufficient for
an approximate determination of the locality, but there is as yet no certain
foundation for more accurately fixing it. [655] Plinius, H. N. xiii. 4. 44 (see
above, note 332). Theodosius, l.c.: ibi habet dactulum nicolaum majorem; also
the note of Gildemeister. 33. Tiberias, Τιβεριάς.[656] The most important work
of Herod the Great was the building of a new capital on the western shore of the
Lake of Gennesareth, which he called Τιβεριάς in honour of the Emperor Tiberius.
It was situated in a beautiful and fertile district in the neighbourhood of
celebrated warm springs (Antt. xviii. 2. 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 1; compare above,
§ 17‌b).[657] Its building took place considerably after that of Sepphoris and
Livias. For while Josephus mentions the building of these two cities at the very
beginning of the reign of Herod Antipas, he does not speak of the building of
Tiberias till the entrance of Pilate upon his office (A.D. 26); see Antt. xviii.
2. 1-3. This makes it probable, that Tiberias was not built till A.D. 26 or
later.[658] Eusebius in his Chronicle decidedly places the building in the 14th
year of Tiberius; but this statement is quite without chronological value.[659]
Unfortunately the era of the town occurring upon the coins of Trajan and Hadrian
cannot be calculated with certainty. It appears however, that the dates of the
coins do not contradict the conjecture arrived at from Josephus.[660] The
population of Tiberias was a very mixed one. To obtain inhabitants for his new
town Herod Antipas was obliged to settle there, partly by compulsion, a real
colluvies hominum (see above, § 17‌b). Its attitude however during the Jewish
war shows them to have been chiefly Jewish. The constitution however was one of
Hellenistic organization.[661] The town had a council (βουλή) of 600
members,[662] at the head of which was an ἄρχων[663] and a committee of the δέκα
πρῶτοι,[664] also Hyparchoi[665] and an Agoranomos.[666] It was also promoted to
be the capital of Galilee, Sepphoris itself being subordinated to it (see above,
p. 139), The coins of Tiberias issued in the time of Herod have simply the
superscription Τιβεριάς.[667] After the deposition of Herod Antipas Tiberias was
transferred to the possession of Agrippa I. A coin of his time also, with the
superscription Τιβεριέων is known.[668] After the death of Agrippa the town came
under the authority of the Roman procurators of Judaea. It must at the same time
have received new political privileges or experienced some kind of favour from
the Emperor Claudius; for the inhabitants are constantly called Τιβεριεῖς
Κλαυδιεῖς on the coins of Trajan and Hadrian.[669] It continued to maintain its
position as capital of Galilee till the time of Nero (Joseph. Vita, 9). By him,
probably in A.D. 61, it was bestowed upon Agrippa II., and thus separated from
Galilee (Antt. xx. 8. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 13. 2; Vita, 9).[670] Hence it formed
part of the realm of Agrippa, when the Jewish insurrection broke out in A.D. 66.
The attitude of the population with respect to it was a very varying one. Some
desired to remain on the side of Agrippa and the Romans; others—and indeed the
mass of those without property—wished to join the cause of the revolution;
others again took up a position of reserve (Vita, 9; comp. also Vita, 12, where
the revolutionary party is called ἡ τῶν ναυτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀπόρων στάσις). This
party had decidedly the upper hand, and the rest had consequently to submit. A
chief leader of this party was Jesus the son of Sapphias, then archon of the
town.[671] Still even after the triumph of the revolutionary torrent, a part of
the population maintained their relations to Agrippa, and repeatedly entreated,
though in vain, his support.[672] When Vespasian had subjected the greater part
of Galilee and penetrated as far as Tiberias, the town ventured no resistance,
but voluntarily opened its gates and begged for pardon, which was granted out of
regard for Agrippa. Vespasian indeed allowed his soldiers to march into
Tiberias, but spared the town and restored it to Agrippa.[673] It remained in
his possession probably till his death, A.D. 100, till which period it did not
again come under direct Roman rule, to which circumstance extant coins of the
time of Trajan and Hadrian bear testimony.[674] Eusebius designates it as a
πόλις ἐπίσημος.[675] It was in the third and fourth centuries after Christ a
chief seat of Rabbinical scholarship, and is hence frequently mentioned in
Talmudic. literature.[676] [656] See in general, Reland, pp. 1036-1042. Raumer,
p. 142 sq. Winer, RWB. s.v. Robinson’s Palestine, ii. p. 380 sq., iii. p. 342
sq. Ritter, Erdkunde, xv. 315-322. Bädeker-Socin, pp. 382-387. Sepp, Jerusalem,
ii. 188-209. Guérin, Galilée, i. 250-264. The Survey of Western Palestine,
Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 361 sq., 379, 418-420; also sheet vi. of the
large English chart. [657] On the warm springs, see Plinius, H. N. v. 15. 71:
Tiberiade aquis calidis salubri. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 21.
6, iv. 1. 3; Vita, 16. Mishna, Shabbath iii. 4, xxii. 5; Negaim ix. 1;
Machshirin vi. 7. Tosefta, Shabbath, p. 127, 21st ed. Zuckermandel. Antoninus
Martyr, c. 7. in civitatem Tiberiadem, in qua sunt thermae salsae. Jakubi (9th
cent.), translated in the Zeitsch. d. deutschen Pal.- Verein, iv. 87 sq. The
present Tiberias lies about 40 minutes north of the springs; and there is no
reason for transferring the former situation of the town elsewhere. For the
opinion of Furrer (Zeitsch. d. DPV. ii. 54), that the ancient Tiberias lay so
close to the springs, “that they were enclosed within the walls of the town,”
rests upon a mistaken view of Joseph. Vita, 16; Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 6. See on the
other hand, Antt. xviii. 2. 3; Bell. Jud. iv. 1. 3. (The ἐν Τιβεριάδι in the two
former passages means only “in the district of Tiberias;” thus also e.g. in
Steph. Byz., ed. Meineke, p. 366: Κάστνιον, ὂρος ἐν Ἀσπένδῳ τῆς Παμφυλίας; p.
442: ἔστι καὶ ἐν Κυζίκῳ κώμη Μέλισσα; comp. Marquardt, Röimische
Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 16, note 5. In the Old Test. also באשדור = in the
district of Ashdod.) The place where the springs were was called Ἐμμαοῦς (Antt.
xviii. 2. 3) or Ἀμμαοῦς (Bell. Jud. iv. 1. 3), Hebrew חמתה, Jer. Erubin v. 22d
below; Tosefta, Erubin p. 146, 5th ed. Zuckermandel. Comp. also Lightfoot,
Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 74 (Opp. ii. 244 sq.). Hamburger, Real-Encyklop.
für Bibel und Talmud, 2nd Div., art. “Heilbäder.” [658] So also Lewin, Fasti
sacri (London 1866), n. 1163. [659] Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 146-149
relates the building of new towns by the sons of Herod in the following rder:
Philip built Caesarea and Julias, Herod Antipas built Tiberias and Livias. All
the buildings are placed in the time of Tiberius. Sepphoris is entirely passed
over. All this puts it beyond doubt, that the statements of Eusebius are
entirely derived from Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 1. For the buildings are there
enumerated in exactly the same order, also after the accession of Tiberius, and
with the same omission of Sepphoris. Hence the statements of Eusebius are not
only without independent value, but are besides derived from the more inaccurate
statement of Josephus in the Bell. Jud., and ignore his more accurate account in
Antt. xviii. 2. 1-3. [660] On the coins and the era, see Noris, v. 6 (ed. Lips.
pp. 552-564). Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, p. 324 sq. Huber in
the Wiener Numismatische Zeitsch., 1st year, 1869, pp. 404-414. De Saulcy, pp.
333-338, pl. xvii. n. 9-14. The same, in the Annuaire de la Société Française de
Numismatique et d’Archéol. iii. 266-270. Among the dated coins only those of
Trajan with the date 81 and those of Hadrian with the date 101 are attested with
certainty. Noris and Sanclemente assume also coins of Trajan with the year 101,
and accordingly calculate the epoch of Tiberias to be A.D. 17 (then the year in
which Hadrian succeeded Trajan, i.e. A.D. 117 = 101 era of Tiberius, and A.D. 17
= 1 era of Tiberius). But the coins with the year 101 certainly all belong to
Hadrian. Other coins too given singly by numismatists (De Saulcy gives coins of
Claudius with the year 33, of Trajan with 80, and of Hadrian with 103) are also
doubtful. Hence all that can with certainty be affirmed is, that the epoch of
Tiberias cannot begin earlier than A.D. 17. The consideration, that Tiberias was
probably in the possession of Agrippa II. till A.D. 100, and hence could not
previously have issued imperial coins, leads somewhat farther. Under this
assumption the epoch could not on account of the coins of Trajan of 81 be placed
earlier than A.D. 19. A still further point of contact might be obtained, if the
title, which Trajan bears upon the coins of 81, could be certainly determined.
For if he is on these called only Germanicus and not Dacicus, the coins in
question could not have been issued later than A.D. 103 (after which year Trajan
bore also the latter title), and consequently the epoch could not begin later
than A.D. 22 (so Eckhel). If however in the reverse case he has just upon these
coins both titles (as Reichardt asserts in Huber’s above-named work, reading
ΓΕΡ. Δ. instead of ΓΕΡΜ), the coins could not have been issued earlier than 103,
nor the epoch begin before A.D. 22. This would be in accordance with Josephus.
[661] See on what follows, Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii.
353. The same, Ueber die Entstehung der Städte der Alten, p. 427 sq. [662] Bell.
Jud. ii. 21. 9. Comp. in general, Vita, 12, 34, 55, 58, 61, 68. [663] Vita, 27,
53, 54, 57; Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 3. One Jesus the son of Sapphias, is here
throughout named as archon of Tiberias during the time of the revolt. Among his
offices was that of presiding at the meeting of the council. [664] Vita, 13, 57;
Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 9 = Vita, 33. See especially, Vita, 13: τοὺς τῆς βουλῆς
πρώτους δέκα. Vita, 57: τοὺς δέκα πρώτους Τιβεριέων. On these δέκα πρῶτοι, so
frequently occurring in the Hellenistic communities, see Kuhn, i. 55; Marquardt,
Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. 213 sq (1881); the Index to the Corp. Inscr. Graec. p.
35. They were not perhaps the oldest or the most respected members of the
council, but a changing committee of it with definite official functions, as the
frequently occurring formula δεκαπρωτεύσας shows (see Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
2639, 2929, 2930. Add. 2930b, 3490, 3491, 3496, 3498, 4289, 4415b.
δεκαπρωτευκώς, n. 3418). Their chief office was the collection of taxes, for the
due payment of which they were answerable with their private property, Digest.
lib. iv. 1. 1: Munerum civilium quaedam sunt patrimonii, alia personarum.
Patrimonii sunt munera rei vehicularis, item navicularis decemprimatus: ab istis
enim periculo ipsorum exactiones solemnium celebrantur. Digest. lib. iv. 18. 26:
Mixta munera decaprotiae et icosaprotiae, ut Herennius Modestinus.… decrevit:
nam decaproti at icosaproti tributa exigentes et corporate ministerium gerunt et
pro omnibus defunctorum (?) fiscalia detrimenta resarciunt. It is worthy of
notice, that Josephus during his government of Galilee delivers to the decem
primi at Tiberias valuables of King Agrippa, and makes them responsible for
them, Vita, 13, 57. [665] Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 6: τοῖς ματὰ τὴν πόλιν ὑπάρχοις.
[666] Antt. xviii. 6. 2. On the office of the ἀγορανόμος, see Westermann in
Pauly’s Enc. i. 1 (2nd ed.), pp. 582-584. Stephanus, Thes. s.v. The material
furnished by inscriptions in the Index to the Corp. Inscr. Graec. p. 32. [667]
Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 97, 98. The same, Coins of the Jews
(1881), pp. 119, 120. [668] Madden, History, p. 110; Coins of the Jews, p. 138.
[669] See the literature cited above, especially De Saulcy. [670] On the time,
see above, § 19, Appendix 2. [671] Joseph. Vita, 12, 27, 58, 54. 57; Bell. Jud.
ii. 21. 3, iii. 9. 7-8. The revolutionary attitude of the town is plainly seen
throughout the whole narrative of Josephus in his Vita. [672] Bell. Jud. ii. 21.
8-10; Vita, 32-34, 68-69, 70. [673] Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 7-8. [674] A coin of the
time of Commodus has been published by Huber in the Wiener Numismatischen
Zeitschr. Jahrg. i. 1869, p. 401 sqq. [675] Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 215. [676]
Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, pp. 208-214. Pinner, Compendium des jerus. und
bad. Talmud (1832), pp. 109-116. Of some of the last-named towns, as Antipatris,
Phasaelis, Julias and Livias it cannot certainly be determined whether they
really belonged to the class of independent towns with Hellenistic
constitutions, since it is just as likely that, like other second-rate towns,
they were incorporated in the general organization of the country. They had
however to be named here, because in any case a certain proportion of the towns
built by Herod and his sons belonged to the above category. On the other hand,
it is also possible, that the number of the independent communities is not
exhausted by the towns here enumerated. Hence we cannot look upon the list we
have given as a strictly defined one. For the times of Roman imperialism a
further number of independent civic communities would have to be named, which
are here designedly passed over, because it was not till later (at the earliest
A.D. 70) that they attained this position. This was the case especially with
Nicopolis (= Emmaus), Neapolis (= Sichem), Diospolis (= Lydda), Eleutheropolis
and the communities belonging to the province of Arabia, as Bostra, Adraa and
others. Aelia Capitolina (= Jerusalem) too would have to be mentioned as a
heathen town for the period after Hadrian. On Capitolias, comp. above, p. 106.
Concerning the position of the Jews in these mainly heathen communities no
further material exists than what has been already communicated on the places in
question. The history of Caesarea (No. 9) is the most instructive. Here heathens
and Jews possessed down to Nero’s time equal civic rights (ἰσοπολιτεία, Antt.
xx. 8. 7 and 9) and hence equal eligibility to the town senate. As this of
necessity entailed manifold dissensions, both parties strove to bring about an
alteration of this state of things, each desiring to have the supremacy. Thus a
threefold possibility existed: 1. equality, 2. exclusion of the Jews, and 3.
exclusion of the heathen, from civic privileges. All three cases actually
occurred. In the old Philistinian and Phoenician towns the Jews hardly possessed
the privilege of citizenship. They dwelt in them indeed by thousands; but were
only tolerated as inhabitants; and how strained were the relations between them
and the heathen citizens, is best shown by the sanguinary persecution of the
Jews in many of these towns at the outbreak of Jewish revolution, as e.g. in
Ascalon, Ptolemais and Tyre. In other towns heathen and Jews may have been on an
equality; this was especially the case in those towns, which subsequently to the
Maccabaean period were mainly inhabited by Jews, as Jamnia and Joppa. Whether
heathens were excluded from civic rights in any of the hitherto named towns is
very doubtful; and not probable even in Sepphoris and Tiberias. The third
possibility is at all events represented by Jerusalem and in general by the
towns of the strictly Jewish territory. Particulars cannot be further entered
into from lack of material It must suffice to have established the general point
of sight On the organization of the Jewish communities in these towns, see
below, § 27. II. and § 31. II.-III.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 56: II. THE STRICTLY JEWISH TERRITORY
========================================================================

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


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 57: III. THE SUPREME SANHEDRIM IN JERUSALEM
========================================================================

III. THE SUPREME SANHEDRIM IN JERUSALEM THE LITERATURE Selden, De synedriis et
praefecturis juridicis veterum Ebraeorum, lib. i.-iii., Londini 1650-1655 (comp.
above, p. 132). Meuschen, Novum Testamentum ex Talmudé et antiquitatibus
Hebraeorum illustratum (Lips. 1736), pp. 1184-1199: Diatribe de נשיא seu
directore Synedrii M. Hebraeorum. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus
antiquilatum sacri codisis (1748), pp 550-600. Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des
Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen (1831), pp. 166-225. Winer, Realwörterb. ii.
551-554, art. “Synedrium.” Sachs, Uber die Zeit der Entstehung des Synhedrin’s
(Frankel’s Zetischr.für die religiösen Interessen des Judenth., 1845, pp.
301-312). Saalschütz, Das mosaische Rechte, 2nd ed. 1853, i. 49 ff., ii. 598 ff.
Also his Archäologie der Hebräer, vol. ii. 1856, pp. 249 ff., 271 ff., 429-458.
Levy, Die Präsidentur im Synedrium (Frankel’s Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und
Wissenseh. des Judenth. 1855, pp. 266-274, 301-307, 339-358). Herzfeld,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. (1855) pp. 380-396. Jost, Geschichte des
Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol. i. (1857) pp. 120-128, 270-281. Comp. also
pp. 403 ff., vol. ii. (1858) pp. 13 ff., 25 ff. Geiger, Urschrift und
Uebersetzungen der Bibel (1857), p. 114 ff. Keil, Handbuch der bibischen
Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 714-717. Leyrer, art. “Synedrium,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xv. (1862) pp. 315-325. Langen, Das jüdische
Synedrium und die römische Procuratur in Judäa (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1862,
pp. 411-463). Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 110 ff.,
683-685. De Wette, Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie (4th ed. 1864),
pp. 204-206. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3rd ed. 1864-1868), iv. 217
ff., v. 56, vi. 097 ff. Kueuen, Over de samenstelling van het Sanhedrin
(Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Academie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling
Letterkunde, Deel x., Amsterdam 1866, pp. 131-168). Comp. also, De Godsdienst
van Israël, ii. (1870) pp. 512-515. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine (1867),
pp. 83-94, 465-468. Giusburg, art. “Sanhedrim,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of
Biblical Literature. Hausrath, Neutestamentuche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. (2nd ed.
1873) pp. 63-72. Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien
(1869), pp. 205-230. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, iii. pp. 321 ff., 345 ff.
Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (1874), pp. 26-43. Holtzmann, art.
“Synedrium,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v. 446-451. Hoffmann (D.), Der oberste
Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligthums (Progr. des Rabbiner-Seminares zu
Berlin für 1877-1878). Also his Die Prüsidentur im Synedrium (Magazin für die
Wissensch. des Judenth. v. Jahrg. 1878, pp. 94-99). Reuss, Geschichte der heil.
Schriften Alten Testaments (1881), secs, ccclxxvl., ccccxcv. Hamburger,
Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, part 2, 1883, art. “Synhedrion;” also
the articles “Nassi” and “Abbethdin.” Stapfer, Le Sanhédrin de Jérusalem au
premier siècle (Revue de théologie et de philosophie [Lausanne], 1884, pp.
105-119). 1. Its history. There is no evidence to show that, previous to the
Greek period, there existed at Jerusalem an aristocratic council claiming to
exercise either supreme, or what was substantially supreme, authority and
jurisdiction over the whole Jewish nation. It is true no doubt that Rabbinical
exegesis has sought to identify the Sanhedrim of later times with the council of
seventy elders that, at his own request, had once been granted to Moses to
assist him with its advice (Numbers 11:16), and has, in consequence, assumed
that this same council continued without interruption from the days of Moses
down to Talmudic times. But during the first thousand years of this period we
find practically no trace whatever of its existence. For the “elders” that are
sometimes mentioned as being the representatives of the people (for example in 1
Kings 8:1; 1 Kings 20:7; 2 Kings 23:1; Ezekiel 14:1; Ezekiel 20:1) did not
constitute a regularly organized court like the future Sanhedrim. Then again,
the supreme court at Jerusalem, the existence of which is presupposed in the
Deuteronomic legislation (Deuteronomy 17:8 ff; Deuteronomy 19:16 ff.), and the
institution of which the author of Chronicles ascribes to Jehoshaphat (2
Chronicles 19:8), was merely a court of justice with functions of an exclusively
judicial character, and not a council governing, or at all events substantially
governing, the country as was the Sanhedrim of the Graeco-Roman age.[732] But
further, it is, to say the least of it, uncertain whether any such court as that
of the Sanhedrim existed even in the Persian era. No doubt, at that time, the
municipal Council of Jerusalem formed the centre of the small Jewish
commonwealth very much as it did at a subsequent period. And thus far we might
be justified in understanding the “elders” of the Book of Ezra (Ezra 5:5; Ezra
5:9; Ezra 6:7; Ezra 6:14; Ezra 10:8), and the חוֹרִים and סְגָנִים of the Book
of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:8; Nehemiah 4:13; Nehemiah 5:7; Nehemiah
7:5), as corresponding somewhat to the future Sanhedrim. But judging from the
whole way in which they are mentioned, it is more probable that the various
order referred to are regarded in their individual capacity and not as con
stituting an organized body. In any case the existence of a Jewish γερουσία
earlier than the Greek period cannot be proved with any degree of certainty. The
first occasion on which it is mentioned, and that under this designation, is in
the time of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.), so that it must, of course, have
been in existence as early as the time of the Ptolemies.[733] Now seeing that,
in its desire for reform everywhere and in everything, Hellenism had set itself
to reorganize political institutions as well, we are bound to assume that, in
all probability, it was just the new Greek rulers who would give to the Jewish
γερουσία the form in which it was met with at the period now in question,
whether that form were entirely an original one or whether it were simply a
reorganization of a similar court that was already in existence under the
Persian rule. From the circumstance of the designation γερουσία being applied to
it, it is clear that, unlike the majority of Greek councils, this was not a
democratic, but an aristocratic body.[734] This same circumstance would seem
further to show that, so far as its original institution is concerned, this
court dates back to an earlier period, and therefore to the time of the Persian
rule. As we may well conceive, its powers would be of a tolerably large and
extensive character. For the Hellenistic kings had conceded a great amount of
internal freedom to municipal communities, and were on the whole satisfied if
the taxes were duly paid and their own supremacy duly recognised. At the head of
the Jewish commonwealth, and therefore of the γερουσία as well, stood the
hereditary high priest. It was this latter, in conjunction with the γερουσία
over which lie presided, that practically regulated the whole internal affairs
of the nation. [732]a Such certainly is the way Josephus conceives of the matter
when, following the analogy of a later order of things, he speaks of the court
of justice here referred to under the designation of ἡ γερουσ.α (Antt. iv. 8.
41). [733] Antt. xii. 3. 3. For this whole matter, comp. Kuenen’s admirable
dissertation in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van
Wetenschappen, l.c. [734] A γερουσια is always an aristocratic body. The Council
of Sparta is expressly described as such, and so too with regard to councils
generally in the Doric States. See Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iii. 849 f.
After the Maccabaean insurrection the old high-priestly dynasty was superseded,
its place being now supplied by the new Asmonaean line of high priests, which
began with Simon, and which was likewise a hereditary one. Then again the old
γερουσια must have been essentially revolutionized through its being purged of
every element in it suspected of Greek sympathies and leanings. But the court
itself still continued to exist and exercise its functions along with and under
the Asmonaean princes and high priests; for even these latter could not venture
to go so far as entirely to discard the old nobility of Jerusalem. Hence we find
the γερουσία mentioned in the time of Judas (2Ma_1:10; 2Ma_4:44; 2Ma_11:27; the
πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ of 1Ma_7:33 being also identically the same thing), of
Jonathan (1Ma_12:6 : ἡ γερουσία τοῦ ἔθνους; ibid. 11:23: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι Ἰσραήλ;
ibid. 12:35: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ) and of Simon (1Ma_13:36; 1Ma_14:20;
1Ma_14:28).[735] Its existence is likewise presupposed in the Book of Judith,
which probably belongs to the period now in question (Jdt_4:8; Jdt_11:14;
Jdt_15:8). The assumption of the title of king on the part of the Asmonaean
princes, and above all the autocratic rule of an Alexander Jannaeus, indicated
no doubt an advance in the direction of a pure monarchy. But, for all that, the
old γερουσία still continued to assert itself as much as ever. At least in the
reign of Alexandra we find τῶν Ἰουδαίων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι expressly mentioned
(Antt. xiii. 16. 5).[736] [735] It is interesting in this connection to compare
1Ma_12:6 with 1Ma_14:20. The matter in hand is the correspondence between the
Jews and the Spartans. In the former of those passages (1Ma_12:6 = Joseph. Antt.
xiii. 5. 8) the Jews as the senders of the communication style themselves thus:
Ἰωνάθαν ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ ἡ γερουσία τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς δῆμος τῶν
Ἰουδαίων. In the reply of the Spartans the terms of the address (1Ma_14:20) are
as follows: Σιμωνι ἱερεῖ μεγάλῳ καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι καὶ τῷ
λοιπῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Observe (1) that ἡ γερουσία and οἱ πρεσβύτεροι are
identically the same; (2) that in both instances the classification is of a
fourfold character. High priest, gerousia, priesta, people. [736] Similarly in
Tyre and Sidon, for example, there was a council associated with the king in the
direction of affairs. See Movers, Die Phönizier, ii. 1 (1849), pp. 529-542.
Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 117. It is true that, when a
new order of things was introduced by Pompey, the monarchy was abolished. But
the high priest still retained the προστασία τοῦ ἔθνους (Antt. xx. 10), and
therefore it may be presumed that meanwhile the position of the γερουσία would
remain essentially the same as before.[737] The existing arrangements however
were rather more seriously disturbed by Gabinius (57-55 B.C.), when he divided
the whole of the Jewish territory into five σύνοδοι (Bell. Jud. i. 8. 5) or
συνέδρια (Antt. xiv. 5. 4).[738] Now, seeing that of those five synedria three
were allotted to Judaea proper (viz. those of Jerusalem, Gazara and Jericho) it
follows that the jurisdiction of the council of Jerusalem, if it really retained
anything of its previous character at all, would extend only to something like a
third part of the province. But probably that measure meant rather more than a
mere limiting of jurisdiction. For the five συνέδρια established by Gabinius
were not municipal councils, but—as indeed we might have supposed from the fact
that Josephus uses the term σύνοδοι as a synonymous expression—genuine Roman
conventus juridici, “districts for judicial purposes,” into which the Romans
were in the habit of dividing every province.[739] And, that being the case, the
measure in question must have been neither more nor less than a stricter
application to Judaea of the Roman system of provincial government. As things
now stood the council of Jerusalem no longer exercised sole jurisdiction within
the circuit to which it belonged, but only in conjunction with the other
communities within this same district. The arrangements of Gabinius however
continued to subsist only somewhere about ten years. For they were in turn
superseded by the new system of things introduced by Caesar (47 B.C.). This
latter reappointed Hyrcanus II. to his former office of ἐθνάρχης of the Jews
(see above, § 13); while it is distinctly evident from a circumstance that
occurred about that time, that the jurisdiction of the council of Jerusalem once
more extended to Galilee as well. The circumstance in question was the occasion
on which Herod when a youth was required to appear before the συνέδριον at
Jerusalem to answer for his doings in Galilee (Antt. xiv. 9. 3-5). Here for the
first time, as frequently afterwards, the council of Jerusalem was designated by
the term συνέδριον. As it is unusual elsewhere to find this expression applied
to civic councils, such a use, in this instance, is somewhat strange, but
probably it is to be explained by the fact that the council of Jerusalem was
conceived of as being above all a court of justice (בֵּית דִּין). For it is in
this sense that συνέδριον is specially used in later Greek.[740] [737] In the
Psalms of Solomon, which for the most part were composed in the time of Pompey,
the author is in the habit of apostrophizing as follows any public person or
party that he happens to dislike: ἱνατὶ σὺ κάθησαι βέβηλε ἐν συνεδρίῳ (Psalms
4:1). Now, as it is clear from the context that by the term συνέδριον we are to
understand a court, it is quite possible that it is our γερουσία that is here
referred to. But, owing to the ambiguous nature of the expression itself and the
impossibility of fixing with greater precision the date of the composition of
the psalm, there is historically but little to be gleaned from this passage. Any
light that is to be thrown upon it must be derived from what we already know
regarding the existing order of things. [738] On this comp. above, § 13. [739]
Comp. Marquardt’s Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. (1881), p. 501. Kuhn (Die städt.
u. bürgerl. Verf. ii. 336, 367) also regards the Synedria of Gabinius as
identical with the conventus juridici of the Romans. [740] Hesychius, Lex. (see
word), defines συνέδριον precisely by the term δικαστήριον (a court of justice).
In the Sept. version of Proverbs 22:10 συνέδριον is given as the rendering of
דִּין. Comp. also Psalms of Solomon 4:1. In the New Testament again συνέδρια
mean simply “courts of justice” (Matthew 10:17; Mark 13:9); similarly in the
Mishna (see, in particular, Sanhedrin i. 5, סנהדריות לשבטים = courts for the
tribes, and i. 6, סנהדרין קטנה = an inferior court of justice). Hence Steph. in
his Thes. (see word) correctly observes: praecipue ita vocatur consessus
judicum. It is true that, in itself, συνέδριον is a very comprehensive term and
may be applied to every “assembly” and every corporate body, even to the Roman
senate, for example (see in general, Stephanus, Thes., under word, and
Westermann in Pauly’s Enc. vi. 2. 1535). It is but comparatively seldom however
that it is used to denote civic councils, which as every one knows are mostly
designated by the terms βουλή and γερουσία. It is more frequently employed to
denote representative assemblies, composed of deputies from various
constituencies. And so we have, for example, the συνέδριον of the Phoenicians
which was usually convened in Tripolis (Diodor. xvi. 41), the κοινὸν συνέδριον
of ancient Lycia, which was composed of representatives from twenty-three
different towns (Strabo, xiv. 3. 3, p. 664 f.), and the συνέδριον κοινόν of the
province of Asia (Aristides, Orat. xxvi., ed. Dindorf, vol. i. p. 531). Hence it
is too that σύνεδροι and βουλευταί are mentioned separately as constituting two
different orders of officials (see inscription at Balbura in Pisidia as given in
Le Bas et Waddington’s Inscr. vol. iii. n. 1221). Moreover, the senatores of the
four Macedonian districts, who, according to Livy, were called σύνεδροι (Liv.
xlv. 32: pronuntiatum, quod ad statum Macedoniae pertinebat, senatores, quos
synedros vocant, legendos esse, quorum consilio respublica administraretur),
were not municipal councillors, but deputies representing an entire regio (see
Marquardt’s Staatsverwaltung, i. [1881] p. 317). Now as the term in question was
first heard of in Judaea in the time of Gabinius, and was thereafter currently
applied to the council of Jerusalem as well, one might be inclined to suppose
that it had been introduced in this quarted in connection with the Gabinian
measures of reform, and that its use was still retained even after a new order
of things had been established (as I have myself held, Riehm’s Wörterb. p.
1596). But in presence of the fact, that elsewhere too, even in Hebrew itself,
the term is generally used in the sense of a “court of justice,” this
explanation, I fear, must be abandoned as more ingenious than otherwise. Herod
the Great inaugurated his reign by ordering the whole of the members of the
Sanhedrim to be put to death (Antt. xiv. 9. 4: πάντας ἀπέκτεινε τοὺς ἐν τῷ
συνεδρίῳ). Whether the πάντας here is to be understood quite literally may be
left an open question. For, acoording to another passage, Herod is represented
as as having ordered the forty-five most prominent personages belonging to the
party of Antigonus to be put to death (Antt. xv. 1. 2: ἀπέκτεινε δὲ τεσσαράκοντα
πέντε τοὺς πρώτους ἐκ τῆς αἱρέσεως Ἀντιγόνου). In any case the object of this
proceeding was either to get rid entirely of the old nobility, who had been
somewhat hostile to his claims, or at all events so to intimidate them as to
ensure their acquiescence in the rule of the new sovereign. It was of those then
that were disposed to be tractable—among whom also were a good many Pharisees,
who saw in Herod’s despotic sway a well-merited judgment of heaven—that the new
Sanhedrim was now composed. For there is express evidence that such an
institution existed in the time of Herod also, inasmuch as one can hardly
understand that the “assembly” (συνέδριον) before which this monarch
successfully prosecuted his charge against the aged Hyrcanus could be taken as
referring to any other court than our Sanhedrim (Antt. xv. 6. 2, fin.).[741]
[741] Comp. besides, Wieseler’s Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien,
p. 215 f. After Herod’s death Arclielaus obtained only a portion of his father’s
kingdom, viz. the provinces of Judaea and Samaria. Nor can there be any doubt
that, in consequence of this, the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim was at the same
time restricted to Judaea proper (comp. above, p. 142). This continued to be the
state of matters in the time of the procurators as well. But, under their
administration, the internal government of the country was to a greater extent
in the hands of the Sanhedrim than it had been during the reign of Herod and
Archelaus. Josephus distinctly intimates as much when he informs us that, ever
since the death of Herod and Archelaus, the form of government was that of an
aristocracy under the supreme direction of the high priests.[742] And
accordingly he regards the aristocratic council of Jerusalem as being now the
true governing body in contradistinction to the previous monarchical rule of the
Idumaean princes. So too in the time of Christ and the apostles the συνέδριον at
Jerusalem is frequently mentioned as being the supreme Jewish court, above all,
as being the supreme Jewish court of justice (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 26:59; Mark
14:55; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; John 11:47; Acts 4:15; Acts 5:21 ff; Acts 6:12 ff;
Acts 22:30; Acts 23:1 ff; Acts 24:20). Sometimes again the terms πρεσβυτέριον
(Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5) and γερουσία (Acts 5:21) are substituted for
συνέδριον.[743] A member of this court, viz. Joseph of Arimathea, is described
in Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50, as a βουλευτής. Josephus calls the supreme court of
Jerusalem a συνέδριον[744] or a βουλή,[745] or he comprehends the court and
people under the common designation of τὸ κοινόν.[746] While in the Mishna again
the supreme court of justice is called בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל[747] or
סַנְהֶדְרִין גְּדוֹלָה,[748] likewise סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שׁבעיםְֶ יָאחד,[749] or
merely סַנְהֶדְרִין.[750] There can be no question that, after the destruction
of Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D., the Sanhedrim was abolished, so far at least
as its existing form was concerned. The comparatively large amount of
self-government that had hitherto been granted to the Jewish people could no
longer be conceded to them after such a serious rebellion as had taken place.
Hitherto, apart from the short episode in the time of Gabinius, the Roman system
of provincial government had not been strictly carried out in Judaea (see above,
§ 17‌e), but now that Palestine was reduced to the position of a dependent Roman
province, it was no longer exempted from the ordinary system of Roman provincial
administration.[751] From all this it followed, as matter of course, that a
Jewish council, invested with such extensive powers as this one had hitherto
exercised, could not possibly continue any longer. It is true, no doubt, that
the Jewish people lost no time in again creating for themselves a new centre in
the so-called court of justice (בֵּית דִּין) at Jabne.[752] But this court was
something essentially different from the old Sanhedrim, inasmuch as it was not a
legislative body, but a judicial tribunal, the decisions of which had at first
nothing more than a merely theoretical importance. And although this court also
came ere long to acquire great power over the Jewish people through exercising
over them a real jurisdiction that was partly conceded and partly usurped,[753]
still Rabbinical Judaism has evidently never been able to get rid of the feeling
that the old “Sanhedrim” had now become a thing of the past.[754] [742] Antt.
xx. 10, fin.: μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων τελευτὴν ἀριστοκρατία μὲν ἦν ἡ πολιτεία, τὴν δὲ
προστασίαν τοῦ ἔθνους οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐπεπίστευντο. Now, as throughout the whole
section it is high priests strictly so called that are in view (and of whom only
one was in office at a time), it follows that the word ἀρχιερεῖς is to be taken
as the categorical plural, so that the meaning would be: the προστασία τοῦ
ἔθνους was in the hands of the high priest for the time being. [743] A singular
feature about the last-mentioned passage (Acts 5:21) is the use of such a form
of designation as: τὸ συνέδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. Now,
seeing that there can be no question as to the identity of the two conceptions
συνέδριον and γερουσία, only one or other of two things is possible, either the
καί is to be taken as explanatory, or we must assume that the author of the Acts
erroneously supposed that the συνέδριον was of a less comprehensive character
than the γερουσία (“the Sanhedrim and all the elders of the people together”).
The latter is the more natural alternative. [744] Thus, in addition to the
passages already mentioned (Antt. xiv. 9. 3-5, xv. 6. 2, fin.), we might refer
further to Antt. xx. 9. 1; Vita, 12, the terms of the latter passage being: τὸ
συνέδριον τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν. It may be questioned whether it is also the supreme
Sanhedrim that is intended in Antt. xx. 9. 6; comp. Wieseler’s Beiträge, p. 217.
[745] Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 6: τούς τε ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὴν βουλήν. Bell. Jud. ii. 16.
2: Ἰουδαίων οἵ τε ἀρχιερεῖς ἅμα τοῖς δυνατοῖς καὶ ἡ βουλή; Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 1.
οἵ τε ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ βουλευταί. Comp. Antt. xx. 1. 2; Bell. Jud. v. 13. 1. The
place of meeting is called βουλή in Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2, and βουλευτήριον in
Bell. Jud. vi. 6. 3. [746] Vita, 12, 13, 38, 49, 52, 60, 65, 70. [747] Sota i.
4, ix. 1; Gittin vi. 7; Sanhedrin xi. 2. 4; Horajath i. 5, fin. In most of the
passages the expression שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם is added. [748] Sanhedrin i. 6;
Middoth v. 4 Just as the term סנהדרין is borrowed from the Greek, so on the
Palmyra inscriptions we find the words בולא ודמוס = ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος. [749]
Shebuoth ii. 2. [750]a Sota ix. 11; Kiddushin iv. 5; Sanhedrin iv. 3 The term
סנהדרין (in a variety of senses) is also of frequent occurrence, especially in
the later Targums. See Buxtorf’s Lex. col. 1513f. Levy’s Chald. Wörterb. under
word. [751] For the separation of Palestine from Syria and its elevation to the
rank of an independent province, consult Kuhn, Die städt. u. bürgerl. Verf. ii.
183 f. Marquardt’s Staatsverwaltung, i. (2nd ed. 1881) p. 419 ff. [752] On this
court at Jabne, see especially Rosh hashana ii. 8, 9, iv. 1, 2. Sanhedrin xi. 4;
also Bechoroth iv. 5, vi. 8; Kelim v. 4; Para vii. 6. At a later period (in the
third and fourth centuries) this centre of Rabbinical Judaism was located at
Tiberias. [753] Origen, Epist. ad Africanum, sec. xiv. (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch,
vol. xvii.): Καὶ νῦν γοῦν Ῥωμαίων βασιλευόντων καὶ Ἰουδαίων τὸ δίδραχμον αὐτοῖς
τελούντων, ὅσα συγχωροῦντος Καίσαρος ὁ ἐθνάρχης παρʼ αὐτοῖς δύναται, ὡς μηδὲν
διαφέρειν βασιλεύοντος τοῦ ἔθνους, ἴσμεν οἱ πεπειραμένοι. Γίνεται δὲ καὶ
κριτήρια λεληθότως κατὰ τὸν νόμον, καὶ καταδικάζονταί τινες τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ θανάτῳ,
οὔτε μετὰ τῆς πάντη εἰς τοῦτο παρʼῥησίας, οὔτε μετὰ τοῦ γανθάνειν τὸν
βασιλεύοντα. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τοῦ ἔθνους πολὺν διατρίψαντες χρόνον
μεμαθήκαμεν καὶ πεπληροφορήμεθα. [754] Sota ix. 11: “Ever since the Sanhedrim
was extinguished (משבטלה סנהדרין) there has been no such thing as singing at the
festive board, for it is written in Isaiah 24:9 : ‘They shall not drink wine
with a song,’ ” etc. 2. Its composition. In accordance with the analogy of the
later Rabbinical courts of justice, Jewish tradition conceives of the supreme
Sanhedrim as having been merely a collegiate body composed of scribes. This is
what, down to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, it certainly never was.
On the contrary, it is certain, from the concurrent testimony of Josephus and
the New Testament, that, till the very last, the head of the sacerdotal
aristocracy continued to preside over the Sanhedrim. And so we see that all the
vicissitudes of time had not been able to efface that original fundamental
character of this court in virtue of which it was to be regarded not as an
association of learned men, but as a body representative of the nobility. But,
of course, it was not to be expected that the power of Pharisaism should
continue to grow as it did without ultimately exerting some influence upon the
composition of the Sanhedrim. The more the Pharisees grew in importance the more
did the priestly aristocracy become convinced that they too would have to be
allowed to have their representatives in the Sanhedrim. The first step in this
direction would probably be taken some time during the reign of Alexandra, and
the matter would doubtless receive no inconsiderable impetus in the time of
Herod. For this monarch’s high-handed treatment of the old nobility could not
possibly have failed to promote the interests of Pharisaism. The Sanhedrim of
the Roman period then would thus seem to have been made up of two factors: that
of the priestly nobility, with its Sadducaean sympathies on the one hand, and
that of the Pharisaic doctors on the other. It is moreover in the light of this
fact that the various matters recorded in the traditions will require to be
viewed. According to the Mishna the number of members amounted to seventy-one,
clearly taking as its model the council of elders in the time of Moses (Numbers
11:16).[755] From the two statements of Josephus, the one in Antt. xiv. 9. 4
(where we are told that Herod, on his accession to the throne, put to death all
the members of the Sanhedrim), and the other in Antt. xv. 1. 2 (where again we
are informed that he put to death the forty-five most prominent members of the
party of Antigonus), one might be disposed to infer that the number of members
was forty-five. But the πάντας in the first of those statements is assuredly not
intended to be taken literally. On the other hand, we have a great deal that
tends to bear out the view that the number of members amounted to seventy-one.
When Josephus was planning the rising in Galilee he appointed seventy elders to
take charge of the administration of this province.[756] In like manner the
zealots in Jerusalem, after suppressing the existing authorities, established a
tribunal composed of seventy members.[757] This then would seem to have been
regarded as the normal number of members required to constitute a supreme court
of justice among the Jews. Consequently the traditions of the Mishna too are in
themselves perfectly probable. As to the mode in which vacancies were filled up
we know in reality absolutely nothing. But, judging from the aristocratic
character of this body, we may venture to presume that there was not a new set
of members every year, and those elected by the voice of the people, as in the
case of the democratic councils in the Hellenistic communes, but that they held
office for a longer period, nay perhaps for life, and that new members were
appointed either by the existing members themselves or by the supreme political
authorities (Herod and the Romans). The supplying of vacancies through
co-optation is also presupposed in the Mishna, in so far as, after its own
peculiar way no doubt, it regards the amount of Rabbinical learning possessed by
the candidate as the sole test of his eligibility.[758] In any case we may well
believe that the one requirement of legal Judaism, that none but Israelites of
pure blood should be eligible for the office of judge in a criminal court, would
also be insisted on in the case of the supreme Sanhedrim.[759] New members were
formally admitted to take their seats through the ceremony of the laying on of
hands (סְמִיכָה).[760] With regard to the different orders to which the members
of the Sanhedrim belonged we have trustworthy information on that point in the
concurrent testimony of the New Testament and Josephus. Both authorities are
agreed in this, that the ἀρχιερεῖς in the literal sense of the word were the
leading personages among them. In almost every instance in which the New
Testament enumerates the different orders we find that the ἀρχιερεῖς are
mentioned first.[761] Sometimes οἱ ἄρχοντες is substituted for this latter as
being an inter-changeable expression.[762] This is also the case in Josephus,
above all, who designates the supreme authorities in Jerusalem either by
conjoining the ἀρχιερεῖς with the δυνατοῖς, the γνωρίμοις and the βουλῇ,[763] or
by substituting ἄρχοντες for ἀρχιερεῖς,[764] but never by coupling the two
together at the same time. On the other hand, the ἀρχιερεῖς often stand alone as
being the leading personages in the Sanhedrim.[765] And however difficult it may
now be further to determine the exact significance of this term (on this see
below, under No. iv.), there can, at all events, be no doubt whatever that it is
the most prominent representatives of the priesthood that are here in view. We
are therefore to understand that it was always this class that played a leading
part in the conduct of affairs. But it is certain that, along with them, the
γραμματεῖς, the professional lawyers, also exercised considerable influence in
the Sanhedrim. Such other members as did not belong to one or other of the two
special classes just referred to were known simply as πρεσβύτεροι, under which
general designation both priests and laymen alike might be included (for the two
categories in question, see the passages in the New Testament quoted in note
[766] Now, as the ἀρχιερεῖς belonged chiefly if not exclusively to the party of
the Sadducees, while the γραμματεῖς, on the other hand, adhered not less
strongly to the sect of the Pharisees,[767] it follows from all that we have
just been saying that Sadducees and Pharisees alike had seats in the Sanhedrim
(especially during the Romano-Herodian period with regard to which alone can we
be said to have any precise information). This is further corroborated by the
express testimony of the New Testament and Josephus.[768] During the period in
question the greatest amount of influence was already practically in the hands
of the Pharisees, with whose demands the Sadducees were obliged, however
reluctantly, to comply, “as otherwise the people would not have tolerated
them.”[769] This remark of Josephus gives us a deep insight into the actual
position of matters, from which it would seem, that though formally under the
leadership of the Sadducaean high priests, the Sanhedrim was by this time
practically under the predominant influence of Pharisaism.[770] [755] Sanhedrin
i. 6: “The supreme Sanhedrim consisted of seventy-one members.” “The Sanhedrim
of seventy-one” is also mentioned in Sheboth i. 2. In several other passages we
read of seventy-two elders (Sebachim i. 3; Jadajim iii. 5, iv. 2). But, as a
rule, these are foreign to the matter in hand. (In all the three passages last
referred to R. Simon ben Asai appeals to traditions, which he professes to have
received “from the mouth of the seventy-two elders on the day on which they
ordained R. Eleasar ben Asariah as head of the school.” Here then the matter in
view is not the supreme Sanhedrim, but the academy of Jewish scholars in the
second century of our era. Comp. besides, Selden, De synedriis, ii. 4. 10.) Just
as little have we to do here with the supposed seventy-two translators of the
Old Testament (six from each of the twelve tribes); see Pseudo-Aristeas, ed. M.
Schmidt in Merx’s Archiv, i. 262 f. [756] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 5. When Kuenen
(Verslagen en Mededcelingen, x. 161) seeks to invalidate the appeal to this
passage by pointing to the discrepancy between it and what is said in Vita, 14,
he may be met with the reply that this latter passage has been purposely
tampered with. The fact of Josephus having organized the rising in Galilee
through the appointment of the seventy elders, has been so distorted in Vita,
14, as to make it appear that, under the pretext of friendship, he took the most
distinguished of the Galilaeans “to the number of somewhere about seventy” and
kept them as hostages, and allowed the judgments he pronounced to be regulated
by their decisions. [757] Bell. Jud. iv. 5. 4. Comp. in general, Hody, De
bibliorum textibus originalibus, pp. 126-128. [758] Sanhedrin iv. 4: “In front
of them sat three rows of learned disciples (תלמידי חכמים); each of them had his
own special place. Should it be necessary to promote one of them to the office
of judge, one of those in the foremost row was selected. His place was then
supplied by one from the second row, while one from the third was in turn,
advanced to the second. This being done, some one was then chosen from the
congregation to supply the vacancy thus created in the third row. But the person
so appointed did not step directly into the place occupied by the one last
promoted from the third row, but into the place that beseemed one who was only
newly admitted.” [759] That the Sanhedrim was composed exclusively of Jews is
simply a matter of course. But the Mishna specially insists on evidence of pure
blood in the case of the criminal judge. Sanhedrin iv. 2: “Any one is qualified
to act as a judge in civil causes. But none were competent to deal with criminal
cases but priests, Levites, and Israelites whose daughters it would be lawful
for priests to marry” (i.e. those who can furnish documentary evidence of their
legitimate Israelitish origin, Derenbourg, p. 453: les Israélites pourvus des
conditions nécessaires pour contracter mariage avec le sacerdoce, not as Geiger,
Urschrift, p. 114, erroneously renders it: those who have become allied by
marriage to the stock of the priesthood). From this then it would appear that
the Mishna presupposes that, in the case of every member of the Sanhedrim, his
legitimate Israelitish descent is an admitted fact requiring no further
confirmation (Kiddushin iv. 5), As this is a point in which the tendencies of
the priesthood and Pharisaism coincided, it is, to say the least of it, probable
that it was also given effect to in practice. [760] The verb סָמַךְ (to lay on
the hands) is already to be met with in the Mishna in the sense of to install
any one as a judge (Sanhedrin iv. 4). This ceremony is therefore, comparatively
speaking, a very ancient one, seeing that it was also observed at a very early
period in the Christian Church. Of course the act of laying on of the hands was
not to be understood as conferring any special charisma, but (as in the case of
the victim in the Old Testament) as indicating that something was being
transferred to the individual in question, that an office, a place of authority,
was being committed to him on the part of the person by whom the ceremony was
performed. On the later Rabbinical סְמִיכָה, see Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. col. 1498
f. Selden, De synedriis, ii. 7. Vitringa, De synagoga vetere, p. 836 ff.
Carpzov’s Apparatus, p. 577 f. Jo. Chrph. Wolf, Curae philol. in Nov. Test.,
note on Acts 6:6, and the literature quoted there (being in general expositors’
notes on Acts 6:6). Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, part ii. art.
“Ordinirung.” [761] The following are the formulae that are to be met with:—I.
ἀρχιερεῖς, γραμματεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι (or with the two latter in reverse order),
Matt. 28:41; Mark 11:27; Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1.—II. ἀρχιερεῖς and
γραμματεῖς, Matthew 2:4; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:15; Mark 10:33; Mark 11:18;
Mark 14:1; Mark 15:31; Luke 22:2; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:10.—III. ἀρχιερεῖς and
πρεσβύτεροι, Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:1; Matthew
27:3; Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:20; Matthew 28:11-12; Acts 4:23; Acts 23:14;
Acts 25:15.—IV. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὸ συνέδριον ὅλον, Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55;
Acts 22:30. As a rule then, the ἀρχιερεῖς occupy the foremost place. The
instances in which they are not mentioned first (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke
9:22; Luke 20:19), or are omitted altogether (Matthew 26:57; Acts 6:12), are
extremely rare. [762] See in particular, Acts 9:5; Acts 9:8 (ἄρχοντες,
πρεσθύτεροι and γραμματεῖς) compared with Acts 4:23 (ἀρχιερεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι).
Of course there are a couple of instances in which both οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ
ἄρχοντες occur together (Luke 23:13; Luke 24:20). [763] Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 8: οἵ
τε ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ δυνατοὶ τό τε γνωριμώτατον τῆς πόλεως. Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 2: οἱ
δυνατοὶ σὺν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι. Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 3: τούς τε ἀρχιερεῖς σὺν τοῖς
γνωρίμοις. Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 6: τούς τε ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὴν βουλήν. Bell. Jud.
ii. 16. 2: οἵ τε ἀρχιερεῖς ἄμα τοῖς δυνατοῖς καὶ ἡ βουλή. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2:
τῶν τε ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γνωρίμων. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3: οἱ δυνατοὶ τοῖς
ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων γνωρίμοις. Bell. Jud. ii 17. 5: οἱ δυνατοὶ
σὺν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 6: τῶν δυνατῶν καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων. [764]
Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 1: οἱ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἄρχοντες. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 1: οἵ τε
ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ βουλευταί. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 1: τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἅμα τοῖς
δυνατοῖς. Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 7: οἱ δυνατοὶ καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων τινές [765] For
example, Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 3, 4, 16. 3, v. 1. 5, vi. 9. 3. [766] The following
are the formulae that are to be met with:—I. ἀρχιερεῖς, γραμματεῖς and
πρεσβύτεροι (or with the two latter in reverse order), Matt. 28:41; Mark 11:27;
Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1.—II. ἀρχιερεῖς and γραμματεῖς, Matthew 2:4;
Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:15; Mark 10:33; Mark 11:18; Mark 14:1; Mark 15:31;
Luke 22:2; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:10.—III. ἀρχιερεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι, Matthew
21:23; Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:1; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12;
Matthew 27:20; Matthew 28:11-12; Acts 4:23; Acts 23:14; Acts 25:15.—IV. οἱ
ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὸ συνέδριον ὅλον, Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55; Acts 22:30. As a
rule then, the ἀρχιερεῖς occupy the foremost place. The instances in which they
are not mentioned first (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; Luke 20:19), or
are omitted altogether (Matthew 26:57; Acts 6:12), are extremely rare. [767]
Acts 5:17. Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 1. [768] The Sadduceee, Acts 4:1 ff; Acts 5:17;
Acts 23:6; Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 1. The Pharisees, Acts 5:34; Acts 23:6. Comp.
Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3; Vita, 38, 39. [769] Antt. xviii. 1. 4: ὁπότε γὰρ
ἐπʼ ἀρχὰς παρέλθοιεν, ἀκουσίως μὲν καὶ κατʼ ἀνάγκας, προσχωροῦσι δʼ οὖν οἷς ὁ
Φαρισαῖος λέγει, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἂν ἄλλως ἀνεκτοὺς γενέσθαι τοῖς πλήθεσιν. [770] From
what is here said the combination of the ἀρχιερεῖς and Φαρισαῖοι, so frequently
met with in the New Testament (Matthew 21:45; Matthew 27:62; John 7:32; John
7:45; John 11:47; John 11:57; John 18:3), is quite in keeping with the actual
state of things. A similar collocation is also to be met with in Josephus, Bell.
Jud. ii. 17. 3: συνελθόντες οὖν οἱ δυνατοὶ τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς
τῶν Φαρισαίων γνωρίμοις. Comp. also, Vita, 38, 39. There is a casual notice in
Josephus which may perhaps be taken as pointing to the existence of an
arrangement peculiar to the Hellenistico-Roman period. On one occasion when
certain differences had arisen between the Jewish authorities and Festus the
procurator about some alteration in the temple buildings, it appears that, with
the concurrence of Festus, the Jews sent “the ten foremost persons among them
and the high priest Ismael and the treasurer Helkias” as a deputation to Nero
(Antt. xx. 8. 11: τοὺς πρώτους δέκα καὶ Ἰσμάηλον τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ Ἑλκίαν τὸν
γαζοφύλακα). Now, if by the πρῶτοι δέκα here we are to understand not merely the
ten most distinguished persons generally, but men holding a specific official
position, then we are bound to assume that they were no other than the committee
consisting of the δέκα πρῶτοι so often to be met with in the Hellenistic
communes, and which can also be clearly shown to have had a place for example in
the constitution established by Tiberias (see above, note [771] We are thus
furnished with characteristic evidence of the extent to which Jewish and
Hellenistico-Roman influences had become intertwined with each other in the
organization of the Sanhedrim at the period in question. [771] Vita, 13, 57;
Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 9 = Vita, 33. See especially, Vita, 13: τοὺς τῆς βουλῆς
πρώτους δέκα. Vita, 57: τοὺς δέκα πρώτους Τιβεριέων. On these δέκα πρῶτοι, so
frequently occurring in the Hellenistic communities, see Kuhn, i. 55; Marquardt,
Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. 213 sq (1881); the Index to the Corp. Inscr. Graec. p.
35. They were not perhaps the oldest or the most respected members of the
council, but a changing committee of it with definite official functions, as the
frequently occurring formula δεκαπρωτεύσας shows (see Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
2639, 2929, 2930. Add. 2930b, 3490, 3491, 3496, 3498, 4289, 4415b.
δεκαπρωτευκώς, n. 3418). Their chief office was the collection of taxes, for the
due payment of which they were answerable with their private property, Digest.
lib. iv. 1. 1: Munerum civilium quaedam sunt patrimonii, alia personarum.
Patrimonii sunt munera rei vehicularis, item navicularis decemprimatus: ab istis
enim periculo ipsorum exactiones solemnium celebrantur. Digest. lib. iv. 18. 26:
Mixta munera decaprotiae et icosaprotiae, ut Herennius Modestinus.… decrevit:
nam decaproti at icosaproti tributa exigentes et corporate ministerium gerunt et
pro omnibus defunctorum (?) fiscalia detrimenta resarciunt. It is worthy of
notice, that Josephus during his government of Galilee delivers to the decem
primi at Tiberias valuables of King Agrippa, and makes them responsible for
them, Vita, 13, 57. As to who it was that acted as president of the Sanhedrim,
this is a question in regard to which even Christian scholars down to most
recent times and founding upon Jewish tradition, have entertained the most
erroneous views conceivable. The later Jewish tradition, which as a rule regards
the Sanhedrim in the light of a mere college of scribes, expressly presupposes
that the heads of the Pharisaic schools were also the regular presidents of the
Sanhedrim as well. Those heads of the schools are enumerated in the Mishna
tractate Aboth c. i., and that with reference to earlier times, say from the
middle of the second century B.C. till about the time of Christ, and are
mentioned in pairs (see below, § 25); and it is asserted, though not in the
tractate Aboth, yet in another passage in the Mishna, that the first of every
pair had been Nasi (נָשִׂיא), while the second had been Ab-beth-din (אַב בֵּית
דִּין), i.e. according to later usage in regard to those titles: president and
vice-president of the Sanhedrim.[772] Further, the heads of the schools that
come after the “pairs” just referred to, especially Gamaliel I. and his son
Simon, are represented by the later traditions as having been presidents of the
Sanhedrim. In all this however there is, of course, nothing that is of any
historical value.[773] On the contrary, according to the unanimous testimony of
Josephus and the New Testament, it was always the high priest that acted as the
head and president of the Sanhedrim. Speaking generally, we may say that this is
only what was to be expected from the nature of the case itself. Ever since the
commencement of the Greek period the high priest had uniformly acted as head of
the nation as well. In like manner the Asmonaeans had also been high priests and
princes, nay even kings at one and the same time. With regard to the Roman
period, we have the express testimony of Josephus to the effect that the high
priests were also the political heads of the nation (Antt. xx. 10, fin.: τὴν
προστασίαν τοῦ ἔθνους οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐπεπίστευντο). In his theoretical
descriptions of the Jewish constitution this historian invariably speaks of the
high priest as having been the supreme judge (Apion, ii. 23: the high priest
φυλάξει τοὺς νόμους, δικάσει περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων, κολάσει τοὺς ἐλεγχθέντας
ἐπʼ ἀδίκῳ; Antt. iv. 8. 14: Moses is said to have ordained that, if the local
courts were unable to decide a case, the parties were to go to Jerusalem, καὶ
συνελθόντες ὅ τε ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ ὁ προφήτης καὶ ἡ γερουσία τὸ δοκοῦν
ἀποφαινέσθωσαν). Even from what is here stated we are required to assume that
the high priest acted the part of president in the Sanhedrim. But, besides this,
we have testimony of the most explicit kind to the same effect. In a document of
so early a date as the national decree declaring the combined office of high
priest and sovereign to be vested by right of inheritance in the family of Simon
the Maccabaean, it was ordained that nobody was to be allowed “to contradict his
(Simon’s) orders, or to convene an assembly in any part of the country without
his knowledge or consent.”[774] In the few instances in which Josephus mentions
the sittings of the Sanhedrim at all, we invariably find that the high priest
occupied the position of president. Thus in the year 47 B.C. it was Hyrcanus
II.,[775] and in the year 62 A.D. it was Ananos the younger.[776] Similarly in
the New Testament, it is always the ἀρχιερεύς that appears as the presiding
personage (Acts 5:17 ff; Acts 7:1; Acts 9:1-2; Acts 22:5; Acts 23:2; Acts 23:4;
Acts 24:1).[777] Wherever names are mentioned we find that it is the high priest
for the time being that officiates as president. Thus we have Caiaphas in the
time of Christ (Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:57), and Ananias in the time of the
Apostle Paul (Acts 23:2; Acts 24:1), both of whom, as we learn from Josephus,
were the high priests actually in office at the dates in question. The trial of
Jesus before Annas (John 18.) cannot be regarded as in any way disproving this
view. For there it was merely a question of private examination. As little can
we lay any stress on the fact that Ananos (or Annas) the younger is represented
as being at the head of affairs[778] in the time of the war, and that long after
he had been deposed.[779] For the circumstance of his occupying that position
then was due to the fact of a special decree of the people having been issued at
the time at which the revolution broke out.[780] The only passage that might be
urged in opposition to our view is Acts 4:6, where Annas (who was only an
ex-high priest) is represented as being the president of the Sanhedrim. But this
passage is very much in the same position as the parallel one, Luke 3:2. In both
Annas is mentioned before Caiaphas in such a way as might lead one to suppose
that the former was the high priest actually in office, though in point of fact
this was certainly not the case. If therefore we are not at liberty to infer
from Luke 3:2 that Annas was still in office as high priest, as little can we
conclude from Acts 4:6 that he was president of the Sanhedrim, which would be
incompatible with Matthew 26:57-66. We should prefer to explain the matter by
saying that, in both cases, there is some inaccuracy about the narrative. That
the persons who are mentioned in the Rabbinical traditions were not presidents
of the Sanhedrim is further evident from the fact that, wherever those same
individuals happen to be mentioned in the New Testament or by Josephus, they
always appear merely as ordinary members of the court. Thus Shemaiah (Sameas) in
the time of Hyrcanus II.,[781] Gamaliel I. in the time of the apostles (Acts
5:34, comp. ver. 27), and Simon ben Gamaliel in the time of the Jewish war.[782]
[772] Chagiga ii. 2: “Jose ben Joeser affirms that there should be no laying on
of hands in the case of festival sacrifices, while Jose ben Jochanan says that
it is quite permissible. Josua ben Perachja decided in the negative, Nittai (or
Mattai) of Arbela in the affirmative. Juda ben Tabbai in the negative, Simon ben
Schetach in the affirmative. Schemaja in the affirmative, Abtaljon in the
negative. Hillel and Menachem were at one in their opinion; when Menachem
withdrew and Schammai entered, Schammai pronounced in the negative, Hillel in
the affirmative. Of those men the first of each pair was always a president and
the second a supreme judge (הראשונים היו נשיאים ושנים להס אבית בית דין).” [773]
Comp. Kuenen as above, pp. 141-147; my article in the Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp.
614-619. Wellhausen’s Pharisäer und Sadducäer, pp. 29-43. Of the works belonging
to an earlier date we would mention, in particular, Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex
Talmude illustratum, p. 1184 f., where the fact is already recognised that the
high priest always acted as president of the Sanhedrim. [774] 1Ma_14:44 :
ἀντειπεῖν τοῖς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ῥηθησομένοις καὶ ἐπισυστρέψαι συστροφὴν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἄνευ
αὐτοῦ. [775] Antt. xiv. 9. 3-5. [776] Antt. xx. 9. 1. [777] In answer to the
strange view of Wieseler, that the president of the Sanhedrim merely as such,
even though he were not a high priest, bore the title of ἀρχιερεύς, see Stud. u.
Krit. 1872, pp. 623-631. [778] Antt. xx. 9. 1. [779] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 3, 22.
1, iv. 3. 7-5. 2; Vita, 38, 39, 44, 60. [780] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 3. [781] Antt.
xiv. 9. 3-5. [782] Vita, 38, 39. The Jewish tradition in question is therefore
at variance with the whole of the undoubted historical facts. Not only so, but
it is itself only of a very late origin, and probably does not belong to so
early a period as the age of the Mishna. The one solitary passage in the Mishna
in which it occurs (Chagiga ii. 2) stands there in perfect isolation. Everywhere
else in this work the heads of the schools above mentioned are spoken of simply
as heads of schools and nothing more. Consequently it is extremely probable that
the passage in question did not find its way into the text of the Mishna till
some subsequent period.[783] Then again, it may be affirmed, unless we have been
deceived on all hands, that the titles Nasi and Ab-beth-din as applied to the
president and vice-president of the Sanhedrim are foreign as yet to the age of
the Mishna. It is true both those terms are to be met with in this work.[784]
But by Nasi it is always the actual prince of the nation, specially the king,
that is meant, as indeed, is on one occasion expressly affirmed,[785] while the
Ab-beth-din again, if we may judge from its literal import, can hardly have been
intended to mean anything else than the president of the supreme court of
justice (and therefore of the Sanhedrim). Besides this latter title, we
sometimes meet with that of Rosh-beth-din, and with precisely the same
meaning.[786] It was not till the post-Mishnic age that the titles Nasi and
Ab-beth-din were, so to speak, reduced a step by being transferred to the
president and vice-president respectively.[787] Finally, the so-called מוּפְלָא,
who, on the strength of a few passages in the Talmud is also frequently
mentioned by Jewish and Christian scholars as having been a special functionary
of the court, was not so at all, but simply the most “prominent” of its ordinary
members, i.e. the one who was most learned in the law.[788] [783] Later
interpolations in the text of the Mishna may also be detected elsewhere, for
example at Aboth v. 21. Of course the passage Chagiga ii. 2 already occurs in
the Jerusalem Talmud, and so must be older at least than this latter. [784]
נָשִׂיא, Taanith ii. 1; Nedarim v. 5; Horajoth ii. 5-7, iii. 1-3 and elsewhere.
אַב בֵּית דִּין, Taanith ii. 1; Edujoth v. 6. [785] Horajoth iii. 3. [786] Rosh
hashana ii. 7, iv. 4. [787] The first Rabbinical president of the Sanhedrim to
whom the title Nasi is applied is R. Judah, the redactor of the Mishna, at the
end of the second century of our era (Aboth ii. 2). Of the Rabbins that occupied
this position previous to R. Judah, there is not one that is known as yet under
the designation of Nasi (apart from Chagiga ii. 2). We may assume therefore that
the title did not come into use till toward the close of the Mishnic age. [788]
The expression מופלא של בית דין occurs only once in the Mishna, Horajoth i. 4.
In that passage directions are given as to what is to be done in the event of
the court having arrived at an erroneous decision in the absence of the מופלא של
בית דין, i.e. the most distinguished, most eminent member of the collegium. For
the meaning of מופלא, comp. Buxtorf’s Lex. col. 1729 f. Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb.
under word. As regards the time of Christ it may be held as certain, from all
that has just been said, that the office of president was always occupied by the
high priest for the time being, and that too in virtue of his being such. 3. Its
jurisdiction. As regards the area over which the jurisdiction of the supreme
Sanhedrim extended, it has been already remarked above (p. 142) that its civil
authority was restricted, in the time of Christ, to the eleven toparchies of
Judaea proper. And accordingly, for this reason, it had no judicial authority
over Jesus Christ so long as He remained in Galilee. It was only as soon as He
entered Judaea that He came directly under its jurisdiction. In a certain sense,
no doubt, the Sanhedrim exercised such jurisdiction over every Jewish community
in the world, and in that sense over Galilee as well. Its orders were regarded
as binding throughout the entire domain of orthodox Judaism. It had power, for
example, to issue warrants to the congregations (synagogues) in Damascus for the
apprehension of the Christians in that quarter (Acts 9:2; Acts 22:5; Acts
26:12). At the same time however the extent to which the Jewish communities were
willing to yield obedience to the orders of the Sanhedrim always depended on how
far they were favourably disposed toward it. It was only within the limits of
Judaea proper that it exercised any direct authority. There could not possibly
be a more erroneous way of defining the extent of its jurisdiction as regards
the kind of causes with which it was competent to deal than to say that it was
the spiritual or theological tribunal in contradistinction to the civil
judicatories of the Romans. On the contrary, it would be more correct to say
that it formed, in contrast to the foreign authority of Rome, that supreme
native court which here, as almost everywhere else, the Romans had allowed to
continue as before, only imposing certain restrictions with regard to
competency. To this tribunal then belonged all those judicial matters and all
those measures of an administrative character which either could not be
competently dealt with by the inferior local courts or which the Roman
procurator had not specially reserved for himself. The Sanhedrim was, above all,
the final court of appeal for questions connected with the Mosaic law, but not
in the sense that it was open to any one to appeal to it against the decisions
of the inferior courts, but ather in so far as it was called upon to intervene
in every case in which the lower courts could not agree as to their
judgment.[789] And when once it had given a decision in any case the judges of
the local courts were, on pain of death, bound to acquiesce in it.[790] In the
theoretical speculations of the scribes we find the following specially laid
down as cases which are to belong to the jurisdiction of the supreme court of
justice: “A tribe (charged with idolatry), or a false prophet, or a high priest
is only to be tried before the court of the seventy-one. A voluntary war is only
to be commenced after the decision of the court of the seventy-one has been
given regarding it. There is to be no enlargement of the city (Jerusalem or the
courts of the temple) till after the court of the seventy-one has decided the
matter. Superior courts for the tribes are only to be instituted when sanctioned
by the court of the seventy-one. A town that has been seduced into idolatry is
only to be dealt with by the court of the seventy-one.”[791] Accordingly the
high priest might be tried by the Sanhedrim,[792] though the king, on the other
hand, was as little amenable to its authority as he was at liberty to become one
of its members.[793] At the same time it is not difficult to perceive that all
the regulations just referred to have the air of being of a purely theoretical
character, that they do not represent the actual state of things, but merely the
devout imaginations of the Mishnic doctors. The facts to be gleaned from the
pages of the New Testament are of a somewhat more valuable character. We know,
as matter of fact, that Jesus appeared before the Sanhedrim charged with
blasphemy (Matthew 26:65; John 19:7), and that, before this same tribunal, Peter
and John were brought up charged with being false prophets and deceivers of the
people (Acts 4, 5), Stephen with being a blasphemer (Acts 6:13 ff.), and Paul
with being guilty of transgressing the Mosaic law (Acts 23).[794] [789] Antt.
iv. 8. 14, fin.; Sanhedrin xi. 2 (see the passage as quoted above, p. 142).
[790] Sanhedrin xi. 2. [791] Sanhedrin i. 5. Comp. Sanhedrin ii. 4: “If the king
is disposed to enter upon an unprovoked war, he is at liberty to do so only
after the decision of the council of the seventy-one has been given.” [792] See
also Sanhedrin i. 1. [793] Sanhedrin ii. 2. [794] The series of cases being the
same as in Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 552. There is a special interest attaching
to the question as to how far the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim was limited by
the authority of the Roman procurator.[795] We accordingly proceed to observe
that, inasmuch as the Roman system of provincial government was not strictly
carried out in the case of Judaea (see above, § 17‌c), as the simple fact of its
being administered by means of a procurator plainly shows, the Sanhedrim was
still left in the enjoyment of a comparatively high degree of independence. Not
only did it exercise civil jurisdiction, and that according to Jewish law (which
was only a matter of course, as otherwise a Jewish court of justice would have
been simply inconceivable), but it also enjoyed a considerable amount of
criminal jurisdiction as well. It had an independent authority in regard to
police affairs, and consequently possessed the right of ordering arrests to be
made by its own officers (Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; Acts 4:3; Acts
5:17-18).[796] It had also the power of finally disposing, on its own authority,
of such cases as did not involve sentence of death (Acts 4:5-23; Acts 5:21-40).
It was only in cases in which such sentence of death was pronounced that the
judgment required to be ratified by the authority of the procurator. Not only is
this expressly affirmed with regard to the Jews in the Gospel of John (18:31
ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα), but it follows as matter of certainty, from
the account of the condemnation of Jesus as given by the Synoptists. Besides, a
reminiscence of this fact has survived in the Jewish traditions.[797] But it is
at the same time a fact worthy of note, that the procurator regulated his
judgment in accordance with Jewish law; only on this assumption could Pilate
have pronounced sentence of death in the case of Jesus. It is true the
procurator was not compelled to have any regard to Jewish law in the matter at
all, but still he was at liberty to do so, and as a rule he actually did so.
There was one special offence in regard to which the Jews had been accorded the
singular privilege of proceeding even against Roman citizens according to Jewish
law. For if on any occasion one who was not a Jew happened to pass the barrier
at the temple in Jerusalem, beyond which only Jews could go, and thus intrude
into the inner court, he was punished with death, and that even though he were a
Roman.[798] Of course, even in this latter case, it was necessary that the
sentence of the Jewish court should be confirmed by the Roman procurator. For we
can hardly venture to infer, from the terms used by Josephus in speaking of this
matter, that in this special instance, though in this alone, the Jews had an
absolute right to carry out the capital sentence on their own authority. Nor
would we be justified in drawing any such inference from the stoning of Stephen
(Acts 7:5 ff.). This latter is rather to be regarded either as a case of excess
of jurisdiction, or as an act of irregular mob-justice. Still, on the other
hand, it would be a mistake to assume, as a statement in Josephus might seem to
warrant us in doing, that the Sanhedrim was not at liberty to meet at all
without the consent of the procurator.[799] But all that is meant by the
statement in question is that the high priest had no right to hold a court of
supreme jurisdiction in the absence and without the consent of the procurator.
As little are we to assume that the Jewish authorities were required to hand
over every offender in the first instance to the procurator. This they no doubt
did if at any time it seemed to them to be expedient to do so,[800] but that
does not necessarily imply that they were bound to do it. We see then that the
Sanhedrim had been left in the enjoyment of a tolerably extensive jurisdiction,
the most serious restriction to it being, of course, the fact that the Roman
authorities could at any time take the initiative themselves, and proceed
independently of the Jewish court, as they actually did in not a few instances,
as, for example, when Paul was arrested. Further, it was in the power, not only
of the procurator, but even of the tribune of the cohorts stationed in
Jerusalem, to call the Sanhedrim together for the purpose of submitting to it
any matter requiring to be investigated from the standpoint of Jewish law (Acts
20:30; comp. 23:15, 20, 28). [795] On this point, comp. Bynaeus, De morte Jesu
Christi, iii. 1. 9-14. Deyling, De Judaeorum jure gladii tempore Christi, ad
John xviii. 31 (Observationes sacrae, part ii. 1737, pp. 414-428; also in
Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxvi.). Iken, De jure vitae et necis tempore mortis
Servatoris apud Judaeos non amplius superstite ad John xviii. 31 (in his
Dissertatt. philol.-theol. ii. 517-572). A. Balth. v. Walther,
Juristisch-historische Betrachtungen ueber die Geschichte vom Leiden und Sterben
Jesu Christi, etc., Breslau 1777, pp. 142-168 (this latter work I know only
through the quotation from it in Lücke’e Commentar ueber das Ev. Joh., ii. 736;
for more of the earlier literature, see Wolf’s Curae philol in Nov. Test., note
on John 18:31). Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 553. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl.,
1st ed. vol. xv. 320-322. Döllinger’s Christenthum und Kirche in der Zeit der
Grundlegung (2nd ed. 1868), pp. 466-460. Langen in the Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr.
1862, pp. 411-468. On the judicial arrangements in the Roman provinces generally
see Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses (1842), pp. 471-486.
Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. ii., especially pp. 12 and 345. [796]
According to Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:43, it was by the Jewish police that Jesus
was arrested. It is only in the fourth Gospel that it seems to be implied that
it was a Roman tribune (officer) with his cohort that apprehended Jesus (John
18:3; John 18:12). [797] Jer. Sanhedrin i. 1 (fol. 18a) and vii. 2 (fol. 24b):
“The right of pronouncing sentences of life or death was taken from Israel
(ניטלו דיני נפשות מישראל) forty years before the destruction of the temple.” The
date of the withdrawal here given is, of course, worthless, for it may be
assumed as certain that this did not merely occur for the first time when Pilate
was procurator, but that in fact no such right could be said to have belonged to
the Jews ever since Judaea came to be under procurators at all. [798] Bell. Jud.
vi. 2. 4: Titus puts to the besieged the following question: Did we not grant
you permission to put to death any one who went beyond the barrier, even though
he were a Roman? (οὐχ ἡμεῖς δὲ τοὺς ὑπερβάντας ὑμῖν ἀναιρεῖν ἐπετρέψαμεν, κἄν
Ῥωμαίων τις ᾖ;). On this comp. also § 24, below. The subjecting of Roman
citizens to the laws of a foreign, city is an extraordinary concession, which,
as a rule, was made only in the case of those communities which were recognised
as liberae. See Khun, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 24. Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 75 f., and especially the decree of the Roman
senate with reference to Chios passed in the year 674 A.U.C. = 80 B.C. (Corp.
Inscr. Graec. n. 2222): οἵ τε παρʼ αὐτοῖς ὄντες Ῥωμαῖοι τοῖς Χείων ὑπακούωσιν
νόμοις. This concession then was accorded to the Jews, at least as far as the
particular case in question was concerned. [799] Antt. xx. 9. 1: οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν
Ἀνάνῳ χωρὶς τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης καθίσαι συνέδριον. [800] In the time of Albinus,
for example, the Jewish ἄρχοντες delivered to the procurator a certain lunatic,
whose behaviour seemed to them to be of a dangerous character (Bell. Jud. vii.
5. 3, ed. Bekker, p. 104, lin, 6 ff.). 4. The time and place of meeting. The
local courts usually sat on the second and fifth days of the week (Monday and
Thursday).[801] Whether this was also the practice in the case of the supreme
Sanhedrim we have no means of knowing. There were no courts held on festival
days (יום טוב), much less on the Sabbath.[802] As in criminal cases a capital
sentence could not be pronounced till the day following the trial, it was
necessary to take care not to allow cases of this nature to be concluded on the
evening preceding the Sabbath or any festival day.[803] Of course all those
regulations were, in the first instance, of a purely theoretical character, and,
as we know from what took place in the case of Jesus, were by no means strictly
adhered to. The place in which the supreme Sanhedrim was in the habit of meeting
(the βουλή) was situated, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2, close to
the so-called Xystos, and that on the east side of it, in the direction of the
temple mount. Now, seeing that, according to Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 3, there was
nothing but a bridge between the Xystos and this latter, it is probable that the
βουλή was to be found upon the temple mount itself, on the western side of the
enclosing wall. In any case, it must have stood outside the upper part of the
city, for, according to Bell. Jud. vi. 6. 3, we find that the Romans had
destroyed the βουλευτήριον (= βουλή) before they had as yet got possession of
the upper part of the city. The Mishna repeatedly mentions the לִשְׁכַּת
הַנָּוִית as the place where the supreme Sanhedrim held its sittings.[804] Now,
seeing that its statements cannot possibly refer to any other period than that
of Josephus, and considering, more-over, that by the βουλή of this historian we
are undoubtedly to understand the meeting-place of the supreme Sanhedrim, we
must necessarily identify the לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית with the βουλή of Josephus. It
may be presumed therefore that the designation לשכת הגזית was not meant to imply
(as has been commonly supposed) that the hall in question was built of hewn
stones (גָּזִית = hewn stones),—which could hardly be regarded as a
characteristic feature,—but that it stood beside the Xystos (גָּזִית = ξυστός,
as in the Sept. 1 Chronicles 22:2; Amos 5:11). To distinguish it from the other
לְשָׁכוֹת on the temple esplanade it was called, from its situation, “the hall
beside the Xystos.” It is true that the Mishna represents it as having been
within the inner court.[805] But, considering how untrustworthy and sometimes
inaccurate are its statements elsewhere regarding the topography of the temple,
the testimony of the Mishna cannot be supposed to invalidate the result arrived
at above, especially as it happens to be corroborated by other circumstances
besides.[806] We may regard as utterly useless here the later Talmudic
statement, to the effect that, forty years before the destruction of the temple,
the Sanhedrim had either removed or had been ejected (גלתה) from the lischkath
hagasith, and that after that it held its sittings in the chanujoth (חנויות) or
in a chanuth (חנות), a merchant’s shop.[807] This view must be completely
dismissed, for the simple reason that no trace of it is as yet to be met with in
the pages of the Mishna, which, on the contrary, obviously presupposes that the
Sanhedrim still held its sittings in the lischkath hagasith on the very eve of
the destruction of the temple. As it so happens that the forty years immediately
preceding the destruction of the temple are also regarded as the period during
which the Sanhedrim had ceased to have the right to pronounce a capital sentence
(see above, note [808] it is probable that what the Talmudic statement in
question means, is that during the period just referred to the Sanhedrim was no
longer at liberty, or was no longer inclined, to hold its sittings in the usual
official courthouse, but met in some obscure place, i.e. in “the merchant’s
shops,” or, as the reading with the singular chanuth is perhaps to be preferred,
in a “merchant’s shop.” For חָנוּת is the ordinary word for a shop with an
arched roof, a merchant’s shop.[809] As in one instance it is stated that the
Sanhedrim subsequently removed from the chanuth into Jerusalem,[810] probably we
are to conceive of that building as having been outside the city proper. But all
further conjectures on the part of scholars as to where it stood are
superfluous, for the thing itself is in the main unhistorical.[811] Although on
the occasion on which Jesus was condemned to death (Mark 14:53 ff.; Matthew
26:57 ff.) the Sanhedrim happened to meet in the palace of the high priest, we
must regard this as an exception to the rule, rendered necessary by the simple
fact of its having met during the night. For at night the gates of the temple
mount were shut.[812] [801] Kethuboth i. 1. [802] Beza (or Jom tob), v. 2. Comp.
Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xiii. 203 (art. “Sabbath”).
Bleek’s Beiträge zur Evangelien-Kritik (1846), p. 141 ff.; Wieseler’s
Chronologische Synopse, p. 361 ff. Kirchner, Die jüdische Passahfeier und Jesu
letztes Mahl (Program. for the Gymnasium at Duisburg, 1870), p. 57 ff. [803]
Sanhedrin iv. 1, fin. [804] Sanhedrin xi. 2; Middoth v. 4. Comp. Pea ii. 6;
Edujoth vii. 4. [805] See Middoth v. 4 in particular; also Sanhedrin xi. 2. In
the Babylonian Gemara, Joma xx.a, it is stated somewhat more circumstantially
that the לשכת הגזית stood one half within, and the other half without the court
(see the passage, for example, in Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. under גזית). Pea ii. 6
and Edujoth vii. 4 cannot be said to furnish any data for enabling us to
determine the site of the building; as little have we any in Tamid ii. fin., iv.
fin. For although, according to the two last-mentioned passages, the priests
were in the habit of betaking themselves to the לשכת הגזית during the intervals
between the various parts of the service, for the purpose of casting the lots
and of repeating the schma, it does not necessarily follow from this that the
building was situated within the court. [806] In the tractate Joma i. 1 mention
is made of a לשכת פרהדרין (as we ought to read with Cod. de Rossi 138, instead
of the לשכת פלהדרין of the printed editions), by which we are undoubtedly to
understand the place in which the supreme Sanhedrim met (פרהדרין = πάρεὸροι);
and it is, to say the least of it, most in harmony with the context (comp. i. 5)
to regard it as having been outside the court. But the truth is, it is in itself
somewhat unlikely that any portion of the inner court would be used for purposes
other than those connected with the temple services. [807] Shabbath xv.a; Rosh
hashana xxxi.a; Sanhedrin xii.a; Aboda sara viii.b In the edition of the Talmud
now before me (Amsterdam 1644 ff.) it is only in the first-mentioned passage
(Shabbath xv.a) that the plural chanujoth occurs, the singular chanuth being
used in the other three instances. See besides the passages in Selden’s De
synedriis, ii. 15. 7-8; Wagenseil’s note on Sota ix. 11 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna,
iii. 297); Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb. ii. 80 (see under חנות). [808] Chagiga ii.
2: “Jose ben Joeser affirms that there should be no laying on of hands in the
case of festival sacrifices, while Jose ben Jochanan says that it is quite
permissible. Josua ben Perachja decided in the negative, Nittai (or Mattai) of
Arbela in the affirmative. Juda ben Tabbai in the negative, Simon ben Schetach
in the affirmative. Schemaja in the affirmative, Abtaljon in the negative.
Hillel and Menachem were at one in their opinion; when Menachem withdrew and
Schammai entered, Schammai pronounced in the negative, Hillel in the
affirmative. Of those men the first of each pair was always a president and the
second a supreme judge (הראשונים היו נשיאים ושנים להס אבית בית דין).” [809] For
example, see Baba kamma ii. 2, vi. 6; Baba mezia ii. 4, iv. 11; Baba bathra ii.
8. For the plural חנויות, see Taanith i. 6; Baba mezia viii. 6; Aboda sara i. 4;
Tohoroth vi. 3. The shopkeeper or dealer was called חַנְוָנִי. [810] Rosh
hashana xxxi.a [811] The above explanation of the origin of the unhistorical
statement in question now appears to me to be the most probable of any. For
another see Stud. u. Krit. 1878, p. 625. Even so early as in the Talmud we find
nothing but a fluctuating indecision as to the motives which led the Sanhedrim
to remove from the usual place of meeting; see Aboda sara viii.b, or the German
translation in Ferd. Christian Ewald, Aboda Sarah, oder der Götzendienst (2nd
ed. 1868), pp. 62-64. [812] Middoth i. 1. We have no evidence of any other
meeting of the Sanhedrim ever having been held in the high priest’s palace. For
in Luke 22:54 ff. and John 18:13 ff., what we have to do with is simply a
preliminary investigation before the high priest. And as for the statement with
regard to the place of meeting in Matthew 26:3, it is only to be regarded as a
subsequent addition on the part of the evangelist, comp. Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2.
For a fuller discussion of the question as to where the supreme Sanhedrim held
its sittings, see my article in the Stud. u. Krit. 1878, pp. 608-626. See also,
at p. 608 of the same, the earlier literature of the subject, in which however
no decisive results have been reached owing to the uncritical way in which it
has dealt with the sources. 5. Judicial procedure. This, according to the
account of it given in the Mishna, was as follows.[813] The members of the court
sat in a semicircle (כַּחֲצִי גּוֹרֶן עֲגוּלָה, literally, like the half of a
circular threshing-floor), in order that they might be able to see each other.
In front of them stood the two clerks of the court, one on the right hand and
the other on the left, whose duty it was to record the votes of those who were
in favour of acquittal on the one hand, and of those who were in favour of a
sentence of condemnation on the other.[814] There also sat in front of them
three rows of the disciples of the learned men, each of whom had his own special
seat assigned him.[815] The prisoner at the bar was always required to appear in
a humble attitude and dressed in mourning.[816] In cases involving a capital
sentence, special forms were prescribed for conducting the trial and pronouncing
the sentence. On such occasions it was the practice always to hear the reasons
in favour of acquittal in the first place, which being done, those in favour of
a conviction might next be stated.[817] When any one had once spoken in favour
of the accused he was not at liberty afterwards to say anything unfavourable to
him, though the converse was permissible.[818] Those of the student disciples
who happened to be present were also allowed to speak, though only in favour of
and not against the prisoner, while on other occasions not involving a capital
sentence they could do either the one or the other as they thought proper.[819]
A sentence of acquittal might be pronounced on the same day as that of the
trial, whereas a sentence of condemnation could not be pronounced till the
following day.[820] The voting, in the course of which each individual stood up
in his turn,[821] began “at the side,” מִן הַצַּר, i.e. with the youngest member
of the court, whereas on other occasions it was the practice to commence with
the most distinguished member.[822] For a sentence of acquittal a simple
majority was sufficient, while for one of condemnation again a majority of two
was required.[823] If therefore twelve of the twenty-three judges necessary to
form a quorum voted for acquittal and eleven for a conviction, then the prisoner
was discharged; but if, on the other hand, twelve were for a conviction and
eleven for acquittal, then in that case the number of the judges had to be
increased by the addition of two to their number, which was repeated if
necessary until either an acquittal was secured or the majority requisite for a
conviction was obtained. But, of course, they had to restrict themselves to the
maximum number of seventy-one.[824] [813] On the forms of judicial procedure in
the Old Testament, see Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Gericht;” Oehler’s art.
“Gericht und Gerichtsverwaltung bei den Hebräern,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st
ed. vol. v. pp. 57-61. Saalschütz, Das Mosaische Recht, ii. 593 ff. Keil,
Handbuch der biblischen Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), sec. 150, Köhler, Lehrbuch
der biblischen Geschichte, i. 359 ff. [814] Sanhedrin iv. 3. There is also one
instance in Josephus in which ὁ γραμματεὺς τῆς βουλῆς is mentioned, Bell. Jud.
v. 13. 1. [815] Sanhedrin iv. 4. [816] Joseph. Antt. xiv. 9. 4. Comp. Sacharja
3. 3. [817] Sanhedrin iv. 1. [818] Sanhedrin iv. 1, v. 5. [819] Sanhedrin iv. 1,
v. 4. [820] Sanhedrin iv. 1, v. 5. On this ground many have sought to account
for the alleged twofold meeting of the Sanhedrim when Jesus was condemned to
death. [821] Sanhedrin v. 5. [822] Sanhedrin iv. 2. [823] Sanhedrin iv. 1. [824]
Sanhedrin v. 5.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 58: IV. THE HIGH PRIESTS
========================================================================

IV. THE HIGH PRIESTS THE LITERATURE Selden, De successions in pontificatum
Ebraeorum, lib. i. cap. 11-12 (frequently printed along with Selden’s other
works; for example, in the edition of the Uxor Ebraica, Francof. ad Od. 1673;
also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xii.). Lightfoot, Ministerium templi
Hierosolymitani, c. iv. 3 (Opp. ed. Roterodam. i. 684 ff.). Reland, Antiquitates
sacrae, par. ii. c. 2 (ed. Lips. 1724, p. 146 f.). Anger, De temporum in actis
apostolorum ratione (1833), p. 93 f. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol.
vi. 3rd ed. 1868, p. 634. Schürer, Die ἀρχιερεῖς im Neuen Testamente (Stud. u.
Krit. 1872, pp. 593-657). Grätz, Monatsschr.für Geschichte und Wissensch. des
Judenthums, Jahrg. 1877, pp. 450-464, and Jahrg. 1881, pp. 49-64, 97-112. The
most distinctive feature of the Jewish constitution as it existed during the
period subsequent to the exile is this, that the high priest was the political
head of the nation as well. That he was so at least from the commencement of the
Greek era down to the days of the Romano-Herodian rule is regarded as entirely
beyond dispute. The high priests of the pre-Maccabaean age as well as those of
the Asmonaean line were not only priests, but also princes at one and the same
time. And although their authority was restricted on the one hand by the Greek
suzerains, and on the other by the gerousia, still it was very greatly
strengthened by the fact that their high office was hereditary and tenable for
life. The combination of priesthood and royalty as seen in the case of the later
Asmonaeans represented the very acme of sacerdotal power and authority. After
the Romans came upon the scene, and still more under the Herodian princes, they
of course lost much of their power. The Asmonaean dynasty was overthrown, nay
was extirpated altogether. The principle of inheritance and life-tenure was done
away with. High priests were appointed and deposed at pleasure by Herod and the
Romans alike. In addition to this, there was the steady increase of the power of
Pharisaism and the Rabbinical school. But even in spite of the combined
influence of all the factors we have mentioned, the high-priesthood contrived to
retain a considerable share of its original power down to the time of the
destruction of the temple. And even after that the high priests continued to act
as presidents of the Sanhedrim, and consequently to have the chief direction of
the civil affairs of the community as well. Even then there still remained a few
privileged families from which the high priests continued to be almost always
selected. And accordingly, although under the supreme rule of the Romans and the
Herodian princes they no longer formed, it may be, a monarchical dynasty, they
yet continued to exist as an influential aristocracy. As we are familiar, from
political history, with the series of high priests down to the overthrow of the
Asmonaeans, it will be sufficient at present merely to subjoin a list of those
belonging to the Romano-Herodian period. Josephus tells us that they numbered
twenty-eight in all.[825] Accordingly on collating his different notices with
regard to them, we get the following twenty-eight names:—[826] [825] Antt. xx.
10. [826] A list of those high priests, based on the notices found in Josephus,
has already been framed by several Greek divines, viz. (1) by Josephus the
Christian in his Hypomnesticum s. liber memorialis, chap. ii. (first edited by
Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test., vol. ii., and afterwards given in
Gallendi’s Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xiv., and Migne’s Patrol. graec., vol. cvi.);
(2) by Nicephorus Constantinop. in his Chronographia compendiaria, or rather
according to De Boor, by the author of the revised version of this Chronography
(critical edition by Credner in two programs for the University of Giessen,
1832-1838, ii. 33 f., and especially by De Boor, Nicephori Const. opuscula,
Lips. 1880, pp. 110-112). Then Zonaras, who inserts extracts from Josephus into
the first six books of his Annals, has also adopted the passages about the high
priests almost entirely (Annal. v. 12-vi. 17). The part referring to the high
priests in the time of Jesus (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2) is also quoted by
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. i. 10. 5-6, and Demonstr. evang. viii. 2. 100; in like
manner in the Chron. paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 417. Of the modern lists the most
correct is that of Anger, with which our own entirely agrees. For a fuller
treatment of the matter, see my article in the Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp. 597-607.
(a) Appointed by Herod (37-4 B.C.):— 1. Ananel (37-36 B.C.), a native of
Babylon, and belonging to an obscure priestly family, Antt. xv. 2. 4, 3. 1. The
Rabbinical traditions represent him as having been an Egyptian.[827] [827] In
the Mishna, Para iii. 5, those high priests are enumerated under whom a red
heifer had been burnt (in compliance with the enactment of Numbers 19.). In the
post-Asmonaean age this took place under the three following:—(1) Elioenai ben
ha-Kajaph, (2) Chanamel the Egyptian, (3) Ismael ben Pi-abi (אליועיניי בן הקייף
וחנמאל המצרי וישמעאל בן פי אבי, the orthography of the names according to Cod.
de Rossi 138). Chanamel the Egyptian can have been no other than our Ananel.
There can hardly be a doubt that the form of the name is just as inaccurate as
is the statement to the effect that he was an Egyptian. Moreover, the
chronological order is incorrect, for by the Elioenai, who is mentioned first,
no other can have been intended than Elionaios the son of Kantheras, whose name
occurs much farther down the list (No. 19). As for the rest, the term “Egyptian”
is simply equivalent to Alexandrian, which other high priests of the time of
Herod actually were, as for example the sons of Boethos (Antt. xv. 9. 3). 2.
Aristobulus, the last of the Asmonaeans (35 B.C.), Antt. xv. 3. 1, 3. Ananel for
the second time (34 ff. B.C.), Antt. xv. 3. 3. 3. Jesus the son of Phabes, Antt.
xv. 9. 3.[828] [828] In Joseph. Hypomnest. Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Φαυβῆ, Zonaras. Annal.
v. 16 (Bonnens, i. 488), Φάβητος, as in Josephus the Jew. 4. Simon the son of
Boethos, or according to other accounts, Boethos himself, in any case the
father-in-law of Herod, he having been the father of Mariamne II. (some time
between 24 and 25 B.C.), Antt. xv. 9. 3, xvii. 4. 2. Comp. xviii. 5. 1, xix. 6.
2. The family belonged originally to Alexandria, Antt. xv. 9. 3. 5. Matthias the
son of Theophilos (5-4 B.C.), Antt. xvii. 4. 2, 6. 4. 6. Joseph the son of
Ellem, Antt. xvii. 6. 4.[829] [829] Whether this Joseph should be included in
the list is open to question, for he officiated only once, and that on the great
day of atonement, merely as a substitute for Matthias, who had been prevented
from doing duty himself in consequence of some Levitical defilement. But be this
as it may, he was still, on this account, the actual high priest for at least a
period of one day, while he is certainly included by Josephus, as otherwise the
number would not have amounted to twenty-eight. His name likewise occurs in the
list of Josephus the Christian (Hypomnest. chap. ii.). The singular incident
just referred to is also frequently mentioned in the Rabbinical sources (see
Selden, De succession in pontificatum Ebr. i. 11, ed. Francof. p. 160.
Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 160, note. Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1881,
p. 51 ff.). The high priest now in question is there known as יוסף בן אילם. 7.
Joasar the son of Boethos (4 B.C.), Antt. xvii. 6. 4. (b) Appointed by Archelaus
(4 B.C.-6 A.D.):— 8. Eleasar the son of Boethos (4 ff.), Antt. xvii. 13. 1. 9.
Jesus the son of Σεέ, Antt. xvii. 13. 1.[830] [830] In Joseph. Antt. xvii. 13.
1, he is called Ἰησοῦς ὁ Σιέ or Σεέ (the manuscripts reading sometimes the one
and sometimes the other); Joseph. Hypomnest. Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σεέ; in Nicephorus,
Ἰησοῦς Ὠσηέ; in Zonaras, Annal. vi. 2 (ed. Bonnens. i. 472), παῖς Σεέ. Joasar
for the second time, Antt. xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1. (c) Appointed by Quirinus (A.D.
6):— 10. Ananos or Hannas the son of Seth (6-15 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 1, 2.
Comp. xx. 9. 1; Bell. Jud. v. 12. 2. This is the high priest so well known in
the New Testament, Luke 3:2; John 18:13-24; Acts 4:6. (d) Appointed by Valerius
Gratus (A.D. 15-26):— 11. Ismael the son of Phabi (some time between 15 and 16
A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2.[831] [831] The name of the father as given in Joseph.
Antt. xviii. 2, 2; Euseb. Hist. eccl. i. 10. 5, ed. Heinichen; and Zonaras,
Annal. vi. 3 (ed. Bonnens. i. 477), is Φαβί; while in Euseb. Demonstr. ev. viii.
2. 100, it is Φήβα; in Joseph. Hypomnest. Βιαβῆ; and in Chron. pasch., ed.
Dindorf, i. 417, Βαφεί. 12. Eleasar the son of Ananos (some time between 16 and
17 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2. 13. Simon the son of Kamithos (somewhere about
17-18 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2.[832] [832] This high priest is also frequently
mentioned in the Rabbinical sources (Selden, De successione in pontificat. pp.
161, 177, ed. Francof. Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 197. Grätz, Monatsschrift 1881,
p. 53 ff.). He is there known by the name of שמעון בן קמהית. In Joseph. Antt.,
Euseb. Hist. eccl., and in Zonaras, Annal. vi. 3 (i. 477), the father’s name is
Κάμιθος while in Euseb. Demonstr. it is Κάθιμος, in Joseph. Hypomnest. Κάθημος,
and in Chron. pasch., ed. Dindorf, i. 408 and 417, Καμαθεί. 14. Joseph called
Caiaphas (somewhere between 18 and 36 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 2. 2, 4. 3. Comp.
Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; John 18:13-14; John 18:24;
John 18:28; Acts 4:6. According to John 18:13, he was the father-in-law of
Hannas = Ananos.[833] [833] The surname Caiaphas is not = כיפא, but = קייפא or
קייף; see note 544 above. Derenbourg, p. 215, note 2. (e) Appointed by Vitellius
(35-39 A.D.):— 15. Jonathan the son of Ananos (36-37 A.D.), Antt. xviii. 4. 3,
5. 3. Comp. xix. 6. 4. He was found still playing a prominent part in public
life in the time of Cumanus, 50-52 A.D. (Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 5-6), and was
ultimately assassinated at the instigation of Felix the procurator (Bell. Jud.
ii. 13. 3; Antt. xx. 8. 5). 16. Theophilos the son of Ananos (37 ff. A.D.),
Antt. xviii. 5. 3. (f) Appointed by Agrippa I. (41-44 A.D.):— 17. Simon
Kantheras the son of Boethos (41 ff. A.D.), Antt. xix. 6. 2.[834] [834] See the
wild combinations of every sort that have been indulged in with regard to this
personage in Grätz, Monatsschrift 1881, pp. 97-112. 18. Matthias the son of
Ananos, Antt. xix. 6. 4. 19. Elionaios the son of Kantheros, Antt. xix. 8.
1.[835] [835] According to Antt. xx. 1. 3, he also appears to have the surname
Kantheras as well as his father. In the Mishna, Para iii. 5, he is known as
אליועיניי (see note 544, above). The Rabbinical tradition regards him as a son
of Caiaphas. The name אֶלְיְהוֹעֵינַי (my eyes are directed to Jehovah) or
אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי is also to be met with in the Old Testament (Ezra 8:4; Ezra 10:22;
Ezra 10:27; 1 Chronicles 3:23; 1 Chronicles 4:36; 1 Chronicles 7:8; 1 Chronicles
26:3). (g) Appointed by Herod of Chalkis (44-48 A.D.).[836] [836] It would also
be somewhere about this time (about 44 A.D.) that the high priest Ismael comes
in, who according to Antt. iii. 15. 3, was in office during the great famine in
the reign of the Emperor Claudius. But as Josephus says nothing about him in the
course of the narrative itself, we are probably to look upon this casual mention
of him as a fault of memory on the part of the historian. Ewald (Geschichte, vi.
634) inserts him after Elionaios, while Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol.
Zeitalters, p. 159) identifies him with this latter. 20. Joseph the son of Kami
or Kamedes (= Kamithos), Antt. xx. 1. 3, 5. 2.[837] [837] The name of the
father, which at one time appears as Καμεί (Antt. xx. 1. 3 = Zonaras, Annal. vi.
12, fin.) or Κάμη (Joseph. Hypomnest.), at another as Κεμεδής (Antt. xx. 5. 2,
according to the reading of Dindorf and Bekker = Zonaras, Annal. vi. 14), is in
any case identical with Kamithos. 21. Ananias the son of Nedebaios (somewhere
between 47 and 59 A.D.), Antt. xx. 5. 2; comp. xx. 6. 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 6;
Acts 23:2; Acts 24:1. In consequence of his wealth he continued to be a man of
great influence even after his deposition, although, at the same time, notorious
for his avarice (Antt. xx. 9. 2-4). He was put to death by the insurgents at the
commencement of the Jewish war (Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 6, 9).[838] [838] For his
avarice, comp. besides the Talmudic tradition in Derenbourg’s Histoire, p. 233
f. (h) Appointed by Agrippa II (50-100 A.D.):— 22. Ismael the son of Phabi
(about 59-61 A.D.), Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11. He is probably identical with the person
of the same name whose execution at Cyrene is incidentally mentioned, Bell. Jud.
vi. 2. 2.[839] [839] It is probably this younger Ismael, son of Phabi (not the
high priest of the same name who stands eleventh in the list), that is also
referred to in the Rabbinical traditions regarding ישמעאל בן פיאבי (Mishna, Para
iii. 5; Sota ix. 15; in the latter passage it is also the high priest of this
name that is meant, for the predicate Rabbi should, with Cod. de Rossi, be
expunged. Tosefta. ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 182. 26, 533. 35 f., 632. 6. See in
general, Derenbourg’s Histoire, pp. 232-235). In the printed texts the father’s
name is frequently corrupted. The correct form is פיאבי, or divided thus פי אבי
(as in Cod. de Rossi 138, in the one passage in which it occurs in the Mishna,
viz. Para iii. 5). There is as near an approach to this as possible in the Greek
form Φιαβι, which is found in the manuscripts in one instance at least, viz.
Antt.. xx. 8. 8. 23. Joseph Kabi,[840] son of Simon the high priest (61-62
A.D.), Antt. xx. 8. 11; comp. Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2. [840] In Joseph. Antt. xx. 8.
11, the surname is written Καβί; in Zonoras, Annal. vi. 17, it is Δεκαβί (i.e.
δὲ Καβί); and in Joseph. Hypomnest. Κάμης. The latter would correspond to
Kamithos. 24. Ananos the son of Ananos (62 A.D., for only three months), Antt.
xx. 9. 1. He was one of those who played a leading part during the first period
of the Jewish war, but was subsequently put to death by the populace, Bell. Jud.
ii. 20. 3, 22. 1-2, iv. from 3. 7 to 5. 2; Vita, 38, 39, 44, 60.[841] [841] For
combinations with respect to this high priest, see Grätz, Monatsschr. 1881, pp.
56-62. 25. Jesus the son of Damnaios (about 62-63 A.D.), Antt. xx. 9. 1. and 4;
comp. Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2. 26. Jesus the son of Gamaliel (about 63-65 A.D.),
Antt. xx. 9. 4, 7. In the course of the Jewish war he is frequently mentioned
along with Ananos, whose fate he also shared, Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9, 4. 3, 5. 2;
Vita, 38, 41. According to Rabbinical tradition, his wife, Martha, was of the
house of Boethos.[842] [842] Mishna, Jebamoth vi. 4: “If one happens to be
betrothed to a widow, and is subsequently appointed to the office of high
priest, he is at liberty to conduct her home as his bride. Thus Josua, son of
Gamla, was betrothed to Martha the daughter of Boethos, and afterwards the king
appointed him to be high priest; and on the back of this he conducted Martha
home as his bride.” Our Josua, son of Gamala, is probably identical again with
the Ben Gamala who, according to Joma iii. 9, ordered a golden urn to be made
from which to draw the lots relating to the two he-goats on the great day of
atonement. For further Rabbinical traditions regarding this personage, see
Derenbourg, p. 248 f. As to his services in the way of promoting education, see
below, § 27, note 29. 27. Matthias the son of Theophilos (65 ff. A.D.), Antt.
xx. 9. 7; comp. Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2.[843] [843] On this high priest, see also
Grätz, Monatsschr. 1881, pp. 62-64. (i) Appointed by the people during the war
(67-68 A.D.):— 28. Phannias or Phineesos the son of Samuel, and of humble
origin, Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 8; Antt. xx. 10.[844] [844] This, the last of the high
priests, is also known to the Rabbinical traditions; see Derenbourg, p. 269. His
name in Hebrew was פינחס. Owing to the frequency with which those high priests
were changed, the number of those who had ceased to hold office was always
something considerable. But, although they no longer discharged the active
functions of the office, they still continued to occupy an important and
influential position, as can still be shown with regard to several of them at
least.[845] We know from the New Testament, for example, what an amount of
influence the elder Ananos or Hannas (No. 10) had even as a retired high priest.
The same may be said of his son Jonathan (No. 15), who, long after he had ceased
to hold office, conducted an embassy, in the year 52 A.D., to the Syrian viceroy
Umidius Quadratus. This latter then sent him to Rome to answer for certain
disturbances that had taken place in Judaea; and when he had got the matter
settled in favour of the Jews, he took the opportunity of his being in Rome to
request the emperor to send Felix as the new procurator. Then when Felix was
found to be causing universal dissatisfaction in consequence of the way in which
he was discharging the functions of his office, Jonathan took the liberty of
reminding him of his duty, for doing which however he had to answer with his
life.[846] Another high priest, Ananias the son of Nedebaios (No. 21), ruled in
Jerusalem almost like a despot after he had retired from office. Then the
younger Ananos (No. 24) and Jesus the son of Gamaliel (No. 26), although no
longer exercising the functions of the high-priest-hood, were found at the head
of affairs in the earlier stage of the Jewish war. From all this it is evident
that, though not actually in office, those men were by no means condemned to
political inactivity. On the contrary, the office was such that it imparted to
the holder of it a character indelibilis in virtue of which he retained, even
after demitting it, a large portion of the rights and obligations of the
officiating high priest,[847] and of course the title of ἀρχιερεύς as well, a
title that, in Josephus, is accorded to the whole of the ex-high priests.
Consequently wherever in the New Testament ἀρχιερεῖς appear at the head of the
Sanhedrim, we are to understand that those referred to are first and foremost
the ex-high priests in question, inclusive at the same time of the one actually
in office.[848] [845] For what follows, comp. Stud. u. Krit. 1872, p. 619 ff.
[846] The references to passages are to be found above, passim. [847] Horajoth
iii. 1-4. See, in particular, iii. 4: “Between a high priest in office and one
who has demitted it there is no more difference than between the young oxen on
the great day of atonement and the tenth of an ephab. But both are equal to one
another in respect of the service on the great day of atonement, in respect of
the law requiring them to marry a maid; both alike are forbidden to marry a
widow, to defile themselves by contact with the dead bodies of blood relations,
to let the hair grow long, to rend their garments, while their death (in the
event of their being murdered) has the effect of bringing back the murderer.”
The same points to some extent are also found in Megilla i. 9 and Makkoth ii. 6.
[848] This is corroborated above all by the following passages, Bell. Jud. ii.
12. 6: τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς Ἰωνάθην καὶ Ἀνανίαν; Vita, 38: τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς Ἄνανον καὶ
Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Γαμαλᾶ; Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 7: ὁ γεραίτατος τῶν ἀρχιερέων Ἄνανος.
Bell. Jud. iv. 4. 3: ό μετʼ Ἄνανον γεραίτατος τῶν ἀρχιερέων Ἰησοῦς. Bell. Jud.
iv. 3. 9: οἱ δοκιμώτατοι τῶν ἀρχιερέων, Γαμαλᾶ μὲν υἱὸς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀνάνου δὲ
Ἄνανος. In the last three passages the ἀρχιερεῖς must have been high priests in
the sense in which Ananos and Jesus were so, i.e. ex-high priests in the strict
sense of the word. But sometimes we read of certain other personages who are
described as ἀρχιερεῖς, and yet their names do not appear in the foregoing list.
In the Acts (4:6) we have the following enumeration: Ἄννας ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ
Καϊάφας καὶ Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ ὅσοι ἦσαν ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ. In a
subsequent passage (19:14) mention is made of a high priest called Sceva with
his seven sons. Josephus again mentions a certain Jesus, son of Sapphias, as
being τῶν ἀρχιερέων ἕνα,[849] also one Simon ἐξ ἀρχιερέων, who was still young
at the time of the war, and consequently cannot be identical with Simon
Kantheras (No. 17),[850] and lastly, one Matthias, son of Boethos, τὸν ἀρχιερέα
or ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων.[851] Not one of those just mentioned is to be found in our
list. Besides there is many a high priest known to the Rabbinical traditions
whose name does not appear there.[852] This fact may perhaps be sufficiently
accounted for by what we are now going to mention. [849] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 4.
[850] Vita, 39. [851] Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 11, v. 13. 1, vi, 2. 2. [852] See Stud.
u. Krit. 1872, p. 639. Apropos of the irregular appointment of Phannias to the
office of high priest, Josephus remarks,[853] that the zealots, by acting as
they did on this occasion, “had robbed of their importance those families from
which in their order it had been the practice to select the high priests” (ἄκυρα
τὰ γένη ποιήσαντες ἐξ ὧν κατὰ διαδοχὰς οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἀπεδείκυντο). The
high-priesthood would therefore seem to have been vested in a few privileged
families. The truth is, one only requires to glance at the foregoing list in
order to be convinced that the office was confined to only a few families. To
the family of Phabi, for example, belong Nos. 3, 11, 22; to the family of
Boethos, Nos. 4, 7, 8, 17, 19, 26; to the family of Ananos (or Hannas), Nos. 10,
12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 27; and to the family of Kamith, Nos. 13, 20, 23.
Leaving Ananel, a Babylonian of humble origin (No. 1), Aristobulus the last of
the Asmonaeans (No. 2), and Phannias, the high priest of the revolution period
(No. 28), out of account, there remain only five (Nos. 5, 6, 9, 21, 25) who
cannot be proved to have belonged to one or other of those families, although it
is still possible that they did so. Now when one considers how the
high-priesthood was thus confined to a few families, and in what high estimation
the office was held, it is not difficult to see that the mere fact of belonging
to any one of the privileged families in question must of itself have been
sufficient to confer special distinction upon a man. And hence we can understand
how it should be that Josephus, in a certain passage in which he wishes to tell
us particularly who of the notabilities were among those who went over to the
Romans, enumerates the υἱοὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων along with the ἀρχιερεῖς
themselves,[854] In the Mishna again, we find that on one occasion the “sons of
the high priests” (בְּנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים) are quoted as authorities on
certain points of matrimonial law, and that too without mentioning their names,
seeing that the simple fact of their being high priests’ sons stamped them as
men of importance and authority.[855] In another instance, we are informed that
letters with unusually large seals had come “to the sons of the high priests”
(לבני כהנים גדולים) from distant lands,[856] from which we may again infer that
these also enjoyed a certain reputation abroad. But they did not rest satisfied
with the mere dignity of rank; so far from that, the members of those
high-priestly families also played a prominent part in public affairs. According
to Acts 4:6, among those who had seats and a right to speak and vote in the
Sanhedrim were ὅσοι ἦσαν ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ, where, from all that has been
already stated, it is certain that the γένος ἀρχιερατικόν can only refer to the
privileged families now in question. Now, if the members of the high-priestly
families occupied so distinguished a position, it is quite conceivable that the
designation ἀρχιερεῖς would come to be used in a more comprehensive sense so as
to include them as well. That this is what actually took place may be seen, to
say nothing of all that has been previously advanced, from the passage in
Josephus mentioned above, where after recording the fact that two high priests
and eight high priests’ sons were among those who went over to the Romans, he
proceeds to include these two categories under the common designation of
ἀρχιερεῖς.[857] This will also serve to account for the circumstance of high
priests being sometimes mentioned that are not to be found in our list. [853]
Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 6. [854] Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2. [855] Kethuboth xiii. 1-2. [856]
Ohaloth xvii. 5. [857] Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 2: Ὧν ἦσαν ἀρχιερεῖς μὲν Ἰώσητός τε καὶ
Ἰησοῦς, υἱοὶ δʼ ἀρχιερέων τρεῖς μὲν Ἰσμαήλου τοῦ καρατομηθέντος ἐν Κυρήνῃ, καὶ
τοῦ Ματθίου τέσσαρες, καὶ εἷς ἑτέρου Ματθίου παῖς, διαδρὰς μετὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς
ἀπώλειαν, ὃν ὁ τοῦ Γιώρα Σίμων ἀπέκτεινε σὺν τριτὶν υἱοῖς, ὡς προείρηται. Πολλοὶ
δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εὐγενῶν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι συμμετεβάλοντο. Consequently the high
priests that, in the New Testament as well as in Josephus,[858] appear as
leading personages would consist, in the first instance, of the high priests
properly so called, i.e. the one actually in office and those who had previously
been so, and then, of the members of those privileged families from which the
high priests were taken. In the days of Roman rule they were at the head of the
Sanhedrim and of the native government generally, and although the majority of
them were unquestionably men of Sadducaean tendencies, yet in the actual conduct
of affairs they bowed, however reluctantly, to the wishes of the Pharisees (see
above, p. 154). [858] Especially in the section, Bell. Jud. ii. 14-17


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 59: � 24. THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE TEMPLE WORSHIP
========================================================================

§ 24. THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE TEMPLE WORSHIP THE LITERATURE Lightfoot,
Ministerium templi quale erat tempore nostri servatoris (Opp. ed. Rotterdam, i.
pp. 671-758). Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, Gottesdienste und
Gewohnheiten, für Augen gestellet in einer ausführlichen Beschreibung des
gantzen levitischen Priesterthums, ete., itzo von neuem übersehen und in
beygefügten Anmerckungen hin und wieder theils verbessert, theils vermehret
durch Johan. Christophorum Wolfium, Hamburg 1738. Carpzov (Joh. Gottlob),
Apparatus historico criticus antiquitatum sacri codicis (1748), pp. 64-113, 611
ff., 699 ff. Ugolini, Sacerdotium Hebraicum, in his Thesaurus Antiquitatum
sacrarum, vol. xiii. Ibid., still other cognate monographs in vols. xii. and
xiii. Bähr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, 2 vols. 1837-1839), vol. i. 2nd ed.
1874. Winer, Realwörterb., arts. “Priester,” “Leviten,” “Abgaben,” “Erstgeburt,”
“Erstlinge,” “Hebe,” “Zehnt,” “Opfer,” etc. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes
Jisrael, i. 387-424, iii. 106 ff., 162 ff. Oehler, art. “Priesterthum,” in
Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xii. 174-187. Ibid. by the same, arts. “Levi,”
vol. viii. 347-358; “Nethinim,” vol. x. 296 f.; and “Opfercultus,” vol. x.
614-652. The same articles in the second edition as revised by Orelli. De Wette,
Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäol. (4th ed. 1864), p. 268 ff. Ewald, Die
Alterthümer des Volkes Israel, Göttingen 1866. Keil, Handbuch der biblischen
Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 166 ff., 200 ff., 357 ff., 373 ff. Haneberg, Die
religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel (2nd ed. 1869), pp. 356 ff., 508 ff., 599 ff.
Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, the same articles as in Winer. Riehm, Handwörterbuch
des biblischen Alterthums, the articles relating to our subject. Graf, Zur
Geschichte des Stammes Levi (Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A.
T.’s, vol. i. 1869, pp. 68-106, 208-236). Köhler, Lehrbuch der biblischen
Geschichte, vol. i. 1875, pp. 363-454. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, vol. i.
1878, pp. 15-174 (2nd ed., under the title: Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels,
1883). Dillmann, Exegetisches Handbuch zu Exodus und Leviticus (1880), pp.
455-461 and elsewhere. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments
(1881), sec. ccxciv.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 60: I. THE PRIESTHOOD AS A DISTINCT ORDER
========================================================================

I. THE PRIESTHOOD AS A DISTINCT ORDER THE internal development of Israel
subsequent to the exile was essentially determined by the direction given to it
by two equally influential classes, viz. the priests on the one hand and the
scribes on the other. During the centuries immediately following the exile and
till far on into the Greek era, it was, in the first instance, the influence of
the priests that was predominant. It was they who had been instrumental in
organizing the new community; it was from them that the law had emanated; and to
their hands had been entrusted the direction, not only of the material, but also
of the spiritual affairs of the whole body of the people. But although
originally it was they who were specially versed in the law and were looked upon
as its authoritative interpreters, yet by and by there gradually grew up
alongside of them an independent order of doctors or men learned in the law. And
the importance and influence of these latter would necessarily go on increasing
in proportion as the priests grew less and less zealous for the law of their
fathers on the one hand, and as the law itself came to acquire a greater value
and significance in the estimation of the people on the other. This was the case
more particularly after the Maccabaean wars of independence. Ever since then the
scribes got the spiritual superintendence of the people more and more into their
own hands. And so the age of the priests was succeeded by that of the scribes
(comp. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A. T’.s). This however is not to
be understood as implying that the priests had now lost all their influence.
Politically and socially they still occupied the foremost place quite as much as
ever they did. It is true the scribes had now come to be recognised as the
teachers of the people. But, in virtue of their political standing, in virtue of
the powerful resources at their command, and, lastly and above all, in virtue of
their sacred prerogatives—for, inasmuch as they enjoyed the exclusive right of
offering Israel’s sacrifices to God, their intervention was necessary to the
fulfilment of his religious duties in the case of every member of the
community,—in virtue of all this, we say, the priests still continued to have an
extraordinary significance for the life of the nation. Now this significance of
theirs was due mainly to the simple fact that they constituted a distinct order,
possessing the exclusive right to offer the people’s sacrifices to God.
According to the legislation of the Pentateuch, which had been regarded as
absolutely binding ever since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, “the sons of Aaron”
were alone entitled to take part in the sacrificial worship.[859] The priesthood
was therefore a fraternity fenced round with irremovable barriers, for they had
been fixed for ever by natural descent. No one could possibly be admitted to
this order who did not belong to it by birth; nor could any one be excluded from
it whose legitimate birth entitled him to admission. Now this order, so rigidly
exclusive in its character, was in possession of the highest privilege that can
well be conceived of, the privilege namely of offering to God all the sacrifices
of the nation at large, and of every individual member of the community. This
circumstance alone could not but be calculated to invest the priesthood with a
vast amount of influence and authority, all the more that civil life was
intertwined, in such an endless variety of ways, with the religious
observances.[860] But, in addition to this, there was the fact, that ever since
the Deuteronomic legislation came into force in the time of Josiah (about 630
B.C.), it was declared to be unlawful to offer sacrifices anywhere but in
Jerusalem, the whole worship being concentrated in its sole and only legitimate
sanctuary. Consequently all the various offerings from every quarter of the land
flowed into Jerusalem and met at this one common centre of worship, the result
being that the priests that officiated within it came to acquire great power and
wealth. Moreover, this centralization of the worship had the additional effect
of uniting all the members of the priesthood into one firmly compacted body.
[859] See in particular, Exodus 28-29; Leviticus 8-10; Numbers 16-18. I should
observe here that the following view is based on the assumption that the
so-called priestly code, i.e. the bulk of the laws in Exodus, Leviticus and
Numbers, belongs to a later date than Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. This, as it
appears to me. has been clearly demonstrated by the more recent criticism of the
Pentateuch. The legislation of the priestly code evidently represents, in all
its leading features, a later stage of development than Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.
The two latter books would be simply unintelligible were we to suppose that
their authors wrote them with the priestly code already lying before them. [860]
There were, for example, numerous points in matrimonial law and medical
jurisprudence that could only be settled by having recourse to the priesti; see
Numbers 5:11-31 (the procedure in the case of the woman suspected of adultery);
Leviticus 13, 14; Deuteronomy 24:8-9 (procedure in the case of leprosy). From
what has just been said it follows, as matter of course, that the primary
requisite in a priest was evidence of his pedigree. On this the greatest
possible stress was laid. The person who failed to produce it could claim no
title whatever to the rights and privileges of the priesthood. Even so far back
as the time when the first of the exiles returned under Zerubbabel, certain
priestly families were debarred from the sacred office because they could not
produce their genealogical registers.[861] On the other hand, Josephus assures
us, with regard to his own case, that he found his pedigree recorded “in the
public archives.”[862] Consequently the family registers would appear to have
had the character of public records on account of their importance for the
community at large. [861] a Ezra 2:61-63 = Nehemiah 7:63-65. [862] b Joseph.
Vita, 1: τὴν μὲν οὖν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν διαδοχήν, ὡς ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις
ἀναγεγραμμένην εὗρον, οὕτω παρατίθεμαι. With the view of keeping the blood of
the priestly stock as pure as possible, there were also certain regulations
prescribed with regard to marriage. According to the law given in Leviticus
21:7-8, a priest was forbidden to marry a prostitute, or a deflowered maid, or a
woman put away from her husband; consequently he could only choose an undefiled
virgin or widow, and of course even then only such as were of Israelitish
origin.[863] At the same time there was no caste-like restriction forbidding
them to many any but the daughters of priests. Nor were these regulations in any
way relaxed in later times, for so far from that they came to be but the more
sharply defined.[864] We find, for example, that a chaluza, i.e. a widow whom
her brother-in-law declined to marry (according to the law regarding levirate
marriage), was also to be treated as one “who had been put away from her
husband.”[865] Again a priest was forbidden to marry a woman who had been taken
captive in war as being a person that might well be suspected of having been
violated.[866] Then, if a priest was already without children, he was forbidden,
in marrying again, to marry a woman who was “incapable;”[867] but, in any case,
he was never to choose a female proselyte or emancipated slave; nor the daughter
of a man who had been formerly a slave, except in those cases in which the
mother happened to be of Israelitish extraction.[868] The regulations were still
more stringent in the case of the high priest. He was not allowed to marry even
a widow, but only an undefiled virgin (Leviticus 21:13-15). This, like the
former regulations, was also enforced and rendered yet more precise in later
times.[869] In affirming, as he does, that the high priest could only marry a
virgin belonging to a priestly family,[870] Philo states what is at variance at
once with the text of Leviticus and the later standpoint of the law, from both
of which it is evident that it was permissible for the high priest to marry any
Israelitish virgin, no matter to what family she might belong. Possibly Philo’s
view may have been suggested to him by the terms of the passage in Leviticus as
it stands in the Septuagint,[871] perhaps also by actual practice, or, it may
be, by both combined. The regulation in Ezekiel (44:22), to the effect that a
priest was only to marry a virgin, or the widow of a priest, found no place in
the law as subsequently developed. Considering the great importance that was
attached to the strict observance of those regulations, a priest on the occasion
of his marriage was, of course, required to furnish precise evidence of his
wife’s pedigree. Josephus has described at length the very careful way in which
this was gone about,[872] while in the Mishna it is prescribed how far back the
evidence is to extend,[873] and in what cases it may be dispensed with.[874]
[863] Joseph, contra Apion. i. 7: δεῖ γὰρ τὸν μετέχοντα τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐξ
όμοεθνοῦς γυναικὸς παιδοποιεῖσθαι. [864] See in general, Philo, De monarchia,
lib. ii. sec. viii.-xi. (ed. Mang. ii. 228 f.). Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2. The
Rabbinical prescriptions as given in Selden, De successione in pontificatum, ii.
2, 3; Ibid. Uxor Ebraica, i. 7. Wagenseil’s note to Sota iv. 1 (in Surenhusius’
Mishna, iii. 230 ff.). Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xiii. col. 911 ff. [865] Sota
iv. 1, viii. 8; Makkoth iii. 1. Targum of Jonathan, Sifra and Pesikta to
Leviticus 21:7, as given in Ugolini, ut supra. [866] Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2;
contra Apion. i. 7; Antt. xiii. 10. 5, fin. (account of John Hyrcanus).
According to Kethuboth ii. 9, even priests’ wives that had been found in a town
captured by the enemy were debarred from any further conjugal intercourse with
their husbands, unless it could be shown by satisfactory evidence that they had
not been violated. [867] Jebamoth vi. 5. [868] Never a female proselyte or
emancipated slave, Jebamoth vi. 5. With regard to the daughters, see Bikkurim i.
5. Rabbi Elieser ben Jakob says: “A priest is never to marry the daughter of a
proselyte except when her mother happens to be of Israel.” This is no less
applicable to the daughters of emancipated slaves. Even in the tenth generation
it is lawful only where the mother is of Israelitish origin. [869] Philo, De
monarchia, ii. 9. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2. Jebamoth vi. 4: “A high priest must
not marry a widow, whether she has become such subsequent to her betrothal or
subsequent to her actual marriage. Nor is he at liberty to choose as a wife a
woman already perfectly marriageable. Rabbi Elieser and Rabbi Simon regard a
marriageable woman as allowable. Nor is he to marry one that has been injured by
an accident.” According to Philo, De monarchia, ii. 9, fin., the high priest was
on no account to marry one that had been previously betrothed. Comp. Ritter’s
Philo und die Halacha (1879), p. 72. Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer,
book iii. chap. xix. [870] Philo, De monarchia, ii. 11: προστάξας τῷ μὲν
ἀρχιερεῖ μνᾶσθαι μὴ μόνον μόνον γυναῖκα παρθένον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱέρειαν ἐξ ἱερέων.
[871] In the Septuagint, Leviticus 21:13 runs thus: οὗτος γυναῖκα παρθένον ἐκ
τοῦ γένους αὐτοῦ λήψεται, there being nothing in the Hebrew text corresponding
to the words ἐκ τοῦ γένους αὐτοῦ. Comp. Rittert’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 72
f. [872] Apion. i. 7. From what is there said one must necessarily assume that
surely there were a great many families that were in possession of genealogical
registers. Comp. in addition, the copious lists in the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiab; and further, the indications of the existence of such registers to be
met with in the New Testament, Matthew 1:1 f.; Luke 2:36; Luke 3:23 ff.; Acts
13:21; Romans 11:1; Php_3:5. Also Mishna, Jebamoth iv. 13; Taanith iv. 5. Euseb.
Hist. eccl. i. 7 = Jul. African. Epist. ad Aristidem (in Routh’s Reliquiae
sacrae, ii. 228 ff., and Spitta, Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides,
1877). Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 516-518; Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes
Jisrael, i. 378-387 Wieseler’s Beitrage zur richtigen Wurdigung der Evangelien
(1869), p. 133 ff. Holtzmann in Schenkel’s Bibellex. ii. 425-430. Hamburger’s
Real-Enc., 2nd part, art. “Genealogie.” [873] Kiddushin iv. 4: “When a priest
wants to marry the daughter of a priest, he must go back and find evidence with
regard to four generations of mothers, and therefore, strictly speaking, with
regard to eight mothers. These are, her own mother and her mother’s mother; the
mother of her maternal grandfather and her mother again; the mother of her
father and her mother; the mother of her paternal grandfather and her mother
again. If, on the other hand, the woman he wants to marry be simply a daughter
of Levi or of Israel, he must go back a step farther.” [874] Kiddushin iv. 5:
“It is unnecessary to search back in the case of a priest who has ministered at
the altar, or of a Levite who has sung in the choir, or of a member of the
Sanhedrim. As a rule, all those whose ancestors are well known to have been
public officials or almoners, are at liberty to marry one belonging to a
priestly family without further inquiry.” Those regulations with regard to
marriage are undoubtedly based upon the idea that the priesthood is a sacred
order. The same idea has been further embodied in yet other prescriptions.
According to the law (Numbers 19), every one was defiled who came in contact
with a dead body, nay who even entered a house in which such body happened to be
lying; but as for the priests, they were forbidden to approach a corpse or to
take part in the funeral obsequies, the prohibition being absolute in the case
of the high priest, while in the case of the ordinary priests, the only
exception was in favour of very near blood relations: parents, children, and
brothers or sisters (Leviticus 21:1-4; Leviticus 21:11-12; Ezekiel 44:25-27). It
would seem that the priest was not even at liberty to mourn for his own wife. Or
are we to understand, although it is not expressly stated, that she is intended,
as matter of course, to be included among the exceptions?[875] In no case
whatever was a priest to indulge in any token of grief calculated to disfigure
the person, such as shaving the head or lacerating the body (Leviticus 21:5-6;
comp. Ezekiel 44:20), nor was the high priest to uncover his head and rend his
garments (Leviticus 21:10; comp. 10:6, 7).[876] [875] According to the usual
interpretation of the text of Leviticus 21:4 as we now hare it, the mourning of
the priest for his wife would seem to be even expressly forbidden. Although, in
this instance, both exposition and text are exceedingly doubtful (see Dillmann’s
note on the passage), still the fact remains that the wife is not mentioned as
one of the exceptions. Nor is she mentioned as such either by Philo, De
monarchia, ii. 12, or by Josephus, Antt. iii. 12. 2. The Rabbinical writers, on
the other hand, regard the שְׁאֵרוֹ of Leviticus 21:2 as referring to her, while
they understand 21:4 of the act of mourning for an illegitimate wife. See the
passages from the Targum of Jonathan and Sifra in Ugolini, xiii. 929 ff. For the
subject generally, consult besides, Oehler, xii. 176 f. [876]a Comp. besides,
Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. 20. Then again it was
essential to the sacred character attaching to a priest, that he should be
totally free from, every sort of physical defect. If any one had a bodily defect
of any kind about him, no matter though he belonged to the “sons of Aaron,” he
was thereby disqualified from officiating as a priest. The various kinds of
defects are already enumerated with pretty considerable detail in the law as
found in Leviticus (21:16-23). And, as was to be expected, this too is one of
those points on which a later age has exercised its ingenuity in the way of
being minutely and painfully specific. It has been calculated that the number of
bodily defects that disqualified a man for the office of the priesthood amount
in all to 142.[877] At the same time however the priests who, for the reason now
in question, were debarred from exercising any of the functions of the
priesthood, were entitled to a share of the emoluments as well as the others,
for they too belonged to the ordo.[878] [877] Haneberg, Die religiösen
Altertümer der Bibel, p. 532. See in general, Philo, De monarchia, ii. 5.
Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2. Mishna, Bechoroth vii. Selden, De succestione in
pontificatum Ebr. ii. 5. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 89-94.
Ugolini, xiii. 897 ff. Haneberg, p. 531 f. Oehler, xii. 176. For parallels from
heathen antiquity, see the Knobel-Dillmann Exeget. Handb. zu Exodus und
Leviticus, p. 568. [878] Leviticus 21:22. Philo, De monarchia, ii. 13. Joseph.
Antt. iii. 12. 2; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7. Mishna, Sebachim xii. 1; Menachoth xiii.
10, fin. There is nothing prescribed in the law as to the age at which a priest
was to be allowed to enter upon the duties of his office. Perhaps we may venture
to assume that it must have been the same as that at which the Levites entered
upon theirs. Yet even this latter is given differently in different parts of the
Old Testament.[879] The Rabbinical tradition states that a priest was duly
qualified for his duties as soon as the first signs of manhood made their
appearance, but that he was not actually installed till he was twenty years of
age.[880] [879] In Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:30; Numbers 4:35;
Numbers 4:39; Numbers 4:43; Numbers 4:47, 1 Chronicles 23:3, it is stated to be
the thirtieth, in Numbers 8:23-26 the twenty-fifth, and in Ezra 3:8, 1
Chronicles 23:24; 1 Chronicles 23:27, 2 Chronicles 31:17, the twentieth year.
[880] See the passage from Sifra (= Bab. Chullin 24b) in Selden, De successione,
ii. 4, and Ugolini, Thes. xiii. 927. And now when all the requirements to which
we have referred were found to be satisfied, and when his fitness had been duly
established to the satisfaction of the Sanhedrim,[881] the priest was set apart
to his office by a special act of consecration. According to the leading passage
in the law bearing on this matter, viz. Exodus 29 = Leviticus 8, this solemn act
consisted of three parts: (1) the washing of the body with water, (2) the
putting on of the sacred vestments, and (3) a series of sacrifices the offering
of which was accompanied with further ceremonies of a partly special kind, viz.
the anointing of various parts of the body with blood, the sprinkling of the
person and the garments with oil and blood, the “filling of the hands,” i.e. the
taking of certain portions of the victims and laying them upon the hands of the
priest with the view of indicating thereby his future duties and rights. In
several other passages (Exodus 28:41; Exodus 30:30; Exodus 40:12-15; Leviticus
7:36; Leviticus 10:7; Numbers 3:3) there is superadded to these the pouring of
ointment upon the head, an act which, according to the leading passage on the
subject, was observed, and that as a mark of distinction, solely in the case of
the high priest.[882] The whole ceremony extended over seven days (Exodus 29:35
ff.; Leviticus 8:33 ff.). How it fared with this ceremony at a later period has
been, so far as several of its details are concerned, a matter of some
dispute.[883] It is probable that the pouring of oil upon the head continued to
be retained as a mark of distinction in the case of the high priest.[884] [881]
Middoth v. fin. [882] On this point, see Wellhausen, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol.
1877, p. 412 f. Dillmann’s Exeget. Handbuch, note on Leviticus 8:12. [883] See
in general, Selden, De successione, ii. 8, 9. Ugolini, Thesaurus, xiii. pp. 434
ff., 476-548. Bähr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, ii. 165 ff. Winer’s
Realwörterb., art. “Priesterweihe.” Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., vol. xiii.
pp. 178-180. Haneberg, pp. 526-531. According to some, the newly admitted priest
was only required to offer the meat-offering prescribed in Leviticus 6:12 ff.
But this is utterly incredible, and is based upon a pure misapprehension of the
Rabbinical passages, which undoubtedly require that the newly admitted
(therefore newly consecrated) priest should, in the first instance, offer this
sacrifice for himself before offering any other. See the passages in Ugolini,
xiii. 546 f., and comp., in addition, Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der
palästinischen Exegese, etc. (1851) p. 143. No further light is thrown upon the
matter by Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 16-18, and Joseph. Antt. iii. 8. 6, as they
simply reproduce Exodus 29 = Leviticus 8. [884] Comp. Wellhausen, Jahrb. f.
deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 412. But it would appear that, in the latter days of
the temple, the high priest himself was no longer (or not always?) anointed, for
the Mishna knows of other high priests, who in contradistinction to the anointed
ones had been introduced to their office through the ceremony of investing with
the sacred garments. See in particular, Horajoth iii. 4. But be this as it may,
there is at all events no truth in the view of Maimonides, that the anointing
had been discontinued ever since the exile. As the priests were so numerous it
was simply impossible that they could all officiate at the same time. It was
therefore necessary to have an arrangement according to which they could do so
in regular rotation. With a view to this the whole body of the priests was
divided into twenty-four families or courses of service.[885] The account of the
origin and organization of those twenty-four courses of service as given by the
Rabbinical tradition is as follows:[886] “Four courses of service (מִשְׁמָרוֹת)
came back from the exile, viz.: Jedaiah, Harim, Pashur, and Immer.… Then the
prophets that were among them arose and made twenty-four lots and put them into
an urn. And Jedaiah came and drew five lots, which, including himself, would
therefore make six. And Harim came and drew five lots, which, including himself,
would therefore make six. And Pashur came and drew five lots, which, including
himself, would therefore make six. And Immer came and drew five lots, which,
including himself, would therefore make six.… And heads of the courses of
service (רָאשֵׁי מִשְׁמָרוֹת) were appointed. And the courses were divided into
houses (בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת). And there were courses consisting of five, six, seven,
eight, or nine houses. In a course consisting of five houses, three of them had
to serve one day each, while the remaining two had to serve two days each; in a
course consisting of six houses, five of them had to serve one day each, while
one had to serve two days; where it consisted of seven, each served one day; of
eight, six served one day each and two served simultaneously the remaining day;
of nine, five served one day each and four served simultaneously during two
days.” It is true that what is here stated regarding the origin (or, according
to the Talmud, the restoration) of the twenty-four courses of service cannot be
said to possess the value of an independent tradition, that, on the contrary, it
is based merely upon inferences from certain facts that are mentioned elsewhere.
Yet it has so far hit the mark as substantially to represent the actual state of
the case. For there returned from the exile, along with Zerubbabel and Joshua,
four families of priests, viz.: the children of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and
Harim, numbering in all 4289 (Ezra 2:36-39 = Nehemiah 7:39-42).[887] Further,
that these four families comprised the whole body of the priesthood at the time
of Ezra’s arrival, and therefore some eighty years afterwards as well, is
evident from Ezra 10:18-22, But, along with these mention is also made, as early
as the time of Zerubbabel and Joshua (Nehemiah 12:1-7), of twenty-two classes of
priests, with a corresponding number of “heads” (ראשי הכהנים). And those same
classes or divisions are also further met with in the time of Joshua’s
successor, Joiakim the high priest (Nehemiah 12:12-21).[888] It is evident
therefore that the four families were subdivided into twenty-two classes. Then
it is substantially the same arrangement that is still to be met with in the
time of Ezra. When this latter arrived with a fresh band of exiles, he brought
along with him two more priestly families (Ezra 8:2)[889] and added them to the
four that were already in the country (Ezra 10:18-22). But we find that shortly
after, the number of classes was once more almost the same as it had been in
Zerubbabel’s time, namely twenty-one, as may be seen from the list given in
Nehemiah 10:3-9. However, only fourteen of the names mentioned in this latter
passage are to be found in the two earlier lists (Nehemiah 12:1-7; Nehemiah
12:12-21), all the rest being different. Consequently the organization of the
divisions must, in the meanwhile, have undergone certain alterations of one kind
or another, as would no doubt be deemed necessary on account of a fresh
accession of priestly families having been brought by Ezra, and for other
reasons besides. However, under the new order of things the number of divisions
remained the same as before and so continued, substantially at least, on through
succeeding ages. In the time of the author of Chronicles, who traces back the
arrangement that existed in his day to the time of David, the number of the
divisions amounted to twenty-four (1 Chronicles 24:7-18). It is true that, in
the catalogue of names furnished by this writer, scarcely more than a third of
those in the earlier lists are to be found. That being so, we are bound to
assume that, in the meanwhile, important changes must have taken place, always
supposing that our author has not drawn somewhat upon his own imagination for a
number of the names attributed to the time of David. Be that as it may, it is
certain that, from that point onwards, the division into twenty-four classes
continued to subsist without any alteration whatever. For we learn on the
express testimony of Josephus, that it was still maintained in his own day,[890]
to say nothing of the fact that some of the names of the division continued to
be occasionally mentioned (Joiarib, 1Ma_2:1; Abia, Luke 1:5).[891] It is
somewhat strange that, in a passage in his contra Apionem,—a passage, however,
that has come down to us only in a Latin version,—Josephus should be found
speaking of four families or divisions (tribus) of the priests.[892] One might
perhaps be disposed to think that here the historian had in view the four
families that returned with Zerubbabel. But as the context shows that he is
clearly referring to the courses of service, there is nothing for it but to
assume that the text has been corrupted, and that for four we ought to
substitute twenty-four. Nor can it be said that this view is at once disposed of
by the circumstance that Josephus alleges that the number in each division
amounted to over 5000 souls. For it is probable that this number included the
Levites (who were also divided into twenty-four divisions, every division of the
priests having its corresponding division of Levites), and perhaps women and
children as well; besides, we know only too well that one cannot depend a great
deal on Josephus in the matter of numbers. [885] On this see Lightfoot,
Ministerium templi, chap. vi. (Opp. i. pp. 691-694). Idem, Harmonia
evangelistarum, note on Luke 1:5 (Opp. i. 258 ff.). Idem, Horae hebraicae, note
on Luke 1:5 (Opp. ii. 486 ff.). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp.
100-102. Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xiii. col. 872 ff. Herzfeld, Geschichte des
Volkes Jisrael, i. p. 387 ff. Bertheau, Exegetisches Handbuch zu Ezra, Nehemia
und Ester (1862), pp. 228-230. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol.
xii. pp. 182-186. Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel, p. 555 ff.
Graf in Merx’ Archiv, i. p. 225 f. [886] Jer. Taanith iv. fol. 68, and as being
substantially to the same effect, Tosefta, Taanith ii. (both passages in Hebrew
and Latin being given in Ugolini, vol. xiii. p. 876 ff.); partly also Bab.
Arachin 12b, comp. Herzfeld, i. 393. In the above quotation I follow the text of
Jer. Taanith, only with a few abridgments here and there. [887]a The accuracy of
the alleged numbers, so far as the time of Zerubbabel is concerned, has been
questioned by Stade (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1884, 218, in the notice by Smend,
Die Listen der Bücher Esra und Nehemia, 1881). Besides the objections advanced
by this writer, there is the further fact that, according to pseudo-Hecataeus,
who belongs to the commencement of the Hellenistic period, the number of Jewish
priests amounted in all to only 1500 (Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22, ed. Bekker,
p. 202: καίτοι οἱ πάντες ἱερεῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, οἱ τὴν δεκάτην τῶν γινομένων
λαμβάνοντες καὶ τὰ κοινὰ διοικοῦντες, περὶ χιλίους μάλιστα καὶ πεντακοσίους
εἰσίν). May it not be that the women and children are to be understood as
included in the above 4289? So far as our purpose is concerned this question may
here be left an open one. [888] In the second list only one of the names
belonging to the first (Chattusch) is wanting. The remaining twenty-one names
are all identically the same in both, as is clearly evident notwithstanding the
numerous inaccuracies of the text. Comp. Bertheau’s note on Nehemiah 12:12.
[889] For the names Gershom and Daniel mentioned in this passage are the names
of priestly families; see Bertheau’s note on it. [890] Antt. vii. 14. 7:
διέμεινεν οὕτος ὁ μερισμὸς ἄχρι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας. Vita, 1: ἐμοὶ δʼ οὐ μόνον ἐξ
ἱερέων ἐστὶ τὸ γένος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης ἐφημερίδος τῶν εἰκοσιτεσσάρων
(πολλὴ δὲ κἂν τούτῳ διαφορά), καὶ τῶν ἐν ταύτῃ φυλῶν ἐκ τῆς ἀρίστης. Comp.
besides, Taanith iv. 2; Sukka v. 6-8, and the commentaries thereon. [891]
Joiarib and Jedaiah are also mentioned, Baba kamma ix. 12. The division Joiarib
is the one that is said to have been officiating when the temple was destroyed,
Bab. Taanith 29a, in Derenbourg’s Histoire de la Palestine, p. 291. The division
or course of Bilga is mentioned in Sukka v. 8. [892] Contra Apion. ii. 8 (ed.
Bekker, pp. 239, 20 ff.): Licet enim sint tribus quattuor sacerdotum, et harum
tribuum singulae habeant hominum plus quam qoinqne milia, fit tamen observatio
particulariter per dies certos; et his transaetis alii succedentes ad sacrificia
veniunt, etc. Each of the twenty-four main divisions was in turn broken up into
a number of sub-divisions. If we may trust the Talmudic tradition quoted above
(p. 182), the number of those sub-divisions ranged from five to nine for each
main division. The main divisions were known either under the general
designation of מַחְלְקוֹת (divisions, so 1 Chronicles 28:13; 1 Chronicles 28:21;
2 Chronicles 8:14; 2 Chronicles 23:8; 2 Chronicles 31:2; 2 Chronicles 31:15-16),
or, in so far as they were made up of the members of one family, they were
called בֵּית אָבוֹת (houses of their fathers, so 1 Chronicles 24:4; 1 Chronicles
24:6), or, in so far as they had the services of the temple to attend to, they
were described as מִשְׁמָרוֹת (watches, so Nehemiah 13:30; 2 Chronicles 31:16).
As regards the sub-divisions, for our knowledge of which we are indebted solely
to the testimony of post-Biblical literature, they are known by the designation
of בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת. And so now it had become the regular practice to distinguish
the two by calling the main division a מִשְׁמָר and the sub-division a בֵּית
אָב.[893] At the same time this distinction is not necessarily involved in the
signification of the words themselves. For as משמר may mean any division for
service, so בית אב, on the other hand, may mean any body composed of the members
of the same family, no matter whether they consist of few persons or of
many.[894] Accordingly, as we have just remarked, the author of the Book of
Chronicles is still found to be making use of בית אבות (in Nehemiah 12:12
shortened into אבות) as one of his expressions for denoting the main divisions
or courses. But it would appear that somewhat later the distinction referred to
above came to be rigidly observed. In Greek the term for one of the main
divisions is πατριά or ἐφημερία or ἐφημερίς, and for one of the sub-divisions
φυλή.[895] [893] This distinction is specially noticeable in Taanith ii. 6, 7.
Comp. further the passage quoted above, p. 182; also Jer. Horajoth iii. fol.
48b; and Tosefta, Horajoth, fin., where it is stated that a ראש משמר is higher
in point of rank than a ראש בית אב. Again, משמר is also met with in Sukka v.
6-8, Taanith iv. 2, and Tamid v. 1, undoubtedly in the seme of “main division,”
or “division for a week’s service.” But it is also to be similarly understood in
Bikkurim iii. 12; Jebamoth xi. 7, fin.; Baba kamma ix. 12; Temura iii. 4, and
Para iii. fin. בית אב, on the other hand, occurs in the sense of a sub-division
or a division for one day’s service, in Joma iii. 9, iv. 1; Tamid i. 1; Middoth
i. 8. [894] See Knobel-Dillmann, Exegetisches Handbuch, note on Exodus 6:14 (p.
58). [895] πατριά, Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 7; ἐφημερία, Luke 1:5; Luke 1:8;
ἐφημερίς and φυλή, Joseph. Vita, 1 (see the quotation given above, note 29). We
find mention made of a φυλὴ Ἐνιαχείμ in Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 8. Then each
of the divisions, the principal and subordinate ones alike, was presided over by
a head. In the Old Testament the heads of the main divisions are designated
שָׂרִים (princes)[896] or רָאשִׁים (heads).[897] At a subsequent period this
latter (ראש המשמר) seems to have become the current designation, just as ראש בית
אב[898] came to be the one regularly employed to denote the head of a
sub-division. Then, besides these, we sometimes come across the term “elders” in
this connection, the זקני כהונה and the זקני בית אב.[899] [896] שָׂרֵי
הַכֹּהֲנִים, Ezra 8:24; Ezra 8:29; Ezra 10:5; 2 Chronicles 36:14. שָׂרֵי קֹדֶשׁ,
1 Chronicles 24:5. That those שָׂרִים are identical with the רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת may
be seen, above all, from 1 Chronicles 15:4-12, where both expressions are
employed, as being perfectly synonymous, to denote the heads of the Levitical
divisions. [897] ראשים לבית־אבות, 1 Chronicles 24:4. ראשי האבות, Nehemiah 12:12;
1 Chronicles 24:6. Comp. also Nehemiah 11:13; Nehemiah 12:7. [898] ראש המשמר and
ראש ביתאב, Tosefta, Horajoth, fin., ed. Zuckermandel, p. 476; and Jer. Horajoth
iii. fol. 48b (the latter passage being given in Ugolini, Thesaurus, xiii. 870).
ראש המשמר also in the passage quoted above, p. 182. ראש בית אב, Joma iii. 9, iv.
1. [899] זקני כהונה, Joma i. 5. זקני בית אב, Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 8. The
importance and influense of the various divisions was by no means alike.
Notwithstanding their formal equality, in so far as they all took part in the
services of the sanctuary in regular rotation, still those divisions, from the
members of which high priests or other influential functionaries were selected,
could not fail to acquire, in consequence, a greater amount of influence and
importance. Hence we can quite believe that, as Josephus assures us, it was
regarded as a great advantage to belong to the first of the twenty-four
classes,[900] i.e. to the class Joiarib, which had the honour of contributing
the Asmonaean princes and high priests.[901] Then we find that within the
individual classes again influential coteries were formed. The families living
in Jerusalem would no doubt understand how to secure for members of their own
circle the most important offices about the temple, knowing as they did how much
influence they conferred upon those who filled them. But it was in the Roman
period above all that the privileged families from which the high priests were
drawn (see p. 173, above) were found to constitute a proud aristocracy, claiming
to occupy a rank much superior to that of the ordinary priests. The social
difference between the one circle and the other was so marked that, toward the
close of the period just preceding the destruction of the temple, the high
priests could even go the length of wresting the tithes from the other priests
by violence, these latter being left to starve.[902] As a consequence of this
disparity of rank, their political sympathies were also so widely different
that, at the outbreak of the revolution, the ordinary priests favoured this
movement, whereas the high priests did everything in their power to allay the
storm.[903] [900] Vita, 1: πολλὴ δὲ κἂν τούτῳ διαφορά = “there is a great
advantage also in this.” [901] One feels tempted to assume that the lists in
Chronicles (1 Chronicles 24:7-18) were not framed till the Asmonaean period. For
it is surely very strange that it is precisely the class Joiarib, from which the
Asmonaeans were sprung, that is here put prominently at the top while in the
lists given in Nehemiah (12:1-7, 12-21) it occupies a somewhat subordinate
place. [902] Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 8, 9. 2. [903] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4.
We must be careful to distinguish between the priests properly so called and the
Levites, a subordinate class of sacred officials.[904] It is true, no doubt,
that this distinction is as yet unknown to the Book of Deuteronomy. There the
Levites are all regarded as being as much entitled to share in the priestly
functions as the rest, and “priests” and “Levites” are made use of simply as
convertible terms (see especially, Deuteronomy 18:5; Deuteronomy 21:5; and
generally, 17:9, 18, 18:1, 24:8, 27:9). The practice of distinguishing between
the two orders is met with for the first time in Ezekiel; and there can scarcely
be a doubt that it was precisely this prophet who was the first to introduce it.
According to the legislation of Deuteronomy, all places of worship outside
Jerusalem were to be suppressed. At the same time the “Levites” who officiated
in them, i.e. the priests, were not deprived of their rights as such; all that
was asked of them was that they should exercise their priestly functions
exclusively in Jerusalem. This state of things however could hardly be expected
to last long, In the first place it was too much to expect that the Jerusalem
priests would long relish the idea of those colleagues from the provinces having
the same right to officiate as themselves; but apart from this, there was the
fact that they had been guilty, to a larger extent than the priests of
Jerusalem, of blending the service of strange gods with the worship of Jehovah.
Consequently Ezekiel now proceeded to push the state of things brought about by
the Deuteronomist to what seemed to be its legitimate result: he prohibited the
Levites from beyond Jerusalem from celebrating worship altogether. This was now
to be the exclusive privilege of the Levites of the house of Zadok, i.e. of the
Jerusalem priests. Hereafter none but the sons of Zadok were “to offer the fat
and the blood before God,” that is to say, none but these were to minister at
the altar or cross the threshold of the inner sanctuary (the temple proper). To
the other Levites the more subordinate class of duties was assigned, viz. the
keeping watch over the temple, the slaughtering of the victims, and such like.
An arrangement such as this had, at the same time, this further advantage, that
it was now possible entirely to dispense with those Gentiles whom it had been
necessary to employ for the purpose of performing the more menial services
connected with the temple (see in general, Ezekiel 44:6-16). The order of things
thus introduced by Ezekiel was the one that in all essential respects came to be
permanently adopted. The distinction which he had established between priests
and the other Levites is treated in the code of the priests as one that had
already come to be regularly recognised. In this code the distinction between
“the sons of Aaron,” i.e. the priests, and the rest of the Levites, is rigidly
observed. According to its enactments it is only the former who are to enjoy the
right of ministering at the altar and within the sanctuary itself (Numbers
18:7). The Levites, on the other hand, are merely to act as assistants to the
sons of Aaron “in all the service of the tabernacle” (Numbers 18:4).
Accordingly, what they are allowed and are called upon to do is to help the
priests by performing a great many duties and services of the most varied
character in connection with the temple, such as taking charge of the revenues
and the sacred property, the bringing forward and preparing of all the different
materials required for the celebration of worship, and others of a like nature
(for more on this matter, see Part III.). We also find that the duty of
slaughtering and further preparing the victims was still assigned to them in
later times precisely as it had been in that of Ezekiel.[905] Only they were
debarred from taking part in the ministrations at the altar and within the walls
of the sanctuary (Numbers 18:3; see in general, Numbers 3:5-13; Numbers 18:1-7).
[904] See in general, Winer’s Realwörlerb. ii. 20 ff. Oehler’s art. “Levi,” in
Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. viii. 347-358 (in the 2nd ed. it is revised
by Orelli). Graf, Zur Geschichte des Stammes Levi, in Merx’ Archiv, vol. i.
Idem, art. “Levi,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iv. 29-32. Wellhausen,
Geschichte, i. 128-156. Smend, Exeget. Handbuch zu Ezekiel, pp. 360-362.
Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch zu Exodus und Leviticus, pp. 455-461. [905] 2
Chronicles 29:34; 2 Chronicles 35:11. Certainly from those passages one might
infer that the Levites were called upon to assist in the slaughtering of the
victims only in those instances in which a great many of them had to be dealt
with. As a rule the priests performed the act of slaughtering the victims
themselves. However, the law even went so far as to allow laymen to undertake
this duty. See Frankel, Ueber den Ein fluss der palästiniscken Exegese auf die
aleandrinische Hermeneutik (1851), p. 134. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p.
110 ff. Then, like the priests, the Levites came to form a strictly exclusive
order, the privilege of belonging to which was based upon natural descent. Their
origin was now ascribed to Levi, one of the twelve patriarchs of Israel (Exodus
6:17-25; Numbers 3:14-39; Numbers 4:34-49; Numbers 26:57-62; 1 Chron. 5:27-6:66,
and 23). Consequently in their case too as well as that of the priests it was
birth that decided the claim to participation in the rights and functions of
their order. The “priests” stood to them very much in the relation in which a
privileged family stands to the whole stock to which it belongs. For the origin
of the priestly order now came to be ascribed to Aaron, a great-grandson of Levi
(Exodus 6:17 ff.).[906] [906] The genealogical derivation of the priests from
Aaron is, in the first instance, merely a dogmatic postulate from which nothing
whatever can be inferred with regard to the actual state of matters during the
post-exilic period. Still it is undoubtedly a probable enough thing that,
besides the “sons of Zadok,” i.e. the old priestly families of Jerusalem, there
were also a number of others who were not originally Jerusalem priests, who
contrived to get their sacerdotal rights duly recognised. For the author of
Chronicles, who traces the family of Zadok to Eleazar, Aaron’s eldest son (1
Chronicles 6:4-12), derives a portion of the priests from Ithamar, another of
Aaron’s sons (1 Chronicles 24; comp. Ezra 8:2). These latter therefore were not
Zadokites. Consequently we must assume that, although Ezekiel’s scheme was
carried out in the main, still it was not so in every particular. Comp.
Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, p. 48. But there is nothing that
shows so plainly as just the history of the Levites itself how elastic and
unsubstantial those genealogical theories were. In the post-exilic period, for
example, we find that the “Levites,” in the sense in which the term has been
hitherto understood, were still strictly distinguished from the musicians,
doorkeepers and temple servants (Nethinim, originally, at all events, slaves);
this continues to be the case therefore not merely in the time of Zerubbabel,
but also between eighty and a hundred years later, viz. in the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah (see especially Ezra 2:40-58 = Nehemiah 7:43-60; further Ezra 2:70;
Ezra 7:7; Ezra 7:24; Ezra 10:23-24; Neh. 7:1, 73; 10:29, 40; 12:44-47; 13:5,
10). But gradually the musicians and the doorkeepers came to be included among
the “Levites” also. For example, the circumstance of the musicians being now
merged in the Levites is presupposed in several remodelled portions of the Book
of Nehemiah.[907] Later on, a similar distinction seems to have been accorded to
the doorkeepers as well, for we find the author of Chronicles taking special
pains to let it appear that both of the classes here in question belonged to the
order of the Levites, and also to show that they too were descended from
Levi.[908] The musicians again were afterwards advanced a step higher still, in
so far as, shortly before the destruction of the temple, King Agrippa II., with
the concurrence of the Sanhedrim, conferred upon them the privilege of wearing
linen robes similar to those worn by the priests.[909] [907] Nehemiah 11:15-19;
Nehemiah 11:22-23; Nehemiah 12:8-9; Nehemiah 12:24-25; Nehemiah 12:27-29. Here
the musicians are uniformly regarded as belonging to the order of the Levites,
while the doorkeepers, on the other hand, are expressly excluded from it.
Consequently the portions in question (Nehemiah 11, 12) must have come down to
ua in a revised form, representing a point of view intermediate between the
standpoint of the oldest sources of the Book of Nehemiah on the one side, and
that of the author of Chronicles on the other. [908] On the inclusion of the
musicians among the Levites, see 1 Chronicles 15:16 ff; 1 Chronicles 23:3-5; 2
Chronicles 29:25, and elsewhere. For the doorkeepers again, see 1 Chronicles
9:26; 1 Chronicles 15:18; 1 Chronicles 15:23-24; 1 Chronicles 23:3-5. Further,
for the tracing of their descent from Levi, particularly in the case of the
three families of musicians, Heman, Asaph and Ethan, see 1 Chronicles 6:16-32;
but for the same in the case of the doorkeepers as well, at least to a certain
extent, viz. through Obed Edom, see Graf in Merx’ Archiv, i. 230-232. However,
it is still the practice in the Chronicles as well to distinguish between the
Nethinim and the Levites, 1 Chronicles 9:2. [909] Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 6. The
Levites, like the priests, were also divided into courses of service. But their
history is involved in still greater obscurity than that of the courses of the
priests. Among those who returned from exile with Zerubbabel and Joshua there
were but very few “Levites” in the stricter sense of the word, only seventy-four
in all; while in addition to these there were 128 singers and 139 doorkeepers
(Ezra 2:40-42, the numbers in the corresponding passage, Nehemiah 7:43-45,
diverging somewhat from those just given). Then at length when Ezra came he
managed to bring with him only thirty-eight “Levites,” and even these could be
persuaded to accompany him only after serious expostulation (Ezra 8:15-20). The
disinclination to return thus shown by the Levites was owing to the subordinate
place that had now been assigned them. It may be safely assumed however that
those who did return would ere long receive considerable accessions to their
ranks from those of their order that had never left their native country. For
there cannot be a doubt that, as the “Levites lived scattered all over the land,
far fewer of them, comparatively speaking, were carried into captivity than of
the “priests,” by whom at that time only the priests of Jerusalem were meant.
And hence we are enabled to account for the fact that, in the catalogue of
Levites and singers in the time of Zerubbabel and Joshua as given in Nehemiah
12:8, we find a few more families than are to be met with in the catalogue of
those who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:40 f.; Nehemiah 7:43 f.).[910] In a
list belonging to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah seventeen families of Levites in
the stricter sense of the word are already enumerated (Nehemiah 10:10-14 and
Bertheau’s note). In another, probably referring, like the former, to the time
of Nehemiah as well,[911] it is only the number of the Levites dwelling in
Jerusalem that is given, inclusive of course of the singers, and it estimates
that there were 284 of them (Nehemiah 11:15-18). It is to be presumed that the
number of those who lived beyond the city, in the towns and villages of Judaea,
would be considerably larger (Nehemiah 11:20; Nehemiah 11:36).[912] It would
appear that, in the time of the author of Chronicles, the division into
twenty-four classes was not confined to the priests, but had been adopted in the
case of the Levites as well. This writer, although including the musicians and
doorkeepers among the Levites, nevertheless distinguishes between three leading
groups: the Levites who did service about the temple generally, then the
musicians, and lastly the doorkeepers (1 Chronicles 23:3-5). He then proceeds in
1 Chronicles 23:6-24 to give, in the case of the Levites or first group, a list
of the houses of their fathers (בית אבות), which, after one or two corrections
have been made, probably amount to twenty-four.[913] As for the musicians again,
he expressly divides them into twenty-four classes or courses (1 Chronicles 25).
With regard to the post-Biblical period we have testimony to the effect that at
that time the division now in question had been regularly established in the
case of the Levites generally, so that, in fact, each class of priests had now
its corresponding class or course of Levites.[914] As in the case of the
priests, so also in that of the Levites, each of the various divisions or
courses was presided over by a head (שָׂרִים or רָאשִׁים).[915] [910] See
Bertheau’s note, p. 251, of his Exeget. Handbuch to Nehemiah. [911] On the
period to which this list refers, see Bertheau’s Exeget. Handbuch to Chronicles,
p. 99; to Nehemiah, p. 248. [912] The number of priests living in Jerusalem is
stated in this same list to have been 1192 (Nehemiah 11:10-14), while the
aggregate number then living throughout the whole land is estimated at 6000
(according to Ezra 2:36-39; Ezra 8:2; comp. p. 217, above). With regard to the
Levites, on the other hand, we may venture to assume that formerly the
proportion of those living beyond Jerusalem to those living within it was much
greater still. In any case the number of the Levites in the stricter sense of
the word must have exceeded that of the singers and doorkeepers. For when the
author of Chronicles tells us that in David’s time there were 24,000 Levites
properly so called, and 4000 singers, and 4000 doorkeepers (1 Chronicles
23:4-5), we may assume that the relative proportions of those numbers must have
pretty nearly corresponded with what actually existed in the writer’s own day,
however much the absolute numbers themselves may have been exaggerated. [913]
See Bertheau’s note on the passage. To the family of Gerson are assigned nine
houses of their fathers, to that of Kahat nine also, and to that of Merari
probably six, if, that is to say, we supply from xxiv. 26, 27 the three missing
houses of Schoham, Sakkur and Ibri, and erase from xxiii. 23 the name Mahli
which occurs twice in the list. [914] Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 7: ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ
τῆς Λευίτιδος φυλῆς εἴκοσι μέρη καὶ τέσοαρα, καὶ κληρωσαμένων κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν
ἀνέβησαν τρόπον ταῖς τῶν ἱερέων ἐφημερίσιν ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ. Taanith iv. 2: “The
earliest prophets established twenty-four courses of service (משמרות). To each
belonged a staff (מעמד) in Jerusalem, composed of priesta, Levitas and
Israelites. As soon as its turn to serve came round to a course, the priests and
Levites belonging to it proceeded to Jerusalem, but the Israelites assembled in
the synagogues of their different towns and there read the account of the
creation.” [915] שרים, 1 Chronicles 15:4-12; 2 Chronicles 35:9. ראשים, Nehemiah
12:22-23; 1 Chronicles 9:33-34; 1 Chronicles 15:12; 1 Chronicles 23:24; 1
Chronicles 24:6; 1 Chronicles 24:31. The divisions whose heads are here in
question are, of course, separate and distinct from each other. The question as
to where the priests and Levites resided is one with regard to which we have
very little information of a reliable kind; for we must here entirely dismiss
from view the legislation with reference to the forty-eight Levitical cities,
which never was more than a mere theory (Numbers 35; Joshua 21). One thing
however is certain, and that is, that under the new order of things that
obtained subsequent to the exile, only a fraction of the priests and Levites
lived in Jerusalem itself, while the rest were scattered over the towns and
villages of Judaea, the majority of them being probably within a short distance
of the capital and the centre of worship. In the list in Nehemiah 11:10-19, to
which reference has been already made, the number of priests who lived in
Jerusalem is stated to have been 1192,[916] that of the Levites and musicians
284, and that of the doorkeepers 172. But the sum-total of the whole priests of
the land amounted to something like five times that number, if not more (see
note [917] while in the case of the other categories the proportion of those
living beyond the city to those within it may have been greater still. In any
case, the general fact that priests as well as Levites had their residences in
the towns and villages of Judaea is confirmed by repeated and unquestionable
testimony.[918] But we are left with little or no information with respect to
details.[919] [916] The parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 9:10-13, puts it at a
somewhat higher figure. [917] The number of priests living in Jerusalem is
stated in this same list to have been 1192 (Nehemiah 11:10-14), while the
aggregate number then living throughout the whole land is estimated at 6000
(according to Ezra 2:36-39; Ezra 8:2; comp. p. 217, above). With regard to the
Levites, on the other hand, we may venture to assume that formerly the
proportion of those living beyond Jerusalem to those living within it was much
greater still. In any case the number of the Levites in the stricter sense of
the word must have exceeded that of the singers and doorkeepers. For when the
author of Chronicles tells us that in David’s time there were 24,000 Levites
properly so called, and 4000 singers, and 4000 doorkeepers (1 Chronicles
23:4-5), we may assume that the relative proportions of those numbers must have
pretty nearly corresponded with what actually existed in the writer’s own day,
however much the absolute numbers themselves may have been exaggerated. [918]
Ezra 2:70; Nehemiah 7:73; Nehemiah 11:3; Nehemiah 11:20; Nehemiah 11:36; 2
Chronicles 31:15; 2 Chronicles 31:19. [919] A number of places where musicians
had settled are mentioned in Nehemiah 12:27-29. The Maccabees came from Modein
(1Ma_2:1), Zacharias the priest lived in the hill country of Judah (Luke 1:39).
According to Origen, Bethphage was a village where priests lived, Comment. in
Matt. vol. xvi. cap. xvii. (Lommatzach, iv. 52): ἑρμηνεύεσθαι δέ φαμεν τὴν
Βηθφαγὴ μὲν οἶκον σιαγόνων, ἥτις τῶν ἱερέων ἦν χωρίον.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 61: II. THE EMOLUMENTS
========================================================================

II. THE EMOLUMENTS The emoluments which the priests received from the people for
their subsistence were, down to the time of the exile, of a very modest and
rather precarious kind. But subsequent to this latter period they were augmented
almost beyond measure. This fact enables us to see, in a peculiarly striking
manner, what a vast increase of power and influence the priesthood had acquired
through the new order of things that was introduced subsequent to the
exile.[920] And this increase of power was, no doubt, the cause of the loftier
pretensions of the order, just as, on the other hand, it was in turn also the
effect of the augmenting of the temporalities. Nor was it ever in the power of
the scribes, who came after and who in themselves were not always favourably
disposed toward the priests, to do anything in the way of altering this state of
matters, now that the priestly law had been for so long the acknowledged law of
God. Nay, it was for this very reason that the scribes only found themselves in
the position of contributing towards the yet further increase of the priests’
emoluments. For proceeding as they did on the view that a man always secured for
himself the divine approval in proportion to the punctuality and readiness with
which he conformed to the requirements of the law, they almost invariably
interpreted its prescriptions in a sense favourable to the priests. And so we
have the singular spectacle of an age that had already begun to regard the
priests with distrust, helping nevertheless to confirm and increase their power.
[920] For a correct appreciation of these matters we are indebted first and
foremost to the modern criticism of the Pentateuch. See eppecially, Wellhausen’s
Geschichte Israels, i. 156-164. In the times previous to the exile there were as
yet almost no imposts in the strict sense of the word at all, that is to say,
none which were not connected with sacrifice, none which had the character of a
pure tax. Allowances to the priests were only exacted on the occasion of
sacrifices being offered, and only in connection with these, The person who came
to sacrifice brought the choicest portions of the produce of his fields and the
first-born of his cattle to offer to Jehovah. Of this one part was consumed upon
the altar, another fell to the officiating priest, but the most of it was made
use of by the offerer himself, who was required to hold a sacrificial feast with
it in the presence of Jehovah. It is in this sense that we are to understand the
requirement already met with in the earliest (Jehovistic) legislation, to the
effect that the best of the produce of the field and the first-born of the
cattle were to be brought before Jehovah (firstlings of the field, Exodus 22:28;
Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; the first-born of the cattle, Exodus 13:11-16;
Exodus 22:29; Exodus 34:19-20).[921] The prescriptions in Deuteronomy bearing on
this matter are perfectly plain and unequivocal. This book knows nothing
whatever either of the exacting of the tithe, or of the first-born on the part
of the priests. It was required no doubt that the tithe of the fruits of the
field was to be separated and conveyed to Jerusalem to the sanctuary. But there
it was not given to the priest, but consumed by the owner of it himself; and it
was only every third year that it fell to the Levites, i.e. the priests, and to
the poor (Deuteronomy 14:22-29; Deuteronomy 26:12-15; comp. also 12:6, 11,
17-19). It was precisely the same in the case of the firstlings of the sheep and
oxen. These too, and that such of them as were males, were required to be
brought to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, but they were consumed there by the owner
himself in sacrificial feasts (Deuteronomy 15:19-23; comp. also 12:6, 17-19,
14:23). Of all the things here mentioned the priests received only certain
portions, that is to say, of the fruits of the field that were presented they
got only the רֵאשִׁית, i.e. the best (Deuteronomy 18:4; Deuteronomy 26:1-11),
while of the animals offered, they got merely the shoulder, the two cheeks and
the stomach of each (Deuteronomy 18:3), Beyond this there is no mention of
anything else that was required to be given to the priest except a part of the
fleece at the sheep-shearing (Deuteronomy 18:4). As corroborative of what we
have been saying we would point to the prescriptions of Ezekiel (44:28-30).
Although a priest himself and showing an undoubted disposition to favour rather
than to discourage the pretensions of his order, still he says quite as little
about a tithe and the first-born being required to be given to the priests. The
claims he makes on behalf of these latter are no doubt somewhat higher than
those of Deuteronomy, still, on the whole, they move on the same lines. While
Deuteronomy assigns to the priests only two portions of the victims, Ezekiel
requires the whole of the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings (which as yet are
quite unknown to Deuteronomy) to be given to them, and similarly with regard to
the meat-offerings as well (Ezekiel 44:29); also every “dedicated thing”
(44:29); and lastly, the reshith, i.e. the best of the first-fruits, the
choicest portions of offerings of every description, and of the dough in baking
(44:30). [921]a The more subtle point as to whether Exodus 13:11-16; Exodus
34:19-20 belong to the Jehovist himself or were inserted by a kindred spirit,
may here be left an open question. For the latter view, see Wellhausen,
Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol. 1876, pp. 542 ff., 553 ff.; for the former, see
Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch to Ex. and Lev. pp. 99, 334. But we find a
considerable advance upon all the exactions we have just been referring to when
we come to those contained in the priest-code, which, in its enumeration of the
various emoluments of the priests as given in Numbers 18:8-32, coincides in many
respects with Ezekiel, only it introduces in addition what constitutes a most
important innovation, the tithe and the first-born. Like Ezekiel, the
priest-code also assigns the sin-offerings, the trespass-offerings and the
meat-offerings, at least the greater portion of the latter, to the priests
(Numbers 18:9-10; for fuller details, see Leviticus 1-6). Of those sacrifices
which their owners themselves were at liberty to make use of in furnishing the
sacrificial feast (the so-called זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים), the priests were to get the
breast and the right shoulder (Leviticus 7:30-34), thus obtaining considerably
choicer portions than those assigned to them in Deuteronomy. Again, as in
Ezekiel so also in the priest-code, the priests are to get everything
“dedicated” (Numbers 18:14), and the choicest portions (the reshith) of the
produce of the soil: the oil, the wine and the wheat (Numbers 18:12). But to the
reshith, the first-fruits, בִּכּוּרִים, are further added (Numbers 18:13) as an
impost of a different sort; then, in the last place, comes the most important
item of all, one that considerably exceeded in value all the former ones, viz.
the tithe (Numbers 18:20-32) and the first-born (Numbers 18:15-18). The tithe
however belonged, in the first instance, to the “Levites,” who in turn were
required to pay a tenth part of it to the priests. With regard to the portion of
the dough that was to be given to the priests, though omitted in the leading
enumeration of the emoluments, it too is mentioned in the priest-code, but in a
different place (Numbers 15:17-21). We find that in Nehemiah’s day those
enactments were already in full force. According to Nehemiah 10:36-39, it was
already the practice at that time for the priests to receive the first-fruits or
bikkurim (10:36), the choicest portions of the fruits of the soil, which here,
precisely as in the priest-code, are clearly distinguished alike from the
first-fruits and the tithe (10:38), then the tithe after the manner described in
the priest-code (10:38-40), then the first-born (10:37), and lastly, the portion
of the dough (10:38). By the tithe here we are always to understand the tithe of
the fruits of the ground and of the trees. But there is one passage in the
priest-code where, in addition to the tithe just mentioned, that of the cattle
is also exacted (Leviticus 27:32-33). But it may well be presumed that this
requirement, standing there as it does in so entirely isolated a fashion, did
not originally form part of the code.[922] It would seem that the tithe of the
cattle was actually exacted and paid in the time of the author of Chronicles; or
possibly we have only to regard it as forming part of this writer’s conceptions
of what ought to be (2 Chronicles 31:6). In post-Biblical times the whole
passage, Leviticus 27:30-33 has been understood as referring to a tithe in the
sense of the one demanded by Deuteronomy. [922] See Wellhausen, Jahrb. für
deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 444; also his Geschichte Israels, i. 162. The legal
prescriptions of Deuteronomy and of the priests’ code have not only been blended
together so as to form one whole in a literary sense, but they would also appear
to have been combined with each other in actual practice. Consequently we find
that the law in its later developments has considerably augmented the already
heavy imposts of the priest-code. With the Levites’ tithe of this code there was
now conjoined, and simply as “a second tithe” the one prescribed in Deuteronomy,
and which was to be consumed by the owner himself before Jehovah. The
discrepancy between the prescriptions of the code and those of Deuteronomy, with
respect to the portions of the victims that were to be given to the priests, was
now got rid of by regarding the former as referring exclusively to the victims
offered in sacrifice, and the latter to such animals as were slaughtered for
ordinary use, Of the former of these the priests, according to Leviticus
7:30-34, were to receive the breast and the right shoulder, while of the latter
they were to get, according to Deuteronomy 18:3, a fore-leg, the cheeks, and the
stomach. Lastly, to all the imposts of the priest-code there was further added
the portion of the fleece at the sheep-shearing as prescribed in Deuteronomy
(18:4). From this process of amalgamation there resulted the following list of
the priests’ emoluments, which we may venture to regard as the one that was in
force in the time of Christ.[923] [923] Philo already gives us a synopsis in his
treatise, entitled De praemiis sacerdotum et honoribus (Opp. ed. Magney, ii.
232-237); comp. besides, Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, 1879, pp. 114-126.
Further, Josephus in the leading passage on the subject, Antt. iv. 4. 4, with
which iii. 9. 1-4 (sacrificial offerings) and iv 8. 22 (firstlings) may be
compared. The Rabbinical writers, according to an artificial system of
reckoning, represent the various sources of the priests’ emoluments as having
amounted to twenty-four in all; see Tosefta, Challa ii. 7-9 (ed. Zuckermandel);
Jer. Challa iv. fin. fol. 60b; Bab. Baba kamma 110b, Chullin 133b, Pesikta in
Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. pp. 1122-1128. Several of the twenty-four in
question are already enumerated in Mishna, Challa iv. 9. For the Talmudic
passages, see also Beland’s Antiquitates sacrae, ii. 4. 11, in Bernard’s edition
of Josephus, note on Antt. iv. 4. 4, and in Havercamp’s edition, note on the
same passage; and for a German rendering of them, Saalschütz, Das mosaische
Recht, i. 351. Among modern writers the most complete and most correct lists
comparatively speaking are given by Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, i. 343-353,
and Haneberg, Die religiösen Allerthümer der Bibel, pp. 565-582. Authentic
material also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. 1055-1129. (I.) Of the victims
the following portions fell to the priests:—(1) The sin-offerings in their
entirety, at least as a rule, for only two, and that of a particular sort, were
required to be burnt without the camp.[924] (2) The trespass-offerings in their
entirety also.[925] In both instances it was only the fat that was burnt upon
the altar, the flesh belonged to the priests. (3) Of the meat-offerings again
they got by far the larger portion, for as a rule only a small part of it was
reserved to burn upon the altar, while the rest fell to the priests.[926] All
the sacrifices we have just mentioned were of very frequent occurrence,
particularly the meat-offerings, which might not only be offered independently
by themselves, but which also formed a necessary accompaniment to the majority
of the animal sacrifices.[927] To the same category we have further to refer (4)
the twelve cakes of shewbread, a fresh supply of which was placed in the temple
every week, while that which was taken away became the property of the
priests.[928] All the four classes of offerings now mentioned were “most holy,”
and as such could only be consumed in a holy place, i.e. within the inner court
of the temple, and exclusively by the priests themselves (and not by their
relations as well).[929] [924] Leviticus 5:13; Leviticus 6:19; Leviticus 6:22
f.; Numbers 18:9-10; Ezekiel 44:29. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 3. Sifra to Leviticus
6:19 ff., in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. p. 1071 ff. For the sin- and
trespass-offerings generally, see Leviticus 4-7. Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. pp.
429-435. [925] Leviticus 7:6-7; Numbers 18:9-10; Ezekiel 44:29. Joseph. Antt.
iii. 9. 3; Sifra to Leviticus 7:6-7, in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, xiii. 1078. [926]
Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 2:10; Leviticus 6:9-11; Leviticus 7:9-10; Leviticus
7:14; Leviticus 10:12-13; Numbers 18:9-10; Ezekiel 44:29. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9.
4: τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν οἱ ἱερεῖς πρὸς τροφὴν λαμβάνουσιν, ἢ ἑψηθεῖσαν (ἐλαίῳ γὰρ
συμπεφύραται) ἢ γενομένων ἄρτων. On the meat-offerings generally, see Leviticus
2 the whole chapter, and 6:7-11, also Winer’s Realwörteb. under the word. [927]a
If we want to form some idea of the frequency of many of those sacrifices, we
have only to read the laws relating to Levitical defilement and the mode of
treating it with a view to its removal (Leviticus 11-15; Numbers 19). For
example, every woman after childbirth had to offer a lamb as a burnt-offering
and a pigeon as a sin-offering, or in the event of her being too poor for this,
one pigeon as a burnt-offering and another as a sin-offering, Leviticus 12:1-8;
Luke 2:24. [928] Leviticus 24:5-9; for the Sifra to this as also the other
Rabbinical passages, see Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. p. 1084 ff.; see also
Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4. For the principle
on which they were divided, see Sukka v. 7, 8 (the retiring course of service
got the one half and the incoming one the other half). [929] Numbers 18:10 and
the passages cited in the preceding notes; also Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4, fin. The
regulations were not so stringent with regard to the two following offerings,
viz. (5) the thank-offerings and (6) the burnt-offerings. Of the former, the
זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, i.e. those offerings which were consumed by the offerers
themselves, and by Luther rendered “Dankopfer,” or as it should rather be
“Mahlopfer,” the priests received two parts of each, viz. the breast and the
right shoulder. These might be eaten in any “clean place” and therefore not
within the sanctuary as in the previous instances, and that not by the priest
alone, but by all who were connected with the priestly order as well, even by
their wives and daughters.[930] Lastly, of the burnt-offerings (6), the priests
received comparatively speaking least of all, for they were entirely consumed
upon the altar. But even of these they got the skins at least, and, considering
how frequently sacrifices of this sort were offered, it was certainly not
without good reason that Philo estimated the amount of revenue from this source
also as something very considerable.[931] [930] Leviticus 7:30-34; Leviticus
10:14-15. Sifra to Leviticus 7:30-34, in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii. p. 1094 ff.
Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. iii. (ed. Mang. ii. 234): παντὸς γὰρ ἱερείου
προστέτακται δύο τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἀπὸ δυοῖν δίδοσθαι μελῶν, βραχίονα μὲν ἀπὸ χειρὸς
δεξιᾶς, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ στήθους ὅσον πῖον. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 2: τὸ δὲ στῆθος καὶ
τὴν κνήμην τὴν δεξιὰν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι παρασχόντες. On the peace-offerings
generally, see Leviticus 3 the whole chapter, 7:11-21, 28-34. Winer’s
Realwörterb., art. “Dankopfer.” [931] Leviticus 7:8; the Sifra thereto in
Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii, p. 1079. Mishna, Sebachim xii. 2-4. Tosefta, Sebachim
(or Korbanoth) xi. 7 ff. in Ugolini’s Thes xiii 1080 ff. Philo, De praemiis
sacerdotum, sec. iv. (Mang. ii. 235): Ἐφʼ ἁπασι μέντοι καὶ τὰς τῶν
ὁλοκαυτωμάτων, ἀμύθητα δὲ ταῦτʼ ἐστί, δορὰς προστάττει τοὺς ὑπηρετοῦντας ταῖς
θυσίαις ἱερεῖς λαμβάνειν, οὐ βραχεῖαν ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα πολυχρήματον δωρεάν.
Josephus, Antt. iii. 9. 1. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 126. On the
burnt-offerings generally, see Leviticus 1:3-17. Winer’s Realwörterb. under the
word “Brandopfer.” II. But considerable as the amount derived from those
offerings no doubt was, still it formed but the smaller portion of the
sacerdotal revenues, while for the most part it was only available for the
officiating priests. The real bulk of the priests’ emoluments, on the other
hand, consisted strictly speaking of what was derived from those dues that were
paid independently of the sacrifices altogether, and which consequently
possessed the character of a genuine tax for the maintenance of the priesthood.
These dues were levied partly upon the produce of the soil and partly upon the
offspring of the cattle, and they had to be paid partly in kind, although in
some instances they might also be ransomed for their equivalent in money. The
dues derived from the produce of the soil were of a varied character, and had to
be separated (with a view to payment) in the following order:[932] (1) The
first-fruits, בִּכּוּרִים. These offerings were taken from the socalled “seven
kinds,” i.e. from the principal products of the soil of Palestine as enumerated
in Deuteronomy (8:8), viz. wheat, barley, vines, fig-trees, pomegranates, olives
and honey. Those who lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem offered fresh fruits,
while those living farther away brought them in a dried form. In going up to
present their offerings the people went in common procession, and according to
Philo and the Mishna it was made an occasion of merry-making. It was the
practice for those living in the country to assemble in the principal towns of
the districts to which they belonged and thence to go up to Zion in one merry
company, marching to the music of the pipes. At the head of the procession was
led the ox that was to form the festive offering, with its horns gilded and a
garland of olive branches placed upon them. In Jerusalem the most eminent
members of the priesthood came to meet the procession as it approached the
sanctuary. The owners of the offerings then put wreaths round the baskets
containing the first-fruits and carried them on their shoulders up the temple
mount as far as the court. This was done even by the most distinguished
personages; it had been done even by King Agrippa himself. As soon as the
procession entered the court the Levites welcomed it with the singing of the
thirtieth Psalm. And now each person proceeded to hand his basket to the priest,
and as he did so, repeated the confession of Deuteronomy 26:5-10, whereupon the
priest took it and put it down beside the altar.[933] (2) Then came the
so-called terumah (תְּרוּמָה). This was distinct from the first-fruits, and in
so far as the offering of these latter had always rather more of a
symbolico-religious significance, it hardly could be said to have belonged to
quite the same category with them. The terumah possessed the character of a pure
payment in kind toward the maintenance of the priests, for Rabbinical Judaism
understands it in the more restricted sense of the term (terumah in the more
comprehensive sense of the word meaning every “heave” whatsoever, i.e.
everything paid to the sanctuary) as denoting the giving of the choicest of the
fruits of the ground and of the trees to the priests. This impost was levied not
only upon the “seven kinds,” but upon every species of fruit, and that whether
the fruits of the ground or the fruit of trees, Here as before the most
important of them were wheat, wine and oil. The amount to be given was not
regulated by any fixed measure, weight, or number,[934] but was to be, on an
average, one-fiftieth of the whole yield, the person who gave one-fortieth being
regarded as giving liberally, while he who gave only one-sixtieth was considered
to have given somewhat stingily.[935] Whatever had once been set apart as a
terumah could be lawfully made use of only by the priests.[936] (3) After the
materials of the two classes of offerings we have just mentioned had been duly
separated, the largest and most important item of all now fell to be deducted,
viz. the tithe. We know, from what the Gospels tell us, with what painful
scrupulosity the prescriptions of the law in regard to this matter were
observed, and how common it was to pay tithe even of the most insignificant and
worthless objects, such as mint, anise, and cummin (Matthew 23; Luke 11:42). The
principle laid down in the Mishna with respect to this is as follows:
“Everything which may be used as food and is cultivated and grows out of the
earth is liable to tithe.”[937] The revenue derived from the source now in
question must have been very large indeed. Yet the greater proportion of it was
intended not so much for the priests as for the more subordinate class of sacred
officials, viz. the Levites. It was to these latter, in the first instance, that
the tithe had to be paid, while they had in turn to hand over a tithe of that
again to the priests.[938] After separating this Levites’ tithe from his
produce, the owner had to deduct another one still, the so-called second tithe.
But this, in common with several other imposts of a similar kind, was made use
of by the owner himself in the way of furnishing a sacrificial feast at
Jerusalem; consequently they were not for the benefit of the priests, and so do
not fall to be considered here.[939] (4) Then the last of the offerings taken
from, the products of the soil was the so-called challah (חַלָּה), i.e. the
offering from the kneaded dough (ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ φυράματος, Romans 11:16). According
to the Mishna, offerings of this sort required to be given in the case of dough
that happened to be made from any one of the five following kinds of grain:
wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye (?).[940] The offering was not to be
presented in the form of flour or meal, but required to be taken from the dough,
i.e. as prepared for making bread.[941] The quantity to be given was, in the
case of private individuals, one twenty-fourth part, and, in the case of public
bakers, one forty-eighth part of the whole piece.[942] [932] On the order to be
observed, see Terumoth iii. 6, 7. [933] See in general, Numbers 18:13; Nehemiah
10:36; also Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26. To this matter Deuteronomy 26:1-11 was
referred. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 22. In the Mishna the entire tractate Bikkurim is
devoted to the subject of first-fruits. Comp. especially, Bikkurim i. 3
(regarding the “seven kinds” to be offered), and iii. 1-9 (account of the
festive procession). Philo treats of this matter in his small work, De festo
cophini, first edited by Cardinal Mai, and given in Richter’s edition of Philo’s
works, v. 48-50; also in Tischendorf’s Philonea (1868), pp. 69-71. Of the works
given under the literature we would specially mention, Lundius, Die alten
jüdischen Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. liv. Ugolini’s Thes. vol. iii. p. 1100
ff. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Erstlinge.” Saalschütz, i. 344 f. Haneberg, pp.
565-568. Grätz, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissensch. des Judenth, 1877,
p. 433 ff. [934] Terumoth i. 7. [935] Terumoth iv. 3. Comp. Jerome’s com. on
Ezekiel 44:13-14 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 565): At vero primitiva quae de frugibus
offerebant, non erant epeciali numero definita, sed offerentium arbitrio
derelicta. Traditionemque accepimus Hebraeorum non lege praeceptam, sed
magistrorum arbitrio molitam: qui plurimum, quadragesimam partem dabat
sacerdotibus, qui minimum, sexagesimam: inter quadragesimam et sexagesimam
licebat offerre quodcumque voluissent. [936] See in general, Numbers 18:12;
Nehemiah 10:38. The Rabbinical regulations in the tractate Terumoth. Philo, De
praemiis sacerdotum, sec. i. (Mang. ii. p. 233): προστάττει καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἄλλης
κτήσεως ἀπάρχεσθαι, καθʼ ἑκάστην μὲν ληνὸν οἶνον, καθʼ ἑκάστην δὲ ἅλωνα σῖτον
καὶ κριθάς. Ὁμοίως δὲ ἐξ ἐλαιῶν ἔλαιον καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἀκροδρύων ἡμέρους
καρπούς (that it is the terumah that Philo has in view here has also been
correctly assumed by Richter in his Philo und die Halacha). Joseph. Antt. iv. 4.
4: ἔτι δὲ ἀπαρχὰς τὸν λαὸν δίκαιον τῷ θεῷ πάντων τῶν ἐκ τῆς γῆς φυομένων καρπῶν
ἐπιφέρειν. Comp. also Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, book iv. chap.
xxxi. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Erstlinge.” Saalschütz, i. 346. Haneberg, p.
568 f. [937] Maaseroth i. 1. For details, comp. for example Maaseroth iv 5, 6,
v. 8. Lightfoot, Horae hebr., note on Matthew 23:23 (Opp. ii. 359). Wetzstein,
Nov. Test., note on the same passage. On the tithing of anise (ἄνηθον, שָׁבָת),
see Maaseroth iv. 5; on that of cummin (κύμινον, כּמּוֹן), Demai ii. 1. [938]
See in general, Numbers 18:20-32; Nehemiah 10:38-39. Philo, De caritate, sec. x.
(ed. Mang. ii. 891); De praemiis sacerdot. sec. vi.; probably it is also the
tithe that is in view in sec. ii. init. of the same treatise. Joseph. Antt. iv.
4. 3, 4. The Rabbinical prescriptions in Maaseroth. Hottinger, De decimis
Judaeorum, Lugd. Bat. 1718. Lundius, Die alten jüd. Heiligthümer, book iv. chap.
xxxii. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Zehnt.” Saalschütz, i. 346 f. Haneberg, pp.
573-576. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xviii. 414-421. Ritter,
Philo und die Halacha, pp. 122-124. Knobel-Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch, note on
Leviticus 27:30-33 (also at the same place for the instances of a similar
practice among the heathen). [939] To the category of imposts that were consumed
by the owner himself at Jerusalem belong— [940] Challa i. 1. There is some doubt
as to the meaning of the two words usually rendered “oats” and “rye” (שבולת שועל
and שיפין); especially with regard to שיפון = σίφων, σιφώνιον, it would
certainly be more correct to understand the word as meaning a species of oats.
[941] Challa ii. 5. [942] Challa ii. 7. See in general, Numbers 15:17-21;
Nehemiah 10:38; Ezekiel 44:30. Philo, De praemiis sacerdoium, sec. i. (Mang. ii.
233): Κελεύει γὰρ τοὺς σιτοπονοῦντας ἀπὸ παντὸς στέατός τε καὶ φυράματος ἄρτον
ἀφαιρεῖν ἀπαρχὴν εἰς ἱερέων χρῆσιν. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: τούς τε πέττοντας
τὸν σῖτον καί ἀρτοποιουμένους τῶν πεμμάτων αὐτοῖς τινὰ χορηγεῖν. Mishna
tractate, Challa. Sifra to Numbers 15:17 ff. in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii.
p. 1108 ff. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iv. chap. xxxix. Saalschütz,
i. 347. Haneberg, pp. 571-573. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 118. (1) The
“second tithe,” according to Deuteronomy 14:22-26. Leviticus 27:30-31 was
likewise understood in this sense. Comp. Tob_1:7; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 8. In the
Mishna see the whole tractate Maaser sheni. Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, pp.
146-182 (Exercit. vii.). Lundius, Die alten jüd. Heiligthümer, iv. 33. Winer’s
Realwörterb., art. “Zehnt.” Saalschütz, i. pp. 169, 354-358. Leyrer in Herzog’s
Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xviii. p. 417 f. Those living at a distance from
Jerusalem were allowed to convert the second tithe into money on the
understanding that one-fifth of its money value was to be superadded to it
(Leviticus 27:31; Maaser sheni iv. 3). But this money had to be spent
exclusively in the purchase of such viands, beverages, and ointment as were
necessary for the sacrificial feast as Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 14:26; Maaser
sheni ii. 1). (2) The tithe of the cattle. The only passage in the Pentateuch
which requires the cattle to be tithed, viz. Leviticus 27:32-33, was expresaly
understood by the later legislation in the sense of the “second tithe,” and that
being the case, it follows that the cattle tithe would also be devoted to the
furnishing; of the feasts in Jerusalem. See Sebachim v. 8, Bartenom and
Maimonides on Bechoroth ix. 1 (in Surenhusius’ edition of the Mishna, v. 187).
At the same time, Philo would seem to include the cattle tithe also among the
prieste’ emoluments, De caritate, sec. x. (Mang. ii. 391); De praemiis
sacerdotum, sec. ii. init. (where the tithe is probably meant). Comp. Ritter’s
Philo und die Halacha, p. 122 f. For a fuller account of the matter, see Mishna,
Bechoroth ix. 1-8; also Maaser sheni i. 2; Shekalim i. 7, iii. 1, viii. 8; Rosh
hashana i. 1; Chagiga i. 4; Sebachim v. 8, x. 3; Manachoth ix. 6; Chullin i. 7.
Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, pp. 228-253 (Exercit. x.). Lundius, Die alt.
jüd. Heiligth. book iv. chap. xxxviii. (3) The produce of trees and vines in the
fourth year of their growth. According to Leviticus 19:23-25, the fruit of
newly-planted trees (and vines) was not to be gathered at all during the first
three years, while in the fourth it was to be consecrated to God, as it was not
to be at the free disposal of the owner of it till the fifth year. In later
times this was taken to mean that the produce of the fourth year was, like the
second tithe, to be consumed by the owner himself in Jerusalem. See especially,
Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 19: τῷ δὲ τετάρτῳ τρυγάτω πᾶν τὸ γενόμενον (τότε γὰρ ὥριον
εἶναι) καὶ συναγαγὼν εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν κομιζέτω, καὶ σὺν τῇ δεκάτῃ τοῦ ἄλλου
καρποῦ μετὰ τῶν φίλων εὐωχούμενος ἀναλισκέτω καὶ μετʼ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρευουσῶν
γυναικών. Comp. also Philo, De cariate, sec. xxi. (Mang. ii. 402). Mishna, Pea
vii. 6; Maaser sheni v. 1-5; Orla throughout; Edujoth iv. 5. Guisius on Pea vii.
6 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 68). Hottinger, De jure plantae quarti anni juxta
praeceptum Leviticus 19:24, Marburg 1704. Saalschütz, i. 168 f. (4) Then, in the
last place, among the offerings that did not fall to the priests were those
intended for the benefit of the poor, viz.: (a) the gleanings of the fields and
what grew upon the edges of them when the corn was reaped, Leviticus 19:9-10;
Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21. Philo, De
caritate, sec. ix. (Mang. ii. 390). Mishna, Pea. (b) The so-called third tithe,
or the tithe for the poor. According to the terms of the prescription
(Deuteronomy 14:28-29; Deuteronomy 26:12) on which this tithe is based one
should expect that, strictly speaking, the tithe for the poor would alternate
with the second tithe. For Deuteronomy prescribes that the tithe that in the
other two years was consumed by the owner himself before Jehovah, was in the
third year to be assigned to the Levites and the poor. So too according to the
Sept. version of Deuteronomy 26:12 : (ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τρίτῳ) τὸ δεύτερον
ἐπιδέκατον δώσεις τῷ Λευίτῃ καὶ τῷ προσηλύτῳ καὶ τῷ ὀρφανῷ καὶ τῇ χήρᾳ. But it
became the practice in later times to superadd the tithe for the poor to the
second tithe every third year. See Tob_1:7-8. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 22. Pea viii.
2-9. Demai iv. 3, 4. Maaser sheni v. 6. Jadajim iv. 3. Targum of Jonathan on
Deuteronomy 26:12. Jerome’s commentary on Ezekiel 45:13-14 (ed. Vallarsi, v.
565). Guisius’s note on Pea viii. 2 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna i. 70). Bernard and
Havercamp’s editions of Josephus, notes on Antt. iv. 8. 22. Hottinger, De
decimis Judaeorum, pp. 182-203. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth., book iv. chap.
xxxiv. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Zehnt.” Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st
ed. vol. xviii. p. 418 f. Then there was a second leading class of regular
offerings, viz. those derived from the rearing of cattle. These were of three
different kinds: (1) The most important of them was that consisting of the male
first-born of the cattle (that is to say therefore, the first-born whenever it
happened to be a male). As far back as the earlier Jehovistic and Deuteronomist
legislation we find that the male first-born of the cattle was required to be
dedicated to God, i.e. was to be used in sacrifice and for sacrificial feasts
(Exodus 13:11-16; Exodus 22:28-29; Exodus 34:19-20; Deuteronomy 15:19-23). This
the priestly legislation has converted into an allowance to be given to the
priests (Exodus 13:1-2; Leviticus 27:26-27; Numbers 18:15-18; Nehemiah 10:37).
Both legislations add to this the firstborn among men as well, for these two
were regarded as, properly speaking, belonging to God, and consequently they
required to be ransomed. Further, as a distinction had to be made between clean
and unclean cattle, we accordingly have the following more specific regulations
with respect to the first-born:[943] (a) the first-born of the cattle that were
clean and suitable for sacrificial purposes, i.e. oxen, sheep and goats, were to
be given in natura. If they were free from blemish they were to be treated as
sacrifices, i.e. the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar and the fat
consumed in the altar fires.[944] The flesh could be eaten by all who were
connected with the order of the priests, even by their wives, and that in any
part of Jerusalem (Numbers 18:17-18; Nehemiah 10:37; Exodus 22:29; Exodus 34:19;
Deuteronomy 15:19-20).[945] But if, on the other hand, the animals had any
blemish about them, they belonged no less to the priests, only they were to be
treated as unconsecrated food (Deuteronomy 15:21-23).[946] (b) The first-born of
unclean animals above all, according to Philo, those of the horse, the ass, and
the camel—and here too as in every other instance only the male ones—were to be
ransomed by the payment of a certain sum of money fixed by the priest with a
fifth part added (Numbers 18:15; Nehemiah 10:37; Leviticus 27:27). An ass was to
be exchanged for a sheep (Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20). According to Josephus,
the ransom would appear to have been effected by the payment of a fixed sum of
one shekel and a half for each beast. (c) The first-born of man, i.e. the first
child that happened to be a male, required to be “ransomed” as soon as it was a
month old by the payment of five shekels (Numbers 18:15-16; comp. Numbers 3:44
ff.; Nehemiah 10:37; Exodus 13:13; Exodus 22:28; Exodus 34:20). It was not
necessary that the boy should be presented at the temple on the occasion of his
being ransomed, as has been supposed, for the most part on the strength of Luke
2:22.[947] As is expressly stated in the passages just referred to, the shekels
in question were to be those of the Tyrian standard.[948] This tax was imposed
upon poor and rich alike.[949] [943] Subsequent practice amalgamated the
Jehovietic and Deuteronomic enactments with those of the priest-code, and made
the latter the standard by which to interpret them. [944] Consequently the
Mishna characterizes the first-born also as “holy,” but only in the second
degree, קדשים קלים, like passa and the cattle tithe, Sebachim v. 8 [945] In the
passage in Deuteronomy the “thou” of 15:20 has been understood as though it were
addressed to the priests and not (as was the original intention of the passage)
to the Israelites. [946] Accordingly, in cases of this sort the flesh might be
sold by the priests even to persons who did not belong to their own order and
eaten by them; see Bartenora’s note on Bechoroth v. 1 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna,
v. 169). [947] See, on the other hand, Löw, Die Lebensalter in der jüdischen
Literatur (1875), p. 110 ff. [948] Bechoroth viii. 7. A shekel of the Phoenician
(= the early Hebrew) standard amounted to somewhere about 2 marks 62 pfennige of
German money (Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie, 2nd ed. p. 420), and
consequently five shekels would be equivalent to about 13 marks. There can be no
question that, by the “ransoming,” the older legislation (Exodus 13:13; Exodus
34:20) does not mean a buying back for money, but an exchanging for an animal
that could be used as a sacrifice. [949] See in general, Philo, De sacerdotum,
sec. i. (Mang. ii. 233). Τρίτον ἐστὶ γέρας τὰ πρωτότοκα ἀρʼῥενικὰ καὶ πάντα τῶν
χερσαίων ὅσα πρὸς ὑπηρεσίας καὶ χρῆσιν ἀνθρώπων. Ταῦτα γὰρ κελεύει διαδίδοσθαι
τοῖς ἱερωμένοις ἀνθρώποις. Βοῶν μὲν καὶ προβάτων καὶ αἰγῶν αὐτὰ τὰ ἔκγονα,
μόσχους καὶ κριοὺς καὶ χιμάρʼῥους, ἐπειδὴ καθαρὰ καὶ πρὸς ἐδωδὴν καὶ πρὸς θυσίας
ἐστί τε καὶ νενόμισται· λύτρα δὲ κατατιθέναι τῶν ἄλλων ἵππων καὶ ὄνων καὶ
καμήλων καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων μὴ μειοῦντας τὴν ἀξίαν. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα παμπληθῆ.
… Τὴν δὲ τῶν πρωτοτόκων υἱῶν καθιέρωσιν, ὡς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μήτε γονεῖς τέκνων μήτε
τέκνα γονέων διαζεύγνυσθαι, τιμᾶται τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ἀργυρίῳ ῥητῷ, προστάξας ἴσον
εἰσφέρειν καὶ πένητα καὶ πλούσιον. Comp. also De caritate, sec. x. (ed. Mang.
ii. 391). Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: τῶν τετραπόδων δὲ τῶν εἰς τὰς θυσίας
νενομισμένων τὸ γεννηθὲν πρῶτον, ἂν ἄρσεν ᾖ, καταθῦσαι παρασχεῖν τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν,
ὥστε αὐτοὺς πανοικὶ σιτεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ ἱερᾷ πόλει· τῶν δʼ οὐ νενομισμένων ἐσθίειν
παρʼ αὐτοῖς κατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους τοὺς δεσπότας τῶν τικτομένων σίκλον καὶ
ἥμισυ αὐτοῖς ἀναφέρειν, ἀνθρώπου δὲ πρωτοτόκου πέντε σίκλους. Mishna tractate
Bechoroth. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. xliv. Winer’s
Realwörterb., art. “Erstgeburt.” Saalschütz, i. 348 f. Haneberg, pp. 569-571.
Frankel, Ueber den Ein fluss der palästinischen Exegese, etc., 1851, p. 98 f.
(on the Sept. rendering of Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20). Ritter, Philo, pp.
118-122 (the most exhaustive and accurate of any). Knobel-Dillmann, Exeget.
Handbuch, note on Exodus 13:1-2. Löw, Die Lebensalter in der jüd. Literatur,
1875, pp. 110-118, 390-392 (specially treating of the flrst-born in the case of
man). (2.) Of all the flesh that was slaughtered generally the priests were to
receive three portions, viz. the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the stomach. This
is the sense in which Deuteronomy 18:3 was understood, and was therefore taken
as referring, not to animals offered in sacrifice, but to those slaughtered for
ordinary use. According to the later interpretation of it, this prescription was
also regarded as applying exclusively to such animals as were suitable for
sacrifices, viz. oxen, sheep and goats.[950] [950] See in general, besides
Deuteronomy 18:3, Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. iii. (Mang. ii. 235): Ἀπὸ
δὲ τῶν ἔξω τοῦ βωμοῦ θυομένων ἕνεκα κρεωφαγίας τρία προστέτακται τῷ ἱερεῖ
δίδοσθαι, βραχίονα καὶ σιαγόνα καὶ τὸ καλούμενον ἤνυστρον. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4.
4: εἶναι δὲ καὶ τοῖς κατʼ οἶκον θύουσιν, εὐωχίας ἕνεκα τῆς αὑτῶν, ἀλλὰ μὴ
θρησκείας, ἀνάγκην κομίζειν τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἤνυστρόν τε καὶ χελύνιον καὶ τὸν
δεξιὸν βραχιονα τοῦ θύματος. On the meaning of χελύνιον (not the breast, but the
cheek), see notes on this passage in Bernard and Havercamp’s editions of
Josephus. Mishna tractate Chullin x. and the corresponding Gemara, fol. 130 ff.
Sifra to Deuteronomy 18:3 in Ugolini, vol. xiii. 1113-1115 (here too, as in
Josephus, the right foreleg or shoulder). Jerome, Epist. lxiv. ad Fabiolam,
chap. ii. (Vallarsi, i. 355): Caeterum et alia tria, exceptis primitiis
hostiarum et de privato et de macello publico, ubi non religio sed victus
necessitas est, sacerdotibus membra tribuuntur, brachium, maxilla et venter.
Bernard and Havercamp’s editions of Josephus, notes on Antt. iv. 4. 4.
Saalschütz, i. p. 350. Haneberg, p. 576 f. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st
ed. vol. xii. p. 181 f. Knobel’s note on Deuteronomy 18:3. Ritter’s Philo, p.
124 f. Wellhausen, i. p. 158. (3.) Again, a portion of the proceeds of the
sheep-shearing had to be given to the priests, only in those cases however in
which a person owned more than one sheep—according to the school of Shammai,
when he owned two, according to Hillel’s school, on the other hand, not unless
he owned five. This offering was said to amount to five Jewish (= ten Galilaean)
sela.[951] [951] See in general, Deuteronomy 18:4. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: εἶναι
δὲ ἀπαρχὰς αὐτοῖς καί τῆς τῶν προβάτων κουρᾶς. Mishna, Chullin xi. 1, 2. Sifra
to Deuteronomy 18:4, in Ugolini, vol. xiii. p. 1113. Philo, De caritate, sec. x.
(Mangey, ii. 391), erroneously includes this offering among the tithes. III.
Besides the regular offerings, there also fell to the priests a considerable
number of an irregular and extra-ordinary character. To this category belonged,
fundamentally at least, a large number of sacrifices offered on an almost
endless variety of occasions (see p. 195 f. above); but besides these they also
received the following offerings: (1) The consecration vows, or votive
offerings. These might be of a very varied character. One could dedicate oneself
or some other person to the sanctuary (to the Lord). In such cases it was usual
to pay a certain sum of money by way of ransom, viz. fifty shekels for a man and
thirty for a woman. But one could also dedicate animals, houses, or lands to the
sanctuary. If the animals happened to be such as could be offered in sacrifice,
then they had to be given in natura. But in the case of unclean animals and in
that of houses and lands, a money ransom could be paid as before, though on
certain conditions specified in the law.[952] (2) A special form of consecration
vow called the ban, i.e. something irredeemably devoted to the sanctuary.
Whenever anything was devoted to the sanctuary in this form (as something
banned, חֵרֶם) it fell to it, i.e. to the priests in natura, whether it were in
the shape of a person, cattle, or lands.[953] (3) Lastly, in those cases in
which any one had appropriated or otherwise unlawfully got possession of
anything, and in which it was no longer possible to restore the property to its
rightful owner, a certain indemnity had to be paid, and this also fell to the
priests.[954] With regard to the two things last mentioned, the law distinctly
states that they were to belong to the priests personally, whereas the votive
offering, on the other hand, would appear to have been devoted as a rule to
purposes connected with the services of the sanctuary generally.[955] At the
same time Josephus distinctly affirms that the ransom of fifty or of thirty
shekels to be paid in those cases in which any one had devoted him or herself to
God formed part of the priests’ emoluments.[956] Further, the Rabbinical
theologians hold that, besides the cherem and the indemnity offering, “the
inherited field,” consecrated as a votive offering (Leviticus 27:16-21), was
also to be included among the twenty-four different kinds of offerings that fell
to the priests.[957] [952] See in general, Leviticus 27.; Deuteronomy 23:22-24.
Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4; Matthew 15:5; Mark 7:11. Lundius, Die alt, jüd.
Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. xlv. Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, i. 150-153,
358-367. Winer’s Real-wörterb. art. “Gelubde.” Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl.,
1st ed. vol. iv. pp. 788-790 (art. “Gelübde bei den Hebräern”). Knobel-Dillmann,
Exeget. Handbuch, notes on Leviticus 27. Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer
der Bibel, pp. 370-376. Lightfoot, Horae hebr., note on Matthew 15:5 (Opp. ed.
Roterodamens. ii. p. 332 f.). Edzard, Tractatus Talmudicus, Aboda sara 1710, p.
294 ff. Schoettgen, Horae hebr., Wolf’s Curae phil. in Nov. Test., and
Wetzstein’s Nov. Test., the notes of the three last-mentioned writers on Matthew
15:5; see in general the expositors on Matthew 15:5 and Mark 7:11; also “Saat
auf Hoffnung,” edited by Delitesoh for year 1875, pp. 37-40. On the validity of
vows in the case of women, see Numbers 30; Mishna tractate Nedarim. [953] See
Leviticus 27:28; Numbers 18:14; Ezekiel 44:29. Saalschüts, i. 368-373. Winer’s
Realwörterb., art. “Bann.” Leviticus 27:29 is not applicable here. See
Knobel-Dillmann’s note on this latter passage. [954] Numbers 5:5-8. [955]
Shekalim iv. 6-8: “When any one consecrates his possessions (נְכָסָיו) … and
there happen to be cattle amongst them suitable for sacrifice, whether males or
females, then, according to Rabbi Eliesar, they are to be sold, the males for
burnt-offerings and the females for festive offerings, to those who may be
requiring them for such purposes, while the money with the rest of the property
was to be given to the treasury for the support of the temple (לְבֶדְק
הַבַּיִת). Rabbi Josua says: The males are sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and
the females are sold to such as happen to be requiring festive offerings, while,
with the money realized from the sale, burnt-offerings are purchased and
offered; the residue of the property goes to the treasury for the maintenance of
the sanctuary.… If any one consecrates his possessions, and there happen to be
things amongst them suitable for the altar, such as wine, oil, birds, then,
according to Rabbi Eliesar, these are to be sold to those who are requiring
offerings of this sort, while the money thus realized is to be spent in
procuring burnt-offerings; the residue of the property goes to the treasury for
the support of the temple.” [956] Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4. [957] Comp. the
Rabbinical passages quoted in note 60, above. To what extent all the offerings
to which we have referred were contributed by the Jews of the dispersion as well
it is no longer possible to say with any degree of certainty in regard to any
one of them in particular.[958] In any case a large number of them was paid by
those of the dispersion as wall, while the amount derived from all those sources
was of so handsome a character that the priests always had a comfortable
provision. As little are we any longer in a position always to form anything
like a distinct conception of the mode in which those offerings were paid. Many
of them, such as the challa and the three portions to be given on the occasion
of slaughtering an animal, were of such a nature that they did not admit of
being kept long. Consequently to carry these and such as these to Jerusalem for
the purpose of presenting them there would be simply impossible. At any rate, in
all those places in which there happened to be priests, they were given to them
directly.[959] But so far as it was at all practicable, the administration of
the offerings was centralized in Jerusalem. Thither they were conveyed and
handed over to those appointed to receive them, and from thence again they were
distributed among the priests.[960] [958] For material bearing upon this, see
Challa iv. 7, 11; Jadajim iv. 3; Chullin x. 1 (the three portions allotted to
the priests at the slaughtering of an animal to be given beyond Palestine as
well). Philo, De monarchia, ii. 3 (Mang. ii. 224). Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xxiii.
40 (Mang. ii. pp. 568 f., 592). Joseph. Antt. xvi. 6. 2-7, xviii. 9. 1. The
passages from Philo and Josephus refer mainly, of course, to the didrachma tax,
but not to that alone; see Antt. xviii. 9. 1: τό τε δίδραχμον … καὶ ὁπόσα ἄλλα
ἀναθήματα. Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, p. 100 ff. (Exercit. v.). Frankel,
Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische
Hermeneutik (1851), p. 98 f. [959] 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. [960] See especially, 2 Chronicles 31:11-19; Nehemiah
12:44; Nehemiah 13:5; Malachi 3:10. Philo, De praemiis, sec. iv. (Mang. ii. 235
f.): Ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ μηδένα τῶν διδόντων ὀνειδίζειν τοῖς λαμβάνουσι, κελεύει τὰς
ἀπαρχὰς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν κομίζεσθαι, πρότερον, εἶτʼ ἐνθένδε τοὺς ἱερεῖς λαμβάνειν.
This central administration on the part of the priests extended to the tithe as
well, which in point of fact was delivered, not to the Levites, but to the
priests, in whose hands the further disposal of it was then left.[961] [961]
Comp. Joseph. Vita, xii. 15; Antt. xx. 8. 8, 9. 2. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael, ii. 138 ff. Delitzsch, Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1877, p. 448 f.
Wellhausen, i. 171 f. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 123 f. In the time of
Nehemiah the tithe was paid to the Levites precisely in accordance with what is
prescribed in the priest-code, while these in turn handed over only a tenth of
the tithe to the temple treasury; at the same time the two things were done
under the supervision of the priests (Nehemiah 10:38-39). The Mishna would
appear to proceed on the assumption that the correct thing was for the priests
and the Levites to receive their respective shares directly from the hands of
the person paying the tithe (Maaser sheni v. 6). Nor were those priestly gifts
made use of merely by the priests themselves, but the privilege of participating
in the enjoyment of them was extended to those connected with them as well. The
only things that had to be partaken of exclusively by priests were those known
as “most holy” (see p. 236, above). All the others might be enjoyed by the whole
of the members of a priest’s household—his wife, his daughters and his slaves,
with the exception however of hired workmen and daughters married to other than
priests. But, in every instance, only those were at liberty to participate who
were in a condition of Levitical purity.[962] With regard to the priests no
distinction was made, on this occasion, between those duly qualified to
officiate and those debarred from doing so in consequence of some physical
defect or infirmity. These latter might be allowed, when the division to which
they belonged happened to be serving, to go even the length of participating in
the “most holy” things themselves.[963] [962] Leviticus 22:1-16. Philo, De
monarchia, lib. ii. secs. xiii.-xv. (ed. Mangey, ii. pp. 230-233). Joseph. Antt.
iv. 4. 4: πάντων δὲ τῶν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι τελουμένων κοινωνεῖν διέταξε καὶ τοὺς
οἰκέτας καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ γυναῖκας, ἔξω τῶν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτημάτων ἐπιφερομένων
θυσιῶν· ταῦτας γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ μόνοι δαπανῶσιν οἱ ἄρʼῥενες τῶν ἱερέων αὐθημερόν.
Terumoth vi. 2, vii. 2. Sifra to Leviticus 22:10 ff., in Ugolini’s Thes. vol.
xiii. p. 1102 ff. [963] Leviticus 21:22. Philo, De monarchia, ii. 13. Joseph.
Antt. iii. 12. 2; Bell. Jud. v. 7. Sebachim xii. 1; Menachoth xiii. 10, fin. All
the offerings to which we have hitherto been referring only went to form the
personal emoluments of the priests. From these are now further to be
distinguished those imposts which were directly intended to defray the expenses
connected with public worship. The most important of them was the half-shekel or
didraehma-tax.[964] There was no tax of this description anterior to the exile,
for down to that period it had been the practice for the kings to provide the
public sacrifices at their own expense (Ezekiel 45:17 ff; Ezekiel 46:13-15,
according to the Septuagint). It was in existence however as early as the days
of Nehemiah, although at that time it amounted only to a third of a shekel
(Nehemiah 10:33-34). The raising of it to half a shekel cannot have taken place
till subsequent to Nehemiah’s time. Consequently, the passage in the Pentateuch
(Exodus 30:11-16), in which the half-shekel tax is prescribed, must be regarded
as a later modification of the terms of the priest code, which moreover is
probable for yet other reasons.[965] The actual payment of this tax in the time
of Christ is placed beyond a doubt by the unquestionable testimony of various
authorities.[966] Then again it was one that had to be paid by every male
Israelite of twenty years of age or upwards, no matter whether he were rich or
poor,[967] and that, in common with all sacred tribute, in money of the early
Hebrew or Tyrian (Phoenician) standard.[968] [964] Comp. Winer’s Realwörterb.,
art. “Abgaben.” Saalschütz, i. pp. 291-293. Wieseler’s Chronologische Synopse,
p. 264 ff. Id., Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, p. 108 ff.
Huschke, Ueber den Census und die Steuer-verfassung der früheren römischen
Kaiserzeit (1847), pp. 202-208. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, ii. 599 ff. Notes of
Meyer and other expositors on Matthew 17:24. [965] See Wellhausen, Jahrb. f.
deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 412. The passage in Exodus itself speaks only of one
special instance in which the tax was paid, viz. on the occasion of the
numbering of the people in the time of Moses (Numbers 1.). But there cannot be a
doubt that this was indirectly intended to furnish a legal basis on which to
found the exaction of the regular half-shekel tax. It is also in this sense that
the passage has been understood so early as by the author of the Chronicles (2
Chronicles 24:4-10). [966] Matthew 17:24; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 9. 1; Bell. Jud.
vii. 6. 6. Mishna tractate Shekalim. [967] Exodus 30:14-15. Philo, De monarchia,
ii. 3 (Mang. ii. 224): Προστέτακται γὰρ ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος ἀπαρχὴν εἰσφέρειν ἀπὸ
εἰκοσαετοῦς ἀρξαμένους. [968] Tosefta, Kethuloth xii. fin.: “Wherever money is
mentioned in the law, it is Syrian money (כסף צורֹי) that is meant. The
specimens of Hebrew shekels that have been preserved are found really to
correspond with money of the Phoenician standard. A half-shekel therefore is
equal to two Tyrian drachmae, or to something like 1 mark 31 pfennige of German
money. Comp. p. 244, above. In the time of Christ it was only the Roman standard
that was in force in Palestine (1 denarius = 1 Attic drachma, both of these
being somewhat heavier than the Tyrian drachma). Consequently, in paying the
sacred tribute it was very often necessary to have recourse to the exchangers.
The time for payment was the month Adar (somewhere about the month of
March);[969] while the mode of procedure on that occasion was to have the whole
of the contributions payable by one community gathered together and then sent on
to Jerusalem, there to be duly paid over in name of that community.[970] This
tax was spent mainly in defraying the expense of the daily burnt-offering, and
of all the sacrifices generally that had to be offered in the name of the
people, as well as for other objects of a public character.[971] After the
destruction of Jerusalem the didrachma had for a long time to be paid toward the
support of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.[972] It is true that in
the reign of Nerva the calumnia fisci Judaici was put an end to, but the tax
itself was not repealed.[973] [969] Shekalim i. 1, 3. [970] Shekalim ii. 1.
Comp. Matthew 17:24. [971] Nehemiah 10:33-34. Shekalim iv. 1-3. [972] Joseph.
Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6. Dio Cass. lxvi. 7. Comp. Sueton. Domitian, 12: Judaicus
fiacus acerbissime actus est. [973] 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). Over and above the
half-shekel tax, and as forming a matter of regular tribute for the temple,
there was, above all, the furnishing of so much wood every year as fuel for the
altar of burnt-offering.[974] As early as the time of Nehemiah it was ordained
that the priests, the Levites and the people were at certain periods of the year
to furnish the necessary supply of wood for the altar, all of them according to
the houses of their fathers, their turn being decided by lot (Nehemiah 10:34;
Nehemiah 13:31). At a later period the “wood offering” took place, for the most
part, on the 15th of the month Ab, a day which, for this very reason, came to
acquire a certain festive character.[975] However, at this same period wood was
also furnished by certain families on other days besides the one just
mentioned.[976] Every species of wood was allowable except that of the olive and
the vine.[977] [974] On this see Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, ii.
144 f. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, 3rd ed. iii. pp. 612 (note 1) and 668 (note
14). Derenbourg’s Histoire de la Palestine, p. 109, note 2. Hamburger,
Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, part ii. p. 881 f., art. “Opferholzspende.”
[975] Megillath Taanith, sec. xi. (in Derenbourg, pp. 443, 445). Joseph. Bell.
Jud. ii. 17. 6: τῆς τῶν ξυλοφορίων ἑορτῆς οὔσης, ἐν ᾗ πᾶσιν ἔθος ὕλην τῷ βωμῷ
προσφέρειν. Seeing that in Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 7, Josephus designates the day
following the delivery of the wood as the fifteenth of lot-casting (= Ab), it
would follow from this that the delivery took place on the fourteenth of Ab.
But, according to the Rabbinical sources, there can be no doubt whatever that
the fifteenth of Ab was the principal day; see Megillath Taanith, sec. xi.;
Mishna, Taanith iv. 5, iv. 8; in general also, Taanith iv. 4; Megilla i. 3; Jer.
Taanith 68b, 69c; Megilla 70c; Bab. Taanith 28a-31a. [976] Mishna, Taanith iv.
5: “The dates fixed for the furnishing of the wood on the part of the priests
and the people were the following nine days:— [977] Tamid ii 3. Otherwise,
according to the Book of Jubilees, chap. 21. (in Ewald’s Jahrb. der. bibl
Witsensch. iii. 19). Testam. xii. Patriarch. Levi, chap. 9. 1. On the first of
Nisan it was furnished by the family of Arach of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra
2:5; Nehemiah 7:10). 2. On the twentieth of Tammus by the family of David of the
tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 8:2). 3. On the fifth of Ab by the family of Parěosh
of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 2:3; Ezra 8:3; Ezra 10:25; Nehemiah 3:25;
Nehemiah 7:8; Nehemiah 10:15). 4. On the seventh of Ab by the family of Jonadab
the Rechabite (comp. 2 Kings 10:15; 2 Kings 10:23; Jeremiah 35:8; 1 Chronicles
2:55). 5. On the tenth of Ab by the family of Sěnaa of the tribe of Benjamin
(comp. Ezra 2:35; Nehemiah 3:3; Nehemiah 7:38). 6. On the fifteenth of Ab by the
family of Sattu of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 2:8; Ezra 10:27; Nehemiah
7:13; Nehemiah 10:15). On this same day by The priests. The Levites. Those of
unknown descent. The Benê Gonbê Eli and the Bené Kozʾê Keziʾoth. 7. On the
twentieth of Ab by the family of Pachath-Moab of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra
2:6; Ezra 8:4; Ezra 10:30; Nehemiah 3:11; Nehemiah 7:11; Nehemiah 10:15). 8. On
the twentieth of Elul by the family of Adin of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra
2:15; Ezra 8:6; Nehemiah 7:20; Nehemiah 10:17). 9. On the first of Tebeth by the
family of Parěosh for the second time.” Then, in the last place, freewill
offerings formed a copious source of wealth for the temple. We have already
stated that probably the largest share of the vows did not fall to the priests
personally, but was used to defray the expenses incurred in connection with the
services of the sanctuary (see p. 247, above). But however this might be, that
was certainly the case with regard to those vows that were formed for some
particular purpose, as well as those other voluntary gifts which did not assume
exactly the character of a vow.[978] Very often objects were presented that
could be turned to account either in connection with the services of the temple
or in the way of ornamenting it.[979] For example, to mention just a single
instance, one could present so much gold in the shape of a few leaves, or
grapes, or clusters of grapes, with a view to the enlargement of the golden vine
that was placed over the entrance to the temple;[980] the wealthy Alabarch
Alexander of Alexandria provided the gold and silver with which the gates of the
court were covered;[981] nor was it uncommon for distinguished Gentiles to
present gifts to the temple (on this see close of present paragraph). As a rule,
however, the gifts were bestowed in the shape of money, and then even the poor
widow’s mite was not unwelcome (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4). In the treasury of
the temple thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes were erected, and into these the money
was dropped that was intended for the various purposes connected with the
religious services. No fewer than six of those boxes were for the reception of
“voluntary gifte” pure and simple, without the object for which they were
intended being further specified; and the whole of these latter were expended,
at least so the Mishna affirms, in the purchase of burnt-offerings (just because
it was supposed that in these most benefit would, so to speak, accrue to
God).[982] [978] That at least a formal distinction was made between vows
(נדרים) and freewill offerings (נדבות) may be seen from Megilla i. 6. [979] See
in general, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 13. 6; Mishna, Joma iii. 10. [980] Middoth
iii. 8, fin. [981] Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 3. [982] Shekalim vi. 5, 6.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 62: III. THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF THE PRIESTHOOD
========================================================================

III. THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF THE PRIESTHOOD As the priests were so numerous,
their emoluments so plentiful, and their functions so varied, it was necessary
that there should also be an extensive apportioning among them of the different
departments of the service. As we have already pointed out in a previous
section, the whole priest-hood was divided into twenty-four families, each of
which formed a distinct body, with presidents and elders at its head. But apart
from this social organization of the entire order, there was further, the
organism of the special functions connected with the multifarious services of
the sanctuary. Of those special offices there were two that (at least during the
last century of the temple’s existence, to which period the following account is
to be understood as applying) were conspicuous above all the others, and to
these we will here assign the foremost place. 1. The head of the whole
priesthood was the supreme, or as we usually designate him, the high priest, כהן
גדול, ἀρχιερεύς.[983] The characteristic feature about the position of this
distinguished functionary was the combining in one and the same person of both a
civil and a sacred dignity. Not only was he the supreme religious functionary,
the one to whom alone pertained the privilege of performing certain acts of
worship of the highest religious significance, such as, above all, the offering
of the sacrifice on the great day of atonement, but he was also, at the same
time, the supreme civil head of the people, the supreme head of the State, in so
far, that is, as the State was not under the sway of foreign rulers. In the days
of national independence the hereditary Asmonaean high priests were priests and
kings at one and the same time; while, at a later period again, the high priests
were, at least the presidents of the Sanhedrim, and even in all political
matters, the supreme representatives of the people in their relations with the
Romans (for details, see § 23. IV., above). As was to be expected, considering
the distinguished social position which he held, the high priest did not
officiate except on festival occasions. He was, in fact, legally bound to do so
only on the great day of atonement, when he was called upon to offer before the
Lord the great sin-offering of the people (Leviticus 16); though, according to
later usage, he was further required to offer the daily sacrifice during the
week immediately preceding the great day of atonement.[984] Otherwise he was
left perfectly free to sacrifice only when he felt disposed to do so.[985]
According to the testimony of Josephus, he officiated, as a rule, every Sabbath
day, and on the occasion of the new moons or other festivals in the course of
the year.[986] We must beware of confounding with the sacrifices just mentioned,
and which he offered as representing the people and in their name, the daily
meat-offering which he required to offer purely on his own account (Leviticus
6:12-16). But on those latter occasions it was not so much required that he
himself should officiate (which he seldom did) as that he should defray the cost
of the offerings.[987] The somewhat unique character of the high priest’s
position found further expression in the special purity and holiness that were
expected of him (see pp. 211, 214, above), as well as in the gorgeous official
attire which he wore when exercising his sacred functions.[988] Only at that
part of the service on the great day of atonement at which he entered the holy
of holies, he wore a simple white dress, which however was made of the most
expensive Pelusian and Indian linen (or cotton?).[989] [983] Comp. on this
functionary, Winer’s Realwörterb. under word. Oehler’s art. “Hoherpriester,” in
Herzog’s Real-Encycl. (1st ed. vol. vi. pp. 198-206, 2nd ed. vi. pp. 237-245,
revised by Delitzsch), and the literature quoted in both those works; also
Graf’s art. “Priester,” in Scheakel’s Bibellex. Wellhausen’s Gesch. Israels, i.
pp. 153-156. Riehm, Handwörterb. des bibl. Altertums, under word. [984] Joma i.
2. [985] Joma i. 2; Tamid vii. 8. [986] Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7: ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀνῄει
μὲν σὺν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀεί, ταῖς δʼ ἑβδομάσι καὶ νουμηνίαις καὶ εἴ τις ἑορτὴ
πάτριος ἢ πανήγυρις πάνδημος ἀγομένη διʼ ἔτους. It further appears that the
high-priestly functions had been actually discharged by the Asmonaean princes.
See Joseph. Antt. xiii. 10. 8 (John Hyrcanus), xiii. 13. 5 (Alexander Jannaeus).
[987] Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7. For a fuller treatment of the matter, see chap.
iv. below. [988] The Biblical and post-Biblical sources dwell with peculiar
delight upon the splendour of this attire. See Exodus 28, 29; Sir_45:6-13;
Sir_50:5 ff. Aristeas, ed. Mor. Schmidt, in Menx’ Archiv, i. 271. 21-272. 9 (in
Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 113). Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 11-14 (ed. Mang. ii.
151-155); De monarchia, ii. 5, 6 (ed. Mang. ii. 225-227). Joseph. Antt. iii. 7.
4-7, and Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7. Mishna, Joma vii. 5. Jerome’s Epist. ad Fabiolam,
chap. x.-xviii. (ed. Vallarsi, i. 360-366). Among the literature given at the
head of this section we would specially refer the reader to Job. Braun, Vestitus
sacerdotum Hebraeorum, Amst. 1680. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii.
chap. iv.-viii. Bened. Day. Carpzov, De pontificum Hebraeorumvestitu sacro (in
Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xii., ibid. in vols. xii. and xiii., and other monographs
besides). Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii. pp. 163-434. Bäbr’s Symbolik des mos. Cult.
ii. 61-165. Leyrer’s art. “Kleider, heilige bei den Hebräern,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. vii. 714-722, and the literature quoted there.
Hanebcrg, Die relig. Alterthümer der Bibel, pp. 534-555. De Saulcy, Revue
archéologique, new series, vol. xx. 1869, pp. 91-115. Likewise the literature of
the subject of the high priest quoted in note 119. In the library of the
University of Giessen there is a very learned work in manuscript by Martinus
Mauritii, entitled De re vestiaria Hebraeorum, 1685 (Cod. Gissens. 593-595).
During the Roman period a serious political dispute arose about the custody of
the high priest’s dress, see Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3, xx. 1. 1, 2;
further Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp. 627-630. At the conquest of Jerusalem
this splendid attire fell into the hands of the Romans (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi.
8. 8). [989] Leviticus 16:4. Mishna, Joma iii. 7 (on the materials here referred
to, comp. note 215, below). Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7: ταύτην μὲν οὖν τὴν
ἐσθῆτα [οὐκ] ἐφόρει τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον, λιτοτέραν δʼ ἀνελάμβανεν ὁπότε [δὲ] εἰσίοι
εἰς τὸ ἄδυτον. The words within brackets are here to be deleted. The high priest
wore the linen dress (בגדי לבן) only when performing those parts of the service
that had special reference to the great day of atonement. When performing the
others however, he wore his more gorgeous dress (בגדי זהב) on the great day of
atonement as well as on any other occasion. For further particulars on this
point, see Joma iii. 4. 6, vii. 1. 3, 4; comp. besides, Joseph. Antt. 4. 3 (when
the Romans had the dress in their custody they allowed the Jews to have the use
of it τρισὶν ἑορταῖς ἑκάστου ἔτους καὶ κατὰ τὴν νηστείαν, i.e. on the great day
of atonement). 2. Next to the high priest in point of rank came the סָגָן or
סֶגֶן, Aramaic סְגַן, regarding whose functions the conceptions of the
Rabbinical authorities are anything but. clear. They seem to think that he was
simply the representative of the high priest, and that his chief function was to
act as the substitute of this latter, should he happen to be disqualified for
taking part in the worship in consequence of Levitical defilement; and this view
has also continued to be the prevailing one among Christian scholars down to the
present day.[990] But it is undoubtedly erroneous. Among all the passages in the
Mishna in which the סגן is mentioned there is not one that throws any further
light whatever upon his official position. All they can be said to tell us is
that he stood next to the high priest in point of rank. When the high priest
drew the lot, in the case of the two he-goats, on the great day of atonement,
the סגן stood at his right hand, while the president of the division or course
that happened to be serving (ראש בית אב) was at his left.[991] Again, when he
had occasion to read a portion from the Scriptures, the president of the
synagogue handed the roll to the סגן, who in turn passed it to the high
priest.[992] Also when he happened to offer the daily sacrifice, the סגן was
still found at his side.[993] From all this however we are not at liberty to
infer that the segan (I prefer this Aramaic form because we are unable to say
for certain what the Hebrew form of the singular was) was intended to act as the
high priest’s substitute on those occasions on which he was prevented from
officiating himself. Such an inference would be decidedly wrong. For what the
Mishna says with regard to this matter of the substitute is rather to this
effect: “Seven days before the great day of atonement it is customary to appoint
some other priest (כהן אהר) to be ready to take the place of the high priest in
the event of any accident happening to the latter calculated to interrupt the
service.”[994] This would surely have been extremely superfluous if there had
been a permanent official whose duty it was to act as the high priest’s
representative or substitute. It appears to me that we need have no difficulty
in arriving at a true and distinct conception as to what was the real position
of the segan, if we will only take due note of the way in which the term סגנים
is rendered in the Septuagint. For we find that there it is almost invariably
represented by στρατηγοί.[995] Consequently, the סגן can have been no other than
the στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ, the captain of the temple, whom we find frequently
mentioned in the Greek sources, both in Josephus and the New Testament.[996] To
this functionary was entrusted the chief superintendence of the arrangements for
preserving order in and around the temple. And so when we consider the very
important nature of this office, we can quite easily understand how the priest
who had the honour to hold it should have been regarded as second only to the
high priest himself. [990] See in general, Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. under word סגן.
Selden, De successione in pontificatum Ebraeorum, ii. 1. Lightfoot, Ministerium
templi, v. 1 (Opp. i. 687 f.). Sheringam on Joma iii. 9 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna,
ii. 223). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 98 f. Vitringa,
Observationes sacrae (1723), lib. vi. cap. xxiii. pp. 517-531. Blossius, 1711,
Overkampf, 1739 (both quoted by Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2.165).
Quandt, De pontificis maximi suffraganeo (in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xii. pp.
963-1028). Oehler’s art. “Hoherpriester,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vi.
204. Haneberg, Die relig. Alterth. der Bibel, p. 558 f. Levy, Chald. Wörtb.
under word סגן. Idem, Neuhebr. Wörterb. under same word. On the סגנים in the Old
Testament, consult Gesenius’ Thesaurus, under word. [991] Joma iii. 9, iv. 1.
[992] Joma vii. 1; Sota vii. 7-8. [993] Tamid vii. 3. [994] Joma i. 1. [995] So
Jeremiah 51:23; Jeremiah 51:28; Jeremiah 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6; Ezekiel 23:12;
Ezekiel 23:23; Ezra 9:2 (Vulgate omits it); Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:8;
Nehemiah 12:40; Nehemiah 13:11; Daniel 3:2; Daniel 3:27; Daniel 6:8. In a very
few instances we have ἄρχοντες, Isaiah 41:25; Nehemiah 4:13; Nehemiah 5:7;
Nehemiah 7:5; and, on one solitary occasion, σατράπαι, Daniel 2:48. [996] Acts
4:1 : ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ. Similarly Acts 5:24; Acts 5:26. Josephus, Antt. xx.
6. 2: Ἀνανίαν τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ τὸν στρατηγὸν Ἄνανον. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3: οἱ τοῦ
ἱεροῦ φύλακες ἤγγειλαν τῷ στρατηγῷ. Antt. xx. 9. 3: τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ
στρατηγοῦντος Ἐλεαζάρου. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2: Ἐλεάζαρος υἱὸς Ἀνανίου τοῦ
ἀρχιερέως, νεανίας θρασύτατος, στρατηγῶν τότε. It is quite possible that, in
several of the last-mentioned passages, instead of its being the chief στρατηγός
that was meant, it was rather one of the subordinate στρατηγοί who were also
among the temple officials, as will be pointed out immediately. Besides the
segan or στρατηγός in the singular, we also meet with the plural form סגנים or
στρατηγοί. When the festive processions of the country people went up to
Jerusalem with the first-fruits, it was usual for the foremost among the priests
to go out to meet them, namely the פַּחוֹת and סְגָנִים and גִּזְבָּרִים.[997]
The two first of those categories, the פַּחוֹת and the סְגָנִים, correspond to
the οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ στρατηγοί of Luke 22:4; Luke 22:52.[998] What we are to
understand by the ἀρχιερεῖς has been already pointed out at p. 201 ff. above.
But the סגנים or στρατηγοί are in any case, so far as the nature of their office
is concerned, of the same order as the סגן or στρατηγός, only holding a somewhat
lower rank, and therefore captains of the temple police as much as, though
subordinate to, the chief στρατηγός.[999] [997] Bikkurim iii. 3. [998] The
פַּחוֹת and סְגָנִים are also frequently conjoined in this way in the Old
Testament (Jeremiah 51:23; Jeremiah 51:28; Jeremiah 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6; Ezekiel
23:12; Ezekiel 23:23). In such cases the Septuagint rendering is, as a rule,
ἡγεμόνες (or ἡγούμενοι) καὶ στρατηγοί, in one instance (Jeremiah 51:57) it is
ἄρχοντες καὶ στρατηγοί. Consequently in the passage quoted from the Mishna, viz.
Bikkurim iii. 3, as above, in which it is priests that are in question, the
פַּחוֹת can scarcely be other than the ἀρχιερεῖς, for the ἄρχοντες among the
priests are simply the ἀρχιερεῖς. This is corroborated by the form of expression
made use of by Luke. [999]a Possibly the סגן הכהנים, R. Chananiah, so frequently
mentioned in the Mishna, was a סגן of this sort. On this personage, see § 25.
IV. In the lists of the priests that are given in several passages in the Talmud
those who rank next to the high priest and the segan are the presidents of the
courses of service, those at the head of the twenty-four leading divisions (ראש
המשמר) being mentioned first, and those at the head of the sub-divisions (ראש
בית אב) coming next.[1000] The functions of those presidents had however no
immediate reference to the worship, but to the priesthood as a corporate body,
in which aspect we have already had occasion to speak of them at p. 220 f. The
sacred functions, properly so called, which still fall to be mentioned here
besides those of the high priest and the segan, are those that related partly to
the administration of the possessions and stores belonging to the sanctuary,
partly to the superintendence of the temple police, and partly to the religious
services themselves. All that we know with respect to those three categories is
substantially as follows.[1001] [1000] See especially, Tosefta Horajoth, fin.
(ed. Zuckermandel, p. 476); Jer. Herajoth 48b, in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol.
xiii. p. 870. [1001] Comp. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, cap. v. and vii.
Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, i. 387-424. Haneberg, Die relig.
Alterth. p. 555 ff. Graf in Merx’ Archiv, i. 226-232. Also in general the
literature of the subject of the Levites as quoted in note 43 above. I. A very
important function was that of the administration of the vast amount of property
belonging to the temple. The store-chambers of the sanctuary were filled with
possessions of multifarious kinds piled in masses one upon another. First there
were the utensils employed in the sacrificial worship, which of themselves
represented a handsome sum, and consisting of a whole host of gold and silver
basins, cups, pots and articles of a like kind used for such purposes as
catching up and sprinkling the blood, for offering the frankincense and the
meat-and drink-offerings, etc.[1002] Again there were large quantities of
curtains, and priests’ garments, and of the materials required for making
them.[1003] And there were, in particular, vast collections of natural products,
viz.: flour and oil for the meat-offerings, wine for the drink-offerings,
fragrant substances with which to make the frankincense, and in addition to
these things, the offerings contributed for the benefit of the priests.[1004]
But, above all, there were also thelarge sums of money that were deposited in
the store-houses of the temple, and which were of such a colossal character that
they not unfrequently tempted greedy foreign potentates to plunder them, and yet
it would appear that they were always speedily replaced.[1005] Then, in the last
place, there fall to be added to the heaps of money stored in the temple the
various sums deposited there by private individuals; for it was quite common to
lodge such deposits in the temple from a feeling that the sacredness of the
place afforded the best possible guarantee for their security.[1006] All the
money and the various articles of value were kept in separate repositories
(γαζοφυλάκια) in the inner court of the temple, and not only did they require to
be constantly watched, but in consequence of the receiving on the one hand and
giving out on the other that were continually going on, it was necessary that
they should be under careful administration.[1007] [1002] See in general, Ezra
1:9-11; Ezra 8:26-27; 1Ma_1:21-23; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6,
v. 13. 6, vi. 5. 2, vi. 8. 3; Joma iii. 10, iv. 4. According to Tamid iii. 4,
ninety-three gold and silver utensils were required for the daily service;
while, according to Chagiga iii. 8, three sets of each were kept. For a few
particulars, see Exodus 25:29; Exodus 25:38; Exodus 27:3; Exodus 37:16; Exodus
37:23; Exodus 38:3; Numbers 4:7; Numbers 4:9; Numbers 4:14. [1003] Bell. Jud.
vi. 5. 2, vi. 8. 3. [1004] Nehemiah 12:44; Nehemiah 13:5; Nehemiah 13:9;
Nehemiah 13:12; 1 Chronicles 9:20; Bell. Jud. v. 13. 6, vi. 8. 3; Antt. xiv. 4.
4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6. [1005] Attempt to plunder by Heliodorus (2 Maccabees 3);
by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Ma_1:21-23). Pompey leaves the treasury intact (Antt.
xiv. 4. 4; Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6); Crassus plunders it (Antt. xiv. 7. 1; Bell. Jud.
i. 8. 8, carrying off 2000 talents); so also Sabinus, after the death of Herod
(Antt. xvii. 10. 2, fin.; Bell. Jud. ii. 3. 3, fin.); Pilate (Antt. xviii. 3. 2;
Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 4); Florus (Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 6). Comp. besides, on the ἱερὸς
θησαυρός in general, Matthew 27:6; Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 1; Antt. xx. 9. 7.
[1006] 2Ma_3:10-12; 2Ma_3:15. Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 2. This was often done
in the case of heathen temples as well. See in general, Winer’s Realwörterb.,
art. “Hinterlage.” Grimm, Exeyet. Handb. zu den Apokryphen, note on 2Ma_3:10.
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. iii. (1878) p. 210. Hermann and
Blumner, Lehrb. der griechischen Privatalterthümer (1882), p. 456 f. [1007] On
the γαζοφυλάκια, see especially, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 2, fin., vi. 5. 2; Antt.
xix. 6. 1; Nehemiah 12:44; Nehemiah 13:5; Nehemiah 13:9; Nehemiah 13:12-13. By
the γαζοφυλάκιον mentioned in the New Testament we are not to understand a
treasure chamber but a treasury box (Mark 12:41; Mark 12:43; Luke 12:1; probably
also John 8:20). According to Shekalim vi. 5, there were in the temple thirteen
money chests made in the form of trumpets. The treasurers, to whom the
administration in question was entrusted, were called γαζοφύλακες in Greek[1008]
and גִּזְבָּרִים in Hebrew.[1009] Nor were the functions of those officials
confined merely to the money in the temple, but extended to the administration
of all the possessions generally, that fell under any of the categories just
mentioned. They had the custody of the sacred utensils,[1010] the veils, and the
priests’ garments;[1011] they took charge of the flour for the meat-offerings
and of the wine for the drink-offerings;[1012] it was their duty to take
delivery of things consecrated (or things presented to the temple), or to return
them again on the ransom being duly paid;[1013] and they also purchased
wood[1014] and gathered in the half-shekel tax.[1015] Of course among the
treasurers too there were once more gradations of rank. According to the
statements of the Old Testament, it would seem as though the whole of those
offices had been in the hands of the Levites,[1016] This may have been actually
the case so far as the more subordinate duties were concerned, but there can be
no doubt whatever that the more important ones were in the hands of the priests.
The fact is there is mention in Josephus of a particular occasion on which the
γαζοφύλαξ (perhaps the chief one of his class) is put immediately on a level
with the high priest, from his being regarded as one of the most distinguished
of the temple officials.[1017] We also find that elsewhere the גִּזְבָּרִים are
reckoned among the higher functionaries of the temple.[1018] When the Mishna
affirms that there must have been at least three גִּזְבָּרִים in the
temple,[1019] it is certain that it can have had in view only the head
treasurers and not the entire staff of officials that were required for the
administration of the treasury. [1008] Antt. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3 (the
γαζοφύλακες had the custody of the high priest’s drees). Antt. xx. 8. 11:
Ἰσμάηλον τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ Ἑλκίαν τὸν γαζοφύλακα (sent on an embassy to Rome).
Bell. Jud. vi. 8. 3: ὁ γαζοφύλαξ τοῦ ἱεροῦ Φινέας (surrenders the priests’
garments to the Romans). Comp. also Antt. xiv. 7. 1: ὁ τῶν θησαυρῶν φύλαξ
ἱερεύς, Ἐλεάζαρος ὄνομα … πεπιστευμένος τὴν τῶν καταπετασμάτων τοῦ ναοῦ φυλακήν
(in the time of Crassus). [1009] Pea i. 6, fin., ii. 8, fin., iv. 8; Challa iii,
3-4; Bikkurim iii, 3; Shekalim ii. 1, v. 2, 6; Menachoth viii. 2, 7; Meila iii.
8. The term occurs in the Old Testament likewise, Ezra 1:8; Ezra 7:21. Comp
further, Levy, Chald. Wörterb. under word. Idem, Neuhebr. Wörterb. under word.
[1010] Shekalim v. 6; 1 Chronicles 9:28. [1011] Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 1, xv. 11.
4; xviii. 4. 3; Bell. Jud. vi, 8. 3. [1012] Menachoth viii. 2, 7. [1013] Pea i.
6, fin., ii. 8, fin., iv. 8; Challa iii. 3-4. [1014] Meila iii. 8. [1015]
Shekalim ii. 1. [1016] 1 Chronicles 9:28-29; 1 Chronicles 26:20-28; 2 Chronicles
31:11-19. The predilection of the author of Chronicles for the Levites is well
known. Yet in Nehemiah 13:13 it is a priest that is found at the head of the
treasurers. [1017] Antt. xx. 8. 11; see note 143, above. [1018] Bikkurim iii. 3
(see p. 259, above); also in the lists of the various ranks of the priests given
in Tosefta, Horajoth, fin. (see note 135), the גזברים take precedence of the
ordinary priests, while these latter again rank higher than the Levites. In a
certain Rabbinical lamentation over the degeneracy of the high priests, the
גזברים are put immediately on a level with them precisely as in Josephus (“They
are high priests and their sons are גזברין, and their sons-in-law אמרכלין.”
Tosefta, Menachoth, fin.; Bab. Pesachim 57a. Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 232,
note). [1019] Shekalim v. 2. It is probable that, under the category of treasury
officials, we should also include the amarkelin (אמרכלין), who are mentioned
once in the Mishna without any hint whatever being given as to the nature of
their functions,[1020] the consequence being that the Rabbinical writers indulge
merely in empty conjectures on the point, conjectures based, to some extent,
upon trivial etymological conceits.[1021] The term itself is of Persian origin,
and means a “member of the chamber of accounts, or an accountant.”[1022]
Consequently in the Targum of Jonathan we find that in 2 Kings 12:10; 2 Kings
22:4, for example, the term אמרכליא is substituted for the Hebrew expression
שֹׁמְרֵי הַסַּף, “keepers of the threshold,” by whom the priestly treasurers are
meant. We have a term in every way identical with the one now in question in the
Armenian expression hamarakar, which in like manner denotes an official having
charge of the accounts (a chief treasurer).[1023] It is true no doubt that our
term also occurs elsewhere in the Targums in the more comprehensive sense of
chiefs or heads generally.[1024] But seeing that, as a rule, the priestly
אמרכלין are mentioned along with the גזברין,[1025] we may venture to regard it
as certain that they also belonged to the same category as the treasurers. It is
possible that they were among the subordinate officials of this
department;[1026] but perhaps the distinction between the gisbarim and the
amarkelin was something like this, that while to the former was assigned the
duty of receiving and taking charge of the various treasures, the latter, on the
other hand, were entrusted with the task of distributing among the priests the
gifts and offerings that were intended for them.[1027] Besides the two classes
just mentioned, the Jerusalem Talmud mentions yet a third, viz. the קתוליקין
(καθολικοί), of whom however the Mishna knows nothing whatever.[1028] [1020]
Shekalim v. 2. [1021] In the Tosefta, Shekalim ii. 15 (ed. Zuckermandel, p.
177), it is affirmed that they kept the seven keys of the seven gates of the
court (see also Grätz, Monatsschrift, 1876, p. 441). But this is a pure
conjecture founded upon a statement in the Mishna to the effect that there must
have been at least seven amarkelin. An attempt is made to explain the term
etymologically by supposing it to be derived either from מר כל (lord of all), or
אמר כל (he who speaks all, i.e. he who is entitled to order everything). See in
general, Levy’s Chald. Wörterb. s.v. Idem, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. אמרכל and
מרכל. [1022] Perles, Etymologische Studien (1871), p. 106. Comp. Nöldeke,
Göttinger gel. Anzeigen (1871), 149. Idem, Literar. Centralbl. 1875, p. 876.
[1023] Prud’homme (Journal Asiatique, 16th series, vol. vii. 1866, p. 115)
renders it by comptable ou caissier chef. Comp. also Levy in Geiger’s Jüd.
Zeitschrift, v. 1867, p. 214 f. Lagarde, Armenische Studien (Abhandlungen der
Gottinger Gesellsch. der Wissench. vol. xxii. 1877), No. 1216. [1024] Buxtorf,
Lex. Chald., and Levy, Chald. Wörterb. under word. [1025] Besides Shekalim v. 2,
so also in the list of the ranks of the priests, Tosefta Horajoth, fin., and in
the lamentation of Tosefta Menachoth, fin. (see note 153, above). [1026] It is
true that, in the list of the grades of the priests Tosefta Horajoth, fin., the
אמרכלין rank higher than the גזברין. But this can hardly be correct. See, on the
other hand, Shekalim v. 2; Tosefta Menachoth, fin. In Bikkurim iii. 3, the
גזברין are included among the prominent members of the priesthood, while the
אמרכלין again are not mentioned at all. [1027] In Chronicles (2 Chronicles
31:11-19) those officials whose duty it was to receive the gifts for the priests
are plainly distinguished from those who were called upon to distribute them.
And now we find it stated in the Mishna, Shekalim v. 2, that “it is usual to
appoint not fewer than three gisbarim, and not fewer than seven amarkelim.” If
with this we compare what is said about the gathering in and distributing of the
money for the poor (Pea viii. 7: “Two take charge of the collecting and three of
the distributing of it”), it is not unnatural to suppose that the gisborim and
the amarkelim would stand to each other precisely in the same relation as that
in which the collectors of the money for the poor stood to the distributors of
it. [1028] Jer. Shekalim v. fol. 49a. II. For the duties connected with the
police department, for which a very large staff of officials was required, it
was mostly Levites that were employed. In early times indeed, and down even to
the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the “gate-keepers” (שֹׁעֲרִים) did not belong as
yet to the order of the Levites, but were of a somewhat lower rank; it was the
author of the Chronicles who was the first to include these officials also among
the number of the Levites (see p. 224, above). In the inner court the duty of
keeping watch and ward was discharged by the priests themselves. The author of
the Chronicles, and subsequently Philo and the Mishna, have furnished us with
several details regarding the organization of the department now in
question.[1029] We learn from the first-mentioned authority that there were
twenty-four wards in all, under four chiefs or captains, and that they were
posted on the east, west, north and south sides of the temple (1 Chronicles
26:12-18, also 9:17, 24-27). The statements of this writer are to be understood
as applying to the temple of Zerubbabel. But the area of the temple esplanade,
or the so-called outer court, was afterwards very much enlarged, especially by
Herod, so that it now formed a large quadrangle, its longer side being that
which extended from north to south. Within this large square again there was an
oblong quadrangular space enclosed by strong walls, the longer side, in this
instance, running from west to east; this was the so-called inner court, or “the
court” in the strict sense of the word. This court was approached by a flight of
steps, and at the foot of this stair was a railing within which no Gentile was
allowed to pass. Any Gentile who ventured to pass this boundary and set foot
within the inner court was punished with death; and the Roman authorities
respected the scruples of the Jews in regard to this matter to such an extent
that they sanctioned the execution of this sentence even in those cases in which
Roman citizens had been the offenders.[1030] To this railing notices were
attached at certain distances from each other, with the prohibition and the
penalty for infringing it inscribed upon them in Greek and Latin.[1031]
According to Philo, there were keepers in his day not only at the entrances to
the inner court, but likewise at the gates of the outer one as well, one of
their principal duties being to see that the prohibition in question was rigidly
complied with. In addition to these there were watchmen patrolling all round by
night and by day to make sure that nothing of an unseemly character was going on
anywhere.[1032] According to the Mishna, there were twenty-one points at which
the Levites kept watch (at night), and three at which the priests did so. The
Levitical keepers were stationed partly at the gates and the corners of the
outer court (inside of it), and partly at the gates and corners of the inner
court (outside of it), while the priestly guards again had charge of the inner
court.[1033] It was usual for a captain of the temple to go round at night to
see that the guards were not sleeping at their posts.[1034] This captain was
known under the designation of אִישׁ הַר הַבַּיִת. Besides this official, there
is also occasional mention of an אִישׁ הַבִּירָה.[1035] Now, seeing that the
Mishna knows of no other designation for the whole space around the temple—even
in cases where it is to be distinguished from the inner court—but the expression
הַר הַבַּיִת,[1036] we are accordingly to understand by the איש הר הבית, a
captain who had charge of the outer court, and by the איש הבירה, on the other
hand, the one who had the surveillance of the temple itself. For the בִּירָה
cannot possibly have been intended to refer to Fort Antonia, seeing that this
latter was under the charge of a Roman φρούραρχος,[1037] but only to the temple
itself.[1038] The two kinds of officials now mentioned would therefore be
identical with the סגנים or στρατηγοί to whom we have already had occasion to
refer. [1029] See in general, Opitii Commentarius de custodia templi nocturna
(Ugolini’s Thes. vol. ix. pp. 979-1076). Winer’s Realuörterb. ii. 590 f.
Kneucker’s art. “Tempelpolizei,” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. vol. v. p. 484 ff.
[1030] See in general, Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 5; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 2, vi. 2. 4;
Apion. ii. 8. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 31 (ed. Mang. ii. 577). Mishna, Middoth
ii. 3; Kelim i. 8. It was in consequence of an alleged violation of this
prohibition on the part of the Apostle Paul, by taking Trophimus into the inner
court, that the popular tumult arose that led to the apostle’s being arrested
(Acts 21:28). For the judicial proceedings in such cases, comp. further p. 188,
above. [1031] One of those inscriptions was discovered and published in the year
1871 by Clermont-Ganneau. For an account of it, see Clermont-Ganneau, Revue
archéologique, new series, vol. xxiii. 1872, pp. 214-234, 290-296, pl. x.
Derenbourg, Journal asiatique, 6th series, vol. xx. 1872, pp. 178-195. Piper,
Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1876, p. 51 f. The inscription runs thus:— [1032]
Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. vi. (ed. Mang. ii. 236): Τούτων οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ
θύραις ἵδρυνται παρʼ αὐταῖς ταῖς εἰσόδοις πυλωροί· οἱ δὲ εἴσω κατὰ τὸ πρόναον
ὑπὲρ τοῦ μή τινα ὧν οὐ θέμις ἑκόντα ἢ ἄκοντα ἐπιβῆναι· οἱ δὲ ἐν
κύκλῳπερινοστοῦσιν, ἐν μέρει διακληρωσάμενοι νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν, ἡμεροφύλακες καὶ
νυκτοφύλακες. [1033] Middoth i. 1; Tamid i. 1. [1034] Middoth i. 2. [1035] Orla
ii. 12. [1036] For example, Bikkurim iii. 4; Pesachim v. 5-10; Shekalim vii.
2-3. Sanhedrin xi. 2. [1037] Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 4, xviii. 4. 3. [1038] So
also 1 Chronicles 29:1; 1 Chronicles 29:19. Pesachim iii. 8, vii. 8; Sebachim
xii. 5; Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 9; Para iii. 1. ΜΗΘΕΝΑ ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗ ΕΙΣΠΟ ΡΕΥΕΣΘΑΙ
ΕΝΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΕ ΡΙ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ ΤΡΥΦΑΚΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΡΥ ΟΣ Δ ΑΝ ΛΗ ΦΘΗ ΕΑΥΤΩΙ ΑΙΤΙΟΣ ΕΣ
ΤΑΙ ΔΙΑ ΤΟ ΕΞΑΚΟΛΟΥ ΘΕΙΝ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΝ. It was also part of the watchmen’s duty to
open and close the whole of the gates of the courts, all of which were shut
during the night; and accordingly there was also an officer appointed whose
special duty it was to superintend “the shutting of the gates.”[1039] According
to Josephus, the services of two hundred men were required every time the gates
were shut,[1040] and the heavy brazen gate in the east of the court took twenty
men itself.[1041] Then as for the gate of the temple, we are told that when it
was opened, so loud was the creaking, that it could be heard as far away as
Jericho.[1042] The keys of the gates of the court were kept by the elders of the
particular division of priests whose turn it was to be on watch duty within the
court for the time being.[1043] When the divisions were changed, the one that
retired handed them over to the one that came in to take its place.[1044] The
morning sacrifice, as we know, required to be offered at daybreak, and that
being the case the gates would of course have to be open some little time
before; while at the Passover season they were open even so early as
midnight.[1045] [1039] Shekalim v. 1. [1040] Contra Apion. ii. 9. [1041] Bell.
Jud. vi. 5. 3. [1042] Tamid iii. 8. [1043] Middoth i. 8-9; Tamid i. 1. [1044]
Contra Apion. ii. 8. [1045] Antt. xviii. 2. 2. Also, in the time of Pentecost,
the priests who were to officiate entered the court as early as during the
night. Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3. Comp. further, Joma i. 8. III. It is true the acts
of worship properly so called, i.e. the offering of the sacrifices with all the
accompanying ceremonial, devolved as a whole upon the entire priesthood, who
were divided into twenty-four courses, each of which conducted the worship by
turns, and that for a week at a time (on this see next paragraph). Yet even here
special stated officials were also necessary for certain particular functions.
We get some idea of the multifarious nature of those functions from a passage in
the Mishua in which are enumerated, though in a very confused and unsystematic
order, the names of those persons who at a particular period (evidently in the
closing years of the temple’s existence) happened to fill the most important
offices in connection with the worship of the sanctuary.[1046] From that passage
it will be seen that there was, for example, a special official “over the lots”
(No. 3), on whom devolved the duty of superintending the daily casting of the
lots for determining the particular parts of the service that were to be
apportioned to the various officiating priests.[1047] Then there was another
functionary who was “over the seals” (No. 1), and another again “over the
drink-offerings” (No. 2). For, with a view to simplifying matters, an
arrangement had been adopted according to which “seals” or tokens were issued
corresponding to the various kinds of drink-offerings, on presenting which
people could get the particular drink-offering indicated upon them. The mode of
proceeding was first of all to purchase a token from the official who was “over
the seals,” then to hand this to the one who was “over the drink-offerings,” who
in return would give to the person tendering it the amount of drink-offering
requisite for the particular occasion for which it was wanted.[1048] There was a
similar arrangement for the convenience of those who wished to be promptly
supplied with birds for sacrificial purposes. All that was necessary was to drop
the money into a box, whereupon it became the duty of the official who was “over
the winged sacrifices” (No. 4) duly to purchase with it, as speedily as
possible, the requisite offerings.[1049] Many of the offerings were of such a
nature that they required a certain amount of skill to prepare them properly, a
skill which belonged by inheritance to particular families. Accordingly the
family of Garmu (No. 12) had charge of the preparing of the shewbread, that of
Abtinas (No. 13) had the preparing of the frankincense.[1050] Then again the
chief charge of the psalmody was entrusted to an official specially appointed
for the purpose (No. 11).[1051] There was another whose duty it was to sound a
cymbal (צלצל) by way of letting the Levites know when to commence the music (No.
10).[1052] There were besides a temple physician (No. 5), a master of the wells
(No. 6), a herald (No. 7), whose voice was so powerful that it could be heard as
far away as Jericho.[1053] Then further, as the veils in the temple required to
be frequently renewed,[1054] there was an official appointed to see to the
making of them, and to take charge of the store in which they were kept (No.
14). And lastly, there was an official whose special duty it was to take charge
of the priests’ garments (No. 15).[1055] [1046] Shekalim v. 1: “The following
are the officials who held appointments in the sanctuary: (1) Jochanan the son
of Pinchas had charge of the seals; (2) Achiah of the drink-offerings; (3)
Matthiah the son of Samuel of the lots; (4) Petachiah of the money for the
purchase of birds for sacrifice; (5) Ben Achiah of the healing of the priests
suffering from abdominal disorders; (6) Nechoniah was master of the wells; (7)
Gebini a herald; (8) Ben Gabar a chief door-shutter; (9) Ben Bebai had charge of
the scourging (? פקיע, the meaning of which is uncertain); (10) Ben Arsa kept
the warning cymbal; (11) Hygros, son of Levi, was conductor of the psalmody;
(12) the family of Garmu had the charge of the preparing of the shewbread; (13)
the family of Abtinas that of the preparation of the frankincense; (14) Eleasar
had the renewing (or the custody?) of the veils; (15) Pinches that of the
garments.” As elucidating the whole passage, comp. the Rabbinical commentaries
in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. p. 192; and especially, Herzfeld’s Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael, i. p. 405 ff.; also Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums, i. p. 151 f. [1047] On
the casting of the lots here in question, see Joma ii. 2-4; Tamid i. 2, iii. 1,
v. 2. The Matthiah, a son of Samuel, who is mentioned as having had charge of
the lots, is also mentioned in Joma iii. 1, Tamid iii. 2, where he is introduced
as vouching for the existence of certain practices in the temple. [1048]
Shekalim v. 3-5. [1049] The money was dropped into one of the thirteen
trumpet-shaped boxes that stood in the temple; see note 142, above. [1050] In
Joma iii. 11, both families are censured for having allowed strangers to meddle
with their art. There was a chamber in the inner court that was named בית אבטינס
after the family of Abtinas (Joma i. 5; Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 1). In addition,
comp. in general, 1 Chronicles 9:30-32; 1 Chronicles 23:29. [1051] On this
official, comp. further, Joma iii. 11. [1052] Comp. Tamid vii. 3. [1053] Tamid
iii. 8. [1054] Shekalim viii. 5. [1055] For the priests’ official garments were
kept in the court (Ezekiel 42:14). The master of the wardrobe, Pinchas, is
likewise mentioned in Middoth i. 4; Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 8. 3. Whether his
duty was simply to take charge of the garments, or whether he had also, when
necessary, to provide new ones, is not quite clear. A very numerous class of
functionaries connected with the worship of the sanctuary was that of the sacred
musicians, whose duty it was to accompany the offering of the “daily
burnt-offering” and the other solemn services with singing and playing upon
stringed instruments,[1056] and who were called in Hebrew מְשֹׁרִרִים
(frequently so in Ezra and Nehemiah), and in Greek, ψαλτῳδοί, ἱεροψάλται,
ὑμνῳδοί, κιθαρισταί τε καὶ ὑμνῳδοί.[1057] They formed a separate and exclusive
order, to which none were admitted but those descended from a particular family,
and down even to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah they were distinguished from the
Levites, although at a subsequent period they were included amongst them (see
above, p. 225 f.).[1058] They were divided into three families, those of Heman,
Asaph and Ethan or Jeduthun (1 Chronicles 6:16-32; 1 Chronicles 15:16-19; 1
Chronicles 15:25 the entire chapter; 2 Chronicles 5:12),[1059] and the whole
were sub-divided again into twenty-four courses of service (1 Chronicles 25).
The principal part of their duty was to sing, playing on an instrument being
regarded merely in the light of an accompaniment to the singing. The musical
instruments made use of for this purpose were chiefly the three
following:[1060]—(1) The cymbal (מְצִלְתַּיִם, κύμβαλα), an instrument played by
striking the one plate upon the other, and resembling the warning cymbal (צלצל),
with which the signal was given for commencing the singing.[1061] As the dual
form already serves to indicate, this instrument consisted of two large shallow
plates made of brass,[1062] which, when struck the one upon the other, emitted a
loud sound. Of a somewhat more musical and harmonious character were (2) the
נֵבֶל, νάβλα, Luther: “psalter,” and (3) the כִּנּוֹר, κινύρα, Luther: “Harfe.”
Both were stringed instruments, the νάβλα, according to Josephus, having twelve
and the κινύρα ten strings.[1063] The νάβλα was played with the hand, whereas,
according to the same authority just referred to, the κινύρα was played with the
plectrum (in the earlier Biblical times the כִּנּוֹר was also played with the
hand).[1064] A good deal has no doubt been written in which the nature of those
instruments is fully discussed, but still no certain result has been arrived at.
According to the Mishna, the number of נְבָלִים employed in the temple choir was
never fewer than two and never more than six, whereas with regard to the
כִּנּוֹרוֹת, there required to be nine of them at the very least, and their
number might be multiplied ad libitum.[1065] From all this one might venture to
infer that the כִּנּוֹר was the chief, the leading instrument, while the נֵבֶל
was rather intended to serve as an accompaniment to it. Besides the three
instruments just referred to, reed pipes, חֲלִילִים, were also introduced into
the choir on the occasion of the high festivals that occurred in the course of
the year (Passover, Pentecost and the feast of Tabernacles).[1066] [1056] On
these officials and the temple music generally, compare, in addition to the
literature quoted in notes 43 and 136, Gesenius, Thesaurus, pp. 698, 844, 1167.
Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Musik” and “Musikalische Instrumente.” Leyrer’s art.
“Musik bei den Hebräern,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. (1st ed. vol. x. pp. 123-135;
2nd ed. vol. x. pp. 387-398). Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s Commentar zu Jesaja, 2nd
ed. pp. 702-704. Riehm’s Handwörterb. des bibl. Altertums, pp. 1028-1045 (with
numerous illustrations). Grätz, Die Tempelpsalmen (Monatsschr. 1878, pp.
217-222). Idem, Die musikalischen Instrumente im jerusalemischen Tempel und der
musikalische Chor der Leviten (Monatsschr. 1881, pp. 241-259). Lagarde,
Erklärung hebräischer Wörter (Abhandlungen der Göttinger Gesellsch. der
Wissensch. vol. xxvi. 1880), pp. 13-27. Stainer, The Music of the Bible, London
(without a date, 1879?); with 100 illustrations. [1057] ψαλτῳδοί or, according
to another reading, ψαλμῳδοί, Sir_47:9; Sir_50:18. ἱεροψάλται, Joseph. Antt.
xii. 3. 3, fin.; ὑμνῳδοί, Antt. xx. 9. 6; κιθαρισταί τε καὶ ὑμνῳδοί, Bell. Jud.
ii. 15. 4. From this latter passage we must beware of inferring that the players
on the instruments and the singers represent separate categories. For the truth
is, both alike come μετὰ τῶν ὀργάνων. “Those who play on the stringed instrument
and sing,” are consequently the same persons. Comp. 1 Chronicles 15:16, המשררים
בכלי שיר, also 1 Chronicles 23:5. [1058] In the Mishna too, the musicians are
uniformly described as “Levites” (לוים), Bikkurim iii. 4; Sukka v. 4; Rosh
hashana iv. 4; Arachin ii. 6; Tamid vii. 3-4. [1059] On the ingenious way in
which those families of the musicians are traced back to Levi, see Graf in Merx’
Archiv, i. p. 231 f. Only one of those families is mentioned among the exiles
that returned with Zerubbabel, viz. that of Asaph, Ezra 2:41; Nehemiah 7:44.
[1060] See Nehemiah 12:27; 1 Chronicles 13:8; 1 Chronicles 15:16-22; 1
Chronicles 15:28; 1 Chronicles 16:5; 2 Chronicles 5:12; 2 Chronicles 29:25;
1Ma_4:54; 1Ma_13:51. Joseph. Antt. vii. 12. 3. Sukka v. 4; Arachin ii. 3-6;
Middoth ii. 6. [1061] Comp. p. 221, above. In the leading passage on the musical
instruments, viz. Arachin ii. 3-6, מצלתים are not mentioned at all, but merely
the צלצל. Consequently one is tempted to assume that both are identically the
same. But still the different terms undoubtedly denote different instruments.
[1062] 1 Chronicles 15:19. Joseph. Antt. vii. 12. 3. [1063] Antt. vii. 12. 3.
[1064] 1 Samuel 16:23; 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 19:9. [1065] Arachin ii. 3. 5.
[1066] On the use of those last-mentioned instruments, see in particular,
Arachin ii. 3-4. But in addition to this, trumpets (חֲצוֹצְרוֹת) were in regular
use, and while the playing upon the instruments hitherto mentioned was left
entirely to the Levites (the traditions hesitating somewhat only with regard to
the reed-pipes), the blowing with trumpets, on the other hand, was performed by
priests. This latter was also an accompaniment above all of the offering of the
daily burnt-offering, and of other parts of the service as well.[1067] The dawn
of the Sabbath was likewise announced by some of the priests blowing trumpets
from the roof of the temple.[1068] [1067] See in general, Numbers 10:1-10; Ezra
3:10; Nehemiah 12:35; 1 Chronicles 15:24; 1 Chronicles 16:6; 2 Chronicles 5:12;
2 Chronicles 7:6; 2 Chronicles 29:26-28; Sir_50:16. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 6.
Sukka v. 4-5; Rosh hashana iii. 3-4; Tamid vii. 3. Lundius, Die alt. jüd.
Heiligth. book iii. chap. xlvii. [1068] Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 12. Sukka v.
5. The services of a more menial kind were performed, in the time of Zerubbabel,
Ezra and Nehemiah, by temple slaves (נְתִינִים).[1069] It is true that נְתִינִים
still continue to be mentioned in the literature of a later period,[1070] but it
is no longer possible to make out with certainty what the nature of their duties
now was. Instead of them we now meet with what are called “servants”
(חַזָּנִים);[1071] nay we find that, in Philo, the cleaning and sweeping of the
temple are mentioned along with the duty of watching as being all of them
performed by the νεωκόροι, i.e. the Levites.[1072] There were also a good many
functions that were left to be performed by boys belonging to the families of
the priests (פִּרְחֵי כְהֻנָּה).[1073] [1069] Ezra 2:43; Ezra 2:58; Ezra 2:70;
Ezra 7:7; Ezra 8:17; Ezra 8:20; Nehemiah 3:26; Nehemiah 3:31; Nehemiah 7:46;
Nehemiah 7:60; Nehemiah 7:73; Nehemiah 10:29; Nehemiah 11:3; Nehemiah 11:21; 1
Chronicles 9:2. Comp. Pfeffinger, De Nethinaeis (in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii.).
Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Nethinim.” Oehler, art. “Nethinim,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. x. 296 f. [1070] For example, Jebamoth ii. 4;
Kiddushin iv. 1; Makkoth iii. 1; Horajoth iii. 8. [1071] Sukka iv. 4; Tamid v.
3. Comp. further, Sota vii. 7-8; Joma vii. 1. [1072] Philo, De praemiis
sacerdotum, sec. vi. (ed. Mangey, ii. p. 236): Ἕτεροι δὲ τὰς στοὰς καὶ τὰ ἐν
ὑπαίθρῳ κοροῦντες τὸν φορυτὸν ἐκκομίζουσιν, ἐπιμελόμενοι καθαρότητος. [1073]
Joma i. 7; Sukka v. 2; Sanhedrin ix. 6; Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 8, iii. 8.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 63: IV. THE DAILY SERVICE
========================================================================

IV. THE DAILY SERVICE The daily worship of the sanctuary was conducted by the
twenty-four divisions of the priests (see p. 216 ff. above), each division
taking its turn and officiating for a week at a time. The divisions were changed
every Sabbath day, the arrangement being that the retiring one should offer the
morning sacrifice and the extra Sabbath offerings (according to Numbers 28:9-10)
before leaving, while the one that came in to take its place was to offer the
evening sacrifice and put the fresh shewbread upon the table.[1074] On the
occasion of the three leading festivals of the year (Passover, Pentecost, and
the feast of Tabernacles) the whole twenty-four courses officiated
simultaneously.[1075] The attempts made by Christian scholars to make out on
chronological grounds the week during which the course of Abia happened to serve
in the year of our Lord’s birth (Luke 1:5) have no tenable historical basis on
which to rest.[1076] Every weekly division again was broken up into somewhere
between five and nine sub-divisions, each of which officiated on an average for
a single day the one after the other. If the sub-divisions happened to be fewer
than seven, then some of them required to take their turn twice; but if, on the
other hand, there happened to be more than seven, then on some of the days two
of them officiated at the same time (see p. 216, above). But further, as never
more than a fraction of the priests belonging to a sub-division were required to
officiate at the regular daily offering of the public sacrifices, it was
necessary to determine by lot those on whom the active duties of the day were to
devolve. Like the priests, the Levites were also divided into twenty-four
courses of service (see p. 227 f., above), which in like manner relieved each
other every week.[1077] But lastly, in addition to this there was an analogous
division of the people themselves into twenty-four courses of service
(מִשְׁמָרוֹת), each of which had to take its turn in coming before God, every
day for a whole week, by way of representing the whole body of the people while
the daily sacrifice was being offered to Jehovah.[1078] The division actually
engaged in the performance of this duty was known under the designation of
מַעֲמָד, “a station.” At the same time the case of the ordinary Israelites
differed from that of the priests and Levites in this respect, that unlike
these, the entire division did not require to go up to Jerusalem when its turn
came. Instead of this the persons belonging to it met together in the synagogues
in the towns in or near which they resided and there engaged in prayer and the
reading of Scripture; probably in every instance it was merely a deputation of
them that actually went up to Jerusalem to be present at the offering of the
sacrifice. In that case it was this deputation that, in the strict sense of the
word, constituted the מַעֲמָד, which “stood by” while the sacrifice was being
offered.[1079] [1074] See, in particular, Tosefta, Sukka iv. 24-25 (ed.
Zuckermandel, p. 200); also Mishna, Sukka v. 7-8; Tamid v. 1. 2 Chronicles 23:4;
2 Chronicles 23:8 (where the priestly courses of services are evidently in
question; it is otherwise in the corresponding passage 2 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings
11:9). Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 7: διέταξέ τε μίαν πατριὰν διακονεῖσθαι τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ
ἡμέρας ὀκτώ, ἀπὸ σαββάτου ἐπὶ σάββατον. It is probable that we ought also to
understand as referring to the changing of the weekly (and not the daily)
divisions, the passage contra Apion. ii. 8: alii succedentes ad sacrificia
veniunt, et congregati in templum mediante die a praecedentibus claves templi et
ad numerum vasa omnia percipiunt. [1075] See Sukka v. 6-8, and Bartenora on
Sukka v. 6, in Surenhusius’ edition of the Mishna, ii. p. 279. [1076] See for
such attempts, Scaliger, De emendatione temporum (Coloniae Allobrog. 1629),
Appendix, pp. 54-59. Lightfoot, Harmonia evangelistarum, note on Luke 1:5 (Opp.
i. pp. 258-264). Bengel, Ordo temporum (1741), pp. 230-232. Wieseler,
Chronologische Synopse, pp. 140-145. Seyffarth, Chronologia sacra (1846), pp.
97-103. Stawars, Die Ordnung Abia in Beziehung auf die Bestimmung des wahren
Geburtsdatums Jesu (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1866, pp. 201-225). The
calculations here in question are based partly upon purely gratuitous
assumptions and partly upon a very late and somewhat untrustworthy notice in the
Talmud, to the effect that the course of Joiarib was the one that happened to be
officiating on the day on which the temple was destroyed (Bab. Taanith 29a).
[1077] 1 Chronicles 9:25; 2 Chronicles 23:4; 2 Chronicles 23:8. Joseph. Antt.
vii. 14. 7. Taanith iv. 2. [1078] On the whole arrangement, comp. Buxtorf’s Lex.
Chald. col. 1622 f. (see under עמד). Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, cap. vii. 3
(Opp. i. p. 700 f.). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 109 f. Hottinger,
De viris stationariis, Marburg 1707 (a moat exhaustive treatment of the matter).
Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, vol. iii. pp. 188-200, 204-209. Oehler in
Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. 187 (2nd ed. vol. xii. 227). Hamburger,
Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, vol. ii. pp. 877-880 (art. “Opferbeistände”).
[1079] Sea especially, Taanith iv. 1-4. The principal passage, Taanith iv. 2,
runs thus: “The early prophets instituted twenty-four courses of service
(משמרות). There was a station (מעמד) in Jerusalem, consisting of priests,
Levites and Israelites, to represent each course. When the time for service came
round the priests and Levites of the course went up to Jerusalem, while the
Israelites belonging to that course met in the synagogues of their towns and
read the account of the creation.” The terms of the passage are contradictory in
so far as they seem to allege that the whole מעמד was in Jerusalem, while
telling us, at the same time, that the Israelites merely assembled in the
synagogues of their towns. It is probable that the correct view of the matter is
given in the corresponding passage in the Tosefta (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 219),
where to “the Israelites belonging to that course” are added the words “who were
unable to go up to Jerusalem.” What is meant therefore is this, that the whole
of the priests and Levites belonging to the same course, and who were capable of
service, were bound to go up; while the Israelites, on the other hand, might
stay at home if it did not happen to be convenient for them to go, though at the
same time it is presupposed that some of them were expected to be actually
present in Jerusalem. Accordingly, in Tamid v. 6 it is assumed without more ado
that the “head of the station” (ראש המעמד) was regularly present in the capital.
A similar view of the matter is taken by Herzfeld, for example, iii. p. 193, and
Hamburger, ii. p. 878. Bikkurim iii. 2 proceeds on the assumption that there
were station-districts or circles marked off by definite boundaries and having
some leading town as the centre of each. Comp. besides, Taanith ii. 7. The
officiating priests wore, during the service, a special official dress, which
consisted of the four following article:—(1) מִכְנָסִים, i.e. short breeches
covering merely the hips and thighs, and made of byssus (probably not cotton,
but fine white linen). Then over these (2) the כְּתֹנֶת, a long, somewhat
close-fitting coat, reaching down to the feet, with narrow sleeves, and also
made of byssus. This coat was fastened together somewhere about the breast with
(3) a girdle (אַבְנֵט), which mostly consisted of byssus also, only it had
ornaments of purple, scarlet and blue embroidered upon it. It was therefore the
only part of the attire that had any colour about it, all the rest being pure
white. Then the covering for the head was (4) the מִגְבָּעָה, a kind of cap or
turban.[1080] Shoes are nowhere mentioned, and it may be regarded as certain
that the priests always officiated without having anything on the feet.[1081]
[1080] For the priests’ attire, see Ezekiel 44:17-19; Exodus 28:40-43; Exodus
39:27-29, and above all the minute description of it in Joseph. Antt. iii. 7.
1-3. Philo’s brief notice in Vita Mosis, iii. 13 (Mang. ii. 157): χιτῶνας
λινοῦς, ζώνας τε καὶ περισκελῆ; De monarchia, ii. 5 (Mang. ii. 225): ἡ δὲ ἐσθής
ἐστι χιτὼν λινοῦς καὶ περίζωμα. Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 6: λινῆν στολήν Aristeas,
ed. M. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv, i. 270. 1-2: τῶν ἱερέων κεκαλυμμένων μέχρι τῶν
σφυρῶν βνσσίνοις χιτῶτιν. The literature of our subject is the same as that
already referred to in connection with the high priest’s dress; see note 124,
above. On the question as to whether byssus is to be identified with cotton or
with linen, see among others, Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Baumwolle;” Dillmann’s
note on Exodus 25:4; Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer, pp. 536-538 (who is
of opinion that Rosellini has decided the question, and that in favour of
cotton); and, on the other side, Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer, vol. ii.
(1882) p. 464 f., and the leading work on the subject quoted there, viz. Yates’
Textrinum antiquorum, An Account of the Art of Weaving among the Ancients, part
i. London 1843; also Hehn, Culturpflanzen und Hausthiere, 3rd ed. p. 145. As the
ancients did not always carefully distinguish between linen and cotton, it is
quite possible that there were some instances in which cotton was also made use
of for making the priests’ attire (as witness, for example, the fine Indian
fabric from which the garments were made which the high priest was in the habit
of wearing on the afternoon of the great day of atonement, and which consisted
of that material). On the other hand, it may be taken as certain that, as a
rule, it was linen that was used. According to Mishna, Kilajim ix. 1, only flax
(פשתים) and sheep’s wool (צמר) were employed for the purpose in question, the
latter being for the parti-coloured ornamentation on the girdle; see the
commentaries in Surenhusius’ Mishna, vol. i. p. 149, and Braun’s Vestitus
sacerdotum Hebraeorum, i. 6. 2, ii. 3. 4. It is with reference to this matter
that it is said in Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 11: μηδεὶς δʼ ἐξ ὑμῶν κλωστὴν ἐξ ἐρίου
καὶ λίνου στολὴν φορείτω· τοῖς γὰρ ἱερεῦσι μόνοις ταύτην ἀποδεδεῖχθαι.
Consequently the priests’ attire was expressly exempted from the prohibition of
Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11. [1081] See Bartenora on Shekalim v. 1 (in
Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 192). Braun’s Vestitus sacerd. Heb. i. 3. 3 (pp.
43-47). Carpzov, Discalceatio religiosa in loco sacro ad Ex. iii. 5 (in
Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxix.). Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. 405 ff.
Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 271. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. vii.
p. 718. The following passage occurs in Megilla iv. 8 with reference to the
worship of the synagogue: “He who says, I will not lead the prayers in coloured
clothes, as little is he to do so in white attire. He who is unwilling to do so
with sandals on, as little is he to do it barefooted.” The meaning of which is
simply this, that in the service of the synagogue no one is to presume to wear
the dress of a priest. With regard to the priests’ benediction, on the other
hand, Jochanan ben Sakkai is said to have ordained, that even after the
destruction of the temple it was still to be pronounced by them only with the
feet bare (Rosh hashana 31b; Sota 496. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p.
305, note 3). As the white attire was a symbol of purity, so the officiating
priests required to be men characterized by temperance and Levitical purity.
During the period of their service they were prohibited from drinking wine or
any other intoxicating beverage.[1082] Nor were they allowed to enter the court
for the purpose of officiating unless they were Levitically clean. Nay more,
even those who were so were, in every instance, required to take a formal bath
previous to their entering upon the services of the day.[1083] But besides this,
they had then to go and wash the hands and feet in the brazen laver (כִּיּוֹר)
that stood in the open air between the temple and the altar of
burnt-offering.[1084] [1082] Leviticus 10:8-11; Ezekiel 44:21. Pseudo-Hecataeus
in Josephus, contra Apion. i. 22 (ed. Bekker, p. 204, 26 ff.): τὸ παράπαν οἶνον
οὐ πίνοντες ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. Philo, De monarchia, ii. 7. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2;
Bell. Jud. v. 5. 7. Mishna, Taanith ii. 7. Ugolini’s Thesaurus, xiii. 885 ff.
(where are given in extenso in Hebrew and Latin the passages from the Jer.
Taanith 65d; Tosefta, Taanith ii., Sifra and Pesikta to Leviticus 10:9). [1083]
Joma iii. 3: “No priest is to be allowed to enter the court for the purpose of
officiating, even though he be already clean, without having taken a bath;”
comp. Tamid i. 2. A bath had also to be taken above all after every occasion of
doing their needs, Joma iii. 2. On the place where the bath was to be taken, see
Tamid i. 1; Middoth i. 9, fin. [1084] Exodus 30:17-21; Exodus 40:30-32. Tamid i.
4, ii. 1. Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 15: πόδας μάλιστα καὶ χεῖρας ἀπονιπτόμενοι. On
the כִּוּוֹר itself, see also Exodus 38:8; Sir_50:3; Middoth iii. 6; r iii. 10;
Tamid iii. 8. Lightfoot, Descriptio templi, cap. xxxvii. 1 (Opp. i. 643 sq.).
Clemens, De lahro aeneo, Traject. ad Rh. 1725 (also in Ugolini’s Thes. vol.
xix.). The commentaries in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 223, v. 360. Iken, Tractatus
talmudicus de cultu quotidiano, 1736, pp. 32-34 (full of matter). Winer’s
Realwörterb., art. “Handfass.” Bähr’s Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. pp. 583-586. Kohler’s
Lehrb. der Bibl. Geschichte, i. p. 373 f. As regards the sacrifices that were
offered every day,[1085] they are to be distinguished into two classes, the
public and the private sacrifices.[1086] The former were offered in name of the
people, and were purchased with a portion of the people’s own offerings,
especially the half-shekel tax; while the latter again were those in which only
private individuals were concerned, and which might be offered on a vast variety
of occasions, some of them being voluntary and others of them being, for some
particular reason or other, compulsory. Both those categories again were
sub-divided into different sorts, varying according to the particular objects
for which they were offered, though they all admit of being classified under the
three following heads:—(1) the burnt-offerings, the essential characteristic of
which lay in the fact that the whole victim was consumed upon the altar; (2) the
sin- and the trespass-offerings, in the case of which only the fat was burnt
upon the altar, while the flesh fell to the priests; (3) the peace-offerings
(זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים), according to Luther, “thank-offerings,” in the case of
which again it was only the fat that was burnt upon the altar, while the flesh
was used by the owner of the sacrifice himself as material for a jocund
sacrificial feast.[1087] As was only natural, it was the numerous private
offerings of so many different kinds that constituted the bulk of the
sacrifices. However, as it is with giving au account of the regular daily
worship of the sanctuary that we are here concerned, it is only the public
sacrifices that fall to be considered by us, and especially the most important
of them all, the people’s daily burnt-offering. [1085] On the sacrificial
worship generally, see Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap.
xxxiii.-xlvi. Bähr’s Symbolik, ii. 187-522. Winer’a Realwörterb., art. “Opfer;”
and in addition, the various articles on Brandopfer, Schuld- und Sündopfer,
Dankopfer, Speisopfer, Trankopfer, Räuchern, etc. Oehler’s art. “Opfercultus des
alten Testaments,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. (1st ed. x. 614-652, 2nd ed. xi.
29-61). Thalhofer, Die unblutigen Opfer des mosaisch. Cult. 1848. Kurtz, Der
alttestamentliche Opfercult. nach seiner Begründung und Anwendung dargestellt
und erläutert, 1862. Kohler’s Lehrb. der Bibl. Geschichte, i. p. 387.
Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i. 53-84. Dillmann’s Ereget. Handb. su Exod. u.
Levit. pp, 373-387. The dictionaries of Schenkel and Riehm, and the
archaeological works of De Wette, Ewald, Keil, Haneberg and others. [1086]
Philo, De victimis, sec. iii. (ed. Mang., ii. 238 f.): Ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν θυσιῶν, αἱ
μέν εἰσιν ὑπὲρ ἅπαντος τοῦ ἔθνους, εἰ δὲ δεῖ τὸ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν ὑπὲρ ἅπαντος
ἀνθρώπων γένους, αἱ δὲ ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τῶν ἱερουργεῖν ἀξιούντων, λεκτέον πρότερον
περὶ τῶν κοινῶν. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 1: δύο μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἱερουργίαι· τοΰτων
δʼ ἣ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, ἑτέρα δʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου συντελούμεναι κ.τ.λ. [1087] In
the leading passage on the classification of the sacrifices, viz. Leviticus 1-7,
there are, strictly speaking, five leading kinds of them mentioned: (1) the
burnt-offering, (2) the meat-offering, (3) the peace-offering, (4) the
sin-offering, and (5) the trespass-offering. But the meat-offering is certainly
not to be regarded as being on a level with the animal sacrifices, seeing that,
like the drink-offering, it occurs for the most part simply as an accompaniment
of such sacrifices. With regard to the sin- and trespass-offerings, they are no
doubt distinct, yet they are so much akin to each other that they may well be
regarded as one species. Consequently in the case of the animal sacrifices, and
these are by far the most important of all, we ought to distinguish them into
three leading kinds, as Philo and Josephus have already done (the former De
victimis, § iv., and the latter Antt. iii. 9. 1-3). The whole three classes
enter into public and private sacrifices alike, although in the former the
peace-offering (זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים) is, of course, of but rare occurrence, the only
time at which it is regularly offered being Pentecost (Leviticus 23:19);
otherwise we meet with it only on special occasions (see Winer’s Realwörterb.,
art. “Dankopfer”). The flesh of the public peace-offerings belonged to the
priests (Leviticus 23:20). On these in general, see Pesachim vii. 4; Sebachim v.
5; Menachoth v. 7; Meila ii. 5. The burnt-offerings and the sin-offerings
offered in the name of the whole body of the people were of very frequent
recurrence; see the catalogue of those for festival days in Numbers 28-29. In
order that the reader may be in a better position for understanding what is to
follow, it will be well, before proceeding farther, to offer here one or two
topographical observations.[1088] The inner court, within which the whole of the
worship was celebrated, was divided by means of a wall into two divisions, a
western and an eastern. The latter was called “the court of the women,” not
however because none but women were admitted to it, but because women as well as
men were allowed to enter it.[1089] The beautiful gate-way in the east side of
this court, with its elaborate two-leaved gate made of brass (ἡ θύρα ἡ λεγομένη
ὡραία, Acts 3:2), formed the principal entrance to it; and hence it was that
beggars were in the habit of sitting here (Acts 3:2). The western division again
was reserved exclusively for male Israelites, and within it stood the temple
proper. Comparatively speaking, this was not a large, but a handsome edifice.
The interior, which was probably almost quite dark, was divided into two
divisions, the larger one being to the front, and the other, which was only half
as large, being at the back. The latter formed the “holy of holies,” which was
trodden by human foot only once in the year, and that by the high priest on the
great day of atonement. In the front (and therefore eastern) division stood
those three sacred articles, the punctual ministering at which on the part of
the officiating priests formed one of the principal parts of the worship, viz.:
(1) in the middle the golden altar of incense (מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב), known also as
the “inner altar” (מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי), upon which incense had to be offered
every morning and evening;[1090] (2) to the south of the latter the golden
candlestick with seven branches (מְנוֹרָה), which had to be kept constantly
burning;[1091] and (3) to the north of the altar of incense the golden table for
the shewbread, on which twelve fresh loaves had to be placed every Sabbath
day.[1092] The front of the temple looked toward the east. Before it and in the
open air stood the great altar of burnt-offering, or “the altar” κατʼ ἐξοχήν, at
which, with the exception of the burning of the incense, every act of sacrifice
had to be performed. It was a high four-square erection of large dimensions,
being, according to the Mishna, thirty-two cubits square at the base (while for
the sake of comparison it may be mentioned that the interior of the temple was
only twenty cubits wide). It diminished in size toward the top in such a way as
to form several stages or landings round it, although on the top it still
measured as much as twenty-four cubits by twenty-four.[1093] The whole structure
was built of unhewn stones which no tool had ever touched.[1094] Then, on the
south side, there was a gradual ascent leading upward to the top of the altar,
and this was likewise formed of unhewn stones. The fire upon this altar had to
be kept continually burning by night as well as by day.[1095] Between the temple
and the altar of burnt-offering there stood, and likewise in the open air, the
brazen laver (כִּיּוֹר) already referred to, in which the priests were required
to wash their hands and feet previous to their engaging in the worship of the
sanctuary. To the north of the altar, and still in the open air, was the place
for slaughtering the victims, where there were rings fastened in the ground to
which the animals were tied when about to be slaughtered; while there were
pillars at hand on which to hang the victims after they were killed, as wall as
marble tables on which to skin them and wash the entrails.[1096] The temple,
along with the altar of burnt-offering and the place for slaughtering, was
surrounded by an enclosure within which, as a rule, none but priests were
allowed to enter, ordinary Israelites being permitted to do so only “when it was
necessary for the purpose of the laying on of hands, or for slaughtering, or
waving” (תְּנוּפָה).[1097] [1088] For the sources and literature connected with
the temple of Herod, see § 15, above. [1089] See Joseph, contra Apion. ii. 8: In
secundam vero porticum (by which the women’s court is meant) cuncti Judaei
ingrediebantur eorumqus conjuges. [1090] On the daily offering of the incense,
see Exodus 30:7-8. On the preparation of the incense itself, Exodus 30:34-38. On
the altar of incense, Exodus 30:1-10; Exodus 37:25-29; 1Ma_1:21; 1Ma_4:29.
Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 9. De victimis offerentibus, sec. iv. Josephus, Antt.
iii. 6. 8; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap.
xxv.-xxvii. Monographs in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xi. Winer’s Realwörterb., arts.
“Räucheraltar” and “Räuchern.” Thalhofer, Die unblut. Opfer des mos. Cultes, pp.
78-82, 131-139. Bähr’s Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. pp. 499-505. Bleek, Der Brief an die
Hebräer, ii. 2. 479 ff., note on ix. 4. Leyrer’s arts. “Räucheraltar” and
“Räuchern,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. 502-513. The same
articles in the second edition re-written by Orelli, vol. xii. 483-489.
Delitzsch in Riehm’s Wörterb. pp. 1255-1260. מִזְבּח הַזָּהָב, Joma v. 5, 7;
Chagiga iii. 8; Sebachim v. 2; Menachoth iii. 6, iv. 4. מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי,
Joma ii. 3, v. 5; Sebachim iv. 2; Meila iii. 4; Tamid iii. 6. 9, vi. 1.
Wellhausen’s doubts as to the actual existence of the altar of incense (Jahrb.
f. deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 410 ff.) are disposed of by a unanimous testimony in
its favour from the time of the Maccabees down to Josephus and the Mishna. On
the other hand, it certainly appears as though it had been introduced at a
somewhat latish period. It is worth noting that as yet Pseudo-Hecataeus (in
Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22, ed. Bekker, p. 204, 19-21) mentions nothing else as
being in the interior of the temple but the candlestick and a golden βωμός,
which latter might as readily be supposed to refer to the table for the
shewbread as to the altar of incense. [1091] On the duties connected with the
candlestick, see Exodus 27:20-21; Exodus 30:7-8; Leviticus 24:1-4; Numbers
8:1-4; 2 Chronicles 13:11. From the passages just quoted it would seem as though
the lamps on the candlestick were to be lighted only in the evening with a view
to their burning during the night. So also Philo, De victimis offerentibus, sec.
vii. init. But, according to Joseph. Antt. iii. 8. 3, fin., on the other hand,
three of the lamps were kept burning during the day and the whole seven during
the night; while according to the Mishna only one was lighted during the day and
the whole seven at night (Tamid iii. 9, vi. 1, and the reference to those
passages by Krüger, Theol. Quartalschr. 1857, p. 248 f.). Comp. further,
Pseudo-Hecataeus in Joseph. contra Apion. i. 22: ἐπὶ τούτων φῶς ἔστιν
ἀναπόσβεστον καὶ τὰς νύκτας καὶ τὰς ἡμέρας. Diodor. xxxiv. 1 (ed. Müller): τὸν
δὲ ἀθάνατον λεγόμενον παρʼ αὐτοῖς λύχνον καὶ καιόμενον ἀδιαλείπτων ἐν τῷ ναῷ. On
the candlestick itself, see Exodus 25:31-40; Exodus 37:17-24; 1Ma_1:21;
1Ma_4:49. Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 9. Joseph. Antt. iii. 6, 7; Bell. Jud. v. 5.
5, vii. 5. 5. Mishna, Menachoth iii. 7, iv. 4, ix. 3, fin.; Tamid iii. 6, 9, vi.
1. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap, xxiii. Winer’s Realwörterb.,
art. “Leuchter.” Bähr, Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. 492-499. Krüger, Der siebenarmige
Leuchter (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1857, pp. 238-261). Riehm’s Wörterb., art.
“Leuchter” (with illustrations). On the position of the candlestick to the south
of the altar of incense, see Exodus 26:35; Exodus 40:24. [1092] On the duties
connected with the table of shewbread, see Leviticus 24:5-9. Philo, De victimis,
sec. iii. (ed. Mang., ii. 239 f.). Josephus, Antt. iii. 10. 7. On the table of
shewbread itself, see Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus 37:10-16; 1Ma_1:22; 1Ma_4:49.
Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 10. Joseph. Antt. iii. 6. 6; Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5, vii. 5.
5. Mishna, Menachoth xi. 5-7. Comp. further the description of the table alleged
to have been presented to the temple by Ptolemy Philadelphus as given by
Pseudo-Aristeas (Havercamp’s Joseph. ii. 2. 109-111. Merx’ Archiv, i. 264-267.
Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 7, 8). Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap.
xxiv. Winer’s Realwörterb., arts. “Schaubrode” and “Schaubrodtisch.” Bähr’s
Symbolik, 2nd ed. i. pp. 488-492. Thalhofer, Die unblut. Opfer des mos. Cultes,
pp. 73-78, 156-168. Leyrer, arts. “Schaubrod” and “Schaubrodtisch,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xiii. 467-472. Delitzsch in Riehm’s Wörterb. pp.
1388-1392 (with an illustration). Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. vol.
xiii. 455-458. On the position of the table to the north of the altar of
incense, see Exodus 26:35; Exodus 40:22. [1093] Comp. in particular, the
descriptions of it in the Mishna, Middoth iii. 1-4, and in Josephus, Bell. Jud.
v. 5. 6; further, Pseudo-Hecataeus in Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22 (ed. Bekker,
p. 264. 16 ff.); Aristeas, ed. M. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv, i. 269 f. (in
Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 112); 1Ma_4:44-47. Philo, De victimis offerentibus,
sec. iv. Also measurements given in Ezekiel 43:13-17. Monographs in Ugolini’s
Thes. vol. x. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Brandopferaltar.” Bähr’s Symbolik, 2nd
ed. i. pp. 579-582. [1094] Pseudo-Hecataeus in Josephus, contra Apion. i. 22:
οὐκ ἐκ τμητῶν ἀλλʼ ἐκ συλλέκτων ἀργῶν λίθων. 1Ma_4:47. Philo, De victimis
offerentibus, sec. iv.: ἐκ λίθων λογάδων καὶ ἀτμήτων. Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5.
6. Mishna, Middoth iii. 4. The oldest and most primitive altars were undoubtedly
made merely of rough stones taken from the field, or even of simple heaps of
earth; and the Jehovistic legislation proceeds on the assumption that these were
the kind that were still in ordinary use (Exodus 20:24-26; comp. Deuteronomy
27:5-6). But we find that as early as the days of Solomon this monarch ordered a
brazen altar to be erected in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:64; 1 Kings 9:25; 2 Kings
16:14-15; 2 Chronicles 4:1). The priest-code, inasmuch as it seeks to describe
the whole sanctuary as being of a portable character, accordingly represents the
altar of burnt-offering as having been made of wood and covered with brass
(Exodus 27:1-8; Exodus 38:1-7; Numbers 17:1-5). We can scarcely think that one
of this description ever existed. The practice of post-exilic times reverted
rather to a compliance with the older legal prescriptions contained in Exodus
20:25; Deuteronomy 27:5-6. Comp. in general, Wellhausen’s Geschichte, i. pp. 30,
38 f. [1095] Leviticus 6:6. Philo, De victimis offerentibus, sec. v. init. (ed.
Mangey, ii. 254). Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 6. Comp. further, 2Ma_1:18-36, and
Buxtorf, Historia ignis sacri et coelestis sacrificia consumentis (in Ugolini’s
Thes. vol. x.). Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book i. chap. xxxiv. [1096]
Middoth iii. 5. v. 2; Tamid iii. 5; Shekalim vi. 4. That the slaughtering of the
burnt-offerings had to take place to the north of the altar is prescribed as
early as Leviticus 1:11. But it was further required that the sin- and
trespass-offerings should also be slaughtered at the very same place (Leviticus
4:24; Leviticus 4:29; Leviticus 4:33; Leviticus 6:18; Leviticus 7:2; Leviticus
14:13). This prescription is omitted only in the case of the peace-offerings;
see Knobel-Dillmann’s note on Leviticus 1:11. For more precise information as to
the places where the victims were slaughtered, see Sebachim v. [1097] On this
enclosure, see especially, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 6; Antt. xiii. 18. 5. But
according to Kelim i. 8, ordinary Israelites were also allowed to enter this
“court of the priests” for the purposes stated in the text. Now, as regards the
regular worship of the sanctuary, the most important part of it was the daily
burnt-offering offered in the name of the people at large, the עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד,
or simply הַתָּמִיד, “the standing one.”[1098] The practice of offering regular
daily sacrifice is, comparatively speaking, of very ancient date. But it
underwent certain modifications at different periods; not only in so far as,
previous to the exile, the kings were in the habit of defraying the cost of the
sacrifices (Ezekiel 45:17; Ezekiel 46:13-15, Sept. version), whereas they were
subsequently provided at the expense of the people, but also as regards the
character and number of the sacrifices themselves.[1099] In the time of Ahaz the
morning sacrifice consisted only of a burnt-offering, and the evening one of
simply a meat-offering (2 Kings 16:15). This had become so much of an
established practice that various parts of the day took their names from it. To
speak for example of anything as happening at the time “when the meat-offering
was presented” was equivalent to saying toward evening (1 Kings 18:29; 1 Kings
18:36). Not only so, but this mode of denoting the hour of the day had become so
completely established that it continued in use even long after the practice had
been introduced of offering a burnt-offering in the evening as well (Ezra 9:4-5;
Daniel 9:21).[1100] It would appear that this had not been introduced as yet in
Ezekiel’s time. Yet in his day there must have been already an advance upon the
older practice, in so far as, according to this prophet, both a burnt-offering
and a meat-offering would seem to have been offered in the morning (Ezekiel
46:13-15). On the other hand, by the time the priest-code came to be in force it
was prescribed that both a burnt-offering and a meat-offering should be offered
every morning and every evening as well, and further, that on every occasion
they should also be accompanied with a drink-offering (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers
28:3-8). And so we find that, in the time of the author of the Chronicles, the
practice thus established of offering a burnt-offering twice every day in the
course of the daily service was looked upon as one of long standing (1
Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 13:11; 2 Chronicles 31:3). This then formed the
true heart and centre of the whole sacrificial system of worship. In no
circumstances whatever could it be allowed to be dispensed with. We find, for
example, that in the year 70 Jerusalem had for a considerable time been invested
by the Romans, and that, in consequence, the scarcity of food had reached a
climax, but for all that the daily sacrifices continued to be regularly offered;
and it was felt by the Jews to be one of the heaviest calamities that could have
befallen them when, on the 17th of Tammuz, they at last found themselves in the
position of having no more to offer.[1101] [1098] עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד, for example,
in Numbers 28:10; Numbers 28:15; Numbers 28:24; Numbers 28:31; Numbers 29:16;
Numbers 29:19; Numbers 29:22; Numbers 29:25; Numbers 29:28; Numbers 29:31;
Numbers 29:34; Numbers 29:38; Ezra 3:5; Nehemiah 10:34. הַתָּמִיד, for example,
in Daniel 8:11-13; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:12; Mishna, Pesachim v. 1; Joma vii.
3; Taanith iv. 6; Menachoth iv. 4. It is from this that the whole tractate
bearing the title of Tamid derives its name. [1099] For what follows, comp.
Kuenen, De godsdienst van Isräel, ii. 270-272. Wellhausen’s Geschichte Israels,
i. pp. 81, 82. Reuss, L’histoire sainte et la loi (La Bible, Ancien Testament,
part iii.), i. 202. Smend’s Exeget. Handbuch zu Ezekiel, p. 381 f. The
objections advanced by Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch zu Exod. u. Levit. p. 313, can
in no way affect what is a simple and undoubted matter of fact. [1100] In the
Mishna even the expression “time of the minchah” (of the meat-offering)
continues to be used as equivalent to the afternoon; for example, Berachoth iv.
1; Pesachim x. 1; Roth hashana, iv. 4; Megilla iii. 6, iv. 1. [1101] Joseph.
Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 1; Mishna, Taanith iv. 6. Similarly in the days of the
persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes the suppression of the Tamid was regarded as
one of the most serious calamities possible (Daniel 8:11-13; Daniel 11:31;
Daniel 12:11). The following are the more specific prescriptions contained in
the priest-code with regard to the Tamid (Exodus 39:38-42; Numbers
28:3-8).[1102] Every morning and evening alike a male lamb of a year old and
without blemish was to be offered as a burnt-offering, and in doing so all those
regulations were required to be observed that apply to burnt-offerings
generally, particularly those contained in Leviticus 1:10-13; Leviticus 6:1-6.
Not only so, but on every occasion a meat-offering and a drink-offering were to
be offered along with the burnt-offering, as it is prescribed by the priest-code
that these were to accompany all burnt-offerings without exception (Numbers
15:1-16). In cases in which the victim happened to be a lamb, the meat-offering
was to consist of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour (סֹלֶת), which was to be
mixed (בָּלוּל, therefore not baked] with a quarter of a hin of pure oil; while
the corresponding drink-offering was to consist of a quarter of a hin of wine.
The time at which the morning sacrifice was to be offered was early dawn; that
for the evening sacrifice again was to be, in Biblical phraseology, בֵּין
הָעַרְבַּיִם, i.e. in the evening twilight, though at a later period it had
become the practice to offer the evening sacrifice so early as the afternoon, or
according to our mode of reckoning, somewhere about three o’clock.[1103] [1102]
Comp. further, Lightfoot’s Ministerium templi, cap. ix. (Opp. i. 716-722).
Lundius, Die alt. Jüd. Heiligth. book v. chap. i.-ii. Winer’s Realwörterb., art.
“Morgen- und Abendopfer.” Keil, Handb. der bibl. Archaeol. (2nd ed. 1875) p. 373
f. Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer, pp. 604-609. For full details, consult
the tractate Tamid, and comp. note 250, below. [1103] On the principal occasion
on which they speak of the Tamid, Philo and Josephus simply reproduce the
scriptural statements with regard to the times for offering it (Philo, De
victimis, sec. iii.: Καθʼ ἑκάστην μὲν οὖν ἡμέραν δύο ἀμνοὺς ἀνάγειν διείρηται,
τὸν μὲν ἅμα τῇ ἕῳ, τὸν δὲ δείλης ἑσπέρας. Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 1: ἐκ δὲ τοῦ
δημοσίου ἀναλώματος νόμος ἐστὶν ἄρνα καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν σφάζεσθαι τῶν αὐτοετῶν
ἀρχομένης τε ἡμέρας καὶ ληγούσης). What the actual practice was in later times
is clearly evident from Antt. xiv. 4. 3: δὶς τῆς ἡμέρας, πρωί τε καὶ περὶ ἐνάτην
ώραν, ἱερουργούντων ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ. This entirely accords with the statement of
the Mishna (Pesachim v. 1), to the effect that the evening sacrifice was usually
slaughtered about half-past eight and offered about half-past nine o’clock
(consequently, according to our reckoning, about half-past two and half-past
three o’clock in the afternoon). Comp. further, Josephus, contra Apion. ii. 8
(ed. Bekker, p. 239): Mane etiam aperto templo oportebat facientes traditas
hostias introire et meridie rursus dum clauderetur templum. And hence it was
also the practice to go to the temple about the ninth hour for devotional
purposes (Acts 3:1; Acts 10:3; Acts 10:30). See in general, Herzfeld’s
Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 184 f. It was also the regular practice to
offer the daily meat-offering of the high priest in conjunction with the daily
burnt-offering of the people. For, according to Leviticus 6:12-16, the high
priest was required to offer a meat-offering every day (תָּמִיד),[1104] both
morning and evening, and one too which differed from that offered in the name of
the people along with their burnt-offering, not only in respect of quantity, but
also as regards the mode in which it was prepared. It consisted altogether of
only the tenth of an ephah of fine flour, of which one half was offered in the
morning and the other half in the evening; and not only was it mixed with oil,
but after being so it was baked in a flat pan (מַחֲבַת); the cakes thus prepared
were then broken into pieces, oil was poured over them, and then they were duly
offered (Leviticus 6:14; comp. Leviticus 2:5-6).[1105] Owing to the circumstance
of its being made read in a מַהֲבַת, it was known at a later period simply as
the חֲבִיתִים, “the baked (the cakes), which is the designation already given to
it, directly or indirectly, by the author of the Chronicles,[1106] and
subsequently by the Mishna in particular.[1107] Now as the presenting of this
offering was incumbent upon the high priest, we are, of course, justified in
speaking of him as offering a daily sacrifice.[1108] At the same time it must be
borne in mind that here the high priest is to be regarded as the offerer of the
sacrifice only in the same sense in which the people is so in the case of the
daily burnt-offering, i.e. he causes it to be offered in his name and at his own
expense,[1109] but it was by no means necessary that he himself should officiate
on the occasion. In fact the expression used in connection with this matter in
Leviticus 6:15 is not יקריב but merely יעשח. We learn from Josephus that the
high priest officiated as a rule on the Sabbath and on festival days (see p.
255, above). But on ordinary occasions the meat-offering of the high priest, in
common with the sacrifices of the people, was offered by the priests who
happened to be officiating for the time being; and when the lots were drawn with
the view of deciding who were to take the various parts of the service for the
day, one was always drawn at the same time to determine who was to be entrusted
with the duty of presenting the חֲבִיתִין, i.e. the meat-offering of the high
priest.[1110] Nay more—seeing that the law speaks of this offering as being an
offering of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 6:13),—there is no reason why it
should not also be conceived of as a sacrifice which the priests offered for
themselves.[1111] [1104] With this it is impossible to reconcile the words “in
the day when he is anointed,” Leviticus 6:20; one or other is a later
interpolation. See Dillmann’s Exeget. Handb. zu Exod. u. Levit. p. 442. Jewish
and Christian expositors have endeavoured in various ways to dispose of the
discrepancy contained in this passage. See Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der
palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (1851), p. 143 f.
Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. ix. Thalhofer, Die unblut.
Opfer des mos. Cultes (1848), pp. 139-151. [1105] On the mode of preparation,
comp. further, Philo, De victimis, sec. xv. Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7; Menachoth
xi. 3. Both לִישָׁה (kneading) and אְפִיָּה (baking) formed part of the process.
Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. xxxix. pp. 56-61. Thalhofer,
Die unblut. Opfer, p. 151 ff. [1106] 1 Chronicles 9:31. In this passage the
Septuagint simply paraphrases the words מַעֲשֵׂה הַהֲבִתִּים as follows: τὰ ἔργα
τῆς θυσίας τοῦ τηγάνου τοῦ μεγάλου ἱερέως. So also Gesenius, Thesaurus, under
חבתים. But it is probable that the author of the Chronicles may have had in view
the baked meat-offering generally, and not that of the high priest alone. [1107]
Tamid i. 3, iii. 1, iv. fin.; Joma ii. 3, iii. 4; Menachoth iv. 5, xi. 3;
Middoth i. 4. [1108] Philo, De specialibus legibus, ii. sec. xxiii. (Mang. ii.
321): εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. The well-known passage in
the Epistle to the Hebrews (7:27) is also to be explained on this ground; only
it must be understood that this daily meat-offering on the part of the high
priest was not a sin-offering, as the passage in question might lead one to
suppose. On several Talmudic passages in which, either apparently or in reality,
it is the daily offering of a sacrifice on the part of the high priest that is
in question, see Herzfeld’s Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, ii. p. 140 f. [1109]
Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7: θύει δʼ ὁ ἱερεὺς (= the high priest) ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων
ἀναλωμάτων, καὶ δὶς ἑκάστης ἡμέρας τοῦτο ποιεῖ, ἄλευρον ἐλαίῳ μεμαγμένον καὶ
πεπηγὸς ὀπτήσει βραχείᾳ· καὶ εἷς μέν ἐστιν ἀσσάρων τοῦ ἀλεύρου, τούτου δὲ τὸ μὲν
ἥμισυ πρωῒ τὸ δʼ ἕτερον δείλης ἐπιφέρει τῷ πυρί. When A high priest died, the
meat-offering bad to be furnished at the expense of the people (according to
Rabbi Juda, Shekalim vii. 6, at the expense of his heirs) until his successor
was installed. [1110] Tamid iii. 1, iv. fin.; Joma ii. 3. It is true, no doubt,
that, strictly speaking, what is in view in the passages here referred to is not
the actual offering of the sacrifice, but the bringing of the materials of it to
the ascent leading to the top of the altar. Still, according to Tamid v. 2, Joma
ii. 4-5, there was also appointed for the actual offering (the carrying of the
sacrifice up to the altar hearth) precisely the same number of priests again as
were employed in bringing it to the foot of the altar, viz. nine, corresponding
to the nine parts of which the sacrifice was composed, and among which, even in
the passages first referred to (Tamid iii. 1, iv. fin.; Joma ii. 3), the חביתין
are expressly mentioned. Consequently, there can be no doubt whatever that the
actual offering of the חביתין also devolved, as a rule, upon an ordinary priest.
[1111] Philo, Quis rerum div. heres. sec. xxxvi. (Mang. i. 497): Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς
ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας ὁρᾷς εἰς ἴσα διῃρημένας, ἥν τε ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀνάγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς
διὰ τῆς σεμιδάλεως, καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυοῖν ἀμνῶν, οὓς ἀναφέρειν
διείρηται. De victimis, sec. xv. (ed. Mang. ii. 250): Σεμιδαλις γὰρ ἡ ἐυδελεχὴς
αὐτῶν θυσία μέτρου ἱεροῦ τὸ δέκατον καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, ου τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ πρωΐας,
τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ δείλης προσάγεται ταγηνισθὲν ἐν ἐλαίῳ, μηδενὸς εἰς βρῶσιν
ὑπολειφθέντος. Besides the offering of the sacrifices just referred to, the
priests in the course of the daily service were also called upon to perform
certain functions inside the temple in connection with the altar of incense and
the candlestick. On the former incense had to be offered every morning and every
evening alike (Exodus 30:7-8), that offered in the morning being previous to the
offering of the burnt-offering, and that in the evening, on the other hand,
coming after it, so that the daily burnt-offering was, as it were, girt round
with the offering of incense.[1112] Then further, with regard to the
candlestick, it had to be attended to every morning and every evening. In the
morning the lamps were trimmed and replenished with oil, when one or more of
them (according to Josephus three) were allowed to burn throughout the day. In
the evening again the rest of them were lighted, for it was prescribed that
during the night the whole seven were to be burning (see especially Exodus
30:7-8; 2 Chronicles 13:11; and in, general, p. 281, above). [1112] Philo, De
victimis, sec. iii. (Mangey, ii. 239): δὶς δὲ καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐπιθυμιᾶται τὰ
πάντων εὐωδέστατα θυμιαμάτων εἴσω τοῦ καταπετάσματος, ἀνίσχοντος ἡλίου καὶ
δυομένου πρότετῆς ἑωθινῆς θυσίας καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἑσπερινήν. De victimis
offerentibus, sec. iv. (Mang.ii.254): οὐ γὰρ ἐφίεται τὴν ὁλόκαυτον θυσίαν ἔξω
προσαγαγεῖν, πρὶν ἔνδον περὶ βαθὺν ὄρθρον ἐπιθυμιάσαι. Still more precise is the
statement of the Mishna (Joma iii. 5), to the effect that “the offering of the
morning incense took place between the sprinkling of the blood and the offering
of the various parts of the victim; while the corresponding evening one occurred
between the offering of these portions and the drink-offering.” Then lastly,
with the view of imparting greater beauty to the worship, it was also deemed
proper to have vocal and instrumental music. When the burnt-offering was being
presented the Levites broke in with singing and playing upon their instruments,
while two priests blew silver trumpets (2 Chronicles 29:26-28; Numbers 10:1-2;
Numbers 10:10). While this was going on the people were also assembled in the
temple for prayer. At the pauses in the singing the priests sounded a fanfare
with their trumpets, and as often as they did so the people fell down and
worshipped.[1113] There was a special pealm for every day of the week, the one
for Sunday being the 24th, for Monday the 48th, for Tuesday the 82nd, for
Wednesday the 94th, for Thursday the 81st, for Friday the 93rd, and for the
Sabbath the 92nd.[1114] [1113] On the assembling of the people in the temple for
prayer, see Luke 1:10; Acts 3:1. For more precise information, as furnished by
the tractate Tamid, see below. It is quite a mistake to suppose, as has been
done through a misapprehension of Acts 2:15; Acts 3:1; Acts 10:3; Acts 10:9;
Acts 10:30, that the third, sixth, and ninth hours of the day (therefore,
according to our reckoning, nine, twelve, and three o’clock) were regular stated
times for prayer (so, for example, Schoettgen, Horae hebr. i. 418. Winer’s
Realwörterb. i. 398. De Wette’s note on Acts 2:15; and Meyer’s on Acts 3:1). The
actual times for prayer were rather the three following:—(1) early in the
morning, at the time of the morning sacrifice; (2) in the afternoon, about the
ninth hour (three o’clock), at the time of the evening sacrifice; and (3) in the
evening at sunset. See Berachoth i. 1 ff., iv. 1. Herzfeld’s Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael, iii. p. 188 ff. Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel u. Talmud, 2nd part,
arts. “Morgengebet,” “Minchagebet,” “Abendgebet.” [1114] Tamid vii. fin.
Further, Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iv. chap. v. no. 25. Herzfeld’s
Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 163 f. Grätz, Die Tempel psalmen (Monatsschr. f.
Gesch. u. Wissens. des Judenth. 1878, pp. 217-222). Delitzsch’s Commenter zu den
Psalmen. In the case of five of the psalms here in question the Sept. also
inserts in the title of each a correct statement of the particular day on which
it was to be sung, thus: Psalms 24 (23), τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτου; 48 (47), δευτέρᾳ
σαββάτου; 94 (93), τετράδι σαββάτου; 93 (92), εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου,
ὅτε κατῴκισται ἡ γῆ; 92 (91), εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ σαββάτου. As regards the psalm
for the Sabbath, the statement to the effect that it was the one appointed for
that day has forced its way even into the Masoretic text. It has been alleged
that the Jews were led to select those particular psalms from an idea that they
presented suitable parallels to the six creative days (see Rosh hashana xxxi.a;
Soferim xviii. 1; the commentaries of Bartenora and Maimonides in Surenhusius’
Mishna, vol. v. p. 310). But in the majority of the psalms in question it is
quite impossible to discover any such parallelism. This view has obviously been
suggested by the circumstance that when the “station” of Israelites assembled in
the synagogue to read a portion of the Scripture (as described at p. 275 f.
above), it was so arranged that in the course of the week the entire account of
the creation should be read through consecutively (Taanith iv. 3: On the first
day of the week they read the account of the first and second days’ work; on the
second day of the week, that of the second and third days’ work, and so on).
Besides the psalms for the different days of the week, many others, of course,
were used in the services of the temple on the most divers occasions. Thus, on
the high festival days, for example, the so-called Hallel was sung, i.e.
according to the ordinary view, Psalms 93-98; at the same time the traditions
would seem to be somewhat undecided as to what we are to understand by the
Hallel; see Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. col. 613-616 (under הלל). Lightfoot’s Horae
hebr., note on Luke 13:35 (Opp. ii. p. 538 f.). Lundius’ note on Taanith iii. 9
(in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. p. 377). Grätz. Monatsschr. 1879, pp. 202 ff., 241
ff. Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb. under הלל. Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und
Talmud, 2nd part, art. “Hallel.” The form of the daily service in the temple
which we have just been describing, is the same as that which had been already
delineated with so much fondness by the son of Sirach (Sir_50:11-21). A very
circumstantial account of the morning service, founded evidently on sound
tradition, is given in the Mishna in the tractate Tamid, the substance of which
may here be subjoined by way of supplement to what we have already said.[1115]
[1115] The tractate in question is to be found in Surenhusius’ Mishna, vol. v.
pp. 284-310; and in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xix. col. 1467-1502. The principal
passages along with other material also in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii. 942-1055.
There is a good edition of the tractate by itself (and, as in the case of those
already mentioned, also furnished with a Latin translation and notes), under the
title, Tractatus Talmudicus de cultu quotidiano templi, quem versione Latina,
donatum et notis illustratum … sub praesidio Dn. Conradi Ikenii patrui sui …
eruditorum examini subjicit auctor Conradus Iken, Braemae 1736. The officiating
priests slept in a room in the inner court. Early in the morning, even before
daybreak, the official who had charge of the lots for deciding how the different
functions for the day were to be apportioned came, and, in the first place,
caused a lot to be drawn to determine who was to perform the duty of removing
the ashes from the altar of burnt-offering. Those who were disposed to offer
themselves for this task were expected to have taken the bath prescribed by the
law previous to the arrival of the above-mentioned official. The lots were then
drawn, and one of those who thus presented themselves was in this way told off
to perform the duty in question. This person then set to work at once while it
was still dark, and with no light but that of the altar fire. The first thing he
did was to wash his hands and feet in the brazen laver that stood between the
temple and the altar, after which he mounted the altar and carried away the
ashes with a silver pan. While this was being done, those whose duty it was to
prepare the baked meat-offering (of the high priest) were also busy with their
particular function.[1116] Meanwhile fresh wood was laid upon the altar, and,
while this was burning, the priests, after they had all in like manner washed
their hands and feet in the brazen laver, went up to the lischkath ha-gasith (on
this see p. 191, above), where the further drawing of the lots took place.[1117]
[1116] Tamid i. 1-4. Comp. Joma i. 8, ii, 1-2. [1117] Tamid ii. 1-5. The
official who had charge of this matter then caused lots to be drawn in order to
determine—(1) who was to slaughter the victim; (2) who was to sprinkle the blood
upon the altar; (3) who was to remove the ashes from the altar of incense; (4)
who was to trim the lamps on the candlestick; further, who were to carry the
various portions of the victim to the foot of the ascent to the altar, viz. who
(5) was to carry the head and one of the hind legs; (6) who the two forelegs;
(7) who the tail and the other hind leg; (8) who the breast and the neck; (9)
who the two sides; (10) who the entrails; (11) who the offering of fine flour;
(12) who the baked meat-offering (of the high priest); and (13) who the wine for
the drink-offering.[1118] The next step was to go out to see whether there was
as yet any symptom of daybreak. Then as soon as the dawn appeared in the sky
they proceeded to bring a lamb from the lamb-house and the ninety-three sacred
utensils from the utensil-room. The lamb that was thus to form the victim had
now some water given to it from a golden bowl, whereupon it was led away to the
slaughtering place on the north side of the altar.[1119] Meanwhile the two whose
duty it was to clean the altar of incense and trim the lamps proceeded to the
temple, the former with a golden pail (טְנִי) and the latter with a golden
bottle (כּוּז). They opened the great door of the temple, went in, and
proceeded, the one to clean the altar of incense, and the other to trim the
lamps. In the case of the latter however the arrangement was, that if the two
that were farthest east were found to be still burning they were in the meantime
to be left undisturbed, and only the other five were to be trimmed. But should
it so happen that the two that were farthest, east were out, then they were, in
the first place, to be trimmed and relighted before the trimming of the others
was proceeded with. And so having finished their task, the two priests now
retired, but they left behind them in the temple the utensils which they had
been using.[1120] [1118] Tamid iii. 1; Joma ii. 3. [1119] Tamid iii. 2-5; comp.
Joma iii. 1-2. [1120] Tamid iii. 6-9. For an exposition of Tamid iii 6, comp.
further, Grätz, Monatsschr. 1880, p. 289 ff. While the two just referred to were
thus occupied within the temple, the lamb was being slaughtered at the
slaughtering place by the priest to whose lot this duty had fallen, another at
the same time catching up the blood and sprinkling it upon the altar. The victim
was then flayed and cut up into a number of pieces. The entrails were washed
upon marble tables that were at hand for the purpose, There were whole six
priests appointed to carry the pieces to the altar, one piece being borne by
each priest. Then a seventh carried the offering of fine flour, an eighth the
baked meat-offering (of the high priest), and a ninth the wine for the
drink-offering. All the things here mentioned were in the first instance laid
down on the west side of the ascent to the altar and at the foot of it, and then
seasoned with salt, whereupon the priests betook themselves once more to the
lischkath ha-gasith for the purpose of repeating the schma.[1121] [1121] Tamid
iv. 1-3. For the place where the pieces were laid down, see also Shekalim viii.
8. According to Shekalim vi. 4, there was a marble table for this purpose
standing on the west side of the ascent to the altar. On the salting of the
pieces, see Leviticus 2:13; Ezekiel 43:24; Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 1. After they
had repeated the schma, the lots were again drawn. In the first instance they
were drawn among those who as yet had not been called upon to offer up incense
in order to determine which one amongst them should now be entrusted with this
duty.[1122] Then another was drawn to determine who were to lay the various
parts of the victim upon the altar (which, if we are to believe Rabbi Elieser
ben Jacob, was done by the same priests who had formerly carried them to the
foot of the altar). Those on whom no lot fell upon this occasion were now free
to go away, and accordingly they took off their official attire.[1123] [1122]
The offering of the incense was regarded as the most solemn stage in the whole
sacrificial act. See Philo, De victims offerentibus, sec. iv. (Mangey, ii. 254):
Ὅσῳ γάρ, οἶμαι, λίθων μὲν ἀμείνων χρυσός, τὰ δὲ ἐν ἀδύτοις τῶν ἐκτὸς ἁγιώτερα,
τοσούτῳ κρείττων ἡ διὰ τῶν ἐπιθυμιωμέυων εὐχαριστία τῆς διὰ των ἐναίμων. Hence
it was while they were offering the incense above all that revelations were made
to the priests, as for example in the case of John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Antt. xiii.
10. 3) and that of Zacharias (Luke 1:9-20). [1123] Tamid v. 1-3. Comp. Joma ii.
4-5. The priest to whose lot the duty of offering the incense had fallen now
went and took a golden saucer (כַּף) covered with a lid, and inside of which
again there was a smaller saucer (בָּזָךְ) containing the incense.[1124] Another
priest took a silver pan (מַחְתָּה), and with it brought some live coal from the
altar of burnt-offering and then emptied it into a golden pan.[1125] This being
done, both entered the temple together. The one emptied the coals that were in
his pan on to the altar of incense, prostrated himself in an attitude of
devotion, and then withdrew. The other took the smaller saucer containing the
incense out of the larger one, then handing this latter to a third priest, he
emptied the incense out of the saucer on to the coals upon the altar, whereupon
it ascended in clouds of smoke. This being done, he, like the other, fell down
in an attitude of devotion, and then left the temple. But, previous to these
latter having entered, the two who had charge of the cleaning of the altar of
incense and the trimming of the lamps had also come back and entered for the
second time, the former merely to bring away his utensils (the טְנִי), the
latter in like manner to bring away his (the כּוּז), but also for the additional
purpose of trimming the more easterly of the two lamps that had not yet been so;
the other being allowed still to burn in order that with it the others might be
lighted in the evening. If it, too, happened to be out, then it was trimmed like
the others, and lighted with fire taken from the altar of burnt-offering.[1126]
[1124] That the lid belonged to the כף and not to the בזך may be seen from Tamid
vii. 2; as also from its being assumed that possibly some of the incense might
fall from the בזך when it was full into the כף, Tamid vi. 3. [1125] Tamid v.
4-5. On the gold and silver pan, as well as the incense itself, comp. further
Joma iv. 4. [1126] Tamid vi. 1-3. According to this account from the Mishna, it
appears that only one of the seven lamps of the candlestick was kept burning
during the day, and that the middle one of the three on the east side.
According, on the other hand, to what must be regarded as the more important
testimony of Josephus, it was usual to have three lamps burning in the day-time;
see p. 281, above. On the whole controversy as to which and how many lamps burnt
during the day, see also Iken, Tractatus Talmudicus de cultu quotidiano templi
(1736), pp. 73-76, 107 f. The five priests who had been thus occupied inside the
sanctuary now proceeded with their five golden utensils in their hands to the
steps in front of the temple, and there pronounced the priestly benediction over
the people, in the course of which the name of God was pronounced as it spells
(therefore יהוה, not אדוני).[1127] [1127] Tamid vii. 2. And now, at this point,
the offering of the burnt-offering was proceeded with, the priests who had been
appointed to this duty taking up the portions of the victim that lay at the foot
of the ascent to the altar, and after placing their hands upon them, throwing
them on to the altar.[1128] In those cases in which the high priest officiated,
he caused the pieces to be given to him by the ordinary priests, and then
placing his hands upon them he threw them on to the altar. And now, in the last
place, the two meat-offerings (that of the people and that of the high priest)
and the drink-offering were presented. When the priest was bending forward to
pour out the drink-offering a signal was given to the Levites to proceed with
the music. They accordingly broke in with the singing of the psalm, and at every
pause in the music two priests blew with silver trumpets, and every time they
blew the people all fell down and prayed.[1129] [1128] The throwing required a
special dexterity on the part of the priests, a dexterity of which
Pseudo-Aristeas already speaks in terms of admiration (Havercamp’s Josephus, ii.
2. 112; Merx’ Archiv, i. 271). [1129] Tamid vii. 3. Towards the close this
tractate becomes somewhat less detailed. It only describes the mode of offering
the sacrifice in those cases in which the high priest himself officiated.
Besides, the offering of the two meat-offerings is not expressly mentioned. That
we have inserted them in their proper place it is impossible to doubt, if we may
judge from the order in which they are introduced elsewhere (Tamid iii. 1, iv.
fin.). Consequently, the meat-offering of the high priest was not offered before
that of the people, as Hebrews 7:27 might lead us to suppose, but after it. See
also Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iii. chap. xxxix. no. 58. The evening
service was exactly similar to the morning one, which has just been described.
The only difference was that in the former the incense was offered after the
burnt-offering instead of before it, while in the evening again the lamps were
not trimmed, but simply lighted (see p. 290 f. above). Those two daily public
sacrifices formed the substratum of the entire worship of the temple. They were
also offered, and that in the manner we have described, on every Sabbath and
every festival day. But with the view of distinguishing them above ordinary
occasions, it was the practice on those days to add further public offerings to
the ordinary tamid. The addition on the Sabbath consisted of two male lambs of a
year old, which were offered as a burnt-offering along with two-tenths of an
ephah of fine flour as a meat-offering, and a corresponding amount of wine as a
drink-offering. Consequently the sacrifices offered at a single service on the
Sabbath would be exactly equivalent to the daily morning and evening sacrifices
put together.[1130] On festival days again the additional offerings were on a
still more extensive scale. On the occasion of the feast of the Passover, for
example, there were offered as a burnt-offering, and that daily during the whole
seven days over which the festival extended, two young bullocks, a ram, and
seven lambs, along with the corresponding meat- and drink-offerings, and in
addition to all this, a he-goat as a sin-offering (Numbers 28:16-25); and on the
feast of Weeks again, which lasted only one day, there were offered the same
sacrifices as on each of the seven days of the feast of the Passover (Numbers
28:26-31). Then on the occasion of the feast of Tabernacles, which, as being the
festival that took place when the harvest was over, would naturally be
celebrated with special tokens of thankfulness, the number of sacrifices was
much greater still. On the first day of this feast there were offered; as a
burnt-offering, thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs, along
with the corresponding meat- and drink-offerings, and over and above all this a
he-goat as a sin-offering; while on each of the six following festival days, all
those sacrifices were repeated, with this difference, that every day there was
one bullock fewer than on the preceding day (Numbers 29:12-34). Similar
supplementary sacrifices and offerings, at one time on a larger at another on a
smaller scale, were also prescribed for the other festivals (the new moon, the
new year, and the great day of atonement) that occurred in the course of the
year (see in general, Numbers 28-29). Then to those sacrifices which merely
served to indicate in a general way the festive character of the occasions on
which they were offered, there were further added those special ones that had
reference to the peculiar significance of the feast (on this see Leviticus 16,
23). [1130] Numbers 28:9-10. Philo, De victimis, sec. iii. (Mang. ii. 239): Ταῖς
δὲ ἑβδόμαις διπλασιάζει τὸν τῶν ἱερείων ἀριθμόν. Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 1. κατὰ
δὲ ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν, ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται, δύο σφάζουσι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον
ἱερουργοῦντες. The prescriptions in Ezekiel 46:4-5 are essentially different
from this. But the main difference between pre- and post-exilic times, as
regards both the festival sacrifices and the tamid alike, lay in this, that
previous to the exile the king was called upon to defray the cost of them,
whereas after the exile they were provided at the expense of the people
themselves. See in particular, Ezekiel 45:17; and in general, Ezekiel 45:18;
Ezekiel 46:15. For an account of the form of worship observed on the Sabbath,
see Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book v. chap. v. But copious as those
public sacrifices no doubt were, they still seem but few when compared with the
multitudes of private offerings and sacrifices that were offered. It was the
vast number of these latter—so vast in fact as to be well-nigh
inconceivable—that gave its peculiar stamp to the worship at Jerusalem. Here day
after day whole crowds of victims were slaughtered and whole masses of flesh
burnt; and when any of the high festivals came round, there was such a host of
sacrifices to dispose of that it was scarcely possible to attend to them all
notwithstanding the fact that there were thousands of priests officiating on the
occasion.[1131] But the people of Israel saw in the punctilious observance of
this worship the principal means of securing for themselves the favour of their
God. [1131] Aristeas (in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 112. Merx’ Archiv, i 270.
5, 6): Πολλαὶ γὰρ μυριάδες κτηνῶν προσάγονται κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἑορτῶν ἡμέρας. Philo,
Vita Mosis, iii. 19, init.: Πολλῶν δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ἀναγομένων θυσιῶν καθʼ
ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, καὶ διαφερόντως ἐν πανηγύρεσι καὶ ἑορταῖς ὑπέρ τε ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστου
καὶ κοινῇ ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων διὰ μυρίας καὶ οὐχὶ τὰς αὐτὰς αἰτίας κ.τ.λ. Comp. the
numbers given in 1 Kings 8:63; 1 Chronicles 29:21; 2 Chronicles 29:32 f., 30:24,
35:7-9.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 64: APPENDIX
========================================================================

APPENDIX PARTICIPATION OF GENTILES IN THE WORSHIP AT JERUSALEM Considering the
wall of rigid separation which, as regards matters of religion, the Jews had
erected between themselves and the Gentiles, it would not readily occur to one
that these latter were also permitted to take part in the worship at Jerusalem.
And yet that such was the case is a fact as well authenticated as any fact could
be. Nor are we thinking here of the large body of proselytes, i.e. of those
Gentiles who, to some extent, professed their adherence to the faith of Israel,
and who on this account testified their reverence for Israel’s God by
sacrificing to Him. No, we have in view such as were real Gentiles, and who, in
sacrificing at Jerusalem, would by no means care to acknowledge that in so doing
they were professing their belief in the superstitio Judaica. There is however
but one way of understanding this singular fact, and that is by reflecting how
formal and superficial the connection often is, in practical life, between faith
and worship,—a connection that originally was of so very intimate a
character,—and also how this was peculiarly the case at the period now in
question, The presenting of a sacrifice with a view to its being offered in some
famous sanctuary was very often nothing more than an expression, on the part of
the offerer, of a cosmopolitan piety, nay, in many instances a mere act of
courtesy toward a particular people or a particular city, and not in the least
intended to be regarded as indicating the man’s religious creed. And if this was
a thing that occurred in the case of famous sanctuaries elsewhere, why should it
not take place at Jerusalem as well? There was no reason why the Jewish people
and their priests should discountenance an act intended to do honour to their
God, even though it were purely an act of politeness. As for the offering of the
sacrifice, that was really the priests’ affair; it was for them to see that this
was gone about in proper and due form. And if the sacrifice were provided, there
did not seem to be any particular reason for caring at whose expense it was so.
In any case the Jew was not called upon, through any religious scruple, to
decline a gift of this nature even from one who did not otherwise yield
obedience to the law. And accordingly we find the Old Testament itself
proceeding on the assumption that a sacrifice might be legitimately offered even
by a Gentile (בֶּן נֵכָר).[1132] And so the Judaism of later times has also
carefully specified what kinds of sacrifices might be accepted from a Gentile
and what might not: for example, all were to be accepted that were offered in
consequence of a vow or as freewill offerings (all נְדָרִים and נְדָבוֹת);
while, on the other hand, those of an obligatory character, such as
sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and those presented by those who had issues,
and by women after child-birth and such like, could not be offered by
Gentiles.[1133] The offerings therefore which these latter were permitted to
present were burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and drink-offerings.[1134] Hence
it is, that in enumerating the special legal prescriptions relating to
offerings, there is frequently a reference, at the same time, to the sacrifices
of the Gentiles as well.[1135] [1132] Leviticus 22:25 and Dillmann’s note. It is
here stated that it would be unlawful to take blemished animals for victims even
from a Gentile, which presupposes, of course, that, generally speaking, Gentiles
might lawfully present sacrifices. [1133] Shekalim i. 5. [1134] Thank- or
peace-offerings they were debarred from presenting, for the simple reason that
they would not possess the Levitical purity required of those who, in this
instance, partook of the flesh of the victims at the sacrificial feast
(Leviticus 7:20-21). [1135] Shekalim vii. 6; Sebachim iv. 5; Menachoth v. 3, 5,
6, vi. 1, ix. 8. Comp. farther, Hamburger’s Real-Encycl. für Bibel u. Talmud,
2nd part, art. “Opfer der Heiden.” The general fact, that sacrifices were
offered by and in the name of Gentiles, is one that is vouched for in the most
explicit way possible by Josephus, who informs us that on the occasion of the
breaking out of the revolution in the year 6 A.D., precisely one of the first
things done was to pass a resolution declaring that it was no longer lawful to
take sacrifices from Gentiles.[1136] By way of protesting against such a
proceeding, the opposite conservative party took care to point out that “all
their forefathers had been in the habit of receiving sacrifices at the hands of
Gentiles;” and that if the Jews were to be the only people among whom a
foreigner was not to be allowed to sacrifice, then Jerusalem would incur the
reproach of being an ungodly city.[1137] History records at least several
remarkable instances of the matter now in question. When we are told, for
example, that Alexander the Great once sacrificed at Jerusalem,[1138] the truth
of this fact no doubt depends on how far it is historically true that this
monarch ever visited that city at all. But be this as it may, the simple fact of
such a thing being even recorded goes to prove that Judaism looked upon such a
proceeding as perfectly legitimate and proper. Then Ptolemaeus III. is likewise
alleged to have offered sacrifices at Jerusalem.[1139] Again, Antiochus VII.
(Sidetes), while he was at open feud with the Jews and was in the very act of
besieging Jerusalem, went so far as, on the occasion of the feast of
Tabernacles, to send sacrifices into the city, presumably with the view of
disposing the God of the enemy in his favour, while the Jews on their part
cordially welcomed the sacrifices as a token of the king’s sympathy with their
faith.[1140] Further, when Marcus Agrippa, the distinguished patron of Herod,
came to Jerusalem in the year 15 B.C., he there sacrificed a hecatomb,
consequently a burnt-offering consisting of no fewer than a hundred oxen.[1141]
Once more, Josephus tells us with regard to Vitellius, that he came to Jerusalem
at the Passover season in the year 37 A.D., for the purpose of offering
sacrifice to God.[1142] How frequent such acts of courtesy or cosmopolitan piety
were may be further seen from the circumstance that Augustas expressly commended
his grandson Caius Caesar, because on his way from Egypt to Syria he did not
stay to worship in Jerusalem.[1143] Tertullian is therefore perfectly justified
in saying that once upon a time the Romans had even honoured the God of the Jews
by offering Him sacrifice, and their temple by bestowing presents upon it.[1144]
Nor are we to suppose that it is merely proselytes that are in view when
Josephus describes the altar at Jerusalem as “the altar venerated by all Greeks
and barbarians,”[1145] and says of the place on which the temple stood, that it
“is adored by the whole world, and for its renown is honoured among strangers at
the ends of the earth.”[1146] [1136] Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4. [1137] Bell. Jud.
ii. 17. 4: ὅτι πάντες οἱ πρόγονοι τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλογενῶν θυσίας ἀπεδέχοντο. Bell.
Jud. ii. 17. 3: καταψηφίσασθαι τῆς πόλεως ἀσέβειαν, εἰ παρὰ μόνοις Ἰουδαίοις
οὔτε θύσει τις ἀλλότριος οὔτε προσκυνήσει. [1138] Joseph. Antt. xi. 8. 5. [1139]
Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 5, init. [1140] Antt. xiii. 8. 2. [1141] Antt. xvi. 2.
1. Sacrifices on so large a scale as this were nothing unusual in the temple at
Jerusalem. See Ezra 6:17. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xlv. (Mang. ii. 598).
Orac. Sibyll. 3:576, 626. [1142] Antt. xviii. 5. 3. [1143] Sueton. August. cap.
xciii.: Gajum nepotem, quod Judaeam prastervehens apud Hierosolyma non
supplicasset, conlaudavit. [1144] Tertullian, Apologet. cap. xxvi.: Cujus
(Judaeae) et deum victimis et templum donis et gentem foederibus aliquamdiu
Romani honorastis. [1145] Bell. Jud. v. 1. 3: τὸν Ἕλλησι πᾶσι καὶ βαρβάροις
σεβάομιον βωμόν. [1146] Bell. Jud. iv. 4. 3 (ed. Bekker, v. 315. 2-4): ὁ δὲ ὑπὸ
τῆς οἰκουμένης προσκυνούμενος χῶρος καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ περάτων γῆς ἀλλοφύλοις ἀκοῇ
τετιμημένος. In the class of sacrifices offered for and in the name of Gentiles
should also be included the sacrifice for the Gentile authorities. As previous
to the exile the Israelitish kings were in the habit of defraying the cost of
the public sacrifices, so Cyrus in like manner is said to have given orders that
whatever means and materials might be required for this purpose should be
furnished out of the royal exchequer, at the same time however with the view of
prayer being offered “for the life of the king and his sons” (Ezra 6:10). The
fact of a sacrifice being specially offered in behalf of the sovereign
(ὁλοκαύτωσις προσφερομένη ὑπὲρ τοῦ βασιλέως) is further confirmed by still more
explicit testimony belonging to the time of the Maccabaean movement (1Ma_7:33).
Consequently we see that even then, at a time when a great proportion of the
people was waging war with the king of Syria, the priests were still
conscientiously offering the sacrifice that, as we may venture to suppose, had
been founded by the Syrian kings themselves. In the Roman period again this
sacrifice, offered on behalf of the Gentile authorities, was precisely the only
possible form under which Judaism could furnish something like an equivalent for
that worship of the emperor and of Rome that went on throughout all the other
provinces. We learn indeed from the explicit testimony of Philo, that Augustus
himself ordained that, in all time coming, two lambs and a bullock were to be
sacrificed every day at the emperor’s expense.[1147] It was to this sacrifice
offered “in behalf of the emperor and the Roman people” that the Jews expressly
pointed in the time of Caligula, when their loyalty happened to be called in
question in consequence of their having opposed the erection of the emperor’s
statue in the temple.[1148] And we are further informed that it continued to be
regularly offered down till the time when the revolution broke out in the year
66 A.D.[1149] Then we have it, on the authority of Philo, that it was not merely
a sacrifice for the emperor, but one that had been also instituted by him; a
step which, in spite of his strong antipathy to Judaism, Augustus would probably
deem it prudent to take from political considerations. It is true, no doubt,
that Josephus affirms that the expenses connected with the sacrifice now in
question were defrayed by the Jewish people themselves.[1150] Possibly however
this historian himself was not at the time aware that the money to pay for the
sacrifice came actually from the emperor. At the same time it would appear that,
on special occasions, very large sacrifices were offered in behalf of the
emperor at the public expense; as, for example, in the time of Caligula, when a
hecatomb was offered on each of three different occasions, first on the occasion
of that emperor’s accession to the throne, then on that of his recovery from a
serious illness, and lastly at the commencement of his campaign in
Germany.[1151] [1147] Philo, Leg. ad Cajum, sec. xxiii. (ed. Mang. ii. 569):
προστάξας καὶ δι αἰῶνος ἀνάγεσθαι θυσίας ἐνδελεχεῖς ὁλοκαύτους καθʼ ἑκάστην
ἡμέραν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων προσόδων, ἀπαρχὴν τῷ ὑψίστῳ θεῷ, αἳ καὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν
ἐπιτελοῦνται καὶ εἰς ἅπαν ἐπιτελεσθήσονται. He also uses terms almost identical
with these in sec. xl., ed. Mang. ii. 592, where however he adds the remark,
that ἄρνες εἰσὶ δύο καὶ ταῦρος τὰ ἱερεῖα, οἷς Καῖσαρ ἐφῄδρυνε [l. ἐφήδυνε] τὸν
βωμόν. [1148] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 10. 4: Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ μὲν Καίσαρος καὶ τοῦ
δήμου τῶν Ῥωμαίων δὶς τῆς ἡμέρας θύειν ἔφασαν. From the conclusion of this
sentence we see that, like the public sacrifices, the daily sacrifice for the
emperor was also offered partly in the morning and partly in the evening. [1149]
Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4. [1150] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 6, fin.: Facimus autem
pro eis (scil. imperatoribus et populo Romano) continua sacrificia; et non solum
quotidianis diebus ex impensa communi omnium Judaeorum talia celebramus, verum
quum nullas alias hostias ex communi neque pro filiis peragamus, solis
imperatoribus hunc honorem praecipuum pariter exhibemus, quem hominum nulli
persolvimus. [1151] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xlv. (ed. Mang. ii. 598).
Sacrifice and prayer in behalf of the Gentile authorities is recommended
generally in Jeremiah 29:7; Bar_1:10-11. Aboth iii. 2: “Rabbi Chananiah,
president of the priests, said: Pray for the welfare of the higher authorities”
(מלכות meaning here the Gentile authorities). For the Christian practice, comp.
1 Timothy 2:1-2. Clemens Romanus, lxi.; and in addition, the material collected
by Harnack (Patrum apostol. opp. i. 1, ed. 2, 1876, p. 103 f.). Mangold, De
ecclesia primaeva pro Caesaribus ac magistratibus Romanis preces fundents, 1881.
Besides offering sacrifices, it was also very common for Gentiles to bestow
gifts upon the temple at Jerusalem. Pseudo-Aristeas, for example, gives a very
minute account of the splendid presents which Ptolemaeus Philadelphus gave to
the temple on the occasion of his requesting the Jewish high priest to send him
a number of persons who would be sufficiently competent to take part in a
translation of the Old Testament into Greek, the articles presented being twenty
golden and thirty silver cups, five goblets, and a golden table of elaborate
workmanship.[1152] Although this story may belong to the realm of the legendary,
still it may be regarded as faithfully reflecting the practice of the time. For,
apart from this, we have it vouched for elsewhere over and over again that the
Ptolemies frequently gave presents to the temple of Jerusalem.[1153] Nor was it
different in the Roman period. When Sosius, in conjunction with Herod, had
suceeded in conquering Jerusalem, he presented a golden crown.[1154] Marcus
Agrippa too, on the occasion of his visit to Jerusalem to which we have already
referred, presented gifts for the further embellishment of the temple.[1155]
Among the vessels of the temple which John of Gischala caused to be melted
during the siege were the wine goblets (ἀκρατοφόροι) that had been presented by
Augustus and his consort.[1156] Altogether it was not in the least unusual for
Romans to dedicate gifts to the temple.[1157] And so, strange to say, in this
way even the exclusive temple of Jerusalem became in a certain sense
cosmopolitan; it too received the homage of the whole world in common with the
more celebrated sanctuaries of heathendom. [1152] Pseudo-Aristeas in Havercamp’s
edition of Josephus, ii. 2. 108-111 (also in Merx’ Archiv, i. 262-269); in the
citation as given in Antt. xiii. 3. 4; contra Apion. ii. 5, init. [1153]
2Ma_3:2; 2Ma_5:16. Joseph. Antt. xiii. 3. 4; contra Apion. ii. 5, init. [1154]
Antt. xiv. 16. 4. [1155] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xxxvii., ed. Mang. ii.
589. [1156] Bell. Jud. v. 13. 6. Comp. Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xxiii., ed.
Mang. ii. 569. [1157] Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 10 (Bekker, v. 305. 20 f.). Comp. ii.
17. 3.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 65: � 25. SCRIBISM
========================================================================

§ 25. SCRIBISM


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 66: I. CANONICAL DIGNITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
========================================================================

I. CANONICAL DIGNITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE[1158] [1158] See the literature on the
history of the Old Test. canon in Strack, art. “Kanon des A. T.,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl. vol. vii. 2nd ed. (1880) p. 450 sq.; and in Schmiedel, art.
“Kanon,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclopädie, § 2, vol. xxxii. (1882) p.
335 sq. THE fact most essentially conclusive for the religious life of the
Jewish people during the period under consideration is, that the law, which
regulated not only the priestly service but the whole life of the people in
their religious, moral and social relations, was acknowledged as given by God
Himself. Its every requirement was a requirement of God from His people, its
most scrupulous observance was therefore a religious duty, nay the supreme and
in truth the sole religious duty. The whole piety of the Israelite consisted in
obeying with fear and trembling, with all the zeal of an anxious conscience, the
law given him by God in all its particulars. Hence the specific character of
Israelitish piety during this period depends on the acknowledgment of this
dignity of the law. The age of this acknowledgment may be determined almost to
the day and hour. It dates from that important occurrence, whose epoch-making
importance is duly brought forward in the Book of Nehemiah, the reading of the
law by Ezra, and the solemn engagement of the people to observe it (Nehemiah
8-10). The law, which was then read, was the Pentateuch in essentially the same
form as we now have it. Isolated passages may have been subsequently
interpolated, but with respect to the main substance, these need not be taken
account of. Henceforward then the law given by God through Moses was
acknowledged by the people as the binding rule of life, i.e. as canonical. For
it is in the very nature of the law that its acceptance eo ipso involves the
acknowledgment of its binding and normative dignity.[1159] Hence this
acknowledgment was from that time onwards a self-evident assumption to every
Israelite. It was the condition without which no one was a member of the chosen
people, or could have a share in the promises given to them. “He who asserts
that the Thorah is not from heaven (אין תורה מן השמים), has no part in the
future world.”[1160] It is however in the nature of the thing that this notion
should, as time went on, be held with increasing strictness and severity. While
its original meaning was only that the commands of the law were in their
entirety and in their details the commands of God, the assumption of a divine
origin was gradually referred to the entire Pentateuch according to its whole
wording. “He who says that Moses wrote even one verse of his own knowledge
(מִפֶּי עַצְמוֹ) is a denier and despiser of the word of God.”[1161] The whole
Pentateuch was thus now regarded as dictated by God, as prompted by the Spirit
of God.[1162] Even the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, in which the death of
Moses is related, were said to have been written by Moses himself by means of
divine revelation.[1163] Nay at last, the view of a divine dictation was no
longer sufficient. The complete book of the law was declared to have been handed
to Moses by God, and it was only disputed, whether God delivered the whole
Thorah to Moses at once or by volumes (מְגִלָּה מְגִלָּה).[1164] [1159] Comp.
Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i. 2 sq., 425 sq. [1160] a Sanhedrin x. 1.
[1161] Bab. Sanhedrin 99a. [1162] See in general, Joh. Delitzsch, De
inspiratione scripturae sacrae quid statuerint patres apostolici et apologetae
secundi saeculi (Lips. 1872), pp. 4-8, 14-17. [1163] Baba bathra 15a (lat. in
Marx, Traditio rabbinorum veterrima de librorum Vet. Test. ordine atque origine,
Lips. 1884, p. 23). Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 39 (ed. Mang. ii. 179). Joseph.
Antt. iv. 8. 48. [1164] Gittin 60a. After the law and as an addition to it,
certain other writings of Israelite antiquity, the writings of the prophets and
works on the older (pre-exilian) history of Israel, attained to similar
authority. They were for a long time respected and used as a valuable legacy of
antiquity, before their canonization was thought of. Gradually however they
appeared beside the law as a second class of “sacred Scriptures,” and the longer
their combination with the law became customary, the more was its specific, i.e.
its legally binding dignity, and therefore its canonical validity, transferred
to them. They too were regarded as documents in which the will of God was
revealed in a manner absolutely binding. Lastly, at a still later stage there
was added to this body of the “prophets” (נביאים) a third collection of
“writings” (כְּתוּבִים), which gradually entered into the same category of
canonical Scriptures. The origin of these two collections is quite veiled in
obscurity. The most ancient testimony to the collocation of both collections
with the Thorah is the prologue to the Book of Wisdom (second century
B.C.).[1165] We cannot, however, determine from it that the third collection was
then already concluded; on the other hand, it is very probable that in the time
of Josephus the canon had already assumed a lasting form, and indeed the same
which it has to this day. Josephus expressly says, that there were among the
Jews only twenty-two books acknowledged divine (βιβλία … θεῖα πεπιστευμένα);
that all the others were not esteemed of equal credit (πίστεως οὐχ ὁμοίας
ἠξίωται). He does not, indeed, separately enumerate them, but it is very
probable that he means by them the collected writings of the present canon, and
these only. For the Fathers, especially Origen and Jerome, expressly say, that
the Jews were accustomed so to count the books of the present canon as to make
their number twenty-two.[1166] It was only with respect to certain books,
especially the Song of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes, that opinion was
not yet quite decided in the first century after Christ. Yet in respect of these
also the prevailing view was already that they “defile the hands,” i.e. are to
be regarded as canonical books.[1167] It cannot be proved of other books than
those of our present canon, that they was ever reckoned canonical by the
Palestinian Jews, although the Book of Wisdom was so highly esteemed that it was
some times cited “in a manner only customary in the case of passages of
Scripture.”[1168] It was only the Hellenistic Jews who combined a whole series
of other books with those of the Hebrew canon. But then they had no definite
completion of the canon at all. [1165] Prologue to Wisdom: Πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων
ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατʼ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων
δεδομένων, ὑπὲρ ὧν δἐον έστὶν ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Ἰσραὴλ παιδείας καὶ σοφίας κ.τ.λ.
[1166] Joseph. contra Apion. i. 8: Οὐ γὰρ μυριάδες βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρʼ ἡμῖν ἀσυμ·
φώνων καὶ μαχομένων, δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία, τοῦ παντὸς ἔχοντα
χρόνου τὴν ἀναγραφήν, τὰ δικαίως θεῖα πεπιστευμένα. Καὶ τούτων πέντε μέν ἐστι τὰ
Μωϋσέως, ἃ τούς τε νόμους περιέχει καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀνθρωπογονίας παράδοσιν μέχρι τῆς
αὐτοῦ τελευτῆς. Οὗτος ὁ χρόνος ἀπολείπει τρισχιλίων ὀλίγον ἐτῶν. Ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς
Μωϋσέως τελευτῆς μέχρι τῆς Ἀρταξέρξου τοῦ μετὰ Ξέρξην Περσῶν βασιλέως ἀρχῆς οἱ
μετὰ Μωϋσῆν προφῆται τὰ κατʼ αὐτοὺς ποαχθέντα συνέγραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα
βιβλίοις. Αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας
τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. Ἀπὸ δὲ Ἀρταξέρξου μέχρι τοῦ καθʼ ἡμᾶς χρόνου γέγραπται μὲν
ἕκαστα, πίστεως δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὀ αὐτῶν διὰ το μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν
προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν. Jerome in his Prologue galeatus to the Books of Samuel
(Opp. ed. Vallarsi, ix. 455 sq.; see the passage, e.g. in Gfrörer, Jahrh. des
Heils, i. 237 sq., and in the introductions of De Wette, Bleek and others) gives
the following enumeration as that customary among the Jews: (1-5) Pentateuch;
(6) Joshua; (7) Judges and Ruth; (8) Samuel; (9) Kings; (10) Isaiah; (11)
Jeremiah and Lamentations; (12) Ezekiel; (13) twelve minor prophets; (14) Job;
(15) Psalms; (16) Proverbs; (17) Ecclesiastes; (18) Song of Solomon; (19)
Daniel; (20) Chronicles; (21) Ezra and Nehemiah; (22) Esther. The same
enumeration, but in a somewhat different order (and with the omission of the
twelve minor prophets, which must however be an oversight of the transcriber),
is given by Origen in Eusebius’ Hist. Eccl. vi. 25 (in which the designation
Ἀμμεσφεκωδείμ for the Book of Numbers, which is generally left unexplained, is
nothing else than חוֹמֶשׁ פְּקוּדִים, Joma vii. 1; Sota vii. 7; Menachoth iv.
3). It can consequently be hardly doubtful, that Josephus also takes this
enumeration for granted, and intends by his 5 + 13 + 4 = 22 books our present
canon. The four books containing “hymns of praise to God and rules of life for
men,” are the Psalms and the three Books of Solomon. That 1 Chron. and 2 Chron.
formed, as early as the time of Christ, the closing books of the canon, may be
inferred from Matthew 23:35 = Luke 11:51, where the slaying of Zachariah is
mentioned as the last murder of a prophet. Chronologically viewed the death of
Urijah, Jeremiah 26:20-23, was later, but according to the order of the canon
the assassination related in 2 Chronicles is certainly the last. [1167] Jadajim
iii. 5: “All holy Scriptures, even the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, defile
the hands.” R. Judah says: The Song of Solomon defiles the hands, but
Ecclesiastes is doubtful. R. Joses says: Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands,
and the Song of Solomon is doubtful. R. Simon says: Ecclesiastes is among the
points on which the school of Shammai decides in a manner to lighten, the school
of Hillel in a manner to aggravate difficulty. R. Simon ben Asai said: I have
received it as the tradition of the seventy-two elders, that on the day that R.
Eleazar ben Asariah was named president, it was decided that the Song of Solomon
and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. R. Akiba said: No, no. Never has any one in
Israel affirmed that the Song of Solomon did not defile the hands. For no day in
the history of the world was ever of so great importance as that on which the
Song of Solomon appeared in Israel. For all other scriptures are holy, but the
Song of Solomon the holiest of all. If there was any dispute, it was respecting
Ecclesiastes. R. Johanan, son of Joshua, the son of B. Akiba’s father-in-law,
said: As ben Asai has declared, so was it disputed and eo decided. Edujoth v. 3:
R. Simon (according to R. Ismael) says: In three cases the school of Shammai
decided in a manner to lighten, the school of Hillel to aggravate difficulties.
According to the school of Shammai, Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands; the
school of Hillel says: It defiles the hands, etc. Hieronymus, Comment. in
Ecclesiast. xii. 13 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iii. 496): “Aiunt Hebraei quum inter
caetera scripts Salomonis quae antiquata sunt nec in memoria duraverunt et hic
liber obliterandus videretur eo quod vanas Dei assereret creaturas et totum
putaret esse pro nihilo et cibum et potum et delicias transeuntes praeferret
omnibus, ex hoc uno capitulo meruisse auctoritatem, ut in divinorum voluminum
numero poneretur.” See in general, Bleek, Theol. Stud. und Kritik. 1853, p. 321
sq. Delitzsch, Zeitsch. für luth. Theol. 1854, pp. 280-283. Strack, art. “Kanon
des A. T.’s,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. vii. 429 sq. Weber, System der
altsynagogalen paläst. Theologie, p. 81. [1168] S. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen
Vorträge Juden, p. 101 sq. Against the canonical authority of the Book of
Wisdom, see Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encycl. vii. 430 sq. It is quite a mistake
to think we have a right to infer with Movers (Loci quidam historiae canonis
Vet. Test. illustrati, 1842, p. 14sq.), and after him with Bleek (Stud. u. Krit.
1853, p. 323), from those passages in Josephus (Antt. Preface, § 3, x. 10. 6,
xxii. 11. 2; contra Apion. i. 1. 10) in which he states generally that the Holy
Scriptures (τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, αἱ ἱεραὶ βίβλοι) were his authorities for his
whole history, that he also regarded such of his authorities as did not belong
to the Hebrew canon as “holy Scriptures.” For these were chiefly heathen
authorities. Geiger too can scarcely be right when he insists on regarding as
among such “holy scriptures,” which according to Shabbath xvi. 1 might not be
read on the Sabbath day, the apocryphal books (Zeitschr. 1867, pp. 98-102). For
by these are probably meant, as Jewish expositors also, declare, the Kethubim
(of these only the five Megilloth were used in the public worship of the
synagogues, and these only on special occasions during the year). See Kisch,
Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1880, p. 543 sqq.
Notwithstanding the combination of the Nebiim and Kethubim with the Thorah, they
were never placed quite on a level with it. The Thorah always occupied a higher
position as to its religious estimation. In it was deposited and fully contained
the original revelation of the Divine will. In the prophets and the other sacred
writings this will of God was only further delivered. Hence these are designated
as the “tradition” (קַבָּלָה, Aramaean אַשְׁלֶמְתָּא), and cited as such.[1169]
On account of its higher value it was decided that a book of the law might be
purchased by the sale of the Holy Scriptures, but not Holy Scriptures by the
sale of a book of the law.[1170] In general, however, the Nebiim and Kethubim
participate in the properties of the Thorah. They are all “Holy Scriptures”
(כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ);[1171] with respect to them all it is determined, that
contact with them defiles the hands (so that they may not be touched
inconsiderately, but with reverent awe).[1172] They are all cited by essentially
the same formulas. For although special formulas are sometimes used for the
Thorah, yet the formula, which most frequently occurs, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, “for it is
said,” is applied without distinction to the Thorah and the other
Scriptures;[1173] as also in the sphere of Hellenism (comp. the N. T.), the
formula γέγραπται and the like.[1174] Nay the Nebiim and Kethubim are sometimes
quoted as “the law” (νόμος).[1175] And there is perhaps nothing more
characteristic of the full appreciation of their value on the part of the Jews,
than the fact that they too are not first of all to Jewish conviction didactic
or consolatory works, not books of edification or history, but also “law,” the
substance of God’s claims upon His people. [1169] In the Mishna, Taanith ii. 1,
a passage from Joel is cited with the formula: “in the tradition he says” (בקבלה
הוא אומר). Comp. in general, Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p.
44. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 18 sq. Joh. Delitzsch, De
inspiratione scripturae sacrae, p. 7 sq. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers
(Cambridge 1877), p. 120 sq. [1170] Megilla iii. 1. [1171] Shabbath xvi. 1;
Erubin x. 3; Baba bathra i. 6, fin.; Sanhedrin x. 6; Para x. 3; Jadajim iii. 2,
5, iv. 5, 6. [1172] Edujoth v. 3; Kelim xv. 6; Jadajim iii. 2, 4, 5, iv. 5, 6.
[1173] So e.g. to adduce citations from the Kethubim only: Berachoth vii. 3
(Psalms 68:27), Berachoth ix. 5 (Rth_2:4), Pea viii. 9 (Proverbs 11:27),
Shabbath ix. 2 (Proverbs 30:19), Shabbath ix. 4 (Psalms 109:18), Rosh hashana i.
2 (Psalms 33:15). In these the quotation is always introduced by the formula
שנאמר. But this very formula is also by far the most frequent in quotations from
the Nebiim and the Thorah. Comp. the list of scriptural quotatations in Pinner,
Uebersetzung des Tractates Berachoth (1842), Introd. fol. 21b. [1174] See in
general on the formulas of citation, Surenhusius, βίβλος καταλλαγῆς (Amstelodami
1713), pp. 1-36. Döpke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller
(1829), pp. 60-69. Pinner, Ubersetzung des Tractates Berachoth, Introd. fol.
21a, 22a. Job. Delitzsch, De inspiratione scripturas tacrae, p. 4 sq. Comp. also
Strack, Prolegomena critica in Vet. Test. (1873), p. 60 sqq. [1175] Romans 3:19;
1 Corinthians 14:21; John 10:34; John 12:34; John 15:25.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 67: II. THE SCRIBES AND THEIR LABOURS IN GENERAL
========================================================================

II. THE SCRIBES AND THEIR LABOURS IN GENERAL THE LITERATURE Ursinus,
Antiquitates Hebraicae scholastico-academicae. Hafniae 1702 (also in Ugolini’s
Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Allen Testaments mit
dem Neuen (1881), pp. 384-413. Gfröer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i. (1838) pp.
109-214. Winer, RWB. ii. 425-428 (art. “Schriftgelehrte”). Jost, Das
geschichtliche Verhältniss der Rabbinen zu ihren Gemeinden (Zeitschr. für die
historische theologie (1850), pp. 351-377). Levysohn, Einiges über die
hebräischen und aramäischen Benennungen für Schule, Schüler und Lehrer (Franke’s
Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. (1858), pp. 384-389). Leyrer,
art. “Schriftgelehrt,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xiii. (1860) pp.
781-741. Klöpper, art. “Schriftgelehrte,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, vol. v.
pp. 247-255. Ginsburg, art. “Scribes,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical
Literature. Plumptre, art. “Scribes,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Weber,
System der altsynagogalen paläslinischen Theologie (1880), pp. 121-143.
Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii., arts. “Gelehrter,”
“Lehrhaus,” “Rabban,” “Schüler,” “Sopherim,” “Talmudlehrer,” “Talmudschulen,”
“Unterhalt,” “Unterricht.” Strack, art. “Schriftgelehrte,” in Herzog’s
Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. xiii. (1884) pp. 696-698. With the existence of a law is
naturally involved the necessity of its scientific study, and of a professional
acquaintance with it. Such necessity exists at least in proportion as this law
is comprehensive and complicated. An acquaintance with its details, a certainty
in the application of its several enactments to everyday life, can then only be
attained by its being made a matter of professional occupation. In the time of
Ezra, and indeed long after, this was chiefly the concern of the priests. Ezra
himself was at the same time both priest and scribe (סוֹפֵר). The most important
element of the Pentateuch was written in the interest of the priestly cultus.
Hence the priests were at first the teachers and guardians of the law. Gradually
however this was changed. The higher the law rose in the estimation of the
people, the more did its study and exposition become an independent business. It
was the law of God, and every individual of the nation had the same interest as
the priests in knowing and obeying it. Hence non-priestly Israelites more and
more occupied themselves with its scientific study. An independent class of
“biblical scholars or scribes,” i.e. of men who made acquaintance with the law a
profession, was formed beside the priests. And when in the time of Hellenism the
priests, at least those of the higher strata, often applied themselves to
heathen culture, and more or less neglected the law of their fathers, the
scribes ever appeared in a relative contrast to the priests. It was no longer
the priests, but the scribes, who were the zealous guardians of the law. Hence
they were also from that time onwards the real teachers of the people, over
whose spiritual life they bore complete sway. In the time of the New Testament
we find this process fully completed; the scribes then formed a firmly compacted
class in undisputed possession of a spiritual supremacy over the people. They
are usually called in the New Testament γραμματεῖς, i.e. “learned in Scripture,”
“the learned,” corresponding to the Hebrew סוֹפְרִים, which in itself means
nothing more than homines literati (men professionally occupied with the
Scriptures).[1176] That such occupation should concern itself chiefly with the
law was self-evident. Besides this general designation, we also meet with the
more special one νομικοί i.e. “the learned in the law,” “jurists” (Matthew
22:35; Luke 7:30; Luke 10:25; Luke 11:45 sq., Luke 11:52; Luke 14:3);[1177] and
inasmuch as they not only knew, but taught the law, they were likewise called
νομοδιδάσκαλοι, “teachers of the law” (Luke 5:17; Acts 5:34). Josephus calls
them πατρίων ἐξηγηταὶ νόμων,[1178] or in Graecized fashion σοφισταί,[1179] also
ἱερογραμματεῖς.[1180] In the Mishna the expression סוֹפְרִים is only used of the
scribes of former times, who in the times of the Mishna had already become an
authority.[1181] Contemporary scribes are always called חֲכָמִים in the Mishna.
The extraordinary respect paid to these “scholars” on the part of the people was
expressed by the titles of honour bestowed upon them. The most usual was the
appellation רַבִּי, “my master;” Greek, ῥαββί (Matthew 3:7 and elsewhere).[1182]
From this respectful address the title Babbi was gradually formed, the suffix
losing its pronominal signification with the frequent use of the address, and
רַבִּי being also used as a title (Babbi Joshua, Babbi Eliezer, Eabbi
Akiba).[1183] This use cannot be proved before the time of Christ. Hillel and
Shammai were never called Babbis, nor is ῥαββί found in the New Testament except
as an actual address. The word does not seem to have been used as a title till
after the time of Christ. רַבָּן, or as the word is also pronounced רַבּוֹן, is
an enhanced form of רַב. The first form seems to belong more to the Hebrew, the
second to the Aramaean usage.[1184] Hence רַבָּן is found in the Mishna as the
title of four prominent scribes of the period of the Mishna (about A.D.
40-150),[1185] and in the New Testament, on the other hand, ῥαββουνί (רַבּוֹן or
רַבּוּן) as a respectful address to Christ (Mark 10:51; John 20:16).[1186] In
the Greek of the New Testament Rabbi is represented by κύριε (Matthew 8:2;
Matthew 8:6; Matthew 8:8; Matthew 8:21; Matthew 8:25 and frequently) or
διδάσκαλε (Matthew 8:9 and frequently); in St. Luke also by ἐπιστάτα (Luke 5:5;
Luke 8:24; Luke 8:45; Luke 9:33; Luke 9:49; Luke 17:13). Πατήρ and καθηγητής
(Matthew 23:9-10) are also mentioned as other names of honour given to scribes.
The latter is probably equal to מוֹרֶה, “teacher.”[1187] The former answers to
the Aramaic אַבָּא, which also occurs in the Mishna and Tosefta as the title of
several Rabbis.[1188] [1176] סוֹפֵר is any one professionally employed about
books, e.g. also a writer (Shabbath xii. 5; Nedarim ix. 2; Gittin iii. 1, vii.
2, viii. 8, ix. 8; Baba mezia v. 11; Sanhedrin iv. 8, v. 5) or a bookbinder
(Pesachim iii. 1). On its use in the Old Testament, see Gesenius’ Thesaurus, p.
966. When it is said in the Talmud, that the scribes were called סופרים because
they counted the letters of the Thorah (Kiddushin 30a, in Wunsche, Neue Beiträge
zur Erlauterung der Evangelien, 1878, p. 18. 179), this is of course only a
worthless etymological trifling. [1177] νομικός is in later Greek the proper
technical expression for a “jurist,” Juris peritus. Thus especially of Roman
jurists in Strabo, p. 539: οἱ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις νομικοί, also in the Edictum
Diocletiani, see Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 54. It is not
accidentally that the expression is so frequently found in St. Luke. He purposes
thereby to make clear to his Roman readers the character of the Jewish scribes.
[1178] Antt. xvii. 6, 2. Comp. xviii. 3. 5. [1179] Bell. Jud. i. 33. 2, ii. 17.
8, 9. [1180] Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3. [1181] See Orla iii. 9; Jebamoth ii. 4, ix. 3
(Sota ix. 15); Sanhedrin xi. 3; Kelim xiii. 7; Para xi. 4-6; Tohoroth iv. 7, 11;
Tebul jom iv. 6; Jedajim iii. 2. In all these passages, with the exception of
that in Sota ix. 15, which does not belong to the original text of the Mishna,
“the ordinances of the scribes (דברי סופרים)” are spoken of as distinct from the
prescriptions of the Thorah, and in such wise that the former also are regarded
as having been for a long period authoritative. Apart from these passages the
expression סופרים only occurs in the Mishna in the sense stated above, note 18.
On the other hand, in Shemoneh Esreh, in the 13th Beracha, God is entreated to
let His mercy dispose of “the righteous, the pious, and the elders of Israel and
the rest of the scribes” (פליטת סופרים), which latter are consequently assumed
to be still existing. The Greek γραμματεύς is still found in Jewish epitaphs in
Rome of the date of the later emperors (2nd to 4th century after Christ); see
Garrucci, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei scoperto recentemente in Vigna Randanini
(1862), pp. 42, 46, 47, 54, 55, 59, 61. Garrucci, Dissertazioni archeologische,
vol. ii. (1865), p. 165, no. 20, 21, p. 182, no. 21. [1182] רַב means simply
“master,” in opposition, e.g., to slave (Sukka ii. 9; Gittin iv. 4, 5; Edujoth
i. 18; Aboth i. 3). The mode of address רַבִּי, “my master,” is found in the
Mishna, e.g. Pesachim vi. 2; Rosh hashana ii. 9, fin.; Nedarim ix. 5; Baba kamma
viii. 6. Also with the plural suffix רַבֵּינוּ “our master,” Berachoth ii. 5, 7.
This predicate having been bestowed upon the scribes in their teaching capacity,
רַב gradually acquired the meaning of “teacher.” It seems to have been already
thus used in a saying attributed to Joshua ben Perachiah, Aboth i. 6. In the
time of the Mishna this meaning was, at all events, quite common; see Rosh
hashana ii. 9, fin.; Baba mezia ii. 11; Edujoth i. 3, viii. 7; Aboth iv. 12;
Kerithoth vi. 9, fin.; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. Comp. John 1:39. [1183] Like
Monsieur. Comp. on the title of Rabbi generally, Seruppii Dissert. de titulo
Rabbi (in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Lightfoot and Wetzstein on Matthew
23:7. Buztorf, De abbreviaturis hebraicis, pp. 172-177. Carpzov, Apparatus
historico-criticus, p. 137 sqq. Winer, RWB. ii. 296 sq. Pressel in Herzog’s
Real-Enc., 1st ed. xii. 471 sq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 431 Ewald, Gesch.
des Volkes Israel, v. 305. Steiner in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 29 sq. Riehm’s
Wörterb. s.v. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. art. “Rabban.” The Lezica to the
New Testament, s.v. ῥαββί. [1184] Both forms appear in the Targums (see Buxtorf,
Lex. Chald. s.v. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. s.v.), and on the other hand רַבָּן
almost always in the Hebrew. Of the form רבון only one example is known to me in
the Mishna, viz. in Taanith iii, 8, where it is used with reference to God. On
the meaning of רבן Aruch says (s.v. אביי, see the passage, e.g. in Buxtorf, De
abbreviaturis, p. 176): גדול מרב רבי וגדול מרבי רבן, “greater than Rab is Rabbi,
and greater than Rabbi is Rabban.” [1185] These four are—(1) Rabban Gamaliel I.,
(2) Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai, (3) Rabban Gamaliel II., (4) Rabban Simon ben
Gamaliel II. To all these the title רבן is as a rule ascribed in the best MSS.
of the Mishna (e.g. Cod. de Rossi 138). Rabban Gamaliel III., son of R. Judah
ha-Nasi, also occurs once in the Mishna (Aboth ii. 2). Of two others, to whom
this title is usually applied (Simon the son of Hillel, and Simon the son of
Gamaliel I.), the former does not occur in the Mishna at all, the latter, at
least in the chief passage, Aboth i. 17, not under this title. He is however
probably intended by Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel, mentioned Kerithoth i. 7. [1186]
The opinion formerly expressed by Delitzsch, that the form רבון only used with
reference to God (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1876, pp. 409, 606), has been since
withdrawn by himself as erroneous from consideration of the usual diction of the
Targum (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1878, p. 7). That the form רבון is pronounced
ribbon by modern Jews, as also רבי, ribbi, is quite irrelevant. The shortening
of a into i is confessedly very frequent in Hebrew, but in this case of very
recent date. In the Middle Ages it was probably still pronounced רַבּוֹן, as the
Cod. de Rossi 188 prints the passage Taanith iii. 8. Comp. also Delitzsch,
Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1876, p. 606. It is only for the Aramaean that the
pronunciation ribbon is well evidenced. See Berliner’s Ausgabe des Onkelos, e.g.
Genesis 19:2; Genesis 42:30; Exodus 21:4-8; Exodus 23:17. [1187] See Wünsche,
Neue Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Evangelien (1878), p. 279 sq. [1188] Abba Saul
is the most frequently mentioned among these, Pea viii. 5; Kilajim ii. 3;
Shabbath xxiii. 3; Shekalim iv. 2; Beza iii. 8; Aboth ii. 8; Middoth ii. 5, v. 4
and elsewhere. Comp. also Abba Gurjan (Kiddushin iv. 14); Abba Joses ben Chanan
(Middoth ii. 6. Tosefta, ed. Zuckermendel, pp. 154. 18, 199. 22, 233. 22, 665.
31); Abba Joses ben Dosai (Tosefta 23. 4, 217. 19, 360. 16, etc.); Abba Judan
(Tosefta 259. 18, 616. 31). Others in Zuckermandel’s Index to the Tosefta, p.
xxxi. The Rabbis required from their pupils the most absolute reverence,
surpassing even the honour felt for parents. “Let thine esteem for thy friend
border upon thy respect for thy teacher, and respect for thy teacher on
reverence for God.”[1189] “Respect for a teacher should exceed respect for a
father, for both father and son owe respect to a teacher.”[1190] “If a man’s
father and teacher have lost anything, the teacher’s loss has the precedence
(i.e. he must first be assisted in recovering it). For his father only brought
him into this world. His teacher, who taught him wisdom, brings him into the
life of the world to come. But if his father is himself a teacher, then his
father’s loss has precedence. If a man’s father and his teacher are carrying
burdens, he must first help his teacher and afterwards his father. If his father
and his teacher are in captivity, he must first ransom his teacher and
afterwards his father. But if his father be himself a scholar, the father has
precedence.”[1191] The Rabbis in general everywhere claimed the first rank.
“They loved the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues
and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi” (Matthew
23:6-7; Mark 12:38-39; Luke 11:43; Luke 20:46). [1189] Aboth iv. 12. [1190]
Kerithoth vi. 9, fin. [1191] Baba mezia ii. 11. Comp. also Gfrörer, Das
Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 144 sq. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst.
Theologie, p. 121 sq. All the labours of the scribes, whether educational or
judicial, were to be gratuitous. R. Zadok said: Make the knowledge of the law
neither a crown wherewith to make a show, nor a spade wherewith to dig. Hillel
used to say: He who uses the crown (of the law) for external aims fades
away.[1192] That the judge might not receive presents was already prescribed in
the Old Testament (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:9). Hence it is also said in the
Mishna: “If any one receives payment for a judicial decision, his sentence is
not valid.”[1193] The Rabbis were therefore left to other sources for obtaining
a livelihood. Some were persons of property, others practised some trade as well
as the study of the law. The combination of some secular business with the study
of the law is especially recommended by Rabban Gamaliel III., son of R Judah
ha-Nasi. “For exertion in both keeps from sin. The study of the law without
employment in business must at last be interrupted, and brings transgression
after it.”[1194] It is known that St. Paul, even when a preacher of the gospel,
practised a trade (Acts 18:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). And we
are told the like of many Babbis.[1195] In such a case their occupation with the
law was of course esteemed the more important, and they were cautioned against
over-estimation of their secular business. The son of Sirach already warns
against a one-sided devotion to handicraft, and extols the blessing of
scriptural wisdom (Wisd. 38:24-39:11). R. Meir said: Give yourselves less to
trade and occupy yourselves more with the law;[1196] and Hillel: He who devotes
himself too much to trade will not grow wise.[1197] [1192] Aboth iv. 5, i. 18.
Comp. also Gfrörer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, i. 156-160. [1193] Bechoroth iv. 6.
[1194] Aboth ii. 2. [1195] Comp. Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten
Testaments mit dem Neuen, p. 410 sq. Gfrörer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, i. 160-168,
Delitzsch, Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 71-88; Lehrstand
und Handwerk in Verbindung. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. p. 288 (art.
“Gelehrter”) and p. 1241 (art “Unterhalt”). Seligmann Meyer, Arbeit und Handwerk
im Talmud (1878), pp. 23-36. [1196] Aboth iv. 10. [1197] Aboth ii. 5. The
principle of non-remuneration was strictly carried out only in their judicial
labours, but hardly in their employment as teachers. Even in the Gospel,
notwithstanding the express admonition to the disciples, δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν
δότε (Matthew 10:8), it is also said that a labourer is worthy of his hire
(Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7), to which saying St. Paul expressly refers (1
Corinthians 9:15) when he claims as his right—although he but exceptionally used
it—a maintenance from those to whom he preached the gospel (1 Corinthians
9:3-18; 2 Corinthians 11:8-9; Php_4:10-18. Comp, also Galatians 6:6). If such
was the view of the times, it may be supposed that the Jewish teachers of the
law also did not always impart their instruction gratuitously, nay the very
exhortations quoted above, not to practise instruction in the law for the sake
of selfish interest, lead us to infer that absence of remuneration was not the
general rule. In Christ’s censures of the scribes and Pharisees their
covetousness is a special object of reproof (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; Luke
16:14). Hence, even if their instruction was given gratuitously, they certainly
knew how to compensate themselves in some other way. The moral testimony borne
to them by Christ was by no means of the best: “All their works they do to be
seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their
garments (Matthew 23:5), and love to go in long garments” (Mark 12:38; Luke
20:46). The headquarters of the operations of the scribes was of course Judaea
until A.D. 70. But we should be mistaken if we expected to find them there only.
Wherever zeal for the law of the fathers was active they were indispensable.
Hence we meet with them in Galilee also (Luke 5:17), nay in the distant
Dispersion; for γραμματεῖς are frequently mentioned in Jewish epitaphs in Rome
of the later imperial period (see above, note [1198] and the Babylonian scribes
of the fifth and sixth centuries were the authors of the Talmud, the chief work
of Rabbinic Judaism. [1198] Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3. After the separation of the
Pharisaic and Sadducaean tendencies the scribes in general adhered to the
former. For this was nothing else but the party, that acknowledged as an
authoritative rule of life the maxims, which had in the course of time been
developed by the scribes, and sought to carry them strictly out. Inasmuch
however as the “scribes” were merely “men learned in the law,” there must have
been also Sadducaean scribes. For it is not conceivable that the Sadducees, who
acknowledged the written law as binding, should have had among them none who
made it their profession to study it, In fact those passages of the New
Testament, which speak of scribes who were of the Pharisees (Mark 2:16; Luke
5:30; Acts 23:9), point also to the existence of Sadducaean scribes. The
professional employment of the scribes referred, if not exclusively, yet first
and chiefly, to the law, and therefore to the administration of justice. They
were in the first instance Jurists, and their task was in this respect a
threefold one: (1) the more careful theoretical development of the law itself;
(2) the teaching of it to their pupils; (3) its practical administration, that
is, the pronunciation of legal decisions as learned assessors in courts of
justice.[1199] [1199] This threefold “power of the wise” is also correctly
distinguished by Weber (System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie, pp.
130-143). 1. First the theoretic development of the law itself. This indeed was
immovably fixed as to its principles in the Thorah itself. But no codex of law
goes into such detail as to be in no need of exposition, while some of the
appointments of the Mosaic law are expressed in very general terms. Here then
was a wide field for the labours of the scribes. They had always to develop with
careful casuistry the general precepts given in the Thorah, that so a guarantee
might exist, that the tendency of the precepts of the law had been really
apprehended according to their full extent and meaning. In those points for
which the written law made no direct provision a compensation had to be created,
either by the establishment of a precedent, or by inference from other already
valid legal decisions. By the diligence with which this occupation was carried
on during the last centuries before the Christian era, Jewish law became
gradually an extensive and complicated science; and this law not being fixed in
writing, but propagated by oral tradition, very assiduous study was required to
obtain even a general acquaintance with it An acquaintance however with what was
binding was but the foundation and prerequisite for the professional labours of
the scribes. Their special province was to develop what was already binding by
continuous methodical labours into more and more subtle casuistic details. For
all casuistry is by its very nature endless.[1200] [1200] See further details in
No. 3: Halachah and Haggadah. The object of all these labours being to settle a
system of law binding on all, the work could not be performed in an isolated
manner by individual scribes. It was necessary that constant mutual
communication should be going on among them for the purpose of arriving, upon
the ground of a common understanding, at some generally acknowledged results.
Hence the whole process of systematizing the law was carried on in the form of
oral discussions of the scribes among each other. The acknowledged authorities
not merely gathered about them pupils, whom they instructed in the law, but also
debated legal questions among themselves, nay discussed the entire matter of the
law in common disputations. Of this method of giving structure to the law, the
Mishna everywhere testifies.[1201] To make this possible, it was needful that
the heads at least of the body of scribes should dwell together at certain
central localities. Many indeed would be scattered about the country for the
purposes of giving instruction and pronouncing judicial decisions. But the
majority of those authorities, who were mainly of creative genius, must have
been concentrated at some one central point—till A.D. 70 at Jerusalem, and
afterwards at other places (Jabne, Tiberias). [1201]a Compare e.g. Pea vi. 6;
Kilajim iii. 7, vi. 4; Terumoth v. 4; Maaser sheni ii. 2; Shabbath viii. 7;
Pesachim vi. 2, 5; Kerithoth iii. 10; Machshirin vi. 8; Jadajim iv. 3. The law
thus theoretically developed by scholars was certainly, in the first place, only
a theory. In many points it also remained such, the actual historical and
political circumstances not allowing of its being carried into practice.[1202]
In general however the labours of the scribes stood in an active relation to
actual life; and in proportion as their credit increased, did their theory
become valid law. In the last century before the destruction of Jerusalem the
Pharisaic scribes bore already such absolute spiritual sway, that the great
Sanhedrim, notwithstanding its mixed composition of Pharisees and Sadducees,
adhered in practice to the law developed by the Pharisees (see above, p. 179).
Many matters were besides of such a nature as not to need any formal
legislation. For the godly would observe religious institutions, not on account
of formal legislation, but by reason of a voluntary subjection to an authority
which they acknowledged as legitimate.[1203] Hence the maxims developed by the
scribes were recognised as binding in practice also, so soon as the schools were
agreed about them. The scribes were in fact, though not upon the ground of
formal appointment, legislators. This applies in a very special manner to the
time after the destruction of the temple. There then no longer existed a civil
court of justice like the former Sanhedrim. The Rabbinical scribes, with their
purely spiritual authority, were now the only influential factors for laying
down a rule. They had formerly been the actual establishes of law, they now were
more and more acknowledged as deciding authorities. Their judgment sufficed to
determine what was valid law. As soon then as doubt arose concerning any point,
or it was questioned whether this or that course of action should be embraccd,
it was customary to bring the matter “before the learned,” who then pronounced
an authoritative decision.[1204] And so great was the authority of these
teachers of the law, that the judgment of even one respected teacher sufficed to
decide a question.[1205] New dogmas, i.e. new rules legally valid, sometimes
even differing from what had hitherto been customary, were laid down, without
even such special occasion.[1206] In such cases however it was always assumed
that the decision of the individual agreed with the decision of the majority of
all the teachers of the law, and was accepted by them (see No. 3). Hence it
might happen that the decision of a single teacher would be subsequently
corrected by the majority,[1207] or that even an eminent teacher would be
obliged to subordinate his own view to those of a “court” of teachers.[1208]
[1202]b For an initructive example of the kind, see Jadajim iv. 3-4. Comp. also
the purely theoretical definitions as to the composition of the tribes,
Sanhedrin i. 5; Horajoth i. 5. [1203] The priests too almost always followed the
theory of the scribes. They are but exceptional cases in which the Mishna has to
report a difference between the practice of the priests and the theory of the
Rabbis; see Shekalim i. 3-4; Joma vi. 3; Sebachim xii. 4. [1204] “The matter
came before the learned (חכמים) and they decided thus and thus,” is a formula of
frequent occurrence. See e.g. Kilajim iv. 9; Edujoth vii. 3; Bechoroth v. 3.
[1205] In this manner are doubtful cases decided, e.g., by Rabban Johananben
Sakkai (Shabbath xvi. 7, xxii. 3), Rabban Gamaliel II. (Kelim v. 4), R. Akiba
(Kilajim vii. 5; Terumoth iv. 13; Jebamoth xii. 5; Nidda viii. 3). [1206] So
e.g. by Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai (Sukka iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4; Sota
ix. 9; Menachoth x. 5) and by R. Akiba (Maaser sheni v. 8; Nasir vi. 1;
Sanhedrin iii. 4). [1207] Thus was a decision of Nahum the Median subsequently
corrected by “the learned,” Nasir v. 4. [1208] E.g. R. Joshua had to agree to a
decision of Rabban Gamaliel II. and his court, Rosh hashana ii. 9. The
legislative power of the Rabbis was a thing so self-evident in the time of the
Mishna, that it is often without further ceremony assumed also for the time
before the destruction of Jerusalem. It is said quite naturally that Hillel
decreed this or that,[1209] or that Gamaliel I. enacted this or that.[1210] And
yet not Hillel or Gamaliel I., but the great Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, was then
the ultimate resort for decision. For thence proceeded, as is said in the Mishna
itself, “the law for all Israel.”[1211] The truth in this representation is,
that in any case the great teachers of the law were already the deciding
authorities. [1209] Shebiith x. 3; Gittin iv. 3; Arachin ix. 4. Everywhere with
the formula הִתְקִין, “he decreed.” [1210] Rosh hashana ii, 5; Gittin iv. 2-3.
Equally with the formula הִתְקִין. [1211] Sanhedrin xi. 2. 2. The second chief
task of the scribes was to teach the law. The ideal of legal Judaism was
properly, that every Israelite should have a professional acquaintance with the
law. If this were unattainable, then the greatest possible number was to be
raised to this ideal elevation. “Bring up many scholars” is said to have been
already a motto of the men of the Great Synagogue.[1212] Hence the more famous
Rabbis often assembled about them in great numbers, youths desirous of
instruction,[1213] for the purpose of making them thoroughly acquainted with the
much ramified and copious “oral law.” The pupils were called תַּלְמִידִים, or
more fully תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.[1214] The instruction consisted of an
indefatigable continuous exercise of the memory, For the object being that the
pupils should remember with accuracy the entire matter with its thousands upon
thousands of minutiae, and the oral law being never committed to writing, the
instruction could not be confined to a single statement. The teacher was obliged
to repeat his matter again and again (with his pupils. Hence in Rabbinic diction
“to repeat” (שָׁנָה = δευτεροῦν) means exactly the same as “to teach” (whence
also מִשְׁנָה = teaching).[1215] This repetition was not however performed by
the teacher only delivering his matter. The whole proceeding was, on the
contrary, disputational. The teacher brought before his pupils several legal
questions for their decision and let them answer them or answered them himself.
The pupils were also allowed to propose questions to the teacher.[1216] This
form of catechetical lecture has left its mark upon the style of the Mishna, the
question being frequently started how this or that subject is to be understood
for the purpose of giving a decision.[1217] All knowledge of the law being
strictly traditional, a pupil had only two duties. One was to keep everything
faithfully in memory. R. Dosthai said in the name of R. Meir: He who forgets a
tenet of his instruction in the law, to him the Scripture imputes the wilful
forfeiture of his life.[1218] The second duty was never to teach anything
otherwise than it had been delivered to him. Even in expression he was to
confine himself to the words of his teacher: “Every one is bound to teach with
the expressions of his teacher,” חַיָּב אָדָם לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ.[1219] It
was the highest praise of a pupil to be “like a well lined with lime, which
loses not one drop.”[1220] [1212] Aboth i. 1. [1213] Joseph. Bell. Jud. xxxiii.
2. [1214] Pesachim iv. 5; Joma i. 6; Sukka ii. 1; Chagiga i. 8; Nedarim x. 4;
Sota i. 3; Sanhedrin iv. 4, xi. 2; Makkoth ii. 5; Aboth v. 12; Horajoth iii. 8;
Negaim xii. 5. Pupils e.g. of Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai (Aboth ii. 8), of Rabban
Gamaliel II. (Berachoth ii. 5-7), of R. Ismael (Erubin ii. 6), R. Akiba (Nidda
viii. 3), pupils of the school of Shammai (Orla ii. 5, 12), are severally
mentioned. The appellation חָבֵר for one who has finished his study of the law,
but has not yet obtained any publicly acknowledged position, belongs to the
later Middle Ages. In the Mishna the word has quite another meaning. See § 26.
[1215] Comp. Hieronymus, Epist. 121 ad Algasiam, quaest. x. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi,
i. 884 sq.): Doctores eorum σοφοί hoc est sapientes vocantur. Et si quando
certis diebus traditiones suas exponunt discipulis suis, solent dicere: οἱ σοφοὶ
δευτερῶσιν, id est sapientes docent traditiones. [1216] See Lightfoot and
Wetzstein on Luke 2:46. [1217] E.g. Berachoth i. 1-2; Pea iv. 10, vi. 8, vii. 3,
4, viii. 1; Kilajim ii. 2, iv. 1, 2, 3, vi. 1, 5; Shebiith i. 1, 2, 5, ii. 1,
iii. 1, 2, iv. 4. The question is very frequently introduced by כֵּיצַד (=
how?): Berachoth vi. 1, vii. 3; Demai v. 1; Terumoth iv. 9; Maaser sheni iv. 4,
v. 4; Challa ii. 8; Orla ii. 2, iii. 8; Bikkurim iii. 1, 2; Erubin v. 1, viii.
1. [1218] Aboth iii. 8. [1219] Edujoth i. 3. [1220] Aboth ii. 8. Comp. also
Gfrörer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, i. 168-173. For these theoretical studies of the
law, whether the disputations of the scribes with each other or instruction
properly so called, there were in the period of the Mishna, and probably also so
early as the times of the New Test., special localities, the so-called “houses
of teaching” (Heb. בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, plur. בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת).[1221] They are
often mentioned in conjunction with the synagogues as places, which in legal
respects enjoyed certain privileges.[1222] In Jabne a locality which was called
“the vineyard” (כֶּרֶם) is mentioned as a place of meeting of the learned, from
which however we cannot infer, that כֶּרֶם was in general a poetic term for a
house of teaching.[1223] In Jerusalem indeed the catechetical lectures were held
“in the temple” (ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, Luke 2:46; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:55; Mark
14:49; Luke 20:37; John 18:20), i.e. in the colonnades or some other space of
the outer court. The pupils sat on the ground during the instruction
(בְּקַרְקַע) of the teacher, who was on an elevated place (hence Acts 22:3 :
παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Γαμαλιήλ; comp. also Luke 2:46).[1224] [1221] Berachoth iv. 2;
Demai ii. 3, vii. 5; *Terumoth xi. 10; Shabbath xvi. 1, xvii. 1; *Pesachim iv.
4; Beza iii. 5; Aboth v. 14; Menachoth x. 9; Jadajim iv. 3, 4. In the passages
marked * the plural form occurs. On other designations of the house of teaching,
see Vitringa, De synagoga vetere, p. 133 sqq. [1222] Terumoth xi. 10; Pesachim
iv. 4. It is evident from both passages, that the houses of teaching were
distinct from the synagogues. On the high estimation in which these houses of
teaching were held, see also Hamburger, Real-Encycl. ii. 675-677, art.
“Lehrhaus.” [1223] Kethuboth iv. 6; Edujoth ii. 4. According to the connection
of the two passages, כרם was a place where the learned were accustomed to
assemble in Jabne (R. Eleasar and R. Ismael delivered this and that before the
learned in the vineyard at Jabne). It is probable that an actual vineyard with a
house or court, which served as a place of meeting, is intended. The traditional
explanation tries indeed to deduce the appellation from the circumstance, that
in the house of teaching the תַּלְמִידִים sat in rows like vine plants (so
already Jer. Berachoth iv. fol. 7d in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. ii. 408, and after
this the commentators of the Mishna, see Surenhusius’ edition iii. 70, iv. 332).
See, on the contrary, Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 380, note 3.
[1224] According to later Talmudic tradition, the sitting on the ground on the
part of scholars was not customary till after the death of Gamaliel I.; in
earlier times they used to stand (Megilla 21a, in Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae on
Luke ii. 46). The whole tradition however is merely an explanation of Sota ix.
15: “Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, reverence for the law has
disappeared.” See, on the other hand, beside Luke 2:46, Aboth i. 4, according to
which Joses ben Joeser already said, one ought to let oneself be covered with
dust at the feet of the wise. 3. A third duty, which equally belonged to the
calling of the scribes, was passing sentence in the court of justice. Their
acquaintance with the law being a professional one, their votes could not but be
of influential importance. It is true that at least during the period under
consideration, a special and scholarly acquaintance with the law was by no means
essential to the office of a judge. Any one might be a judge, who was appointed
such through the confidence of his fellow-citizens. And it may be supposed, that
the small local courts were for the most part lay courts. It was nevertheless in
the nature of things, that confidence should be placed in a judge in proportion
as he was distinguished for a thorough and accurate knowledge of the law. So far
then as men learned in the law were to be found, it is self-evident that such
would be called to the office of judge. With respect to the great Sanhedrim at
Jerusalem, it is expressly testified in the New Testament, that γραμματεῖς also
were among those who were its members (comp. above, p. 177 sq.). After the fall
of the Jewish State, A.D. 70, the authority of the Rabbis increased in
independent importance in this respect also. Being now recognised as independent
legislators, they were also regarded as independent judges. Their sentences were
voluntarily acquiesced in, whether they gave judgment collectively or
individually. Thus it is e.g. related, that R. Akiba once condemned a Man_1:-15
sus (denarii) as compensation for uncovering his head to a woman in the
street.[1225] [1225] Baba kamma viii. 8. This threefold activity of the scribes
as men learned in the law formed their chief and special calling. But the Holy
Scriptures are something besides law. Even in the Pentateuch narrative occupies
a wide space, while the contents of other books are almost exclusively either
historical or didactic. This fact always remained, customary as it was to look
upon the whole chiefly from the view-point of law. These Scriptures then being
also deeply studied, it was impossible not to let history be spoken of as
history and religious edification as such. What however was common in the
treatment of these Scriptures and those of the law was, that they too were dealt
with as a sacred text, a sacred standard, which was not only to be deeply
studied, but which had also to be subjected to a complete elaboration. As the
law was more and more developed, so also was the sacred history and the
religious instruction further developed, and that always in connection with the
text of Scripture, which just in its quality of a sacred text silently invited
to such deep investigation. In such development the notions of subsequent times
had, of course, a very important influence in modifying results. History and
dogma were not merely further developed, but fashioned according to the views of
after times. This gave rise to what is usually called the Haggadah.[1226] It is
true that it did not belong to the special province of teachers of the law to
occupy themselves therewith, But since the manipulation of the law and that of
the historical religious and ethical contents of the sacred text arose from a
kindred exigency, it was a natural result, that both should be effected by the
same persons. As a rule the learned occupied themselves with both, though some
distinguished themselves more in the former and others more in the latter
department. [1226] For further particulars, see No. 3. In their double quality
of men learned in the law and learned in the “Haggadah,” the scribes were also
qualified above others for delivering lectures and exhortations in the
synagogues. These were not indeed confined to appointed persons. Any one capable
of so doing might stand up to teach in the synagogue at the invitation of the
ruler (see § 27). But as in courts of justice the learned doctors of the law
were preferred to the laity, so too in the synagogue their natural superiority
asserted itself. To the juristic and haggadic elaboration of Holy Scripture, was
added a third kind of occupation therewith, viz. the care of the text of
Scripture as such. The higher the authority of the sacred text, the more urgent
was the necessity for its conscientious and unadulterated preservation. From
this necessity originated all those observations and critical notes subsequently
comprised under the name of the Massora (the computation of verses, words and
letters, orthographical notes, critical remarks on the text, and such like).
This work however was mainly the labour of a later period. During that with
which we are occupied its first beginnings had at most been made.[1227] [1227]
Comp. on the Massora, Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 2nd ed. ix. 388-394.
Reuse, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T.’s, § 581, and the literature cited by
both; also Hamburger, Real-Encycl. ii. 1211-1220 (art. “Text der Bibel”). Only
isolated remarks, which perhaps belong to the subject, are found in the Mishna,
Pesachim ix. 2 (that a point stands over the ה in רחקה, Numbers 9:10); Sota v. 5
(that the לֹא in Job 13:15 may mean “him” or “not”). When R. Akiba says, Aboth
iii. 13, that the מַסֹּרֶת is “a fence about the Thorah,” מסרת means not the
critico-textual, but the Halachio tradition; see Strack, p. 388.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 68: III. HALACHAH AND HAGGADAH
========================================================================

III. HALACHAH AND HAGGADAH THE LITERATURE Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς in quo
secundum veterum theologorum Hebraeorum formulas allegandi et modos
interpretandi conciliantur loca ex V. in N. T. allegata (Amstelodami 1713),
especially pp. 57-88. Wachner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, vol. i. 1743, p. 353 sqq.
Döpke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentliclien Schriftsteller, part i. 1829.
Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen (1831), pp.
384-731. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt,
Berlin 1832. Hirschfeld, Der Geist der talmudischen Auslegung der Bibel. Erster
Thl. Halachische, Exegese 1840. The same, Der Geist der ersten
Schriftauslegungen oder die hagadische Exegese, 1847. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der
Septuaginta (Leipzig 1841), pp. 163-203, especially pp. 179-191. The same, Ueber
den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik,
Leipzig 1851 (354, p. 8). The same, Ueber palästinische und alexandrinischen
Schriftforschung, Breslau 1854 (42, p. 4). Welte, Geist und Werth der
altrabbinischen Schriftauslegung (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1842, pp. 19-58).
Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments, § 502-505 (über die
Auslegung des A. T. bei den Juden). Diestel, Gesch. des Alten Testamentes in der
christlichen Kirche (1869), pp. 6-14. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael,
iii. 137 ff., 226-263. Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner, Secten i. 90
ff., 227-288. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer
Abhängigkeit con der inneren Entwickelung des Judenthums, Leipzig 1857. Pressel,
“Rabbinismus,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. (1860), pp. 470-487.
Hausrath, Neutentamentl. Zeitgeschichte, 2nd ed. i. 80-113. Freudenthal,
Hellenistische Studien (1875), pp. 66-77 (on the influence of Hellenism upon the
Palestinian Midrash, see also Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschr. xi. 1875, p. 227 sqq.).
Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria (1875), p. 142 sqq. (on the mutual influence of
the Palestinian and Alexandrian theology and exegesis). Bacher, Die Agada der
babylonischen Amoräer, 1878. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten (Grätz’
Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882-1884). Also separately
under the title, Die Agada der Tannaiten, vol. i. From Hillel to Akiba,
Strasbourg 1884. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästin. Theologie (1880),
especislly pp. 88-121. Reuss, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments
(1881), § 411-416, 582-584. Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii.
(1888) art, “Agada” (pp. 19-27), “Allegorie” (pp. 50-53), “Exegese” (pp.
181-212), “Geheimlehre” (pp. 257-278), “Halacha” (pp. 388-358), “Kabbala” (pp.
557-603), “Mystik” (pp. 816-819), “Rabbiniemus” (pp. 944-956), “Recht” (pp.
969-980). 1. The Halachah The theoretical labours of the scribes were, as has
been already remarked in the preceding section, of a twofold kind,—1. the
development and establishment of the law, and 2. the manipulation of the
historical and didactic portions of the Holy Scriptures. The former developed a
law of custom, beside the written Thorah, called in Rabbinical language the
Halachah (הֲלָכָה, properly that which is current and customary). The latter
produced an abundant variety of historical and didactic notions, usually
comprised under the name of the Haggadah or Agadah (הַגָּדָה or אֲגָדָה,
properly narrative, legend). The origin, nature and contents of both have now to
be more fully discussed. Their common foundation is the investigation or
exposition of the Biblical text, Hebr. דָּרַשׁ.[1228] By investigation however
was not meant historical exegesis in the modern sense, but the search after new
information upon the foundation of the existing text. The inquiry was not merely
what the text in question according to the tenor of its words might say, but
also what knowledge might be obtained from it by logical inference, by
combination with other passages, by allegorical exegesis and the like. The kind
and method of investigation was different in the treatment of the law and in
that of the historical and dogmatico-ethic portions, and comparatively stricter
in the former than in the latter. [1228] דָּרַשׁ is found in the Mishna in the
following constructions:—1. To investigate, to explain a passage or portion of
Scripture, the accusative object being either expressed or to be mentally
supplied, Berachoth i. 5; Pesachim x. 4, fin.; Shekalim i. 4, v. 1; Joma i. 6;
Megilla ii 2; Sota v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ix. 15; Sanhedrin xi. 2. 2. with בִּ in the
same sense “to give explanations of a passage,” Chagiga ii. 1. 3. “To find or
discover a doctrine by investigation,” e.g. אֶת זוֹ דָרַשׁ מִן, “he discovered
this from such and such a passage” (Joma viii. 9), or without מִן (Jebamoth x. 3
Chullin v. 5), or in the combination זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ, “Such or such a one
gave this explanation” (Shekalim vi. 6; Kethuboth iv. 6). The substantivs formed
from דרש is מִדְרָשׁ, investigation, explanation, elaboration (Shekalim vi. 6;
Kethuboth iv. 6; Nedarim iv. 3; Aboth i. 17); also in the combination בית המדרש,
see above, note 60. It is already found 2 Chron. 13:22, 24, 26. The Halachic
Midrash (i.e. the exegetic development of passages of the law) had first of all
to regard only the extent and range of the several commands. It had to ask: to
what cases in actual life the precept in question applied, what consequences it
in general entailed, and what was to be done, that it might be strictly and
accurately observed according to its full extent. Hence the commandments were
split and split again into the subtlest casuistic details, and care was taken by
the most comprehensive precautionary measures, that no kind of accidental
circumstance should occur in observing them, which might be regarded as an
infringement of their absolutely accurate fulfilment. The legal task was not,
however, exhausted by this analysis of the existing text. There were also many
difficulties to solve, some arising from internal contradictions in the legal
code itself, some from the incongruity of certain legal requirements with the
actual circumstances of life; others, and these the most numerous, from the
incompleteness of the written law. To all such questions scholars had to seek
for an answer; it was their business to obviate existing discrepancies by
establishing an authoritative explanation; to point out how, when the observance
of a precept was either impossible, difficult, or inconvenient, by reason of the
actual relations of life, a compromise might nevertheless be made with the
letter of its requirements; and lastly, to find for all those cases of actual
occurrence, which were not directly regulated by the written law, some legal
direction when the need for such should arise. This last department especially
furnished an inexhaustible source labour for juristic discussion. Again and
again did questions arise concerning which the written or hitherte appointed law
gave no direct answer, and to reply to which became therefore a matter of
juristic discussion For answering such questions two means were actually at
their disposal, viz. inference from already recognised dogmas and the
establishment of an already existing tradition. The latter, so far as it could
be determined, was of itself decisive. Scientific exegesis (Midrash) was thus by
no means the only source for the formation of a legal code. A considerable
portion of what subsequently became valid law had on the whole no point of
connection with the Thorah, but was at first only manner and custom. This or
that had been done thus or thus, and so imperceptibly custom grew into a law of
custom. When anything in the legal sphere had been so long usual that it could
be said, it has always been thus, it was law by custom. It was then by no means
necessary that its deduction from the Thorah should be proved; ancient tradition
was as such already binding. And the recognised teachers of the law were
enjoined and competent to confirm this law of custom. From these two sources
there grew up in the course of time a multitude of legal decisions by the side
of, and of equal authority with, the written Thorah. These were all comprised
under the common notion of the Halachah, i.e. the law of custom. For what was
discovered by scientific investigation was, when it obtained validity, also law
by custom, הֲלָכָה.[1229] Hence valid law now included two main categories, the
written Thorah and the Halachah,[1230] which, till at least towards the close of
the period with which we are occupied, was propagated only orally. Within the
Halachah there are again different categories: (1) single Halachoth (traditional
enactments) decidedly traced back to Moses;[1231] (2) the great body or Halachah
proper; (3) certain enactments which are designated as the “appointments of the
scribes” (דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים)[1232] All three categories are of legal
obligation. But their authority nevertheless differs in degree according to the
above sequence, those of the first class being highest, and those of the third
relatively lowest. For while the Halachah in general was regarded as having been
at all times valid, there was with regard to the דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים the
conviction, that they were first introduced by the successors of Ezra, viz. by
the סוֹפְרִים.[1233] There was in general, in the period of the Mishna, a
perfect consciousness that many traditional ordinances had no kind of foundation
in the Thorah, and that others were connected with it by the slightest of
ties.[1234] Nevertheless the law of custom was quite as binding as the written
Thorah;[1235] nay, it was even decided that opposition to the דברי סופרים was a
heavier transgression this opposition to the decrees of the Thorah;[1236]
because the former, being the authentic exposition and completion of the latter,
were therefore in fact the ultimate authority. [1229] This comprehensive notion
of the הֲלָכָה appears from the following passages: Pea ii. 6, iv. 1, 2; Orla
iii. 9; Shabbath i. 4; Chagiga i. 8; Jebamoth viii. 3; Nedarim iv. 3; Edujoth i.
5, viii. 7; Aboth iii. 11, 18, v. 8; Kerithoth iii. 9; Jadajim iv. 3, fin.
“Jewish custom,” דֵּת יהְוּדִית (Kethuboth vii. 6), is aynonymous with דֶּרֶךְ
אֶרֶץ (Kiddushin i 10), and as only designating the conventional, must not be
confounded with the Halachah. [1230] תּוֹרָה or מִקְרָא (writing) and הֲלָכָה
are distinguished, e.g. in Orla iii. 9; Chagiga i. 8; Nedarim iv. 8. So too are
מִקְרָא and מִשְׁנָה (the teaching of the law), Kiddushin i. 10. [1231] Such
הֲלָכוֹת לְמשֶׁה מסִּינַי are mentioned in the Mishna in three passages: Pea ii.
6; Edujoth viii. 7; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. There are altogether from fifty to sixty
in the Rabbinical-Talmudic literature. [1232] Orla iii. 9; Jebamoth ii. 4, ix.
3; Sanhedrin xi. 3; Para xi. 4-6; Tohoroth iv. 7; Jadajim iii. 2. Comp. also
Kelim xiii. 7; Tebul jom iv. 6. [1233] That the דברי סופרים had relatively less
authority than the Halachah simply, is evident from Orla iii. 9 (where it is
quite unjustifiable to supplement הֲלָכָה by למשח מסיני). On the recent date of
the דברי סופרים, comp. especially Kelim xiii. 7; Tebul jom iv. 6: דָּבָר חָדָשׁ
חִדְּשׁוּ סוֹפְרִים. [1234] Compare especially the remarkable passage, Chagiga
i. 8: “Release from a vow is a dogma which hovers, as it were, in the air, for
there is nothing in Scripture on which it can be founded. The laws concerning
the Sabbath, the festival sacrifices, and the defrauding (of sacred things by
misuse), are like mountains hanging by a hair, for there are few passages of
Scripture and many laws of custom (הֲלָכוֹת) concerning them. On the other band,
the civil laws (דִּינִין), the laws of ritual, the laws concerning uncleanness
and incest, are entirely founded on Scripture, and form the essential contents
of the (written) Thorah.” [1235] Comp. especially, Aboth iii. 11, v, 8. [1236]
Sanhedrin xi. 3: חוֹמֶר בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִבְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. It was in the
nature of the Halachah that it never could be a thing finished and concluded.
The two sources, whence it arose, were continually flowing onwards. New
enactments were always being evolved by successive scientific exegesis
(Midrash), and new customs might always arise as usage differed. Both, when they
had attained prescriptive right, became Halachah, the extent of which might thus
be enlarged ad infinitum. But at each stage of development a distinction was
always made between what was already valid and what was only discovered by the
scientifie inferences of the Rabbis, between הֲלָכָה and דִּין (to judge). Only
the former was legally binding, the latter in and of itself not as yet so.[1237]
Not till the majority of the learned had decided in their favour were such
tenets binding and henceforth admitted into the Halachah. For the majority of
those distinguished for learning was the decisive tribunal.[1238] Hence the
דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים were also to be kept as binding.[1239] It is self-evident
however, that this principle applies only to such cases as were not decided by
an already valid Halachah. For concerning any matter for which a Halachah is in
existence this must be unconditionally obeyed, though ninety-nine should be
against and only one for it.[1240] By the help of this principle of the majority
the great difficulty which arose through the separation of the schools of Hillel
and Shammai was overcome (see No. IV). So long as the differences between the
two were not reconciled, the conscientious Israelite must have been in great
perplexity which to adhere to. The majority here too gave the final decision,
whether it was that the schools themselves compared numbers, and that one was
outvoted by the other,[1241] or that subsequent scholars settled differences by
their final decision.[1242] [1237] See especially, Jebamoth viii. 3; Kerithoth
iii. 9. The הלכות and מדרשׁ are therefore distinguished from each other as two
kinds of subjects; of instruction. Nedarim iv. 3. [1238] Shabbath i. 4 sqq.;
Edujoth i. 4-6, v. 7; Mickwaoth iv. 1; Jadajim iv. 1, 3. [1239] Negaim ix. 3,
xi. 7. [1240] Pea iv. 1-2 [1241] A few cases are mentioned in which the school
of Hillel was outvoted by the school of Shammai, Shabbath i. 4 sqq.; Mikwaoth
iv. 1. [1242] As a rule the Mishna, after mentioning the differences of the two
schools, states the decision of “scholars.” The strictness with which the
uuchangeableness of the Halachah was in general proclaimed might induce one to
suppose, that what was once valid must remain unaltered. But there is no rule
without exception, nor was, this so. Nor indeed are the cases few in which laws
or customs were afterwards altered, whether on purely theoretical grounds, or on
account of altered circumstances, or because the old custom entailed
inconvenience.[1243] [1243] Such innovations were e.g. introduced by Hillel
(Shebiith x. 8; Gittin iv. 3; Arachin ix. 4), Rabban Gamaliel (Rosh hashana ii.
5; Gittin iv. 2-3), Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai (Sukka iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv.
1, 3, 4; Sota ix. 9; Menachoth x. 5), R. Akiba (Maaser sheni v. 8; Nasir vi. 1;
Challa iv. 7; Bikkurim iii. 7; Shekalim vii. 5; Joma ii. 2; Kethuboth v. 3;
Nedarim xi 12; Gittin v. 6; Edujoth vii. 2; Tebul jom iv. 5). Widely as the
Halachah differed from the written Thorah the fiction was still kept up, that it
was in reality nothing else than an exposition and more precise statement of the
Thorah itself. The Thorah was still formally esteemed as the supreme rule from
which all legal axioms must be derived.[1244] Certainly the Halacha had its
independent authority, and was binding, even if no scriptural proof was adduced.
Hence, though its validity did not depend upon success in finding a scriptural
proof, it formed part of the business of the scribes to confirm the maxim of the
Halachah by the Scriptures.[1245] More absolute was the demand for satisfactory
confirmation in the case of newly advanced or disputed maxims. These could only
obtain recognition by methodical Midrash, i.e. by, being deduced in a convincing
manner from passages of Scripture, or from other already acknowledged
propositions. The method of demonstration which was in such cases applied, was
one which, though it indeed appears somewhat strange to us, has its rules and
laws. A distinction was made between the proof proper (רְאָיָה) and the mere
reference (זֶכֶר).[1246] Hillel is said to have laid down for the proof proper
seven rules, which may be called a kind of Rabbinical logic.[1247] These seven
rules are as follows: (1) קַל וָחוֹמֶר, “light and heavy,” i.e. the inference a
minori ad majus;[1248] (2) גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, “an equal decision,” i.e. an
inference from the similar, ex analogia;[1249] (3) בִּנְיַן אָב מִכָּתוּב אֶחָד,
“a main proposition from one passage of Scripture,” i.e. a deduction of a main
enactment of the law from a single passage of Scripture; (4) בִּנְיַן אָב
מִשְּׁנֵי כְתוּבִים, “a main proposition from two passages of Scripture;” (5)
וּפְרַט וּכְלַל בִּלַל וּפְרַט, “general and particular,” and “particular and
general,” i.e. a more precise statement of the general by the particular, and of
the particular by the general;[1250] (6) כּיוֹצֵא בוֹ בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, “by the
similar in another passage,” i.e. a more precise statement of a passage by the
help of another; (7) דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, “a thing which is learned from
its connection,” a more precise statement from the context. These seven rules
were subsequently increased to thirteen, the fifth being specified in eight
different manners, and the sixth omitted. The laying down of these thirteen
Middoth is ascribed to R. Ismael. Their value for the correct interpretation of
the law was so highly esteemed on the part of Rabbinic Judaism, that every
orthodox Israelite recited them daily as an integral element of his morning
devotions.[1251] [1244] This holds good notwithstanding the admission mentioned
in note 73. See especially, Weber, p. 96 sqq. [1245] That this supplementary
learned confirmation of the Halachah often referred to passages of Scripture
entirely different to those from which the Halachic maxims really arose, is
seen, e.g. in the classic passage Shabbath ix. 1-4. [1246] Shabbath viii. 7, ix.
4; Sanhedrin viii. 2. Comp. Weber, p. 115 sqq. [1247] They are found in the
Tosefta, Sanhedrin vii. fin. (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 427), in the Aboth de-Rabbi
Nathan c. 37, and at the close of the introduction to the Sifra (Ugolini,
Thesaurus, vol. xiv. 595). The text of the Sifra is, at least according to the
edition of Ugolini, defective. The correct reading is found from the almost
verbally identical texts of the two other authorities. Comp. Hillel and his
seven rules of interpretation in the Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 156-162. [1248] Examples in Berachoth ix. 5; Shebiith vii.
2; Beza v. 2; Jebamoth viii. 3; Nasir vii. 4; Sota vi. 3; Baba bathra ix. 7;
Sanhedrin vi 5; Edujoth vi. 2; Aboth i. 5; Sebachim xii. 8; Chullin ii. 7, xii.
8; Bechoroth i. 1; Kerithoth iii. 7, 8, 9, 10; Negaim xii. 5; Machshirin vi. 8.
[1249] E.g. Beza i. 6: “Challah and gifts are presents due to the priests, and
so is the Terumah. As then the latter may not be brought to the priest on a holy
day, so neither may the former.” Another example in Arachin iv. fin. In both
passages the expression גְּזֵדָה שָׁוָה is used. [1250] In the thirteen Middoth
of R. Ismael this figure is specified in eight different manners, e.g. by the
formula כלל ופרט וכלל—“general and parth cular and general”—i.e. a more precise
statement of two general expressions by a particular one intervening, as e.g.
Deuteronomy 14:26, where the general expression, “whatever thy soul desireth,”
used at the beginning and end, is limited by the words “oxen, sheep, wine,
intoxicating drink, which stand between. [1251] Hence they are found in every
Jewish Siddur (Book of Prayers), as well as in the introduction to the Sifra.
Comp. Waehner, Antiqnitates Ebraeorum, i. 422-523. Pinner’s translation of the
treatise, Berachoth, Introd. fol. 17b-20a. Pressel in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., ed.
1, xv, 651 sq. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theol. pp. 106-115. The
matter which formed the subject of juristic investigation on the part of the
scribes was in effect furnished by the Thorah itself. The precepts concerning
the priestly sacrifices and religious usages in general occupy the largest space
therein. For the peculiarity of the Jewish law is, that it is pre-eminently a
law of ritual. It seeks in the first place to establish by law in what manner
God desires to be honoured, what sacrifices are to be offered to Him, what
festivals are to be kept in His honour, how His priests are to be maintained,
and what religious rites in general are to be observed. All other matters occupy
but a small space in comparison with this. The motive whence all the zealous
labours of the scribes arose corresponded with this content of the law: it was
the desire to make sure by an accurate expression of the law, that none of the
claims of God should be violated in even the slightest particular, but that all
should be most conscientiously observed to their fullest extent. The endeavours
of the scribes were therefore directed chiefly to the development of (1) the
precepts concerning sacrifices, the various kinds of sacrifice, the occasions on
which it was to be offered, the manner of offering, and all connected therewith,
i.e. of the entire sacrificial ritual; (2) the precepts concerning the
celebration of holy seasons, especially of the Sabbath and the annual
festivals—Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles, the Day of Atonement, the New Year;
(3) the precepts concerning tribute for the temple and priesthood—first-fruits,
heave-offerings, tithes, the first-born, the half-shekel tribute, vows and
freewill offerings and whatever related to them—their redemption, valuation,
embezzlement, etc.; and lastly (4) the various other religious appointments,
among which the precepts concerning clean and unclean occupy by far the largest
space. The appointments of the law in this last respect were an inexhaustible
source for the exercise of the most minute and conscientious acuteness on the
part of the scribes. The statutes by which it was determined, under what
circumstances uncleauness was incurred, and by what means it might be obviated,
were truly endless and incalculable. Such religious decrees however by no means
formed the exclusive matter of the labours of the scribes. For the law of Moses
contains also the principles of a criminal and civil law; and the practical
requirements of life offered occasion enough for the further development of
these materials also. Of course the materials in question were not all equally
elaborated. The laws concerning marriage were the most completely developed,
partly because the marriage law gave more opportunity, and partly because this
subject was the most closely connected with religion. The other departments of
civil life are not treated with quite the same fulness in the Mishna (in the
treatises Baba kamma, Baba mezia, and Baba bathra), and still less is the
criminal law worked out (in the treatises Sanhedrin and Makkoth). The department
of public law is as good as completely ignored. It is true that the Thorah
furnished but extremely little opportunity for its development, and that such
labour as was expended on it would have been utterly useless by reason of
political circumstances.[1252] [1252] The survey of the contents of the Mishna
(see § 3) furnishes proof of what is stated above. 2. The Haggada The Haggadic
Midrash, i.e. the elaboration of the historical and didactic portions of Holy
Scripture, is of an entirely different kind from the Halachic Midrash. While in
the latter the treatment is pre-eminently a development and carrying on of what
is actually given in the text, the Haggadic treatment does not take for the most
part its content from the text, but interpolates it therein. It is an
amplification and remodelling of what was originally given, according to the
views and necessities of later times. It is true, that here also the given text
forms the point of departure, and that a similar treatment to that employed in
passages from the law takes place in the first instance. The history is worked
up by combining the different statements in the text with each other, completing
one by another, settling the chronology, etc. Or the religious and ethical parts
are manipulated by formulating dogmatic propositions from isolated prophetic
utterances, by bringing these into relation to each other, and thus obtaining a
kind of dogmatic system. But this stricter kind of treatment is overgrown by the
much freer kind, which deals in a perfectly unrestrained manner with the text,
and supplements it by additions of the most arbitrary and manifold kind. In
other words, the treatment is Midrash in its stricter sense in only the smaller
portion, and is on the contrary and for the most part a free completion by means
of אֲגָדוֹת, i.e. legends.[1253] [1253]a Just as the Halachah was developed from
Midrash in the province of law, was the Haggadah developed from Midrash in the
other books of Scripture, only the relation was in the latter case a much looser
one. The אֲגָדוֹת are mentioned as an independent subject of instruction beside
מדרש and הלכות in Nedarim iv. 3. A canonical book of the Old Testament, viz. the
Book of Chronicles, furnishes a very instructive example of the historical
Midrash. A comparison of its narrative with the parallel portions of the older
historical books (Kings and Samuel) will strike even the cursory observer with
the fact that the chronicler has enlarged the history of the Jewish kings by a
whole class of narratives, of which the older documents have as good as nothing,
viz. by narratives of the merit acquired, not only by David, but by many other
pious kings through their maintenance of, and more abundant provision for, the
priestly ritual. The chronicler is especially solicitous to tell of the
conscientious care of these kings for the institutions of public worship. In the
older documents scarcely anything is found of these narratives which run through
the whole of Chronicles. It may be said that their absence in the books of Kings
and Samuel is no proof of their non-historical nature, and that the chronicler
obtained them from other sources. But the peculiarity is, that the very
institutions for the maintenance of which these kings are said to have been
distinguished, belong in general to the post-exilian period, as may, at least in
the main points, be still proved (see § 24). Evidently then the chronicler dealt
with the older history from a stated point of sight, which appeared to him very
essential; and as public worship was the most important matter in his own eyes,
the theocratic kings could not but have been distinguished by their interest in
it. At the same time he pursues the practical object of pointing out the just
claims and high value of these institutions by showing the attention, which the
most illustrious kings devoted to them. The notion that this was any
adulteration of the history, was probably one which never occurred to him. He
thought he was improving it by treating it according to the needs of his age.
His work, or rather the larger work from which our Books of Chronicles are
probably but an extract, is therefore, properly speaking an historical Midrash,
as indeed it is expressly designated (מִדְרָשׁ) by its editor and abbreviator (2
Chronicles 13:22; 2 Chronicles 24:27).[1254] [1254] Comp. Wellhausen, Geschichte
Israels, i. 236 sq. The method of dealing with the sacred history here described
continued its exuberant growth to later ages and went on striking out over
bolder paths. The higher the credit and importance of the sacred history rose in
the ideas of the people, the more thorough was the labour bestowed upon it, and
the more urgent was the impulse to give more accuracy, more copious elaboration
of details, and to surround the whole with a more complete and brighter halo.
Especially were the histories of the patriarchs and the great lawgiver more and
more adorned in this fashion. The Hellenistic Jews were particularly active in
this manner of working up history. Nay, one might almost have supposed that it
had originated with them, but that the Books of Chronicles furnish proof to the
contrary, and that the whole method of this Midrash so entirely corresponds with
the spirit of Rabbinical scholarship. The literature, in which the remains of
this Haggadic treatment of history are still preserved is comparatively copious
and varied. We find such in the works of the Hellenists Demetrius, Eupolemus,
Artapanus (see concerning them, § 33); in Philo and Josephus,[1255] in the
so-called Apocalypses, and generally in the pseudepigraphic literature;[1256]
much also in the Targums and Talmud, but most in the Midrashim proper, which are
ex professo devoted to the treatment of the sacred text (see above, § 3). Among
these the oldest is the so-called Book of Jubilees, which may rank as the
specially classic model of this Haggadic treatment of Scripture. The whole text
of the canonical Book of Genesis is here reproduced in such wise, that not only
are the particulars of the history chronologically fixed, but also enlarged
throughout in contents, and remodelled according to the taste of after times. By
way of illustrating this branch of labour on the part of the scribes, the
following few specimens are given.[1257] [1255] On Josephus, see Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 120. On Philo’s contact with the
Palestinian Midrash, see Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, pp. 142-159. [1256]
Comp. especially, Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (2 vols.
1718-1723), whose work is so arranged that the literary remains relating to each
Scripture character are placed together, according to their chronological order.
[1257] Compare in general, Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung, etc., pp. 464-514.
Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Jisrael, iii. 490-502. Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes
Israel, i. 286 sqq. The history of the creation, e.g., is completed in the
following manner: “Ten things were created in the twilight on the evening before
the Sabbath—1. the abyss of the earth (for Korah and his company); 2. the
opening of the well (Miriam’s); 3. the mouth of the ass (Balaam’s); 4. the
rainbow; 5. the manna in the wilderness; 6. the rod of Moses; 7. the shamir, a
worm which spits stones; 8. alphabetic writing; 9. the writing of the tables of
the law; 10. the stone tables. Some reckon with these: the evil spirits, the
grave of Moses, and our father Abraham’s ram; and others the first tongs for the
preparation of future tongs.[1258] A copious circle of legends, with which we
are acquainted by means of their deposits and continuations in later Jewish
literature, was formed concerning the life of Adam.[1259] Enoch, who was
miraculously translated to heaven by God, seemed especially adapted for
revealing heavenly mysteries to men. Hence a book of such revelations was
ascribed to him towards the end of the second century before Christ (see § 32).
Later legends praise his piety and describe his ascension to heaven.[1260] The
Hellenist Eupolemus (or whoever else may be the author of the fragment in
question) designates him as the inventor of astrology.[1261] It is self-evident
that Abraham, the ancestor of Israel, was a subject of special interest for this
kind of historical treatment. Hellenists and Palestinians took equal pains with
it A Hellenistic Jew, probably as early as the third century before Christ,
wrote, under the name of Hecataeus of Abdera, a book concerning Abraham.[1262]
According to Artabanus, Abraham instructed Pharethothes, king of Egypt, in
astrology.[1263] He was in the eyes of Rabbinic Judaism a model of Pharisaic
piety and a fulfiller of the whole law, even before it was given.[1264] He
victoriously withstood—it is computed—ten temptations.[1265] In consequence of
his righteous behaviour, he received the reward of all the ten preceding
generations, which they had lost by their sin.[1266] Moses the great lawgiver
and his age are surrounded with the brightest halo. The Hellenists, in works
designed for heathen readers, represent him as the father of all science and
culture. He was, according to Eupolemus, the inventor of alphabetical writing,
which first came from him to the Phoenicians, and from them to the Greeks.
Artapanus tells us that the Egyptians owed to him their whole
civilisation.[1267] It is therefore something less, when it is only said in the
Acts, that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22), though
even this goes beyond the Old Testament. The history of his life and work is
dressed up in the most varied manner in Hellenistic and Rabbinic legends, as may
be seen even from the representations of Philo and Josephus.[1268] The names of
the Egyptian sorcerers, who were conquered by Moses and Aaron, are known (2
Timothy 3:8). In the march through the wilderness, the Israelites were not
merely once miraculously provided with water from a rock, bat a rock pouring
forth water accompanied them during their whole wandering in the wilderness (1
Corinthians 10:4). The law was not given to Moses by God Himself, but reached
him by the means of angels (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2). It was part
of the perfection of his revelation to have been written in seventy languages on
stones set up upon Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 27:2 sqq.).[1269] The two unlucky
days in the history of Israel being Tammus 17 and Ab 9, the unfortunate events
of the Mosaic age must of course have taken place on one of these two days; on
Tammus 17 the tables of the law were broken, and on Ab 9 it was ordained that
the generation of Moses should not enter the land of Canaan.[1270] The strange
circumstances at the death of Moses also furnished abundant material for the
formation of legends (Deuteronomy 34).[1271] It is known that Michael the
Archangel contended with Satan for his body (Jude 1:9). The history too of the
post-Mosaic period was manipulated by historical Midrash in the same manner as
the primitive history of Israel. To give only a few examples from the New
Testament. In 1 Chronicles and Ruth there occurs in the list of David’s
ancestors a certain Salma or Salmon, the father of Boaz (1 Chronicles 2:11;
Rth_4:20 sq.). The historical Midrash knows, that this Salmon had Rahab for his
wife (Matthew 1:5).[1272] The drought and famine in the days of Elijah lasted,
according to the historic Midrash, three and a half years, i.e. half of a week
of years (Luke 4:25; James 5:17).[1273] The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
mentions among the martyrs of the Old Testament those who were sawn asunder
(Hebrews 11:37). He means Isaiah, of whom the Jewish legend says that this was
the manner of his death.[1274] [1258] Aboth v. 6. [1259] Fabricius, Codex
pseudepigr. i. 1-24, ii. 1-13. Hort, art. “Adam, oooks of,” in Smith’s
Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. i. (1877), pp. 34-39. Dillmann in
Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xii. 366 sq. [1260] Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel
und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Henochaage.” [1261] Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17.
[1262] Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 2. Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 113. [1263] Euseb.
Praep. evang. ix. 18. Comp. also on Abraham as an astrologer, Joseph. Antt. i.
7. 1. Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. i. 350-378. [1264] Kiddushin iv. 14, fin.
Comp. Nedarim iii. 11, s. fin. [1265] Aboth v. 3. Book of Jubilees in Ewald’s
Jahrb. 3:15; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 33; Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser, c. 26-31;
Targum Jer. on Genesis 22:1. Fabricius, i. 398-400. Beer, Leben Abrahams, pp.
190-192. The interpreter of Aboth v. 3 (Surenhusius’ Mishna, iv. 465. Taylor,
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 94). [1266] Aboth v. 2. Comp. generally, Beer,
Leben Abraham’s nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage, Leipzig 1859. [1267]
Eupolemus, Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 26 = Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153.
Artabanus, Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 27. [1268] Philo, Vita Mosis. Joseph. Antt.
ii.-iv. Compare generally, Fabricius, Codex pseudepigr. i. 825-868, ii. 111-130.
Beer, Leben Moses nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage, Leipzig 1863. [1269] Sota
vii. 5, with reference to Deuteronomy 27:8, בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב, “plainly engraven
(therefore intelligibly to all).” The seventy languages correspond with the
seventy nations of Genesis 10; see Targum Jonathan on Genesis 11:7-8;
Deuteronomy 32:8; Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser, c. 24, in Wagenseil on Sota vii. 5, in
Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 263. [1270] Taanith iv. 6, also the passages of the
Gemara in Lundius, in Surenhnsius’ Mishna, ii. 382. [1271] Comp. already Joseph.
Antt. iv. 8. 48. [1272] According to another Midrash, Rahab was the wife of
Joshua. [1273] So too Jalkut Shimoni in Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, p. 681
sq. On the Elijah legends in general, comp. S. K., Der Prophet Elia in der
Legende (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1863, pp. 241-255,
281-296). Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. i. [1274] Ascensio
Isajae (ed. Dillmann, 1877), c. v. 1; Jebamoth, 49b. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. c.
120. Tertullian, de patientia, c. 14; scorpiace, c. 8. Hippolyt. de Christo et
Antichristo, c. 30. Origenes, epist. ad African. c. 9; comment. ad Matt. xiii.
57 and xxiii. 37 (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch, iii. 49, iv. 238 sq.); Commodian. carmen
apologet. v. 509 sq. (ed. Ludwig); Hieronymus, comment. ad Isaiam, c. 57, fin.
(Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iv. 666). Other patristic passages in Fabricius, Codex
pseudepigr. i. 1088 sq. Wetzstein and Bleek on Hebrews 11:37, and in Otto’s note
on Justin. Tryph. 120. As in the case of the sacred history, so also in that of
the religious and ethical matter of the Scriptures, the manipulation was of two
kinds. On the one hand there was a dealing by combination, by inference and the
like, with what was actually given; on the other there was also a free
completion by the varied formations of creative religious speculation. And the
two imperceptibly encroached one upon the other. Not a few of the doctrinal
notions and ideas of after times actually arose from the circumstance, that the
existing text of Scripture had been made a subject of “investigation,” and
therefore from reflection upon data, from learned inferences and combinations
founded thereupon. Imagination freely employing itself was however a far more
fertile source of new formations. And what was obtained in the one way was
constantly blended with what was arrived at in the other. With the results of
investigation were combined the voluntary images of fancy, nay the former as a
rule always followed, either consciously or unconsciously, the same lines, the
same tendency and direction as the latter. And when the free creations of
speculation had gained a settled form, they were in their turn deduced from
Scripture by scholastic Midrash. These theological labours, which were always
investigating old, and incessantly creating new material, were extended over the
entire religious and ethical department. It was owing to them that the whole
circle of religious ideas in Israel had received in the times of Christ on the
one hand a fanciful, on the other a scholastic character. For the religious
development was no longer determined and directed by the actual religious
productivity of the prophets, but in part by the action of an unbridled
imagination, not truly religious though dealing with religious objects, and in
part by the scholastic reflection of the learned. Both these ruled and directed
the development, in proportion as really religious life lost in inward strength.
It was in entire consistency with this tendency of the whole development, that
special preference was shown for dealing with such objects as lay more at the
circumference than in the centre of religious life, with the temporally and
locally transcendent, with the future and the heavenly world. For the weaker the
power of genuine religion, the more would fancy and reflection move from the
centre to the circumference, and the more would such objects be detached from
their central point and acquire an independent value and interest The grace and
glory of God were no longer seen in the present earthly world, but only in the
future and heavenly world. Hence on the one side eschatology, on the other
mythological theosophy, were cultivated with the greatest zeal A copious
abundance of notions concerning the realization of the salvation of Israel in a
future period of the world’s history was the growth of scientific investigation
and unfettered religious fancy. The conditions, the premisses and the
accompanying circumstances, under which the means and forces by which this
salvation would be realized, were stated, and most especially was it declared
wherein it would consist and how surpassing would be its glory; in a word,
Messianic dogma was more and more carefully cultivated and extensively
developed. So too was there much solicitous occupation with the heavenly world:
the nature and attributes of God, heaven as his dwelling-place, the angels as
His servants, the whole fulness and glory of the heavenly world; such were the
objects to which learned reflection and inventive fancy applied themselves with
special predilection. Philosophic problems were also discussed: how the
revelation of God in the world was conceivable, how an influence of God upon the
world was possible without His being Himself drawn down into the finite, how far
there was room for evil in a world created and governed by God, and the like.
Two portions of Holy Scripture in particular gave much scope for the development
of theosophic speculation, these were the history of the creation (מַעֲשֵׂה
בְרֵאשִׁית) and the “chariot” of Ezekiel (מֶרְכָּבָה), i.e. the introductory
vision of Ezekiel, chap. 1. In the explanation of these two portions, profound
mysteries which, according to the view of scholars, ought to form an esoteric
doctrine, were dealt with. “The history of the creation might not be explained
before two, and the chariot not even before one, unless he were a scholar and
could judge of it from his own knowledge.”[1275] In these thus carefully guarded
expositions of the history of the creation and of the chariot, we have the
beginnings of those strange fancies concerning the creation and the spiritual
world, which reached their climax in the so-called Kabbala of the Middle Ages.
[1275] Chagiga ii. 1. Comp. also Megilla iv. 10. Farther particulars in
Herzfeld, iii. 410-424. The exposition and further development of the law was a
process under comparatively strict regulations, but an almost unbridled caprice
prevailed in the province of religious speculation. Rules and method, except in
a very figurative sense, were here out of question. One thing especially, which
made the development of the law so continuous and consequent, viz. the principle
of a strict adherence to tradition, was here absent. The manipulator of the
religious and ethical matter was not bound, like the interpreter of the law, to
a strict adherence to tradition. He might give his imagination free play, so
long as its products would on the whole admit of being inserted in the frame of
Jewish views. A certain tradition was indeed formed in this sphere also, but it
was not binding. Religious faith was comparatively free, while action was all
the more strictly shackled. With the absence moreover of the principle of
tradition in this department all rules in general ceased. For there was really
but one rule for the “investigator,” viz. the right of making anything of a
passage, which his wit and understanding enabled him. If nevertheless certain
“rules” are laid down even for Haggadic interpretation, it was only that caprice
here became methodical. A number of such rules for Haggadic exposition are met
with among the thirty-two Middoth (hermeneutical principles) of R. Joses
ha-Gelili, the age of which cannot indeed be more particularly determined.[1276]
Later Judaism discovered that there is a fourfold meaning of Scripture, which is
indicated in the word פר״דס (Paradise), viz. 1. פְּשַׁט, the simple or literal
meaning; 2. רֶמֶז (suggestion), the meaning arbitrarily imported into it; 3.
דְּרוּשׁ (investigation), the meaning deduced by investigation; and 4. סוֹד
(mystery), the theosophistic meaning.[1277] [1276] See the 22 Middoth, e.g. in
Waehner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, i. 396-421. Pinner, translation of the treatise
Berachoth, Introd. fol 20a-21a. Pressel in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xv. 658
sq. On the historical literature, comp. also Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen
Vortrüge der Juden, p. 86. Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 108. [1277] The
initials of these four words produce the word פר״דס. I am unable to say how
ancient this distinction of a fourfold meaning may be. Compare on this subject,
Waehner, Antiquitatas Ebraeorum, i. 353-357. Döpke, Hermeneutik der
neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, pp. 135-137. Deutsch, Der Talmud (1869), p.
16 sq. The distinction between רמז and דרוש is essentially the same as that
between זֶכֶר and רְאָיָה, see note 85, above. It would be a superfluous task to
give examples in illustration of this kind of exegetical method, since we are
sufficiently acquainted with it from the New Testament and the whole body of
ancient Christian literature. For together with Holy Scripture itself, its own
mode of exegetical treatment was transferred by Judaism to the Christian Church.
In saying this however it must also be remarked, that the exegetic method
practised in the New Testament, when compared with the usual Jewish method, is
distinguished from it by its great enlightenment The apostles and the Christian
authors in general were preserved from the extravagances of Jewish exegesis by
the regulative norm of the gospel. And yet who would now justify such treatment
of Old Testament passages, as are found e.g. in Galatians 3:16; Galatians
4:22-25; Romans 10:6-8; Matthew 22:31-32? Jewish exegesis however, from which
such a regulator was absent, degenerated into the most capricious
puerilities.[1278] From its standpoint, e.g. the transposition of words into
numbers, or of numbers into words, for the purpose of obtaining the most
astonishing disclosures, was by no means strange, and quite in accordance with
its spirit.[1279] [1278] Comp. generally the literature mentioned p. 269,
especially Döpke, pp. 88-188. Hartmann, pp. 534-699. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert
des Heils, i. 244 sqq. Hirschfeld, 1847. Welte in the Tübinger Quartalschrift,
1842. Hausrath, i. 97 sqq. Hamburger’s article in the Real-Enc. für Bibel und
Talmud, Div. ii. On Philo’s allegorical exposition of Scripture, see especially
Gfrörer, Philo, i. 68-113. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, iii. (3rd ed.),
pp. 346-352. Siegfried, Philo, p. 160 sqq. [1279] In an appendix to the Mishna,
the statement, e.g., that God will give to every righteous man 310 worlds as his
inheritance, is proved by Proverbs 8:21 : להנחיל אהבי יש; because יש stands for
310 (Ukzin iii. 12; the passage is missing in the Cambridge MS. edited by Lowe).
On the other hand, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, who herein entirely
follows the paths of Jewish exegesis, proves from the 318 servants of Abraham
that Abraham had already in spirit beheld the cross of Jesus, because the number
18 = IH means the name Jesus, and the number 300 = T means the cross, Barnab. c.
9. With the comparatively great freedom allowed to development in the sphere of
religious notions, it is not to be wondered, that foreign influences also made
themselves felt with more or less power. Palestine had already been for a long
time open to the general intercourse of the world. So early as the foundation of
the great world-powers of the Assyrians, Chaldaeans and Persians, influences of
the most varied kind had passed over the land. When it lay for two centuries
under Persian supremacy, it would indeed have been very surprising if this fact
had left behind it no kind of trace in the sphere of Israelitish intellectual
life. Nor could it, with all its struggles for intellectual isolation, have
possibly withdrawn itself entirely from the supremacy of the Greek spirit Hence
it cannot be denied that on the one hand Babylonian, on the other Greek
influences are especially discernible in the development of Israel’s religious
notions. The amount of this influence may indeed be disputed. A careful
investigation of details, especially in respect of the influence of Parseeism,
has not as yet been made. This influence may perhaps have to be reduced to a
comparatively small proportion. The fact however, that both Babylonian and Greek
influences asserted themselves, is undeniable.[1280] At first sight indeed it
seems strange, nay enigmatical, considering the high wall of partition which
Judaism erected in respect of religion between itself and heathenism. There is
however no need of appealing, in explanation to the circumstance, that such
influences were felt at a time when this wall of partition was as yet no
unscaleable one, for they continued to be exerted in later times also;[1281] nor
to the fact, that no wall of partition is strong enough to resist the power of
intellectual influences. The deepest reason that can be offered in explanation
is, on the contrary, that legal Judaism itself laid the chief stress upon
correctness of action, and that comparatively free play was therefore permitted
in the sphere of religious notions. [1280] Compare with respect to Parseeism the
certainly candid judgment of Lücke, Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannes (2nd
ed.), p. 55 sq.: “The influence of the ancient Persian religion upon the
development of Jewish religious notions … is an indisputable fact.” On the
influence of Hellenism upon the Palestinian Midrash, see Freudenthal,
Hellenistischen Studien (1875), pp. 66-77. Siegfried, Philo, p. 288 sqq. [1281]
Angelology was far more strongly under the influence of Parseeism at the period
of the Babylonian Talmud than previously. Comp. Kohut, Ueber die jüdische
Angelologie und Dämonologie, 1866. The influences of Hellenism upon the
Palestinian Midrash, pointed out by Freudenthal and Siegfried, generally belong
to a period when the religious seclusion had long been a very strict one.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 69: IV. THE MOST FAMOUS SCRIBES
========================================================================

IV. THE MOST FAMOUS SCRIBES THE LITERATURE The older Hebrew works on the Mishna
teachers in Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. ii. 805 sq. Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, ii. 48
sq. Ottho, Historia doctorum misnicorum qua opera etiam synedrii magni
Hierosolymitani praesides et vice-praesides recensentur. Oxonii 1672 (frequently
reprinted, e.g. also in Wolf’s Biblioth. Hebr. vol. iv., and in Ugolini’s
Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Joh. Chrph. Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 805-865 (gives
an alphabetical catalogue of the scholars mentioned in the Mishna). Herzfeld,
Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 226-263. The same, Chronologische Ansetzung
der Schriftgelehrten von Antigonus von Socho bis auf R. Akiba (Monatsschr. für
Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1854, pp. 221-229, 273-277). Kämpf,
Genealogisches und Chronologisches bezuglich der Patriarchen aus dem
Hillel’schen Hause bis auf R. Jehuda ha-Nasi, den Redacteur der Mischnah
(Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1853, pp. 201-207, 231-236;
1854, pp. 89-42, 98-107). Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten,
vols. i. ii. Gräte, Geschichte der Juden, vols. iii. iv. Derenbourg, Essai sur
l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine d’après les Thalmuds et les autres
sources rabbiniques. P. i.: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu’à
Adrien. Paris 1867. The works, written in Hebrew, of Frankel (1859), Brüll
(1876) and Weiss (1871-1876). For farther details concerning them, see the
literature on the Mishna, § 3. Friedländer, Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der
Tanaiten und Armoräer, Brunn 1879 (a careless performance, see Theol. Litztg.
1880, p. 433). Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii., the
several articles. Bacher, Die Agada der Tanaiten (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und
Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882-1884). Also separately, Die Agada der Tanaiten,
vol. i. 1884. It is not till the period of the Mishna, i.e. about 70 A.D., that
we have any detailed information concerning individual scribes. Of those who
lived before this time, our knowledge is extremely scanty. This too is almost
the case in respect of Hillel and Shammai, the famous heads of schools; for,
setting aside what is purely legendary, our information concerning them is
comparatively small and unimportant The names and order of the most celebrated
heads of schools since about the second century after Christ have been handed
down to us chiefly by the 1st chapter of the treatise Aboth (or Pirke Aboth), in
which is enumerated the unbroken succession of individuals, who were from Moses
till the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the depositaries of the traditions
of the law. The whole chapter runs as follows:—[1282] [1282] The following
translation is for the most part taken from the edition of the Mishna which has
lately appeared under the management of Jost; but partly corrected according to
the careful explanation of Cahn (Pirke Aboth, 1875). Comp. also for the
exposition the editions of Surenhusius (Mishna, vol. iv.), P. Ewald (Pirke
Aboth, 1825), Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Cambridge 1877), and Strack
(Die Sprüche der Väter, 1882). 1. Moses received the law upon Sinai, and
delivered it to Joshua; he to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the
prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Assembly. These laid down three
rules: Be careful in pronouncing judgment! bring up many pupils! and make a
fence about the law! 2. Simon the Just was one of the last of the Great
Assembly. He said: The world subsists by three things—by the law, the worship of
God, and benevolence. 3. Antigonus of Socho received the tradition from Simon
the Just. He said: Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of
reward, but be like those who do service without respect to recompense; and live
always in the fear of God. 4. Joses ben Joeser of Zereda and Joses ben Johanan
of Jerusalem received the tradition from them. Joses ben Joeser said: Let thy
house be a place of meeting for the wise, dust thyself with the dust of their
feet, and drink eagerly of their teaching. 5. Joses ben Johanan of Jerusalem
said: Let thy house be always open (to guests), and let the poor be thy
household. Avoid superfluous chatter with women. It is unbecoming with one’s own
wife, much more with the wife of, another. Hence the wise also say: He who
carries on useless conversation with a woman, brings misfortune upon himself, is
hindered from occupation with the law, and at last inherits hell. 6. Joshua ben
Perachiah and Nithai of Arbela received the tradition from these. The former
said: Procure a companion (in study), and judge all men according to the
favourable sida. 7. Nithai of Arbela said: Depart from a bad neighbour;
associate not with the ungodly; and think not that punishment will fail. 8.
Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetach received the tradition from these. The
former said: Make not thyself (as judge) an advocate. When both sides stand
before thee, look upon both as in the wrong. But when they are dismissed and
have received sentence, regard both as justified. 9. Simon ben Shetach said:
Test the witnesses well, but be cautious in examination, lest they thereby learn
to speak falsehood. 10. Shemaiah and Abtalion received from them. Shemaiah
taught: Love work, hate authority, and do not press thyself upon the great 11.
Abtalion said: Ye wise, be cautious in your teaching, lest ye be guilty of
error, and err towards a place of bad water. For your scholars, who come after
you, will drink of it, die, and the name of God be thereby dishonoured. 12.
Hillel and Shammai received from these. Hillel said: Be a disciple of Aaron, a
lover of peace, a maker of peace, love men, and draw them to the law. 13. He was
accustomed also to say: He who will make himself a great name, forfeits his own.
He who does not increase his knowledge diminishes it, but he who seeks no
instruction is guilty of death. He who uses the crown (of the law) (for external
purposes) perishes. 14. The same said: Unless I (work) for myself, who will do
so for me? And if I do so for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when
else? 15. Shammai said: Make the study of the law a decided occupation; promise
little and do much; and receive every one with kindness. 16. Rabban Gamaliel
said: Appoint yourself a teacher, you thus avoid the doubtful; and do not too
often tithe according to mere chance. 17. His son Simon said: “I have grown up
from early youth among wise men, and have found nothing more profitable for men
than silence. Study is not the chief thing, but practice. He who speaks much
only brings sin to pass.” 18. Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel said: The world subsists
by three things—by the administration of justice, by truth, and by unanimity.
(Thus also it is said, Zechariah 8:16 : “Let peace and truth judge in your
gates.”)[1283] [1283] The bracketed words are wanting in the best manuscripts,
e.g. Berolin. MSS. fol. 567 (see Cahn, Pirke Aboth, p. 62), and Cambridge
University Additional, 470. 1 (see Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 4).
So far the Mishna. Among the authorities here specified, those which chiefly
interest us are “the men of the great assembly,” or of the great synagogue
(אַנְשֵׁי כְנֵסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה). They appear here as the depositaries of the
tradition of the law between the last prophets and the first scribes known by
name. Later Jewish tradition ascribes to them all kinds of legal
enactments.[1284] Very recent, indeed really modern, is, on the other hand, the
opinion, that they also composed the canon of the Old Testament.[1285] As no
authorities tell us who they really were, there has been the more opportunity
for the most varying hypotheses concerning them.[1286] The correct one, that
they never existed at all in the form which Jewish tradition represents, was
already advocated by older Protestant criticism,[1287] though it was reserved
for the conclusive investigation of Kuenen to fully dissipate the obscurity
Testing upon this subject The only historical foundation for the idea is the
narrative in Nehemiah 8-10, that in Ezra’s time the law was solemnly accepted by
a great assembly of the people. This “great assembly” was in fact of eminent
importance to the maintenance of the law. But after the notion of a great
assembly had been once fixed as an essential court of appeal for the maintenance
of the law, an utterly non-historical conception was gradually combined
therewith in tradition. Instead of an assembly of the people receiving the law,
a college of individuals transmitting the law was conceived of, and this notion
served to fill up the gap between the latest prophets and those scribes to whom
the memory of subsequent times still extended.[1288] [1284] See Rau, De synagoga
magna, pp. 6-24. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 244 sq. Kuenen, Over
de mannen der groote Synagoge, pp. 2-6. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,
p. 124 sq. D. Hoffmann in the Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenth. x. 1883,
p. 45 sqq. [1285] This opinion became current chiefly through Elias Levita
(sixteenth century), and was transferred from him to Christian theology. See
Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. vii. 416 sq. (art. “Kanon des Alten
Testaments”). [1286] See Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit
dem Neuen, pp. 120-166. The Introductions to the Old Testament, e.g. De
Wette-Schrader, § 13. Heidenheim, Untersuchungen über die Synagoge magna
(Studien und Kritik. 1853, pp. 286-300). Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael,
ii. 22-24, 380 sqq., iii. 244 sq., 270 sq. Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. i. 41-43,
91, 95 sq. Grätz, Die grosse Versammlung (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch.
des Judenthums, 1857, pp. 31-37, 61-70). Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed.
xv. 296-299. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 29-40. Ginsburg in
Kitto’s Cyclopaedia, iii. 909 sqq. Neteler, Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1875, pp.
490-499. Bloch, Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur
(1876), pp. 100-132. Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. pp.
318-323. Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien (1888),
pp. 91-97. D. Hoffmann, Ueber “die Männer der grossen Versammlung” (Magazin für
die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 10th year, 1883, pp. 45-61). Strack in Herzog’s
Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xv. 95 sq. [1287] Joh. Eberh. Rau, Diatribe de synagoga
magna, Traj. ad Rh. 1726. Aurivillius, Dissertationes ad sacras literas et
philologiam orientalem pertinentes (ed. Michaelis, 1790), pp. 139-160. [1288]
See Kuenen, Over de mannen der groote synagoge, Amsterdam 1876 (separate
reprint, Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen,
Afdeeling Letterkunde, 2de Reeks, Deel vi.). Comp. Theol. Litztg. 1877, p. 100.
Together with the notion of the great synagogue may be dismissed also the
statement, that Simon the Just was one of its latest members. This Simon is, on
the contrary, no other than the high priest Simon L in the beginning of the
third century before Christ, who, according to Josephus, obtained the surname ὁ
δίκαιος.[1289] Undoubtedly this name was conferred on him by the Pharisaic party
on account of his strict legal tendencies, while most of the high priests of the
Greek period left much to be desired in this respect. It was on this very
account also that he was stamped by Jewish tradition as a vehicle of the
tradition of the law.[1290] [1289] Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 4. [1290] He is also
mentioned in Para iii. 5 as one of the high priests under whom a red heifer was
burnt. Comp. in general, Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. ii. 864. Fürst’s Literaturbl. des
Orients, 1845, p. 33 sqq. Herzfeld, ii. 189 sqq., 377 (who in opposition to
Josephus maintains that Simon II., the high priest at the close of the third
century, is Simon the Just). Grätz, Simon der Gerechte und seine Zeit
(Monatsschrift, 1857, pp. 45-56). Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. pp. 1115-1119.
Montet, Essai sur les origines, etc. pp. 185-189. The most ancient scribe of
whom tradition has preserved at least the name is Antigonus of Socho. Little
more than his name is however known of him.[1291] The information too given in
the Mishna of the subsequent scribes down to the time of Christ is extremely
scanty and uncertain, as is indeed evident from the externally systematic
grouping of them in five pairs. For there could hardly be historical foundation
for such a fact as that in each generation only a pair of scholars should have
specially distinguished themselves. It is likely that just ten names were known,
and that these were formed into five pairs of contemporaries, after the analogy
of the last and most famous pair, Hillel and Shammai.[1292] In such a state of
affairs, of course, only the most general outlines of the chronology can be
determined. The comparatively most certain points are the following.[1293] Simon
ben Shetach was a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, and
therefore lived about 90-70 B.C.[1294] Hence the first pair must be placed two
generations earlier, viz. about 150 B.C. Hillel is said, according to Talmudic
tradition, to have lived 100 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and thus
to have flourished about the time of Herod the Great.[1295] His supposed
grandson, Gamaliel I., is mentioned in the Acts (5:34, 22:3), about 30-40
A.D.[1296] It has been already stated (p. 180 sq.) that subsequent tradition
makes the whole five pairs presidents and vice-presidents of the Sanhedrim, and
the utter erroneousness of this assertion is there pointed out They were in fact
nothing more than heads of schools. [1291] Comp. also Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. ii
813 sqq. Fürst’s Literaturbl des Orients, 1845, p. 36 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc.
s.v. In the Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 5, two disciples, Zadok and Boethos, are
ascribed to Antigonus, and the Sadducees and Boethosees traced to them. [1292]
Hence these ten are in Rabbinical literature sometimes simply called “the pairs”
(זוּגוֹת), e.g. Pea ii. 6. [1293] Comp. on the chronology, Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 37, and Herzfeld in the Monatsschrift
f. Gesch. und Wissenschaft des Judenth. 1854. [1294] With this agrees the
statement in Taanith iii. 8, that Simon ben Shetach was a contemporary of the
Onias so famed for his power in prayer, and whose death is related by Josephus,
Antt. xiv. 2. 1, as taking place about 65 B.C. [1295] Shabbath 15a. Hieronymus
ad Jesaj. 11 sqq. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iv. 123): Sammai et Hellel non multo prius
quam Dominus nasceretur orti sunt Judaea. [1296] Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9; Vita, 38,
39, 44, 60. The first pair, Joses ben Joeser and Joses ben Johanan, is only
mentioned, besides the chief passage in the treatise Aboth, a few times more in
the Mishna,[1297] and still less frequently do we meet with the second pair,
Joshua ben Perachiah and Nithai of Arbela.[1298] Of the third pair only Simon
ben Shetach has a somewhat tangible form, though what is related of him is for
the most part of a legendary character.[1299] There is no mention of any of
these in Josephus. On the other hand, he seems to speak of the fourth pair,
Shemaiah and Abtalion, under the names Σαμέας and Πωλίων. He tells us that when,
in the year 47 B.C., the youthful Herod was accused before the Sanhedrim on
account of his acts in Galilee, and all owners of property were silent through
cowardly fear, that a certain Sameas alone raised his voice, and prophesied to
his colleagues that they would yet all perish through Herod. His prophecy was
fulfilled ten years later, when Herod, after his conquest of Jerusalem in the
year 37, had all his former accusers executed.[1300] Only the Pharisee Pollio
and his disciple Sameas (Πωλίων ὁ Φαρισαῖος καὶ Σαμέας ὁ τούτου μαθητής) were
spared, nay highly honoured by him, because during the siege by Herod they had
given counsel, that the king should be admitted into the town. The Sameas here
mentioned is expressly identified by Josephus with the former.[1301] Lastly,
Pollio and Sameas are mentioned by Josephus, and again in the same order, in a
third passage. Unfortunately however we obtain no entire certainty as to time.
For he informs us that the followers of Pollio and Sameas (οἱ περὶ Πωλίωνα τὸν
Φαρισαῖον καὶ Σαμέαν) refused the oath of allegiance demanded of them by Herod,
and were not punished on this account, “obtaining indulgence for the sake of
Pollio” (ἐντροπῆς διὰ τὸν Πωλίωνα τυχόντες).[1302] Josephus relates this among
the events of the eighteenth year of Herod (= 20-19 B.C.). It cannot however be
quite certainly determined from the context, whether this occurrence really took
place in that year. Now the two names Σαμέας and Πωλίων so strikingly coincide
with שְׁמַעְיָה and אַבְטַלְיוֹן that the view of their being identical is very
obvious.[1303] The chronology too would about agree. The only thing that causes
hesitation is, that Sameas is called the disciple of Pollio, while elsewhere
Shemaiah stands before Abtalion. Hence we might feel tempted to identify Sameas
with Shammai,[1304] but that it would then be strange, that Josephus should
mention him twice in connection with Abtalion, and not with his contemporary
Hillel. If however by reason of this connection we take Hillel and Shammai to be
meant by Pollio and Sameas,[1305] there is against this identification, first
the difference of the names Pollio and Hillel, and then the designation of
Sameas as the disciple of Pollio, while Shammai was certainly no disciple of
Hillel. All things considered, the connection of Sameas and Pollio with Shemaiah
and Abtalion seems not only the more obvious, but the more probable.[1306]
[1297] Both besides Aboth i. 4, 5 only in Chagiga ii. 2; Sota ix 9. Joses ben
Joeser also in Chagiga ii. 7; Edujoth viii. 4. According to Chagiga ii. 7, Joses
ben Joeser was a priest, and indeed a pious one (חָסִיד) amongst the priesthood.
The information in Sota ix. 9, that since the death of Joses ben Joeser and
Joses ben Johanan, there had been no more אשכולות, is obscure. Since the Mishna
itself here refers to Micah 7:1, it is probable that אשכולות is to be taken in
its usual signification (grapes), as a figurative designation of men who could
afford mental refreshment. Others desire to take it like σχολαί. Comp. Herzfeld,
iii. 246-249. Derenbourg, pp. 65, 75, 456 sqq. [1298] The two only in Aboth i.
6, 7 and Chagiga ii. 2. Instead of Nithai (נתאי or נתיי) there is good testimony
in both passages (Cod. de Rossi 138, Cambridge University Additional, 470. 1,
also the Jerusalem Talmud, Chagiga ii. 2) for מתאי or מתיי, i.e. Matthew, which
is perhaps preferable. The native place of Nithai (ארבל) is the present Irbid,
north-west of Tiberias, where ruins of an ancient synagogue, the building of
which is of course ascribed by tradition to Nithai, are still found (see § 27,
note 89a). Comp. Herzfeld, iii. 251 sq. Derenbourg, p. 93 sq. [1299] On his
relations with Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, see above, § 10. Camp. beside
Aboth i. 8-9, Chagiga ii. 2, also Taanith iii. 8, Sanhedrin vi. 4. Landau in the
Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1853, pp. 107-122, 177-180.
Herzfeld, iii. 251 sq. Gräts, Gesch. der Juden, vol. iii. 3rd ed. pp. 665-669
(note 14). Derenbourg, pp. 96-111. [1300] Antt. xiv. 9. 4. [1301] Antt. xv. 1.
1. [1302] Antt. xv. 10. 4. [1303] The name שְׁמַעְיָה, which also frequently
occurs in the Old Testament, especially in Nehemiah and Chronicles, is rendered
in the LXX. by Σαμαία, Σαμαίας, Σαμείας and Σεμείας. The name Πωλίων is not
indeed identical with Abtalion, but, on the contrary, like the Latin Pollio. It
is well known however, that besides their Hebrew, the Jews often bore
like-sounding Greek or Latin names (Jesus and Jason, Saul and Paulus, etc.).
[1304] שמאי or שמיי (probably only an abbreviation of שמעיה, see Derenbourg, p.
95) may very well be rendered by Σαμέας in Greek, as ינאי by Ἰαννέας in Antt.
xiii. 12. 1. [1305] So e.g. Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st. ed. vi. 97.
[1306] Comp. on both, beside Aboth i. 10, 11 and Chagiga ii. 2, also Edujoth i.
3, v. 6. Landau in the Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth.
1858, pp. 317-329. Herzfeld, iii. 253 sqq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, 3rd ed. iii.
671 sq. (note 17). Derenbourg, pp. 116-118, 149 sq., 463 sq. Hamburger,
Real-Enc., Div. ii. p. 1113 sq. (art. “Semaja”). Hillel and Shammai are by far
the most renowned among the five pairs.[1307] An entire school of scribes, who
separated, if not in principle, yet in a multitude of legal decisions, in two
different directions, adhered to each of them. This circumstance certainly makes
it evident, that both are of eminent importance in the history of Jewish law.
Both indeed manifestly laboured with special zeal and ingenuity to give a more
subtle completeness to the law, but it must not therefore be supposed, that
their personal life and acts stand out in the clear light of history. What we
know of them with certainty is comparatively very little. In the Mishna, the
only trustworthy authority, they are each mentioned barely a dozen times.[1308]
And what we know of them from later sources bears almost always the impress of
the legendary. Hillel, called “the elder,” הַוָּקֵן,[1309] to distinguish him
from others, is said to have sprung from the family of David,[1310] and to have
immigrated from Babylon to Palestine. Being poor he was obliged to hire himself
as a day-labourer to earn a living for himself and his family and to meet the
expenses of instruction. His zeal for study was so great that on one occasion,
not being able to pay the entrance-fee into the Bethha-Midrash, he climbed up to
the window to listen to the instruction. As this happened in winter, he was
frozen with cold, and was found in this position by his astonished teachers and
colleagues.[1311] Tradition tells strange things of the learning he acquired by
such zeal. He understood all tongues, and even the language of the mountains,
hills, valleys, trees, plants, of wild and tame animals and of daemons.[1312] At
all events he was the most celebrated jurist of his age, but he was no more
president of the Sanhedrim than was any other learned scribe of the time. The
leading features of his character were the gentleness and kindness of which
singular proofs are related.[1313] It is manifested in the first of the maxims
given above: “Be a disciple of Aaron, a lover and maker of peace, love men and
attract them to the law.” Shammai, noted for sternness, and also called “the
elder,” הַוָּקֵן, was the antipodes of the gentle Hillel.[1314] The following
example of his rigorous zeal for the literal observance of the law is given in
the Mishna. When his daughter-in-law brought forth a child on the feast of
Tabernacles, he had the ceiling broken through and the roof over the bed covered
with boughs, that the newborn child also might keep the feast according to the
precept of the law.[1315] [1307] On both, especially on Hillel, see Biesenthal
in Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients, 1848, Nos. 43-46. Kämpf in the same, 1849,
Nos. 10-38. Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. 96-98 (and the older
literature there cited). Herzfeld, iii. 257 sqq. Grätz, iii. 222 sqq. Jost, i.
255-270. Ewald, Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, vol. x. pp. 56-83. Gesch. des
Volkes Isr. vol. v. 12-48. Geiger, Das Judenthum und seine Gesch. i. 99-107.
Delitzsch, Jesu und Hillel, 1866 (2nd ed. 1867). Keim, Gesch. Jesu, i. 268-272.
Derenbourg, pp. 176-192. Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. vi. 113-115.
Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 401-412. Bacher, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch.
des Judenth. 1882, pp. 100-110. Goitein, Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth.
11th year, 1884, pp. 1-16, 49-87. [1308] Hillel is mentioned in the Mishna only
in the following passages: Shebiith x. 3; Chagiga ii. 2; Gittin iv. 3; Baba
mezia v. 9; Edujoth i. 1-4; Aboth i. 12-14, ii. 4-7, iv. 5, v. 17; Arachin ix.
4; Nidda i. 1. Shammai only in the following: Maaser sheni ii. 4, 9; Orla ii. 5;
Sukka ii. 8; Chagiga ii. 2; Edujoth i. 1-4, 10, 11; Aboth i. 12, 15, v. 17;
Kelim xxii. 4; Nidda i. 1. [1309] Shebiith x. 3; Arachin ix. 4. [1310] Jer.
Taanith iv. 2, fol. 68a; Bereshith rabba c. 98, on Genesis 49:10 (see Bereshith
rabba, translated by Wünsche, pp. 485, 557). [1311] Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel,
pp. 9-11. [1312] Delitzech, Jesus und Hillel, p. 8. [1313] See Delitzsch, p. 31
sq. [1314] Orla ii. 5; Sukka ii. 8. [1315] Sukka ii. 8. The tendencies of their
respective schools correspond with the mildness of Hillel and the strictness of
Shammai. The school of Hillel decided legal questions in a mitigated, that of
Shammai in an aggravated sense.[1316] As they are however only minutiae on which
the difference turns, it will not be worth while to follow the contrast into
further details.[1317] Some examples may suffice. The command to prepare no food
on the Sabbath was extended to laying-hens, and hence it was debated, whether
and under what conditions an egg laid upon a holy day might or might not be
eaten.[1318] Or it was discussed, whether fringes (Zizith) were needful or not
to a square linen night-dress;[1319] or whether on a holy day a ladder might be
carried from one pigeon-house to another, or might only be slanted from one hole
to another.[1320] Of ideas of reformation, which Jewish self-love would so
willingly have us believe in, there is not, as we see, a single word. In
practice the milder school of Hillel gained in the course of years the upper
hand, though in many points it voluntarily relinquished its own view and
assented to those of the school of Shammai,[1321] while in others neither the
opinion of Hillel nor that of Shammai was subsequently followed.[1322] [1316]
Edujoth iv. 1-12, v. 1-5. [1317] For the sake of those who may desire to go
farther to the subject I here give all those passages in the Mishna in which
differences between the two schools are mentioned. Berachoth i. 3, viii. 1-8;
Pea iii. 1, vi. 1, 2, 5, vii. 6; Demai i. 3, vi. 6; Kilajim ii. 6, iv. 1, 5, vi.
1; Shebiith i. 1, iv. 2, 4, 10, v. 4, 8, viii. 3; Terumoth i. 4, v. 4; Maaseroth
iv. 2; Maaser sheni ii. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, iii. 6, 7, 9, 13, iv. 8, v. 3, 6, 7;
Challa i. 6; Orla ii. 4; Shabbath i. 4-9, iii. 1, xxi. 3; Erubin i. 2, vi. 4, 6,
viii. 6; Pesachim i. 1, iv. 5, viii. 8, x. 2, 6; Shekalim ii. 3, viii. 6; Sukka
i. 1, 7, ii. 7, iii. 5, 9; Beza i. 1-9, ii. 1-5; Rosh hashana i. 1; Chagiga i.
1-3, ii. 3, 4; Jebamoth i. 4, iii. 1, 5, iv. 3, vi. 6, xiii. 1, xv. 2, 3;
Kethuboth v. 6, viii. 1, 6; Nedarim iii. 2, 4; Nasir ii. 1, 2, iii. 6, 7, v. 1,
2, 3, 5; Sota iv. 2; Gittin iv. 5, viii. 4, 8, 9, ix. 10; Kiddushin i. 1; Baba
mezia iii. 12; Baba bathra ix. 8, 9; Edujoth i. 7-14, iv. 1-12, v. 1-5; Sebachim
iv. 1; Chullin i. 2, viii. 1, xi. 2; Bechoroth v. 2; Kerithoth i. 6; Kelim ix.
2, xi. 3, xiv. 2, xviii. 1, xx. 2, 6, xxii. 4, xxvi. 6, xxviii. 4, xxix. 8;
Ohaloth ii. 3, v. 1-4, vii. 3, xi. 1, 3-6, 8, xiii. 1, 4, xv. 8, xviii. 1, 4, 8;
Para xii. 10; Tohoroth ix. 1, 5, 7, x. 4; Mikwaoth i. 5, iv. 1, v. 6, x. 6;
Nidda ii. 4, 6, iv. 3, v. 9, x. 1, 4, 6-8; Machshirin i. 2-4, iv. 4, 5, v. 9;
Sabim i. 1-2; Tebul jom i. 1; Jadajim iii. 5; Ukzin iii. 6, 8, 11; בית שמאי
only: Berachoth vi. 5; Demai iii. 1; Kilajim viii. 5; Terumoth iv. 3; Orla ii.
5, 12; Beza ii. 6; Edujoth iii. 10; Mikwaoth iv. 5. This list of passages shows
that the differences relate chiefly to the matters treated of in the first,
second, third and fifth parts of the Mishna, i.e. (1) religious dues, (2) the
Sabbaths and holy days, (3) the marriage laws, and (4) the laws of purification,
and scarcely at all to those treated of in the fourth and fifth parts (civil and
criminal law and the laws of sacrifice). The latter, which do not affect the
religious acts of private individuals, but either purely civil or sacerdotal
transactions, were not discussed with equal zeal in the schools. The civil and
criminal law did not on the whole excite the same interest as religious decrees.
It is however probable that the sacrificial laws had already been dealt with by
the more ancient priestly scribes, and lay outside the direct sphere of
Rabbinical authority. [1318] Beza i. 1; Edujoth iv. 1. Delitzsch, p. 21 sq.
[1319] Edujoth iv. 10. [1320] Beza i. 3. [1321] Edujoth i. 12-14. [1322] E.g.
Edujoth i. 1-3. Comp. the passages cited in note 155. An enactment, contrary
indeed to the law, but authorized by the state of things, and certainly of
salutary results, is connected with the name of Hillel. The legal appointment of
a release of all debts every seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:1-11) entailed the
evil consequence, “that people hesitated to lend each other money,” although the
law itself warned against backwardness in lending on account of this institution
(Deuteronomy 15:9). In order then to do away with this evil, the so-called
Prosbol (פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל = προσβολή), i.e. the delivery of a declaration, or as we
should say a registered declaration, was introduced by Hillel’s influence.[1323]
It was, that is to say, allowed to a creditor to make in court a declaration to
the following effect: מוֹסֵר אֲנִי לָכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הַדַּיָּנִים
שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁכָּל חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁאֶגְבֶּנּוּ כָל זְמָן
שֶׁאֶרְצֶה, “I so and so deliver[1324] to you the judges of such and such a
place (the declaration), that I may at any time I choose demand the payment of
all my outstanding debts.” Such a reservation made before a court secured the
creditor even during the Sabbath year, and he needed not to be backward in
lending money on its account. Thus credit was again laid upon a more solid
foundation.[1325] [1323] According to other פרוזבול = πρὸς βουλήν, which is
however very improbable. [1324] מסר, “to deliver” (whence also מָסוֹרָה,
tradition), answers to the Greek word προσβάλλειν. [1325] Comp. on the Prosbol
especially, Shebiith x. 3-7 (the formula will be found Shebiith x. 4); the
institution by Hillel, Shebiith x. 3; Gittin iv. 3; generally: Pea iii. 6; Moed
katan iii. 3; Kethuboth ix. 9; Ukzin iii. 10. Such Prosbol declarations are
indeed to be understood by the συμβόλαια τῶν δεδανεικότων, which, according to
Joseph. Bell. Jud., were deposited among the archives at Jerusalem. Literature:
Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 1806 sq. Guisius in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 196. Jost,
Gesch. des Judenth. i. 265 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 939 sq. (art.
“Prosbol”). Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. פרוזבול. A Simon, said also to be the
father of Gamaliel I., is generally named by both Jewish and Christian scholars
as the son of Hillel. The existence of this Simon, and with him the whole
genealogical relation, is however very questionable.[1326] We do not reach a
really historical personage till Gamaliel I., רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַוָּקֵן, as he
is called in the Mishna, in distinction from Gamaliel II.[1327] It was at his
feet that the Apostle Paul sat (Acts 22:3); and it was he who once gave counsel
in the Sanhedrim to release the accused apostles, since their work, if it were
of man, would come to nought, while if it were of God, it was in vain to oppose
it (Acts 5:34-39). Christian tradition has in consequence of this represented
him as being a Christian,[1328] while Jewish tradition glorifies him as one of
the most celebrated teachers. “Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died there has
been no more reverence for the law (כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה); and purity and
abstinence (טָהֳרָה וּפְרִישׁוּת) died out at the same time.”[1329] That he was
as little the president of the Sanhedrim. as Hillel was, appears from Acts 5:34
sqq., where he figures as a simple member of it. Much confusion concerning him
has arisen, especially among Christian scholars, by attributing to him matters
which apply to Gamaliel II., e.g. labours at Jabne and elsewhere. [1326] He is
not mentioned in the Mishna at all. His name first occurs in the Babylonian
Talmud, and there not as the son of Hillel, but only as holder of the dignity of
Nasi between Hillel and Gamaliel I. The whole passage (Shabbath 15a, below) is
as follows: הלל ושמעון גמליאל והמעון נהגו נשיאותן לפני הבית מאה שנה. “Hillel and
Simon, Gamaliel and Simon held the dignity of Nasi, during the time of the
existence of the temple, for a hundred years,” i.e. during the last hundred
years before the destruction of the temple. Considering the worthlessness of
this late Talmudic information, B. Lebrecht e.g. is quite justified in disputing
the existence of this Simon altogether (Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitachr. für
Wissensch. und Leben, xi. 1875, p. 278, note). For older views of him, see Wolf,
Biblioth. Hebr. ii. 861 sq. [1327] Orla ii. 12; Rosh hashana ii. 5; Jebamoth
xvi. 7; Sota ix. 15; Gittin iv. 2-3. In all these passages he is expressly
called “the elder” (הַוָּקֵן). Independently of Aboth i. 16, this elder Gamaliel
is probably meant also in Pea ii. 6 and Shekalim vi. 1. In other passages this
is doubtful. In particular the famous jurist Slav Tabi (טָבִי) was not in the
service of the elder, but of the younger Gamaliel (Berachoth ii. 7; Pesachim
vii. 2; Sukka ii. 1). Comp. in general, Graunii, Historia Gamalielis, Viteb.
1687. Wolf, Biblioth. Hebraea, ii. 821 sq. The same, Curae philol. in Nov. Test.
on Acts 5:34. Palmer, Paulus und Gamaliel, Giessen 1806. Winer, RWB. i. 389.
Pressel in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. 656 sq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, 3rd ed.
iii. 373 sqq. Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. i. 281 sqq., 423. Ewald, Gesch. des
Volkes Israel, vi. p. 256 sq. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 239-246.
Schenkel in the Bibellex. ii. 328-330. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. art.
“Gamaliel I.” [1328] Clement. Recogn. i. 65 sqq. Comp. also the narrative of the
presbyter Lucianus of Jerusalem on the finding of the bones of the martyr
Stephen (in Latin in Surius, Vitae Sanctorum, iv. 502 sqq. (3 August); Baronius,
Annal. ad ann. 415, and in the Benedictine edition of Augustine, vol. vii.
Appendix), according to which the bones of Nicodemus, Gamaliel and his son
Abiba, who all here figure as Christians, were found at the same time as those
of Stephen. This legend of Lucianus, which was already known to Gennadius,
Vitae, 46, 47 (see also Fabricius, Biblioth. graeca, ed. Harles, x. 327), was
drawn upon by the presbyter Eustratius of Constantinople, 6th century, in his
book on the state of the dead, cap. 28 (published in Greek by Leo Allatius 1655;
see Fabricius, Bibl. gr. x. 725, xi. 623). Lastly, Photius gives extracts from
Eustratius in his Bibliotheca cod. 171. On a monument of the three saints,
Gamaliel, Abibas and Nicodemus at Pisa, see Wagenseil on Sota ix. 15 (in
Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 314 sq.). Comp. also Thilo, Cod. apocr. p. 501;
Nilles, Kalendarium Manuale (1879), p. 232, and the literature there cited.
[1329] Sota ix. 15. כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה means “reverence for the law;” see
Wagenseil in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 312, n. 13, 315, n. 20. Comp. Nedarim ix.
1: כבוד אביו = “respect towards his father.” So too Aboth iv. 12. The sense thus
is, that no one any longer had such reverence for the law as Rabban Gamaliel the
elder. His son Simon also enjoyed extraordinary fame as a scribe.[1330] Josephus
says of him:[1331] Ὁ δὲ Σίμων οὗτος ἦν πόλεως μὲν Ἱεροσολύμων, γένους δὲ σφόδρα
λαμπροῦ, τῆς δὲ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσεως, οἳ περὶ τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα δοκοῦσι τῶν ἄλλων
ἀκριβείᾳ διαφέρειν. Ἦν δʼ οὗτος ἀνὴρ πλήρης συνέσεώς τε καὶ λογισμοῦ, δυνάμενός
τε πράγματα κακῶς κείμενα φρονήσει τῇ ἑαυτοῦ διορθώσασθαι. He lived at the time
of the Jewish war, and during its first period (A.D. 66-68) took a prominent
part in the conduct of affairs. Still neither was he at any time president of
the Sanhedrim. [1330] Comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9; Vita, 38, 39, 44, 60.
Jost, i. 446 sqq. Derenbourg, pp. 270-272, 474 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii.
1121. By the Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel, so frequently mentioned in the Mishna,
is generally intended the son of Gamaliel II. So especially in Aboth i. 18;
Kerithoth i. 7 alone, besides Aboth i. 17, refers perhaps to Simon the son of
Gamaliel I. [1331] Vita, 38. Of profound importance to the further development
of scribism was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the hitherto
relative independence of the Jewish commonwealth. The ancient Sanhedrin, at the
head of which had stood the Sadducean high priests, now for ever retired from
the stage. The Pharisaic teachers of the law, who during the last century before
the destruction of the temple had already actually exercised very great
influence, became the sole leaders of the people. Hence the direct result of the
political fall was an increase of Rabbinical power and an exaltation of
Rabbinical studies. Henceforth our authorities became more copious,—the first
codification of Jewish law having been undertaken by men directly connected with
the generation which survived the fall of the city. Jamnia or Jabne, which had
since the Maccabaean period been chiefly inhabited by Jews, became after the
destruction of the holy city a chief seat of these studies. The most
distinguished of those scholars, who survived the fall of Jerusalem, seem to
have settled here.[1332] Lydda or Lud is besides mentioned as an abode of
eminent scribes.[1333] later on, perhaps subsequent to the middle of the second
century after Christ, Tiberias became a centre of scribism. [1332] See in
general, Shekalim i. 4; Rosh hashana ii. 8-9, iv. 1-2; Kethuboth iv. 6;
Sanhedrin xi. 4; Edujoth ii. 4; Aboth iv. 4; Bechoroth, iv. 5, vi. 8, Kelim v.
4; Para vii. 6. [1333] Rosh hashana i. 6; Taanith iii. 9; Baba mezia iv. 3;
Jadajim iv. 3. The most important scribe in the decade after the destruction of
Jerusalem was Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai.[1334] The period of his activity is
evident from the circumstance, that he altered several legal enactments or
customs “after the temple was destroyed.”[1335] His place of residence seems to
have been chiefly Jabne.[1336] But Berur Chail (ברור חיל) is also mentioned as a
scene of his labours.[1337] And he must likewise have temporarily sojourned in
Arab (ערב), where various legal questions were propounded for his
decision.[1338] Among his legal innovations perhaps the most prominent is his
doing away with the water of bitterness to be drunk by one accused of
adultery.[1339] How closely connected he still was with matters as they were
before the destruction of Jerusalem, is seen by the fact of his disputing
concerning legal questions with Sadducees,[1340] who soon after it disappear
from history. He is also the vehicle of ancient traditions which are referred to
Moses himself.[1341] Legend tells us of him what Josephus tells us, of himself,
viz. that he predicted to Vespasian his future elevation to the imperial
dignity.[1342] R. Elieser ben Hyrkanos, R. Joshua ben Chananiah, R. Joses the
priest, R. Simon ben Nathanael and R. Eleasar ben Arach are named in the Mishna
as his five disciples.[1343] The best known and most eminent are the two first
named, R. Elieser and R. Joshua. [1334] See concerning him the Hebrew works of
Frankel, Brüll and Weiss (titles above, § 3), also Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums
und seiner Sekten, ii. 13 sqq. Landau, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 163-176. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 10 sqq. Derenbourg,
Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 266 sq., 276-288, 302-318. Hamburger, Real-Enc.,
Div. ii. pp. 464-473. Bacher, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth.
1882, pp. 145-165. Spitz, Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai, Rector der Hochschule zu
Jabneh, Dissertation, Leipzig 1883. He is mentioned in the Mishna in the
following passages: Shabbath xvi. 7, xxii. 3; Shekalim i. 4; Sukka ii. 5, iii.
12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3; Kethuboth xiii. 1-2; Sota v. 2, 5, ix. 9, 15; Edujoth
viii. 3, 7; Aboth ii. 8-9; Menachoth x. 5; Kelim ii. 2, xvii. 16; Jadajim v. 3,
6. Only as בִּי זכאי, Sanhedrin v. 2. For the passages in the Tosefta, see the
index to Zuckermandel’s edition. [1335] Sukka iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4;
Menachoth x. 5. [1336] Shekalim i. 4; Rosh hashana iv. 1. [1337] Sanhedrin 32b;
Tosefta, Maaseroth, 82. 13 (comp. Jer. Demai iii 1, fol. 23b; Jer. Maaseroth ii.
3, fol. 49d). Derenbourg, 307. Many, as e.g. B. Derenbourg, are of opinion that
Johanan ben Sakkai was driven from Jabne by Gamaliel II. and retired to Berur
Chail. [1338] Shabbath xvi. 7, xxii. 3. Arab is a small town in Galilee not far
from Sepphoris. See Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 318, note 3. [1339] Sota ix. 9.
Nine decrees (תקנות) introduced by him are enumerated in the Talmud, Rosh
hashana 31b; Sota 40a. Derenbourg, p. 304 sq. [1340] Jadajim iv. 6. [1341]
Edujoth viii. 7; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. Comp. above, p. 272. [1342] Midrash rabba
on Lamentations 1, 5. Derenbourg, p. 282 sq.; Wünsche, Der Midrash Echa rabbati
(1881), p. 66 sqq. [1343] Aboth ii. 8-9. The abbreviation R. means Rabbi, while
the higher title Rabban is generally written in full. R. Zadok, or as his name
would be more correctly pronounced, R. Zadduk,[1344] was about contemporary with
Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai. He is said to have lived before the destruction of
the temple, and also to have held intercourse with Gamaliel II., Joshua and
Elieser.[1345] He is in fact often mentioned in conjunction with them in the
Mishna.[1346] In certain passages, according to which the date of his life would
have to be considerably postponed, a subsequent R. Zadok is probably
intended.[1347] [1344] See concerning him, Derenbourg, pp. 342-344. Racher,
Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882, pp. 208-211. In the
Mishna, Terumoth x. 9; Pesachim vii. 2; Sukka ii. 5; Nedarim ix. 1; Edujoth iii.
8, vii. 1-4; Aboth iv. 5; Bechoroth i. 6; Kelim xii. 4-5; Mikwaoth v. 5. On
Shabbath xx. 2, xxiv. 5, comp. note 185. For the passages in the Tosefta, see
the index to Zuckermandel’s edition. The pronunciation Zadduk is pointed
according to the Cod. de Rossi 138. Comp. Σαδδούκ in the LXX. in Ezekiel, Ezra
and Nehemiah. [1345] Proofs of both in Derenbourg and Bacher’s above-named
works. [1346] With Gamaliel II., Pesachim vii. 2; with Joshua, Edujoth vii. 1 =
Bechoroth i. 6; with Elieser, Nedarim ix. 1. [1347] So Shabbath xx. 2, xxiv. 5.
Comp. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 215. If we acknowledge the existence of this
subsequent R. Zadok, the question of course arises, whether other passages must
not also be referred to him. To the first decades after the destruction of the
temple belongs also a distinguished priestly scribe, R. Chananiah, “president of
the priests” (סגן הכהנים).[1348] He relates what his father had done, and what
he had himself seen in the temple,[1349] and appears in the Mishna almost
entirely as a narrator of the details of the priestly ritual.[1350] It is
characteristic of him as an eminent priest, that he exhorts to prayer for the
welfare of the heathen authorities.[1351] [1348] See Derenbourg, pp. 368-370.
Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 131, and Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 216-219. His
name according to the best authorities is not Chanina but Chananiah (so Cod. de
Rossi 138, and the Cambridge MS. edited by Lowe). On the office of a priestly
סגן, see above, p. 259. [1349] Sebachim ix. 3, xii. 4. [1350] See in general,
Pesachim i. 6; Shekalim iv. 4, vi. 1; Edujoth ii. 1-3; Aboth iii. 2; Sebachim
ix. 3, xii. 4; Menachoth x. 1; Negaim i. 4; Para iii. 1. [1351] Aboth iii. 2. R.
Elieser ben Jacob[1352] also belongs to the first generation after the
destruction of the temple. For it is very probable that a former scribe of the
same name must be distinguished from the considerably later R. Elieser ben Jacob
so frequently quoted in the Mishna. He flourished not long after the destruction
of the temple,[1353] in which his uncle had ministered as a Levite,[1354] and he
is frequently quoted as an authority in the treatise Middoth;[1355] nay,
subsequent tradition even ascribes to him the composition of the whole
treatise.[1356] It can no longer be decided in particular cases which passages
are to be attributed to him and which to R. Elieser ben Jacob the younger.
Perhaps the statements on circumstances of ritual may be referred to the
elder.[1357] [1352] Derenbourg, p. 374 sq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp.
228-233. [1353] So also Derenbourg, 375, n. 2, and Bacher, 228. The younger
Elieser ben Jacob was a contemporary of R. Simon about A.D. 150 (Para ix. 2),
and narrates in the name of Chananiah ben Chakinai, who again narrates in that
of R. Akiba (Kilajim iv. 8. Tosefta, Negaim 617. 38; Tohoroth 672. 15, ed.
Zuckermandel). [1354] Middoth i. 2. [1355] Middoth i. 2, 9, ii. 5, 6, v. 4.
Comp. Shekalim vi. 3. [1356] Joma 16a. Derenbourg, 374, n. 1. [1357] E.g. the
statements concerning the marriages of priests (Bikkurim i. 5; Kiddushin iv. 7),
the sacrificial rites (Menachoth v. 6, ix. 3; Tamid v. 2), the first-born of
cattle (Bechoroth iii. 1), the sacred singers (Arachin ii. 6), the offerings of
proselytes (Kerithoth ii. 1). Rabban Gamaliel II., son of Simon and grandson of
Gamaliel I., the most renowned scholar of the turn of the century (about A.D.
90-110), lived only a few decades later than Johanan ben Sakkai.[1358] The
tribunal at Jabne, of which he was the head, was in his days generally
acknowledged as the chief authority in Israel.[1359] The most famous scholars
were here assembled about him, and in this respected circle Gamaliel was
reckoned the decisive authority.[1360] Among the scholars in close intercourse
with him, R. Joshua, about his equal in age, and R. Akiba, his junior, were the
most eminent.[1361] On the other hand, Gamaliel does not seem to have entered
into close relations with his famous contemporary R. Elieser ben Hyrcanus. At
least there is no trace of this in the Mishna, while subsequent tradition on the
contrary relates that Elieser was excommunicated by Gamaliel (see below).
Gamaliel once undertook in conjunction with R. Joshua, R. Akiba and the equally
renowned R. Eleasar ben Asariah, a sea voyage to Rome, which obtained a certain
celebrity in Rabbinical literature.[1362] He is said to have been on one
occasion removed by the seventy-two elders from the presidential dignity on
account of his too autocratic dealings, and R Eleasar ben Asariah to have been
appointed to replace him. Gamaliel was however, on showing contrition, soon
reinstated in his office, which Eleasar voluntarily vacated.[1363] The elevation
of Eleasar by the seventy-two elders to the headship of the school is at any
rate evidenced by the Mishna.[1364] In his legal decisions Gamaliel followed the
school of Hillel; it is mentioned as an exception, that in three things he
decided in an aggravated sense, according to the school of Shammai.[1365] In
general he is characterized as much by legal strictness on the one hand,[1366]
as on the other by a certain amount of worldly conformity, nay of candour of
judgment.[1367] [1358] See concerning him the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and
Weiss, also Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 25 sqq. Landau, Monatsschr. für Gesch.
und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 283-295, 323-335. Grätz, Geschichte der
Juden, iv. 30 sqq., 423 sq. Derenbourg, pp. 306-313, 319-346. Hamburger,
Real-Enc. ii. 237-250. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 245-267. The chronology
results from the fact that his younger contemporary Akiba played a part in the
Barkochba war. [1359] Rosh hashana ii. 8-9; Kelim v. 4. Comp. Derenbourg, pp.
319-322. He seems to have sojourned but temporarily at Kefar-Othnai, where we
only once (Gittin i. 5) meet with Gamaliel. [1360] Hence when once during a
protracted absence of Gamaliel it had to be decided, whether the year was to be
a leap year, this was only done with the reservation that Gamaliel should agree
to it (Edujoth vii. 7). Comp. also for the authoritative position of Gamaliel,
the formula “Rabban Gamaliel and the elders” (Maaser sheni v. 9; Shabbath xvi.
8; Erubin x. 10). [1361] On the mutual relations of Gamaliel, Joshua and Akiba,
comp. especially, Maaser sheni v. 9; Erubin iv. 1; Rosh hashana ii. 8-9; Maaser
sheni ii. 7; Sukka iii. 9; Kerithoth iii. 7-9; Negaim vii. 4. Gamaliel and
Joshua, Jadajim iv. 4. Gamaliel and Akiba, Rosh hashana i. 6; Jebamoth xvi. 7.
[1362] Erubin iv. 1-2; Maaser sheni v. 9; Shabbath xvi. 8. Grätz, Monatsschr. f.
Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 192-202. Derenbourg, pp.
334-340. Renan, Les évangiles (1877), p. 307 sqq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p.
251 sqq. [1363] Jer. Berachoth iv. 1, fol. 7ed; Bab. Berachoth 27b (in German in
Pinner, Talmud Babli Tractat Berachoth, 1842, in Latin in Surenhusius’ Mishna,
ii. 337, iii. 247). Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 28 sqq. Grätz, Gesch. der
Juden, iv. 35 sqq. Derenbourg, pp. 327-329. [1364] Sebachim i. 3; Jadajim iii.
5, iv. 2. [1365] Beza ii. 6; Edujoth iii. 10. [1366] Berachoth ii. 5-6. [1367]
Comp. beside the journey to Rome, his intercourse with the governor (hegemôn) of
Syria (Edujoth vii. 7) and his visit to the bath of Aphrodite at Akko, although
there was there a statue of the heathen goddess (Aboda sara iii. 4). The two
most celebrated contemporaries of Gamaliel were R. Joshua ben Chananiah and R.
Elieser ben Hyrcanus, both pupils of Johanan ben Sakkai.[1368] We frequently
find them disputing with each other on legal questions, and Akiba the younger
taking part in these discussions.[1369] With Gamaliel however Joshua only, and
not Elieser, seems to have been in familiar intercourse. According to later
tradition this would be explained by the fact that Elieser was excommunicated by
Gamaliel.[1370] R. Joshua was descended from a Levitical family.[1371] He was of
a gentle and yielding disposition, and hence submitted to the unbending
Gamaliel.[1372] “Since the death of R. Joshua, there is no longer any
kind-heartedness (טוֹבָה) in the world.”[1373] His motto was, “Envy, evil desire
and hatred bring a man out of the world.[1374] Pekiin or Bekiin (עקיעין,
בקיעין), is named as the place of his labours.[1375] His close relations with
Gamaliel however lead to the conclusion that he also resided partly at Jabne.
Tradition relates of him, among other things, that he had various conversations
with the Emperor Hadrian on religious subjects.[1376] In contrast with the
yielding Joshua, Elieser was of a firm, unbending character, and a very strict
adherent to tradition, over which, by reason of his faithful memory and
extensive scholarship, he had more influence than any other.[1377] His teacher
Johnnan ben Sakkai boasted of him, that he was like a well coated with lime,
which does not loose a single drop.[1378] He was not to be moved by any reasons
or representations from what he knew as tradition. Hence his strained relations
with Gamaliel, although he is said to have been his brother-in-law.[1379] His
dwelling-place was Lydda.[1380] The strange opinion of a modern scholar, that he
was inclined to Christianity, nay was secretly a Christian,[1381] rests upon a
legend which really proves the contrary. Elieser is at one time brought before a
heathen tribunal, and looks upon this as a just punishment of God for his having
been pleased with the ingenious solution of a legal question, which a Jewish
Christian had communicated to him as having been derived from Jesus.[1382]
[1368] Aboth ii. 8. Comp. Edujoth viii 7; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. [1369] On the
mutual relations of Joshua, Elieser and Akiba, comp. especially Pesachim vi. 2;
Jebamoth viii. 4; Nedarim x. 6; Nasir vii. 4; Edujoth ii. 7. On Joshua and
Elieser, Pesachim vi. 5; Taanith i. 1; Sebachim vii. 4, viii. 10; Nasir vii. 4.
On Joshua and Akiba, Pesachim ix. 6; Sanhedrin vii. 11. On Elieser and Akiba,
Pea vii. 7; Kerithoth iii. 10; Shebiith viii. 9-10. [1370] Jer. Moed Katan iii.
1, fol. 81d; Bab. Baba mezia 59b; Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 35. Grätz,
Gesch. der Juden, iv. 47. Derenbourg, 324 sq. [1371] This appears from Maaser
sheni v. 9. Comp. on Joshua, the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and Weise; also
Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 50 sqq., 426 sq. Derenbourg, pp. 319 sqq., 416 sqq.
Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii 510-520. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 340-359, 433-464,
481-496. [1372] Rosh hashana ii. 8-9. Derenbourg, 325-327. [1373] Sota ix. 15.
[1374] Aboth ii. 11: עין הרע ויצר הרע ושנאת הבריות. [1375] פקיעין, Sanhedrin 32;
Tosefta, Sota 307, 8. בקיעין, Jer. Chagiga i. 1. Derenbourg, 307. [1376] Bacher,
Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 461 sqq., 481 sqq. [1377] See the Hebrew works of Frankel,
Brüll and Weiss; also Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 43 sq., 425 sq. Derenbourg,
319 sqq., 366 sqq. Hamburger, ii. 162-168. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp.
289-315, 337-359, 433-445. [1378] Aboth ii. 8. [1379] Shabbath 116a. Derenbourg,
323. [1380] Jadajim iv. 3; Sanhedrin 32b. Derenbourg, 307. [1381] Toetterman, R.
Eliezer ben Hyrcanos sive de vi qua doctrina Christians primis seculis
illustrissimos quosdam Judaeorum attraxit, Lipsiae 1877. Comp. Theol. Litztg.
1877, pp. 687-689. [1382] There are two versions of this legend: (1) Aboda sara
16b in German in Ewald’s Aboda sarah oder der Götzendienst, 1868, pp. 120-122;
(2) Midrash rabba on Eccles. i. 8 in German in Wünsche, Der Midrasch Koheleth,
1880, p. 14 sq. See in general, Jost, ii. 41 sq. Grätz, iv. 47. sq. Derenbourg,
357-360. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 301. R. Eleasar ben Asariah,[1383] a rich
and eminent priest, whose genealogy is traced back to Ezra, also occupies an
honourable position together with those last mentioned.[1384] His wealth was so
great, that it was said that after his death there was no longer any wealth
among the learned.[1385] His relations with Gamaliel, Joshua and Akiba, his
journey with them to Rome, his elevation by the seventy-two elders to the office
of president, and his voluntary relinquishment of this position have been
already spoken of. It is evident even from these personal circumstances that he
must have laboured in Jabne, a fact also testified elsewhere.[1386] He was also
in personal relation with R. Ishmael and R. Tarphon, the contemporaries of
Akiba.[1387] [1383] See concerning him, Derenbourg, 327 sqq. Hamburger, ii
156-158. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp. 6-27. According to the best authorities,
his name is not Elieser but Eleasar (in the Cod. de Rossi 138, and in the
Cambridge MS. generally, לעזר). [1384] Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 7. That he
was a priest is clear from Maaser sheni v. 9 [1385] Sota ix. 15. [1386]
Kethuboth iv. 6. Some sentences of Eleasar in Aboth iii. 17. [1387] A
disputation between him, Tarphon, Ishmael and Joshua is given Jadajim iv. 3.
Eleasar and Ishmael in Tosefta, Berachoth 1, lin. 15, ed. Zuckermandel. Eleasar
and Akiba, Tosefta, Berachoth i. 12; Shabbath 113. 23. R. Dosa ben Archinos (or
Harkinos) was another contemporary of Gamaliel and Joshua,[1388] Of him it is
especially stated, that he induced Joshua to submit to Gamaliel.[1389] [1388]
See Derenbourg, 368 sq., 370 sq. Hamburger, ii. 155. His name is, in Cod. de
Rossi 138, ארכינם, elsewhere generally הרכינס, but is in any case not like
Hyrcanus, but Archinos. [1389] Rosh hashana ii. 8-9. Comp. also Erubin iii. 9;
Kethuboth xiii. 1-2; Edujoth iii. 1-6; Aboth iii. 10; Chullin xi. 2; Ohaloth
iii. 1; Negaim i. 4. Among the later men of this generation is also Eleasar ben
Zadok, son of the already mentioned R. Zadok.[1390] The son was, as well as the
father, intimately acquainted with Gamaliel, and hence gives information
concerning his enactments and the legal customs of his house.[1391] [1390] See
concerning him, Derenbourg, pp. 342-344. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1082, pp. 211-215.
As in the case of R. Zadok, so probably in that of Eleasar ben Zadok, we must
distinguish between two scribes of the same name, an older and a younger (so
Frankel, Darke hamishna, pp. 98,178; Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 215; otherwise
Derenbourg, p. 262, n. 2, 344, n. 4). The younger relates in the name of R. Meir
(Kilajim vii. 2), and therefore did not live till the middle of the second
century. The name of both is according to the best authority not Elieser but
Eleasar (Cod. de Rossi 138, and the Cambridge MS. have chiefly לעזר). [1391]
Tosefta, Challa 99. 9; Shabbath iii. 15; Jom. tob. 202. 28, 204. 15-16;
Kiddushin 336. 13 (ed. Zuckermandel). R. Ishmael occupies an independent
position among the scribes of the time.[1392] We find him indeed occasionally in
Jabne.[1393] He was also intimate with his renowned contemporaries R. Joshua,
Eleasar ben Asariah, Tarphon, and Akiba.[1394] His usual dwelling was however in
the south of Palestine on the borders of Edom, in the village of Kephar-Asia
(כפר עזיז), where Joshua once visited him.[1395] He seems, judging from his age,
to have stood in nearer relation to Tarphon and Akiba than to Joshua; he
questioned Joshua, and went “behind him” (like a pupil), while he was on equal
terms with Tarphon and Akiba.[1396] It would be of special interest, if his
father really did, as tradition asserts, also exercise the functions of high
priest. The matter is however more than questionable, and only so far probable
that he was of priestly descent.[1397] In the history of the Halachah, Ishmael
represents a special tendency: in opposition to the artificial and arbitrary
exegesis of Akiba, he adhered more to the simple and literal meaning of
Scripture, but this must be understood in only a very comparative sense.[1398]
The laying down of the thirteen Middoth, or exegetic rules for Halachic
exegesis, is ascribed to him.[1399] A large portion of the exegetic material
contained in two of the oldest Midrashim (Mechilta on Exodus, and Sifre on
Numbers and Deuteronomy) comes from him and his disciples, even if these are
not, as tradition asserts, the exclusive production of his school.[1400]
According to the legend, Ishmael, like most of his contemporaries, is said to
have died as a martyr in the Barkochba war.[1401] [1392] See concerning him,
Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 60 sqq., 427 sqq. Derenbourg, pp. 386-395;
Hamburger, ii. 526-529. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp. 63 sqq., 116 sqq., 209
sqq. On the school of Ishmael, D. Hoffmann, Magazin für die Wissensch. des
Judenth. xi. 1884, pp. 17-30. [1393] Edujoth ii. 4. [1394] Joshua and Ishmael,
Kilajim vi. 4; Aboda sara ii.5; Tosefta, Para 638. 35. Akiba and Ishmael,
Edujoth ii. 6; Mikwaoth vii. 1. On a disputation between Tarphon, Eleasar ben
Asariah, Ishmael and Joshua, see Jadajim iv. 3. But that Joshua and Ishmael e.g.
did not live in the same place is seen from Kilajim vi. 4; Tosefta, Bechoroth
536. 24. The same is evident with respect to Akiba from Erubin i. 2; Tosefta,
Sabim 677. 6 (pupils of Ishmael are reporting to Akiba the instruction of the
former). [1395] On the borders of Edom, Kethuboth v. 8; in Kephar-Asis, Kilajim
vi. 4; on Kephar-Asis, comp. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by
Kitchener and Conder, iii. 315, 348-350. Mikwaoth vii. 1, according to which
people of Medaba, the well-known Moabite town, relate concerning his teaching,
points to labours in Peraea. [1396] Compare the passages cited in note 232. With
respect to Joshua, Aboda sara ii. 5; Tosefta, Para 638. 35. Bacher, Monatsschr.
1883, p. 64. [1397]a Derenbourg, p. 387 sq. [1398] Comp. briefly, Hamburger, p.
528. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 73 sq. [1399] See above, p. 336; and
Derenbourg, pp. 389-391. [1400] The tradition is reduced to its true proportion
e.g. in Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 66 sq. Comp. also on the two Midrashim, §
3, above. [1401] Grätz, iv. 175. Derenbourg, p. 436. Among those scribes who
also had intercourse with Gamaliel, Joshua and Elieser, but stood more or less
in a relation of discipleship to them, by far the most celebrated was R. Akiba
ben Joseph.[1402] He flourished about A.D. 110-135. His relations with Gamaliel,
Joshua and Elieser have already been spoken of (notes [1403] [1404] [1405] He
surpassed them all in influence and reputation. None gathered about him so large
a number of pupils;[1406] none was so glorified by tradition. It is scarcely
possible however to pluck the historically true from the garland of myths. Not
even the place of his labours is known with certainty; from the Mishna it seems
to have been Lydda,[1407] while the Babylonian Talmud names Bene-Barak (בני
ברק).[1408] Such sentences of his as have been handed down are not only
characteristic of his rigidly legal standpoint, but also show that he made
dogmatic and philosophic questions the subjects of study.[1409] Like the ancient
Zealots, he combined national patriotism with religious zeal. Hence he hailed
the political hero Barkochba as the Messiah,[1410] and is said to have suffered
martyrdom as one of the most eminent sacrifices for the national cause.[1411] Of
his exegetic method it can only be said, that it is an exaggeration and
degeneration of that which prevailed among the Rabbis in general, “it is the art
of deducing heaps of Halachoth from every jot of the law.”[1412] To attain this,
the principle was acted on, that no word of the text was superfluous, that even
the slightest, the most apparently superfluous elements of the text contain the
most important truths.[1413] It is of much more value than these exegetical
tricks, and of real epoch-making importance in the history of Jewish law, that
in the time of Akiba, and probably under his direction, the Halachah, which had
hitherto been only orally propagated, was for the first time codified. The
various materials were arranged according to the point of view of their actual
matter, and what was current law was recorded in writing together with
adductions of the divergent views of all the more eminent scribes. This work
forms the foundation of the Mishna of R. Judah ha-Nasi, which has been preserved
to us.[1414] [1402] See concerning him the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and
Weiss; also Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 59 sqq. Landau, Monatsschr. für Gesch.
und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1854, pp. 45-51, 81-93, 130-148. Grätz, Gesch. der
Juden, iv. 53 sqq.; Ewald’s Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vii. 376 sqq. Derenbourg,
pp. 329-331, 395 sqq., 418 sqq. Hamburger, ii. 32-43. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883,
pp. 254 sqq., 297 sqq., 347 sqq., 419 sqq., 433 sqq. Gastfreund, Biographie des
Tanaiten Rabi Akiba (in Hebrew), Lemberg 1871. [1403] On the mutual relations of
Gamaliel, Joshua and Akiba, comp. especially, Maaser sheni v. 9; Erubin iv. 1;
Rosh hashana ii. 8-9; Maaser sheni ii. 7; Sukka iii. 9; Kerithoth iii. 7-9;
Negaim vii. 4. Gamaliel and Joshua, Jadajim iv. 4. Gamaliel and Akiba, Rosh
hashana i. 6; Jebamoth xvi. 7. [1404] Erubin iv. 1-2; Maaser sheni v. 9;
Shabbath xvi. 8. Grätz, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth.
1851-52, pp. 192-202. Derenbourg, pp. 334-340. Renan, Les évangiles (1877), p.
307 sqq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 251 sqq. [1405] On the mutual relations of
Joshua, Elieser and Akiba, comp. especially Pesachim vi. 2; Jebamoth viii. 4;
Nedarim x. 6; Nasir vii. 4; Edujoth ii. 7. On Joshua and Elieser, Pesachim vi.
5; Taanith i. 1; Sebachim vii. 4, viii. 10; Nasir vii. 4. On Joshua and Akiba,
Pesachim ix. 6; Sanhedrin vii. 11. On Elieser and Akiba, Pea vii. 7; Kerithoth
iii. 10; Shebiith viii. 9-10. [1406] Derenbourg, p. 395 sq. [1407] Rosh hashana
i. 6. [1408] Sanhedrin 32b; Derenbourg, pp. 307, 395. [1409] The sentences,
Aboth iii. 13-16. Among them, iii. 15, is the saying הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה,
“Everything is watched (by God), but freedom is granted (to men).” [1410]
Derenbourg, p. 425 sq. [1411] Grätz, iv. 176, 177. Derenbourg, p. 436. Bacher,
1883, p. 256. [1412] Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 254 sq. [1413] Thus e.g. the
particle את is said to indicate, that besides the object mentioned, something
else is also intended together with it. In the account of the creation את השמים
is used, because the sun, moon and stars are also meant (Wünsche, Bereshith
rabba, p. 6 sq.). Comp. Derenbourg, p. 397. The proselyte Aquila tried to be
faithful to this exegetical principle by translating in his Greek version of the
Bible σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν, at which Jerome vents his just scorn
(Epist. 57 ad Pammachium, c. 11, Opp. de Vallarsi, i. 316). Comp. also, on
Aquila as a disciple of Akiba, Hieronymus, Comment. in Jes. viii. 11 sqq.
(Vallarsi, iv. 122): Akibas quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant. Grätz,
Gesch. der Juden, iv. 437. [1414] That an older work of the time of Akiba is the
foundation of our present Mishna, may be inferred almost with certainty from its
contents. That the work in question was edited by Akiba himself may also be
accepted as probable from the testimony of Epiphanius (haer. 33. 9). For further
particulars, see § 3. Comp. also Derenbourg, pp. 399-401. R. Tarphon, a priestly
scribe, who is said to have been very much in earnest about his priestly duties
and privileges, so far as this was possible after the destruction of the temple,
was a contemporary of Akiba.[1415] He lived at Lydda,[1416] and was chiefly in
intercourse with Akiba,[1417] but took part in a disputation with Eleasar ben
Asariah, Ishmael and Joshua.[1418] Subsequent tradition makes him, like all the
scribes of his time, a martyr in the Barkochba war.[1419] As this is however of
just the same value as the Christian tradition, which makes all the apostles
martyrs, he may very well be identical with that Trypho with whom Justin met,
and who said of himself that he had fled from Palestine on account of the
war.[1420] It is peculiar that hard words against the Gospels and against the
Christian faith should have been reported exactly of him.[1421] [1415] See in
general, Dereubourg, pp. 376-383. Hamburger, ii. 1196 sq. Bacher, Monatsschr.
1883, pp. 497-507. [1416] Taanith iii. 9; Baba mezia iv. 3. [1417] Terumoth iv.
5, ix. 2; Nasir vi. 6; Bechoroth iv. 4; Kerithoth v. 2-3. Tosefta, Mikwaoth,
654. 4, 660. 33. [1418] Jadajim iv. 3. [1419] Grätz, iv. 179. Derenbourg, p.
436. [1420] Justin. Dial. c. Tryphone, c. 1: εἰμὶ δὲ Ἑβραῖος ἐκ περιτομῆς, φυγὼν
τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον, ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι καὶ τῇ Κορίνθῳ τὰ πολλὰ διάγων. The
names טרפון and Τρύφων are identical, for it cannot be proved that the former is
a genuine Semitic name, although, according to its form, this is possible. The
time too exactly agrees. Hence the identity of R. Tarphon with Justin’s Trypho
has been accepted by many scholars. See Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 837.
[1421] He said that the Gospels ought to be burned although they contained the
name of God (Shabbath 116a; Derenbourg, p. 379 sq.; Bacher, 1883, p. 506). On
account of the great interest of R. Tarphon to Christian theologians, I here
give all the passages of the Mishna in which he is named: Berachoth i. 3, vi. 8;
Pea iii. 6; Kilajim v. 8; Terumoth iv. 5, ix. 2; Maaseroth iii. 9; Maaser sheni
ii. 4, 9; Shabbath ii. 2; Erubin iv. 4; Pesachim x. 6; Sukka iii. 4; Beza iii.
5; Taanith iii. 9; Jebamoth xv. 6-7; Kethuboth v. 2, vii. 6, ix. 2, 3; Nedarim
vi. 6; Nasir v. 5, vi. 6; Kiddushin iii. 13; Baba kamma ii. 5; Baba mezia ii. 7,
iv. 3; Makkoth i. 10; Edujoth i. 10; Aboth ii. 15-16; Sebachim x. 8, xi. 7;
Menachoth xii. 5; Bechoroth ii. 6-9, iv. 4; Kerithoth v. 2-3; Kelim xi. 4, 7,
xxv. 7; Ohaloth xiii. 3, xvi. 1; Para i. 3; Mikwaoth x. 5; Machshirin v. 4;
Jadajim iv. 3. For the passages in the Tosefta, see the index to Zuckermandel’s
edition. Beside R. Tarphon there remain to be mentioned as contemporaries of R.
Akiba, R. Johanan ben Nuri, who lived also in the time of Gamaliel II., Joshua
and Elieser, but is most frequently spoken of as in intercourse with
Akiba;[1422] R. Simon ben Asai, or merely Ben Asai, who is famed for being
specially indefatigable in study;[1423] R. Johanan ben Beroka, who was an
associate of Joshua and Johanan ben Nuri;[1424] R. Joses the Galilean, who is
mentioned as the contemporary of Eleasar ben Asariah, Tarphon and Akiba;[1425]
R. Simon ben Nannos, or only Ben Nannos, also a contemporary of Tarphon and
Akiba.[1426] [1422] In the time of Gamaliel, Rosh hashana 148. In the time of
Joshua, Tosefta, Taanith 217. 14. In the time of Elieser, Tosefta, Orla 45. 1.
Kelim 575. 18, 20. In association with Akiba, Rosh hashana iv. 5; Bechoroth vi.
6; Temura i. 1; Ukzin iii. 5. Tosefta, Pesachim 155. 27. Comp. in general,
Hamburger, ii. 490 sq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 537 sq. [1423]
Contemporaries of Akiba, Shekalim iv. 6; Joma ii. 3; Taanith iv. 4; Baba bathra
ix. 10. It was said of him: “Since the death of Ben Asai there are no longer any
indefatigable students” (Sota ix. 15: שַׁקְדָּנִים, properly, waking ones, i.e.
untiringly studying ones). Some sentences of his in Aboth iv. 2-3. Comp. in
general, Hamburger, ii. 1119-1121. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1884, pp. 173-187, 225
sq. [1424] With Joshua, Tosefta, Sota 307. 7. With Johanan ben Nuri, Tosefta
Terumoth 38. 15. In the Mishna, Johanan ben Beroka is mentioned, Erubin viii. 2,
x. 15; Pesachim vii. 9; Jebamoth vi. 6; Kethuboth ii. 1; Baba kamma x. 2; Baba
bathra viii. 5; Shebuoth vii. 7; Aboth iv. 4; Bechoroth viii. 10; Kelim xvii.
11. Comp. also Bacher, Monatsschr. 1884, p. 208 sq. [1425] With these three,
Jer. Gittin ix. 1 (Derenbourg, p, 368). With Akiba and Tarphon, Tosefta,
Mikwaoth 660. 32. He relates also in the name of Johanan ben Nuri, Tosefta, Orla
45. 1. See in general, Hamburger, ii. 499-502. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp.
507-513, 529-536. [1426] See especially Tosefta, Mikwaoth 660. 33. We find him
associated with Ishmael, Baba bathra x. 8. He is mentioned by his full name
Simon ben Nannos (νάννος = dwarf), Bikkurim iii 9; Shabbath xvi. 5; Erubin ix.
15; Baba bathra x. 8; Menachoth iv. 3. Only as Ben Nannos, Kethuboth x. 5;
Gittin viii. 10; Baba bathra vii, 3, x. 8; Shabbath vii. 5. To the same period
belongs also Abba Saul, who indeed gives an account even of a saying of Johanan
ben Sakkai, and is repeatedly quoted as an authority concerning the arrangements
of the temple, but cannot have been of earlier date than Akiba, since he
frequently reports his sayings also.[1427] Also R. Judah ben Bethera, who is
mentioned on the one hand as a contemporary of Elieser, on the other as a
contemporary of R. Meir, and who must consequently have flourished in the period
between the two, i.e. in the time of Akiba.[1428] [1427] On a saying of Johanan
ben Sakkai, Aboth ii. 8. On the arrangements of the temple, Middoth ii. 5; also
Menachoth viii. 3, xi. 5. On sayings of Akiba, Tosefta, Kilajim 79. 9; Sanhedrin
433. 27. Comp. also Pea viii. 5; Kilajim ii. 3; Shabbath xxiii. 3; Shekalim iv.
2; Beza iii. 8; Kethuboth vii. 6; Nedarim vi. 5; Gittin v. 4; Kiddushin iv. 2;
Baba mezia iv. 12, vi 7; Baba bathra ii. 7, 13 Sanhedrin x. 1; Makkoth ii. 2.
Lewy, Ueber einige Fragmente des Mischna des Abba Saul, Berlin 1876 (comp.
Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. iv. 1877, pp. 114-120; Monatsschr. für
Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1878. pp. 187-192, 227-235). [1428]
Contemporary of Elieser, Negaim ix. 3, xi. 7. Contemporary of Meir, Tosefta,
Nasir 290. 14. Comp. also on the chronology, Pea iii. 6; Pesachim iii. 3;
Edujoth viii 3; Kelim ii. 4; Ohaloth xi. 7. Tosefta, Jebamoth 255. 28. See in
general, Bacher, Monatsschr. 1884, pp. 76-81. R. Judah, R. Joses, R. Meir and R.
Simon, men of the next generation, are more frequently mentioned in the Mishna
than all those hitherto named. Their labours however, having taken place in the
middle of the second century, fall outside the limits of the period here dealt
with.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 70: � 26. PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES
========================================================================

§ 26. PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES THE LITERATURE For the older literature, see
Carpzov, Apparatus hist.-crit. pp. 173, 204, and Daniel, art. “Pharisäer,” in
Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopädie, § 3, vol. xxii. p. 18. Triglandius, Trium
scriptorum illustrium de tribus Judaeorum sectis syntagma, in quo Serarii,
Drusii, Scaligeri opuscula quae eo pertinent cum aliis junctim exhibentur. 2
vols. Delphis 1703. Ugolini, Trihaeresium sive dissertatio de tribus sectis
Judaeorum (Thesaurus anliquitatum sacrarum, tom. xxii.; and other dissertations
therein). Joh. Gottlob Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatum sacri
codicis (1748), pp. 173-215. Grossmann, De Judaeorum disciplina arcana. Part
i.-ii. Lips. 1833-1834. The same, De philosophia Sadducaeorum. Part i.-iv. Lips.
1836-1838. The same, De Pharisaeismo Judaeorum Alexandrino. Part i.-iii. Lips.
1846-1850. The same, De collegio Pharisaeorum. Lips. 1851. Daniel, art.
“Pharisäer,” in Ersch and Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklop. der Wissensch. und
Künste, § 3, vol. xxii. (1846) pp. 17-34. Winer, Realwörterb. ii. 244-248
(Pharisäer), and 352-356 (Sadducäer). Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen
Lehrbegriffe, i. (1852) pp. 157-222. Reuss in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xi.
1859, pp. 496-509 (Pharisäer), and xiii. 1860, pp. 289-297 (Sadducäer). Müller
(Alois), Pharisäer und Sadducäer oder Judaismus und Mosaismus. Eine
historisch-philosophische Untersuchung als Beitrag zur Religions-geschichte
Vorderasiens (Report of the Session of the Viennese Academy, phil.-hist. class,
vol. xxxiv. 1860, pp. 95-164). Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iv. 357 sqq.,
476 sqq. De Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jüdischen Archäologie (4th ed.), pp.
413-417. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 356 sqq., 382 sqq. Jost,
Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Secten, i. 197 sqq., 216 sqq. Geiger, Urschrift
und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 101-158. The same, Sadducäer und Pharisäer
(Jud. Zeitschr. vol. ii. 1868, pp. 11-54. Also printed separately). The same,
Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, Part i. (2nd ed. 1865) p. 86 sqq. Grätz,
Geschichte der Juden, vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 91 sqq., 647-657 (note 10).
Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 75-78, 119-144, 452-456. Hanne, Die
Pharisäer und Sadducäer als politische Parteien (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol.
1867, pp. 131-179, 239-263). Keim, Geschichte Jesu, i. 250-282. Holtzmann in
Weber and Holtzmann, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii. 124-135. Hausrath in d. Prot.
Kirchenzeitung, 1862, Nr. 44. The same, Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. i. 117-132. The same
in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iv. 518-529. Ginsburg, arts. “Pharisees” and
“Sadducees,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Twisleton, the same
article in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Kuenen, De godsdienst van Israel,
ii. 338-371, 456 sqq. The same, Theol. Tijdschrift, 1875, pp. 632-650
(advertisement of Wellhausen’s work). Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die
Sadducäer. Eine Untersuchung zur inneren jüdischen Geschichte. Greifswald 1874.
Cohen, Les Pharisiens. 2 vols. Paris 1877. Weber, System der altsynagogalen
palästinischen Theologie. Leipzig 1880. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften
Alten Testaments (1881), § 396, 546, 548-554. Baneth, Ueber den Ursprung der
Sadokäer und Boethosäer (Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. Jahrg. ix.
1882, pp. 1-37, 61-95. Also separately as a Leipsic doctorial dissertation).
Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. (1888) pp. 1038-1059 (art.
“Sadducäer,” etc. Comp. also the articles: “Amhaarez,” “Chaber,” “Chassidim,”
“Zaddikim”). Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien et
leur histoire jusqu’à la naissance de Jésus-Christ. Paris 1883 (comp. Theol.
Litztg. 1883, p. 169). Sieffert, art. “Sadducäer” and “Pharisäer,” in Herzog’s
Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xiii. 1884, pp. 210-244. The Testimony of Josephus. Bell.
Jud. ii. 8. 14: Φαρισαῖοι μὲν οἱ δοκοῦντες μετʼ ἀκριβείας ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα
καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἀπάγοντες ἅρεσιν, εἱμαρμένῃ τε καὶ θεῷ προσάπτουσι πάντα, καὶ τὸ
μὲν πράττειν τὰ δίκαια καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι,
βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς ἕκστον καὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην· ψυχὴν δὲ πᾶσαν μὲν ἄφθαρτον,
μεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνην, τὴν δὲ τῶν φαύλων ἀϊδίῳ
τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι. Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ, τὸ δεύτερον τάγμα, τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην
παντάπασιν ἀναιροῦσι, καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ ἐφορᾶν τίθενται, φασὶ
δὲ ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπων ἐκλογῇ τό τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ κακὸν προκεῖσθαι, καὶ τὸ κατὰ γνώμην
ἑκάστῳ τούτων ἑκατέρῳ προσιέναι. Ψυχῆς δὲ τὴν διαμονὴν καὶ τὰς καθʼ Ἅιδου
τιμωρίας καὶ τιμὰς ἀναιροῦσι. Καὶ Φαρισαῖοι μὲν φιλάλληλοί τε καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸ
κοινὸν ὁμόνοιαν ἀσκοῦντες, Σαδδουκαίων δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὸ ἦθος ἀγριώτερον,
αἵ τε ἐπιμιξίαι πρὸς τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀπηνεῖς ὡς πρὸς ἀλλοτρίους. Antt. xiii. 5. 9:
Κατὰ δὲ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον τρεῖς αἱρέσεις τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἦσαν, αἳ περὶ τῶν
ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων διαφόρως ὑπελάμβανον· ὧν ἡ μὲν Φαρισαίων ἐλέγετο, ἡ δὲ
Σαδδουκαίων, ἡ τρίτη δὲ Ἐσσηνῶν. Οἱ μὲν οὖν Φαρισαῖοι τινὰ καὶ οὐ πάντα τῆς
εἱμαρμένης εἶναι λέγουσιν ἔργον, τινὰ δʼ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῖς ὑπάρχειν, συμβαίνειν τε καὶ
μὴ γίνεσθαι. Τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται,
καὶ μηδὲν ὃ μὴ κατʼ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾷ. Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν
εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν, οὐδὲν εἶναι ταύτην ἀξιοῦντες, οὐδὲ κατʼ αὐτὴν τὰ
ἀνθρώπινα τέλος λαμβάνειν, ἅπαντα δʼ ἐφʼ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς τίθενται, ὡς καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν
αἰτίους ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς γινομένους καὶ τὰ χείρω παρὰ ἡμετέραν ἀβουλίαν λαμβάνοντας.
Antt. xiii. 10. 5: [Οἱ Φαρισαῖοι] τοσαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν ἰσχὺν παρὰ τῷ πλήθει ὡς
καὶ κατὰ βασιλέως τι λέγοντες καὶ κατʼ ἀρχιερέως εὐθὺς πιστεύεσθαι. Antt. xiii.
10. 6: Ἄλλως τε καὶ φύσει πρὸς τὰς κολάσεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι.
Ibid.: Νόμιμα πολλά τινα παρέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς,
ἅπερ οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς Μωϋσέως νόμοις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα τὸ Σαδδουκαίων
γένος ἐκβάλλει, λέγον ἐκεῖνα δεῖν ἡγεῖσθαι νόμιμα τὰ γεγραμμένα, τὰ δʼ ἐκ
παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων μὴ τηρεῖν. Καὶ περὶ τούτων ζητήσεις αὐτοῖς καὶ διαφορὰς
γενέσθαι συνέβαινε μεγάλας, τῶν μὲν Σαδδουκαίων τοὺς εὐπόρους μόνον πειθόντων,
τὸ δὲ δημοτικὸν οὐχ ἑπόμενον αὐτοῖς ἐχόντων, τῶν δὲ Φαρισαίων τὸ πλῆθος σύμμαχον
ἐχόντων. Antt. xvii. 2. 4: Ἦ γὰρ μόριόν τι Ἰουδαϊκῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπʼ ἐξακριβώσει
μέγα φρονοῦν τοῦ πατρίου νόμου, αὐτοῖς Χαίρειν τὸ θεῖον προσποιουμένω, οἷς
ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις· Φαρισαῖοι καλοῦνται, βασιλεῦσι δυνάμενοι μάλιστα
ἀντιπράσσειν, προμηθεῖς, κἀκ τοῦ προύπτου εἰς τὸ πολεμεῖν τε καὶ βλάπτειν
ἐπηρμένοι.[1429] [1429] These words of hostility to the Pharisees are evidently
not the production of Josephus, but copied by him from Nikolaus Damascenus
(comp. Derenbourg, p. 123, note). They are the more valuable as a corrective to
the flatteringly coloured representation of Josephus. Antt. xviii. 1, 2:
Ἰουδαίοις φιλοσοφίαι τρεῖς ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου τῶν πατρίων, ἥ τε τῶν
Ἐσσηνῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν Σαδδουκαίων· τρίτην δὲ ἐφιλοσόφουν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι λεγόμενοι. Καὶ
τυγχάνει μέντοι περὶ αὐτῶν ἡμῖν εἰρημένα ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ
πολέμου, μνησθήσομαι δὲ ὅμως καὶ νῦν αὐτῶν ἐπʼ ὀλίγον. § 3: Οἵ τε γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι
τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν, οὐδὲν εἰς τὸ μαλακώτερον ἐνδιδόντες, ὧν τε ὁ λόγος
κρίνας παρέδωκεν ἀγαθῶν, ἕπονται τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ, περιμάχητον ἡγούμενοι τὴν φυλακὴν
ὧν ὑπαγορεύειν ἠθέλησε. Τιμῆς γε τοῖς ἡλικίᾳ προήκουσι παραχωροῦσιν, οὐδὲν ἐπʼ
ἀντιλέξει τῶν εἰσηγηθέντων ταῦτα θράσει ἐπαιρόμενοι. Πράσσεσθαί τε εἱμαρμένῃ τὰ
πάντα ἀξιοῦντες, οὐδὲ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον τῆς ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς ὁρμῆς
ἀφαιροῦνται, δοκῆσαν τῷ θεῷ κρᾶσιν γενέσθαι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνης βουλευτηρίῳ καὶ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων τὸ θελῆσαν προσχωρεῖν μετʼ ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας. Ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς
ψυχαῖς πίστις αὐτοῖς εἶναι, καὶ ὑπὸ χθονὸς δικαιώσεις τε καὶ τιμὰς αἷς ἀρετῆς ἢ
κακίας ἐπιτήδευσις ἐν τῷ βίῳ γέγονε, καὶ ταῖς μὲν εἱργμὸν ἀϊδιον προτίθεσθαι,
ταῖς δὲ ῥᾳστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν. Καὶ διʼ αὐτὰ τοῖς τε δήμοις πιθανώτατοι
τυγχάνουσι, καὶ ὁπόσα θεῖα εὐχῶν τε ἔχεται καὶ ἱερῶν ποιήσεως ἐξηγήσει τῇ
ἐκείνων τυγχάνουσι πρασσόμενα. Εἰς τοσόνδε ἀρετῆς αὐτοῖς αἱ πόλεις ἐμαρτύρησαν
ἐπιτηδεύσει τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κρείσσονος ἔν τε τῇ διαίτῃ τοῦ βίου καὶ λόγοις. § 4:
Σαδδουκαίοις δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς ὁ λόγος συναφανίζει τοῖς σώμασι, φυλακῆς δὲ οὐδαμῶν
τινῶν μεταποίησις αὐτοῖς ἢ τῶν νόμων· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς διδασκάλους σοφίας ἣν
μετίασιν, ἀμφιλογεῖν ἀρετὴν ἀριθμοῦσιν. Εἰς ὀλίγους τε ἄνδρας οὗτος ὁ λόγος
ἀφίκετο, τοὺς μέντοι πρώτους τοῖς ἀξιώμασι, πράσσεταί τε ὑπʼ αὐτῶν οὐδὲν ὡς
εἰπεῖν· ὁπότε γὰρ ἐπʼ ἀρχὰς παρέλθοιεν, ἀκουσίως μὲν καὶ κατʼ ἀνάγκας,
προσχωροῦσι δʼ οὖν οἷς ὁ Φαρισαῖος λέγει, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἂν ἄλλως ἀνεκτοὺς γενέσθαι
τοῖς πλήθεσιν. Antt. xx. 9. 1: αἵρεσιν δὲ μετῄει τὴν Σαδδουκαίων οἵπερ εἰσὶ περὶ
τὰς κρίσεις ὠμοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, καθὼς ἤδη δεδηλώκαμεν. Vita, 2,
fin.: ἠρξάμην πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν, ἣ παραπλήσιός ἐστι
τῇ παρʼ Ἕλλησι Στωικῇ λεγομένῃ. Vita, 38: τῆς δὲ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσεως, οἳ περὶ τὰ
πάτρια νόμιμα δοκοῦσι τῶν ἄλλων ἀκριβείᾳ διαφέρειν. THE TESTIMONY OF THE MISHNA.
(a) On Perushim and Zaddukim. Jadajim iv. 6: “The Zaddukim said to the Perushim:
We must blame you, Perushim, for maintaining that the Holy Scriptures defile the
hands, while antagonistic books (ספרי המירם or perhaps ספרי המירס = the books of
Homer) do not defile the hands. To this Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai replied: Is
this then the only thing of the kind, for which the Perushim can be reproached?
They also say: The bones of an ass are clean, and those of the high priest
Johanan unclean. To which they replied: Bones are declared unclean according to
the proportion of affection, lest perhaps some one should make spoons of the
bones of his father or his mother. Hereupon he replied: So too is it with the
Holy Scriptures only a proof of affection, when it is declared that they defile
the hands, while antagonistic books (the books of Homer) are not loved, and
therefore contact with them does not defile.” Ibid. iv. 7: “The Zaddukim said
also: We must blame you, Perushim, for declaring what is poured into an unclean
vessel to be clean. The Perushim replied: We must blame you, Zaddukim, for
declaring a channel coming out of a burying-place to be clean. The Zaddukim also
said: We must blame you, Perushim, for saying: If my ox or my ass does harm, I
owe compensation; and if my man-servant or my maid-servant does harm, I am free.
If I must pay compensation for an ox or an ass, to whom I have no legal
obligations, why should I not owe compensation for what my manservant and
maid-servant do, to whom I have legal obligations? They replied: That which
applies to an ox and an ass, which have no reason, cannot apply to a man-servant
or maid-servant, who has reason. For else they might, if I make them angry, set
fire to the field of another, and force me to pay expenses.” Ibid. iv. 8: “A
Galilaean heretic[1430] once said: I blame you, Perushim, for writing in a
writing of divorcement the name of the governor with that of Moses. The Perushim
answered: We must blame thee, Galilaean heretic, for nevertheless writing the
name of the governor and the name of God upon one page, and besides this the
former above and the latter below. For it is written in the Bible (Exodus 5:2):
Pharaoh said: Who is Jahveh, that I should obey Him and let Israel go?” [1430]
According to the best authorities (Cod. de Rossi 138, Cambridge MS., editio
princeps of the Mishna, 1492), the reading here and further on should be צדוקי
גלילי instead of מין גלילי. Chagiga ii. 7: “The garments of Am-haarez are Midras
(מִדְרָס, that is, defiled by pressure) for Perushim; those of the Perushim are
Midras for those who eat the heave; those of the latter are Midras for those who
eat holy things; and those of the latter are Midras for those who sprinkle the
water of purification.”[1431] [1431] On the meaning of Am-haarez (עם הארץ), see
farther on. “Those who eat the heave” are the priests and those belonging to
them, “those who eat the holy things” are the ministering priests. Each
subsequent category stands a degree higher in holiness and purity than the
preceding one, on which account the garments of the preceding are unclean and
unlawful for them; comp. in illustration, Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. מדרס
(iii. 33 sq.), and the translation in the Mishna published under Jost’s
direction. Sota iii. 4: “R. Joshua used to say: A foolish saint, a wise sinner,
a Pharisaic woman (אִשָּׁה פְרוּשָׁה) and the sufferings of Perushim destroy the
world.”[1432] [1432] The meaning seems to be, that the world cannot continue
with a combination of irreconcilable contrasts. Expositors indeed explain it
differently. See Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 218 sqq. Erubin vi. 2: “Rabban
Gamaliel relates: A Zadduki once lived with us in a Maboi (a street fenced off
for the purpose of freer Sabbath intercourse) in Jerusalem. Then my father said:
Bring quickly all your goods into the Maboi, before the Zadduki can bring
anything there, and make it unlawful for you. R. Judah quotes the saying
differently: Do quickly what you have to do in the Maboi before the Zadduki
brings anything there, and makes it unlawful for you.”[1433] [1433] The
explanation of the difficult Mishna is doubtful, and the difficulty is increased
by the uncertainty of the reading in the last sentence (see the note in Jost’s
Mishna, and the commentary in Surenhusius, ii. 108 sq.). At all events however
Gamaliel means, according to the first reported form of his speech, to say, that
his father placed the Zadduki on a level with another (rigidly legal) Israelite.
For when several Israelites jointly deposited anything before the beginning of
the Sabbath in a space fenced off, on which their houses abutted, they thereby
made this space their private tenement, within which it was lawful even on the
Sabbath to carry in and out. Those however who had taken no part in such
depositing were excluded from this privilege. Makkoth i. 6: “False witnesses are
only to be executed, when sentence has been passed upon one found guilty through
them. The Zaddukim say: Only when he has been already executed; because it is
said (Deuteronomy 19:21), life for life. But the learned hare refuted this,
because it is said (Deuteronomy 19:19) you shall do to him as he thought to do
to his brother. His brother therefore still exists.” In Para iii. 3 the ordinary
printed text has only צדוקים. Better authorities have מינים.[1434] [1434] So
Cod. de Rossi 138, the Cambridge MS., and the editio princeps of the Mishna
(Naples 1492). Para iii. 7: “The priests who burned the red heifer, were
purposely declared unclean on account of the Zaddukim, that they might not
assert, that the heifer was prepared by such only as had become clean through
the setting of the sun.” Nidda iv. 2: “The daughters of the Zaddukim are, if
they walk in the ways of their fathers, equal to Samaritan women. If they walk
openly in the ways of Israel, they are equal to Ieraelitish women. R. Joses
says: They are all looked upon as Israelitish women, unless it is proved that
they walk in the ways of their fathers.” (b) On Chaber and Am-haarez. Demai ii.
3: “He who takes upon himself to be a Chaber (חָבֵר) sells neither fresh nor dry
fruits to the Am-haarez (עַם הָאָרֶץ), buys from them no fresh, does not enter
their houses as a guest, nor receive them as guests within his walls. R. Judah
says: He must also breed no small cattle,[1435] not be frivolous in oaths and
jokes, not defile himself with the dead, must on the other hand wait in the
school-house. He was however answered: All this does not amount to the main
thing.” [1435] Because shepherds do not spare their neighbour’s field. Demai vi.
6: “If a Chaber and an Am-haarez inherit from their father, who was an
Am-haarez, the former may say: Do thou take the wheat in this place and I will
take the wheat in that place, thou the wine of this, I of that place. But he may
not say to him: Do thou take wheat and I barley; thou the moist, I the
dry.”[1436] [1436] This is in the interest of the correct tithing of all the
different crops by the Chaber. Demai vi. 12: “If an Am-haarez says to a Chaber:
Buy me a bundle of vegetables, buy me a loaf, the latter may buy without special
remark and is free from the duty of tithing. But if he added: I buy this for
myself and that for my friend, and they get mixed, he must tithe all, even if
the latter were a hundred (i.e. a hundred times as great as his own”). Shebiith
v. 9 = Gittin v. 9: “One woman may lend to another, who is suspected about
shebiith (the eating of the fruits of the seventh year), A flour sieve, a corn
sieve, a hand mill and a stove, but may not help her to gather or to grind. The
wife of a Chaber may lend the wife of an Am-haarez a flour sieve and a corn
sieve, and may also help her to gather, to grind and to winnow. But. when once
water has been poured on the flour she may no longer handle it with her,[1437]
for one must not assist the transgressor. Besides, this latter has been only
allowed for the sake of peace, just as one may in the seventh year wish success
to the labour of the Gentiles, but not to that of an Israelite, etc.” [1437] The
reason of this is found in the laws concerning clean and unclean. See the
commentary. Bikkurim iii. 12: “R. Judah says: A priest may make a present of the
first-fruits only to a Chaber.” Tohoroth vii. 4: “If the wife of a Chaber has
left the wife of an Am-haarez grinding at the mill in her house, the house is
unclean if the mill stops; but if it goes on grinding, only that is unclean
which the woman could reach by stretching out her hand. If there are two such
women there, all is, according to R. Meir, unclean, because while the one is
grinding, the other can touch everything, but according to the learned, only
that which each could touch by stretching out her hand.” Tohoroth viii. 5: “If
the wife of an Am-haarez enters the house of a Chaber to fetch out his son, his
daughter, or his cattle, the house remains clean, because she has no permission
to stay there.” The priests and scribes were the two influential factors which
determined the inner development of Israel after the captivity. In Ezra’s time
they were still virtually identical. From the commencement of the Greek period
they were more and more separated, and about the period of the Maccabaean
conflict two parties sharply contrasted with each other were developed from
them. The Sadducean party proceeded from the ranks of the priests, the party of
the Pharisees from the scribes. We know these two parties from the testimony
especially of the New Testament and Josephus as two circles in hostile
opposition to each other. But we shut out beforehand the comprehension of their
nature, if we view the contrast between the two as one really the result of
opinion. The Pharisees were by nature the rigidly legal, the Sadducees in the
first instance only the aristocrats, who certainly were driven by the historical
development into that opposition to Pharisaic legality, which however formed no
fundamental element of their nature. Hence we gain but a distorted image by
opposing the differences between them to each other point by point. On the
contrary, the characteristic feature of the Pharisees arises from their legal
tendency, that of the Sadducees from their social position.[1438] [1438] The
above expressed thought, that the contrast between the two was not one of
opinion, was first precisely formulated by Wellhausen.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 71: I. THE PHARISEES
========================================================================

I. THE PHARISEES The Pharisees were simply those who were specially exact about
the interpretation and observance of the law, hence they were the rigidly legal,
who spared themselves no pains and privations in its punctual fulfilment. “They
were considered to interpret the law with accuracy.”[1439] “They valued
themselves upon their accurate interpretation of the law of their
fathers.”[1440] “They renounce the enjoyments of life and in nothing surrender
themselves to comfort.”[1441] Hence they were those, who seriously and
consistently strove to carry out in practice the ideal of a legal life set up by
the scribes. And this is to say, that they were the classic representatives of
that tendency, which the internal development of Israel altogether adopted
during the post-exilian period. What applies to this in general applies in a
specific manner to the Pharisaic party. It was the germ proper, which was
distinguished from the rest of the mass only by its greater strictness and
consistency. Hence the law, in that maturity of complication which had been
given to it by the labours of the scribes during the course of centuries, was
the basis of all its efforts. To carry this out in every point was the beginning
and end of all its endeavours. Hence all that has been said above (§ 25. III.)
on the development of Jewish law by the labours of the scribes, and all that
will be adduced farther on (§ 28) on the nature of Jewish legaliam, serves to
characterize Pharisaism. The legalism there described is just the Pharisaic. But
as Pharisaism rests upon the foundation of the law as developed by the scribes,
so did it also in its turn govern the farther development of Jewish law. When
the Pharisaic party had once been formed as such, all the more famous scribes,
at least all those who influenced the future development, proceeded from its
midst. There were indeed Sadducean scribes. But their work has left no trace
behind it in history. All the influential scribes belonged to the Pharisaic
party. This may be assumed as self-evident, and is confirmed by the fact, that
in the few cases in which the party position of the scribes is named, they are
as a rule designated as Pharisees.[1442] [1439] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14: οἱ
δοκοῦντες μετʼ ἀκριβείας ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα Vita, 38: οἵ περὶ τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα
δοκοῦσι τῶν ἄλλων ἀκριβείᾳ διαφέρειν Comp. Acts 22:3; Acts 26:5; Php_3:5. [1440]
Antt. xvii. 2. 4: ἐπʼ ἐξακριβώσει μέγα φρονοῦν τοῦ πατρίου νόμου. [1441] Antt.
xviii. 1. 3: τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν, οὐδὲν εἰς τὸ μαλακώτερον ἐνδιδόντες.
[1442] Antt. xv. 1. 1: Πωλίων ὁ Φαρισαῖος καὶ Σαμέας ὁ τούτου μαθητής·. Also
Antt. xv. 10. 4. Acts 5:34 : τὶς ἐν τῳ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ.
Joseph. Vita, 38: ό δὲ Σίμων οἷτος ἦν πόλεως μὲν Ἱεροσολύμων, γένους δὲ σφόδρα
λαμπροῦ, τῆς δὲ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσεως. After what has been said, it is
self-evident, that the Pharisees would declare not only the written Thorah, but
also the “oral law” developed by the scribes as binding. This whole multitude of
enactments now passed as the correct exposition and further development of the
written Thorah. Zeal for the one implied zeal for the other. Hence it is
expressly said in Josephus, “The Pharisees have imposed upon the people many
laws taken from the tradition of the fathers (ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς), which are
not written in the law of Moses.[1443] When John Hyrcanus forsook the Pharisees,
he abolished the laws which they had introduced κατὰ τὴν πατρῴαν παράδοσιν, and
at the restoration under Alexandra they were re-enacted.[1444] In the New
Testament also testimony is given to the estimation in which the Pharisees held
the παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (Mark 7:3; Matthew 15:2). That the same standpoint
with regard to this παράδοσις was represented by the entire body of Jewish
Rabbinism has already been shown (vol, i. p. 334 sq.). The Halacha or
traditional law, as developed and settled by the labours of the scribes, was
declared to be as legally binding as the written Thorah. R. Eleasar of Modein
said: He who interprets Scripture in opposition to tradition (שֶׁלּאֹ כַהֲלָכָה)
has no part in the world to come.[1445] Among the reasons for which the tempest
of war bursts upon the country, are named among others, “People who interpret
Scripture in opposition to tradition” (שֶׁלּאֹ כַהֲלָכָה).[1446] The traditional
interpretation and the traditional law are thus declared absolutely binding. And
it is consequently but consistent when deviation from these is declared even
more culpable than deviation from the written Thorah. It is more culpable to
teach contrary to the precepts of the scribes, than contrary to the Thorah
itself.”[1447] If the traditional interpretation is binding, it is in fact this
and not the written law which decides in the last instance. Nor is anything else
than this established Pharisaic principle of tradition meant by the rhetorical
expression of Josephus, that the Pharisees do not allow themselves to oppose the
injunctions of those who precede them in age.[1448] Certainly there is
infinitely more insight in these words of Josephus, than in the assertion of
Geiger, that Pharisaism is “the principle of progressive development,” and that
Protestantism is only “the full reflection of Pharisaism.”[1449] [1443] Antt.
xiii. 10. 6. [1444] Antt. xiii. 16. 2. [1445] Aboth iii. 11. [1446] Aboth v. 8.
[1447] Sanhedrin xi. 3. [1448] Antt. xviii. 1. 3. [1449] Geiger, Sadducäer und
Pharisäer (separate reprint), p. 35. As in its position towards the law, so too
in its religious and dogmatic views does Pharisaism simply represent the
orthodox standpoint of later Judaism. In this respect the following points are
brought forward, some from the New Testament, some from Josephus, as
characteristic of the Pharisees in contradistinction to the Sadducees. 1. The
Pharisees teach “that every soul is imperishable, but that only those of the
righteous pass into another body, while those of the wicked are, on the
contrary, punished with eternal torment”;[1450] or, as it is said in another
passage, “they hold the belief that an immortal strength belongs to souls, and
that there are beneath the earth punishments and rewards for those (souls), who
in life devoted themselves to virtue or vileness, and that eternal imprisonment
is appointed for the latter, but the possibility of returning to life for the
former.”[1451] The Sadducees, on the other hand, say that there is no
resurrection (μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν, Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:8; Luke 20:27; Acts
23:8; comp. 4:1, 2). “They deny the continuance of the soul and the punishments
and rewards of the world below.”[1452] “According to their teaching, souls
perish together with bodies.”[1453] What is here represented in a philosophizing
style as the doctrine of the Pharisees, is merely the Jewish doctrine of
retribution and resurrection, already testified by the Book of Daniel (Daniel
12:2), by all subsequent Jewish literature, and also by the New Testament, as
the common possession of genuine Judaism. The righteous will rise to life
eternal in the glory of the Messianic kingdom, but the unrighteous will be
punished with eternal torment. Nor is the essence of this faith the mere opinion
of a philosophical school with respect to immortality, but that upon which
depends the direct religious interest of the personal salvation of each
individual. For this appears to be guaranteed only on the assumption of a
resurrection of, the body. Hence so great weight is laid upon this, that in the
Mishna it is even said, that he who says, that the resurrection of the dead is
not to be inferred from the law, has no part in the world to come.[1454] The
Sadducees, by denying the resurrection and immortality in general, renounced at
the same time the entire Messianic hope, at least in that form which later
Judaism had given it. And it was they and not the Pharisees who—from the stand
point of later Judaism—represented a sectarian opinion. [1450] Bell. Jud. ii.
8.14. That Josephus does not intend by this to ascribe to the Pharisees the
doctrine of the transmigration of souls is proved by the passage following.
[1451] Antt. xviii. 1. 3. [1452] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14. [1453] Antt. xviii. 1. 4.
[1454] Sanhedrin x. 1. 2. The Pharisees also taught the existence of angels and
spirits, while the Sadducees denied them (Acts 23:8). This statement of the
Acts, though not confirmed by other testimony, is nevertheless thoroughly
trustworthy, as in entire accordance with the picture which we elsewhere obtain
of the two parties. That in this respect also the Pharisees represented the
general standpoint of later Judaism needs no proof. 3. Josephus ascribes also to
Pharisees and Sadducees different views concerning Divine providence and human
freedom. The Pharisees “make everything depend on fate and on God, and teach
that the doing of good is indeed chiefly the affair of man, but that fate also
co-operates in every transaction.”[1455] “They assert, that everything is
accomplished by fate. They do not however deprive the human will of spontaneity,
it having pleased God that there should be a mixture, and that to the will of
fate should be added the human will with its virtue or baseness.”[1456] They
say, that “some but not all things are the work of fate; some things depend on
the will of man as to whether they are done or not.”[1457] The Sadducees deny
fate entirely, and place God beyond the possibility of doing or providing
anything evil. They say, that good and evil are at man’s choice, and the doing
of the one or the other at his discretion.[1458] “They deny fate by asserting
that it is nothing, and that human affairs are not brought to pass by its means.
They ascribe on the contrary all to us, maintaining, that we are ourselves the
cause of our prosperity, and that we also incur misfortune through our own
folly.”[1459] At the first glance it seems very strange to meet with such
philosophemes among the religious parties of Palestine, and the suspicion
arises, that Josephus not only gave a philosophic colouring to religious views,
according to his own fancy, but that without further ceremony he imputed
philosophic theories to his countrymen; a suspicion which is increased when we
also add his statements concerning the Essenes, whence results the systematic
statement, that the Essenes taught an absolute fate, the Sadducees utterly
denied fate, and the Pharisees struck out a middle path between the two. And to
strengthen our suspicion still more, Josephus expressly assures us elsewhere,
that the Pharisees corresponded to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the
Pythagoreans.[1460] In fact the very expression εἱμαρμένη, which is utterly
impossible to any Jewish consciousness, proves that we have at least to deal
with a strongly Hellenized colouring of Jewish views. Still it is merely the
garment which is borrowed from Greece. The matter itself is genuinely Jewish.
For after all, what Josephus says, when once we strip off its Greek form, is
nothing more than this, that according to the Pharisees everything that happens
takes place through God’s providence, and that consequently in human actions
also, whether good or bad, a co-operation of God is to be admitted. And this is
a genuine Old Testament view. For, on the one hand, the strict comprehension of
the idea of the Divine omnipotence leads to a conception of human actions,
whether good or bad, as effected by God.[1461] On the other hand, the Old
Testament lays quite as much emphasis on the moral responsibility of man; he
himself incurs guilt and punishment if he acts wrongly, as he also gains merit
and reward if he acts rightly. And for later Judaism the moral independence of
man was a fundamental thought, a primary assumption of its zeal for the law and
its hope for the future.[1462] Both lines of thought are genuinely Jewish. It is
highly probable in itself, that the reflection of the learned and educated was
directed towards the antinomy involved in them and sought to find a means of
reconciling them. Nay, we have distinct testimony that this was the case, that
Rabbinical Judaism did in fact make the problem of Divine Providence and human
freedom the subject of its thought.[1463] This is not however to say, that the
three possible standpoints, (1) absolute fate, (2) absolute freedom, (3)
interposing inspection, were each represented in so systematic a manner as
Josephus states by the three parties of Essenes, Sadducees and Pharisees. This
systematizing is certainly the weakest point in the representation of Josephus.
Still there may be a certain amount of truth in it. It may be, that in the view
of the Essenes the Divine, in that of the Sadducees the human factor occupied
the foreground. In any case the Pharisees embraccd with equal resolution both
lines of thought: the Divine omnipotence and providence and human freedom and
responsibility. That the one continued to exist beeide and notwithstanding the
other is emphatically stated in a saying of Akiba: הַכֹּל צָפוּי וְהָרְשׁוּת
נְתוּנָה “Every thing is beheld (by God), but freedom is given (to man).”[1464]
Herein also the Pharisees represent not a sectarian opinion, but the correct
standpoint of Judaism. [1455] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14. [1456] Antt. xviii. 1. 3.
The above translation rests upon the reading τὸ θελῆσαν for τᾦ θελήσαντι adopted
by Bekker. [1457] Antt. xiii. 5. 9. [1458] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14. The reading τὸν
θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ μὴ δρᾶν (for ἢ ἐφορᾶν) τίθενται, still defended by
Keim, i. 281, is quite a useless conjecture, which has been again abandoned by
modern editors. The word ἐφορᾶν is, as Passow’s Lexicon already shows, the only
technical expression in the whole Greek language for the divine supervision of
the world, and indeed not only in the sense of inspicere, but also in that of
prospicere, providere. The Hebrew צָפָה in the saying of Akiba, quoted farther
on, corresponds with it. [1459] Antt. xiii. 5. 9. On παρά, c. acc., meaning
through, see Passow, ii 669b, above. [1460] Vita, 2, fin.; Antt. xv. 10. 4.
[1461] In these words is the Old Testament view comprised in the excellent
disquisition of De Visser, De daemonologie can het Oude Testament (Utrecht
1880), pp. 5-47. Comp. Theol. Litztg. 1881, col. 26. [1462] Comp. e.g. Psalt.
Salom. 9:7: ὁ θεὸς, τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν, τοῦ
ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν ἐν ἔργοις χειρῶν ἡμῶν. [1463] See especially,
Hamburger, Real-Enc., Dir. ii. p. 102 sqq. (art. “Bestimmung”). Also Gfrörer,
Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 111 sqq. Langen, Das Judenihum in Palästina, p.
381 sqq. The Apostle Panl is a proof of how much Jewish consciousness was
occupied with the problem in question. [1464] Aboth iii. 15. Derenbourg, p. 127,
note, refers also to Sifre, § 53. In politics too the standpoint of the
Pharisees was the genuinely Jewish one of looking at political questions not
from a political, but from a religious point of view. The Pharisees were by no
means a “political” party, at least not directly. Their aim, viz. the strict
carrying out of the law, was not political, but religious. So far as no
obstruction was cast in the way of this, they could be content with any
government. It was only when the secular power prevented the practice of the law
in that strict manner which the Pharisees demanded, that they gathered together
to oppose it, and then really became in a certain sense a political party,
opposing even external resistance to external force. This took place not only at
the time of the oppression by Antiochus Epiphanes, but also under the Jewish
princes John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, who opposed Pharisaic ordinances
from their Sadducaean standpoint. On the other hand, the Pharisees had, under
Alexander, who left the whole power in their hands, a leading position in the
government, which however they used only for the carrying out of their religious
demands. To politics as such they were always comparatively indifferent. It must
however be admitted, that there were two different religious points of view,
especially at the time when Israel was under heathen government or under
government friendly to the heathen, from which to judge of the political
situation, and that according as the one or the other was placed in the
foreground, an opposite demeanour would be maintained towards it. The idea of
the Divine Providence might be made the starting-point. Thence would result the
thought, that the sway of the heathen over Israel was the will of God, that it
was He who had given to the Gentiles power over His people to punish them for
their transgressions, that this government of the Gentiles could last only so
long as it was the will of God. Hence first of all this chastisement of God must
be willingly submitted to; a heathen and moreover a harsh government must be
willingly borne, if only the observance of the law was not thereby prevented.
From this standpoint the Pharisees Polio and Sameas, e.g., exhorted their
fellow-citizens to submit to the rule of Herod.[1465] In the time also of the
great insurrection against the Romans, we see the chief Pharisees, like Simon
the son of Gamaliel, at the head of that mediatizing party, who only joined in
the insurrection because they were forced to do so, while they were in heart
opposed to it.[1466] An entirely different result however was arrived at, when
the thought of Israel’s election was placed in the foreground. Then the rule of
the heathen over the people of God would appear as an abnormity whose abolition
was by all means to be striven for. Israel must acknowledge no other king than
God alone, and the ruler of the house of David, whom He anointed. The supremacy
of the heathen was illegal and presumptuous. From this standpoint it was
questionable, not merely whether obedience and payment of tribute to a heathen
power was a duty, but whether it was lawful (Matthew 22:17 sqq.; Mark 12:14
sqq.; Luke 20:22 sqq.). From this standpoint, as it seems, the majority of the
Pharisees refused to take the oath to Herod.[1467] It may be supposed that this
was the specially popular standpoint, both with the people and the Pharisees.
Indeed it must have been such, since every non-Pharisaic government, even when
it did not prevent the practice of the law, involved a certain compromise of its
free exercise. Hence it was a Pharisee, one Saddukos, who in conjunction with
Judas of Galilee founded the revolutionary party of the Zealots.[1468]
Indifferent then as Pharisaism at first was to politics, the revolutionary
current, which in the time of Christ was continually increasing among the Jewish
people, must be set to the account of its influence. [1465] Antt. xiv. 9. 4, xv.
1. 1. [1466] Com. on Simon, Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9. [1467] Antt. xv. 10. 4, xvii.
24. [1468] Antt. xviii. 41; comp. i. 6. The characteristics of Pharisaism
hitherto described show no peculiarity by which it may be distinguished from
post-exilian Judaism in general. So far as it is only regarded as an
intellectual tendency, it is simply identical with that adopted by the Judaism
of the post-exilian period, at least in its main branches and classic
representatives. Still it formed a party within the nation, an ecclesiola in
ecclesia. In one of the two passages in which Josephus, or rather his authority
Nikolaus Damascenus, speaks of the refusal of the oath by the Pharisees, he
designates them as a μόριόν τι Ἰουδαικῶν ἀνθρώπων, and states their number as
six thousand.[1469] This leads us to infer a definite boundary of their circle.
In the New Testament also and in Josephus the Pharisees evidently appear as a
decided fraction of the people. In the same sense also must their name be
explained. It is in Hebrew פְּרוּשִׁים,[1470] in Aramaic פְּרִישִׁין, stat.
emphat. פְּרִישַׁיָּא, whence the Greek Φαρισαῖοι. That this literally means
“the separated” is undoubted. The only question can be, to what to refer the
term. Are they those who separate themselves from all uncleanness and all
illegality, or those who separate themselves from certain persons? The first is
spoken for by the circumstance, that in Rabbinic Hebrew also the substantives
פְּרִישָׁה and פְּרִישׁוּת occur with the meaning “separation,” scil. from all
uncleanness.[1471] But if only a separation from uncleanness, without any
reference to persons, were intended, other positive epithets would have been
more obvious (the “clean,” the “just,” the “pious,” or the like). Besides, a
separation from uncleanness is at the same time a separation from unclean
persons. If then the latter is in any case to be included, it seems obvious to
derive the name from that “separation,” which took place in the time of
Zerubbabel and then again in the time of Ezra, when Israel separated from the
heathen dwelling in the land and from their uncleanness (Ezra 6:21; Ezra 9:1;
Ezra 10:11; Nehemiah 9:2; Nehemiah 10:29). Wellhausen however is in the right
when he objects to this, that this separation, to which all Israel then
submitted, had about it nothing characteristic of the Pharisees.[1472] For the
Pharisees must have their name from a separation, which the bulk of the nation
did not undergo with them; in other words, from a separation made by them, in
consequence of their stricter view of the notion of uncleanness, not only from
the uncleanness of the heathen, but also from that with which, according to
their view, a great portion of the people were affected. It was in this sense
that they were called the separated or the separating, and they might have been
so called from either praise or blame. They might so have called themselves,
because they kept as far as possible from all uncleanness, and therefore also
from contact with unclean persons. Or they might have been so named in a
reproachful sense by their adversaries, as “the separatists,” who for the sake
of their own special cleanness separated themselves from the bulk of the
nation.[1473] The latter was certainly the original meaning of the name. For it
is not probable that they gave it to themselves. Other positive
self-designations would have been more obvious to them, and in fact they first
appear in history under the name of חֲסִידִים (see below). Their adversaries
however called them “the separatists.” This also explains why the name so seldom
occurs in our oldest Rabbinical authority the Mishna; in the chief passage in
the mouth of an adversary and only twice besides.[1474] The last-named fact
certainly shows that the Pharisees on their part accepted the party name when
once naturalized. And they might well do so, for from their standpoint the
“separation” from which they obtained the name was one thoroughly praiseworthy
and well-pleasing to God. [1469] Antt. xvii. 2. 4. [1470] Jadajim iv. 6-8;
Chagiga ii. 7; Sota iii. 4. [1471]a Sabim v. 1: לאחר פִּרִישִׁתוֹ ממטמאיו,
“After he was separated from what defiled him.” Tohoroth iv. 12: טהרת
פְּרִישׁוּת, “The cleanness of the separated life.” Sota ix. 15: “Since Rabban
Gamaliel the elder died, there has been no more טָהֳרָה וּפְּרִישׁוּת. Aboth
iii. 13: “R. Akiba said: Vows are a fence for the פְּרִישׁוּת” (i.e. they serve
for its maintenance and preservation). [1472] Wellhausen, Pharisäer und
Sadducäer, p. 76 sqq. [1473] This view, though intermingled with other points of
view, is also the prevailing one in the explanations of the Fathers and the
Rabbis. See Clem., Homil. xi. 28: οἵ εἰσιν ἀφωρισμένοι καὶ τὰ νόμιμα ὡς
γραμματεῖς τῶν ἄλλων πλεῖον εἰδότες. Pseudo-Tertullian, adv. haer. c. 1:
Pharisaeos, qui addita-menta quaedam legis adstruendo a Judaeis divisi sunt,
unde etiam hoc accipere ipsum quod habent nomen digni fuerunt. Origenes,
Comment. in Matthew 23:2 (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch, iv. 194): Qui autem majus aliquid
profitentes dividunt se ipsos quasi meliores a multis, secundum hoc Pharisaei
dicuntur, qui inter-pretantur divisi et segregati. Phares enim divisio
appellatur. Idem, Comment. in Matthew 23:28 sqq. (Lommatzsch. iv. 219 sq.):
Similiter Pharisaei sunt omnes qui justificant semetipsos, et dividunt se a
caeteris dicentes: noli mihi appropriare, quoniam mundus sum. Interpretantur
autem Pharisaei, secundum nomen Phares, divisi, qui se ipsos a caeteris
diviserunt. Phares, autem dicitur hebraica lingua divisio. Idem, Comment. in
Matthew 23:29 (Lommatzsch. iv. 233): Recte Pharisaei sunt appellati, id est
praecisi, qui spiritualia prophetarum a corporali historia praeciderunt. Idem,
Comment. in Joann. vol. vi. c. 13 (Lommatzsch, i. 210): Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι, ἅτε
κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα ὄντες διῃρημένοι τινὲς καὶ στασιώδεις. Idem, Comment. in Joann.
vol. xiii. c. 54, fin. (Lommatzsch. ii. 113): Φαρισαίων δὲ τῶν ἀποδιῃρημένων καὶ
τὴν θείαν ἑνότητα ἀπολωλεκότων· Φαρισαῖοι γὰρ ἑρμηνεύονται· οἱ διῃρημένοι.
Epiphanius, haer. 16, 1: Ἐλέγοντο δὲ Φαρισαῖοι διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς
ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων, διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν τὴν παρʼ αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην. Φάρες
γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραΐδα ἑρμηνεύεται ἀφορισμός. Hieronymus, contra Luciferianos, c.
23 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, ii. 197): Pharisaei a Judaeis divisi propter quasdam
observationes superfluas nomen quoque a dissidio susceperunt (according to
Pseudo-Tertullian, comp. below, note 89). Idem, Comment. in Matthew 22:23
(Vallarsi, vii. 1. 177): Pharisaei traditionum et observationum, quas illi
δευτερώσεις vocant, juetitiam praeferebant, unde et divisi vocabantur a populo;
Sadducaei autem, qui interpretantur justi, et ipsi vendicabant sibi quod non
erant. Nathan ben Jehiel declares in the Aruch: פרוש הוא שפירש עצמו מכל טומאה
ומן מאכל טמא ועם הארץ שאינו מדקדק במאכל, “A Parueh is one who separates himself
from all uncleanness, and from unclean food, and from the people of the land,
who are not careful what they eat.” For further testimony, see Buxtorf, Lex
Chald. col. 1851 sq.; Drusius, De tribis sectis Judaeorum, lib. ii. c. 2; De
Wette, Archäologie, p. 413. [1474] The chief passage is Jadajim iv. 6-8; the two
other passages, Chagiga ii. 7; Sota iii. 4. If the name Perushim shows that the
Pharisees appeared as “separatists” in the eyes of their adversaries, another
name shows us their own view of their character and community. They called
themselves merely Chaberim (חֲבֵרִים), “neighbours,” this term being, in the
language of the Mishna and of ancient Rabbinical literature in general, exactly
identical with that of Perushim. It is self-evident from the matter of the
passages given above (vol. ii. p. 8), that a Chaber in them everywhere means one
who strictly observes tke law, especially the laws relating to cleanness and
uncleanness. And indeed the term comprises all those who do so, and therefore
not merely those who are scholars by profession. For it is not the
unlearned,[1475] but as the tenor of the passages shows, the bulk of those in
whom no strict observance of the law can be assumed, the “people of the land”
(עַם הָאָרֶץ),[1476] who form the contrast. Hence the usage of language of the
Middle Ages, according to which a Chaber is a “colleague” of the Rabbis, a
scholar, must not be imported into these passages of the Mishna.[1477] On the
contrary, Chaber is in the latter any one who strictly observes the law,
including the παραδόσεις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, and is thus identical with
Pharisee.[1478] This gives us however a deeper insight of the self-estimation of
Pharisaism. It so far stands on a level with the general Judaism of the
post-exilian period, that to it also the population of Palestine is divided into
two categories: (1) The congregation of Israel, i.e. the Chaberim, for חָבֵר
means simply “neighbour,” fellow-countryman,[1479] and (2) the people dwelling
in the land. In the eyes of Pharisaism however the former term is restricted to
the circle of those, who strictly observe the law together with the entire
παραδόσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. All besides are Am-haarez, and therefore do not
belong to the true congregation of Israel. Consequently Pharisaism estimates
itself as very specially the ecclesiola in ecclesia. Only the circle of the
Pharisaic association represents the true Israel, who perfectly observe the law
and have therefore a claim to the promises.[1480] [1475] The unlearned is
called, in contrast to the learned, הֶדיוֹט, ἰδιώτης, Rosh hashana ii. 8. The
notion of the Chaber includes both the הֶדיוֹט and the חָכָם. See Weber, System
der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theo-logie, p. 122 sq. [1476] Am-haarez is the
people who dwell in the land, but do not belong to the community of Israel. The
expression however is not used as a collective term only, but also to designate
an individual, e.g. an Am-haarez (i.e. one of the people of the land). See in
general, Demai i. 2, 3, ii. 2, 3, iii. 4, vi. 9, 12; Shebiith v. 9; Maaser theni
iii. 3, iv. 6; Chagiga ii. 7; Gittin v. 9; Edujoth i. 14; Aboth ii. 5, iii. 10;
Horajoth iii. 8; Kinnim iii. 6; Tohoroth iv. 5, vii. 1, 2, 4, 6, viii. 1, 2, 3,
5; Machshirin vi. 3; Tebul jom. iv. 5. Weber, System, pp. 42-44. Wünsche, Neue
Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien, p. 527 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii.
54-56 (article “Am-haarez”). The older literature in Jo. Christph. Wolf, Curae
philol in Nov. Test. on John 7:49. See the expositors in general on John 7:49
(Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Wetzstein, Lampe, and others). [1477] In this sense e.g.
it is explained by Maimonides on Demai ii. 3: חבר נקרא תלמיד חכם וכן יקראו
לתלמידי חכמים חברים. Elias Levita in the Tishbi, s.v., explains חבר by חבר הרב,
“colleague of the Rabbi,” i.e. one who has indeed received the ordination of
scholars, but is not yet a public teacher (see the passage e.g. in Ugolini,
Thes. xxi. 907; Carpzov, Apparatus, p. 142). The majority of Christian scholars
follow Elias Levita; see the list of them in Ursinus, Antiqultates Hebraicae, c.
8 (Ugolini, Thes. xxi. 907), and in Carpzov, Apparatus, p. 143. I bring forward
only the following: Scaliger (Elenchus trihaeresii Serarii, c, 10), Buxtorf
(Lex. Chald. s.v.), Otho (Lex. Rabbin, s.v.), Wagenseil (Sota, p. 1026 sq.),
Vitringa (De synagoga vetere, lib. ii. c. 10, p. 571). This explanation however
is in opposition to the Mishna and the older Rabbinical literature. Of course
חבר may here too denote the colleagues (companions) of a scholar or a judge
(e.g. Edujoth v. 7; Sanhedrin xi. 2). But where it is merely used as a terminus
technicus, without statement of any special reference, it differs from חכם and
תלמיד חכם, and denotes a wider circle than these. Comp. e.g. Kiddushin 33b (in
Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. חכר): אתון חכימי ואנא חבר, “You are scholars, and I
am only a Chaber.” Shabbath 11a: תחת גוי ולא תחת חבר תחת חבר ולא תחת תלמיד חכם,
“Under a Gentile and not under a Chaber, under a Chaber and not under the pupil
of a scholar” (the passage is already quoted in the Aruch, s.v. חבר, in
explanation of this term; on its meaning, see Weber, System, p. 142). Bechoroth
30b: הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג׳ חברים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל
כפני שלש חברים, “He who will take upon himself the decrees of the association
(chaberuth) must do so in the presence of three chaberim; even if he is the
pupil of a scholar, he must do it in the presence of three chaberim.” [1478] The
identity of parush and chaber results chiefly from a comparison of Chagiga ii. 7
with Demai ii. 3 (see the passages above, vol. i. pp. 385, 386). In the first
passage Am-haarez and Parusb, in the latter Am-haarez and Chaber are contrasted,
and that in such wise, that in both passages the Am-haarez is the unclean, by
whose garments the Parush and Chaber are respectively defiled. Evidently then
the two latter are identical. Rightly therefore does Nathan ben Jehiel give to
פרושים in the Aruch (s.v. פרוש, and indeed with a citation of the passage
Chagiga ii. 7) the explanation: הן החברין האוכלין חוליהן בטהרה, “They are the
Chaberim who eat their profane food in cleanness.” Comp. especially the
excellent discussion of Guisius on Demai ii. 3 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 83).
Edzardus, Tractatus Talmudici Avoda Sara caput secundum (Hamburg 1710)1 pp.
531-534. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on Matthew 3:7 (Opp. ii. 271b). Jost, Gesch.
des Judenth. i. 204. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie,
pp. 42-46, 77. Meanings corresponding to the correct one are found in Levy,
Chald. Wörterb. s.v. חברא. The same, Nenhebr. Wörterb. s.v. חבר. Hamburger,
Real-Enc. ii. 126-129 (article “Chaber”). [1479] חבר may of course have in
itself very different meanings. The above however is the only possible one in
accordance with the usage of Old Testament language, when it is used in contrast
to עם הארץ. חבר is undoubtedly used in this sense in Chullin xi. 2, where it
stands it contrast with נָכְרִי (a foreigner); also in the passage quoted above
(note 48) from Shabbath 11a, where it stands midway between גוי and תלמיד הכם.
[1480] The question “who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29) was therefore quite
seriously intended. To Jewish consciousness it was in fact an important
question, who was to be acknowledged as a Chaber. And their demeanour
practically agreed with this theoretical estimation. As an Israelite avoided as
far as possible all contact with a heathen, lest he should thereby be defiled,
so did the Pharisee avoid as far as possible contact with the non-Pharisee,
because the latter was to him included in the notion of the unclean Am-haarez.
“The garments of the Am-haarez are unclean for the Perushim.”[1481] “A Chaber
does not go as a guest to an Am-haarez nor receive him as a guest within his
walls.”[1482] “If the wife of a Chaber has left the wife of an Am-haarez
grinding in her house, the house is unclean if the mill stops; if it goes on
grinding, only unclean so far as she can reach by stretching out her hand,”
etc.[1483] When then the Gospels relate, that the Pharisees found fault with the
free intercourse of Jesus with “publicans and sinners,” and with His entering
into their houses (Mark 2:14-17; Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32), this agrees
exactly with the standpoint here described. The Pharisees did in fact “separate”
from the people of the land, so far as to avoid close intercourse with them.
Hence the name Perushim was rightly given them; nay, from their own standpoint
they had no reason for rejecting it. [1481] Chagiga ii. 7. [1482] Demai ii. 3.
[1483] Tohoroth vii. 4. Compare the passages quoted in note 47. This
exclusiveness of Pharisaism certainly justifies the calling it an αἵρεσις, a
sect, as is done both in the New Test. (Acts 15:5; Acts 26:5) and by Josephus.
Nevertheless it remains the fact, that it was the legitimate and classic
representative of post-exilian Judaism in general. It did but carry out with
relentless energy the consequences of its principle. Those only are the true
Israel who observe the law in the strictest manner. Since only the Pharisees did
this in the full sense, they only were the true Israel, which was related to the
remaining bulk of the people as these were to the heathen. Not till after these
general characteristics of Pharisaism had been discussed could the question
concerning its origin arise and its history be briefly sketched. Viewed
according to its essence, it is as old as legal Judaism in general. When once
the accurate observance of the ceremonial law is regarded as the true essence of
religious conduct, Pharisaism already exists in principle. It is another
question however when it first appeared as a sect, as a fraction within the
Jewish nation. And in this sense it cannot be traced farther back than to the
time of the Maccabaean conflicts. In these the “pious” (οἱ Ἀσιδαῖοι, i.e.
חֲסִידִים), who plainly formed a special fraction. within the people, also took
part (1Ma_2:42; 1Ma_7:12 sqq.). They fought indeed on the side of Judas for the
religion of their fathers, but they were not identical with the Maccabaean
party.[1484] They evidently represented, as may be inferred from their name,
that strictest party which upheld with special zeal the observance of the law.
Hence they are the same party, whom we again meet with some decades later under
the name of Pharisees. It appears that during the Greek period, when the chief
priests and rulers of the people took up an increasingly lax attitude towards
the law, they united themselves more closely into an association of such as made
a duty of its most punctilious observance. When then the Maccabees raised the
standard to fight for the faith of their fathers, these “pious” took part in the
conflict, but only as long as the faith and the law were actually contended for.
When, this was no longer the case, and the object of the contest became more and
more the national independence, they seem to have retired. Hence we no longer
hear of them under Jonathan and Simon. Not till John Hyrcanus do they again
appear, and then under the name of “Pharisees,” no longer indeed on the side of
the Maccabees, but in hostile opposition to them. The course of affairs had
brought it to pass, that the priestly family of the Maccabees should found a
political dynasty. The ancient high-priestly family had been supplanted. The
Maccabees or Asmonaeans had entered into its political inheritance. But with
this, tasks which were essentially political had devolved upon them. The chief
matter in their eyes was no longer the carrying out of the law, but the
maintenance and extension of their political power. The prosecution however of
these political objects could not but more and more separate them from their old
friends the “Chasidim” or “Perushim.” Not that they had apostatized from the
law. But a secular policy was in itself scarcely reconcilable with that legal
scrupulosity and carefulness which the Pharisees required. It was inevitable,
that sooner or later there should be a breach between them and their two
opposite pursuits. This breach occurred under John Hyrcanus. At the beginning of
his government, he still adhered to the Pharisees, but afterwards renounced them
and turned to the Sadducees. The occasion of the breach is related by Josephus
in a legendary style.[1485] But the fact itself, that this change took place
under Hyrcanus, is thoroughly authentic. And in consequence we henceforth find
the Pharisees the opponents of the Asmonaean priest-princes. They were such not
only under John Hyrcanus, but also under Aristobulus I, and especially Alexander
Jannaeus. Under the latter, who as a fierce warrior entirely disregarded the
interest of religion, it came even to open revolution. For six years Alexander
Jannaeus with his mercenary troops was in conflict against the people led by the
Pharisees.[1486] And what he at last attained was only the external
intimidation, not the real subdual of his opponents. The stress laid upon
religious interests by the Pharisees had won the bulk of the nation to their
side. Hence it is no cause for surprise, that Alexandra for the sake of being at
peace with her people abandoned the power to the Pharisees. Their victory was
now complete, the whole conduct of internal affairs was in their hands. All the
decrees of the Pharisees done away with by Hyrcanus were reintroduced, and they
completely ruled the public life of the nation.[1487] And this continued in all
essentials even during subsequent ages. Amidst all the changes of government;
under Romans and Herodians, the Pharisees maintained their spiritual hegemony.
Consistency with principle was on their side. And this consistency procured them
the spiritual supremacy. It is true that the Sadducaean high priests were at the
head of the Sanhedrin. But in fact the decisive influence upon public affairs
was in the hands, not of the Sadducees, but of the Pharisees. They had the bulk
of the nation as their ally,[1488] the women especially were in their
hands.[1489] They had the greatest influence upon the congregations, so that all
acts of public worship, prayers and sacrifices were performed according to their
injunctions.[1490] Their sway over the masses was so absolute, that they could
obtain a hearing, even when they said anything against the king or the high
priest,[1491] consequently they were the most capable of counteracting the
designs of the kings.[1492] Hence too the Sadducees in their official acts
adhered to the demands of the Pharisees. because otherwise the multitude would
not have tolerated them.[1493] This great influence actually exercised by the
Pharisees is but the reverse side of the exclusive position which they took up.
It was just because their requirements stretched so far, and because they only
recognised as true Israelites those who observed them in their full strictness,
that they had so imposing an effect upon the multitude, who recognised in these
exemplary saints their own ideal and their legitimate leaders. [1484] This has
been well pointed out especially by Wellhausen (pp. 78-86), who rightly
identifies the Chasidim with the Pharisees. [1485] Antt. xiii. 10. 5-6. [1486]
Antt. xiii. 13. 5. [1487] Antt. xiii. 16. 2. [1488] Antt. xiii. 10. 6: τὸ πλῆθος
σύμμαχον ἐχόντων. [1489] Antt. xvii. 2. 4: οἷς ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις. [1490]
Antt. xviii. 1. 3: τοῖς δήμοις πιθανώτατοι τυγχάνουσι κ.τ.λ. [1491] Antt. xiii.
10. 5. [1492] Antt. xvii. 2. 4. [1493] Antt. xviii. 1. 4.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 72: II. THE SADDUCEES
========================================================================

II. THE SADDUCEES The nature of the Sadducees is not as evident as that of the
Pharisees. The scanty statements furnished by documents can only with difficulty
be brought under a single point of sight. And the reason of this seems to lie in
the nature of the case. The Sadducees are no simple and consistent phenomenon
like the Pharisees, but so to speak a compound one, which must be apprehended
from different points. The most salient characteristic is that they are
aristocrats. Josephus repeatedly designates them as such. “They only gain the
well-to-do, they have not the people on their side.”[1494] “This doctrine has
reached few individuals, but these are of the first consideration.”[1495] When
Josephus here says, that this doctrine has reached but few, this is quite
consistent with his manner of always depicting Pharisaism and Sadduceeism as
philosophical tendencies. Taking off this varnish, his actual statement is, that
the Sadducees were the aristocrats, the wealthy (εὔποροι), the persons of rank
(πρῶτοι τοῖς ἀξιώμασιν). And that is to say, that they chiefly belonged to the
priesthood. For from the commencement of the Greek, nay from the Persian period,
it was the priests who governed the Jewish State, as it was also the priesthood
in general that constituted the nobility of the Jewish people.[1496] The New
Testament testifies superabundantly and Josephus expressly, that the
high-priestly families belonged to the Sadducean party.[1497] Rightly however as
this view is for the first time expressly advocated by Geiger, it must not be so
understood as to make the Sadducees nothing more than the party of the priests,
The contrast of Sadducees and Pharisees is not a contrast of the priestly and
the strictly legal party, but of aristocratic priests and strictly legal
persons. The Pharisees were by no means in hostile opposition to the priests as
such. On the contrary, they interpreted the legal enactments concerning the
revenues of the priesthood abundantly in their favour, awarding to them in full
measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, their heave-offerings,
tithes, first-born, etc.,[1498] and decidedly acknowledging the greater sanctity
and higher rank of the priests in the Theocracy.[1499] On the other hand too,
the priests were not all thoroughly hostile to Pharisaism. There were, at least
in the last decades before, and the first decades after the destruction of the
temple, a large number of priests who themselves belonged to the Rabbinical
class.[1500] Hence the opponents of the Pharisees were not the priests as such,
but only the aristocratic priests: those who by their possessions and offices
also occupied influential civil positions. [1494] Antt. xiii. 10. 6: τοὺς
εὐπόρους μόνον πειθόντων, τὸ δὲ δημοτικὸν οὐκ ἑπόμενον αὐτοῖς ἐκόντων. [1495]
Antt. xviii. 1. 4: εἰς ὀλίγους ἄνδρας οὖτος ὁ λόγος ἀφίκετο, τοὺς μέντοι πρώτους
τοῖς ἀξιώμασι. [1496] Joseph. Vita, 1. [1497] Acts 5:17; Antt. xx. 9. 1. [1498]
Comp. in the Mishna the treatises Demai, Terumoth, Maaseroth, Challa, Bikkurim,
Bechoroth. [1499] Chagiga ii. 7: The garments of the Perushim are held as Midras
(unclean) for those who eat of the heave-offerings (i.e. the priests). Horajoth
iii. 8: לוי לישראל, כהן קודם ללוי. Precedence was also given to the priests in
the reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues. [1500] It was already testified
(Chagiga ii. 7) of Joses ben Joeser, that he was a חסיד in the priesthood. One
Joeser, who was captain of the temple and therefore a priest, belonged to the
school of Shammai (Orla ii. 12). In Josephus we meet with a Ἰόζαρος ἱερατικοῦ
γένους, Φαρισαῖος καὶ αὐτός (Joseph. Vita, 39). Josephus was himself both priest
and Pharisee (Vita, i. 2). There is mention moreover (Edujoth viii. 2) of a
Rabbi Judah ha-Kohen and (Edujoth viii. 2; Aboth ii. 8) a Rabbi Joses ha-Kohen.
Rabbi Chananiah סְגַן הַכֹהֲנִים (see vol. i. p. 368) and Rabbi Eleasar ben
Asariah (see vol. i. p. 372 sq.) are renowned among priestly scribes. Rabbi
Ishmael and Rabbi Tarphon are said to have been priests (see vol. i. pp. 373 and
376). In view of these facts it is an interesting conjecture of Geiger’s—which
he indeed expresses as a certainty—that the Sadducees derive their name
צַדּוּקִים,[1501] Σαδδουκαῖοι,[1502] from that Zaddok the priest, whose family
had exercised the priestly office at Jerusalem since the time of Solomon. At all
events it may now be considered as settled, that the name must not, as was
formerly often thought, be derived from the adjective צַדִּיק,[1503] but from
the proper name צָדוֹק.[1504] For in the first derivation the change from i to u
is inexplicable,[1505] while on the other hand the pronunciation Zadduk
(Σαδδούκ, צַדּוּק) is undoubtedly guaranteed by the concurrent testimony of the
Septuagint,[1506] of Josephus,[1507] and of a vowel-pointed MS. of the
Mishna[1508] for the proper name Zadok. The party name צדוקים is thus related to
צדוק as בויתסים to Boethos or אפיקורוסים to Epicuros. The further question, from
what Zadok the Sadducees derive their name is of less certain decision. An
apocryphal legend in the Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan traces it to a supposed disciple
of Antigonus von Socho named Zadok.[1509] But the legend is useless
notwithstanding the vigorous defence of it by Baneth,[1510] (1) because the
Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan cannot, on account of their late origin, be at all
regarded as historical authority for our period, (2) because especially what is
said of the Boethosees is certainly erroneous (see note [1511] and (3) because
the legend contains no tradition, but only a learned combination: the Sadducees,
who denied the immortality of the soul, being said to have embraced this heresy
through a misunderstanding of the saying of Antigonus of Socho, that we ought to
do good without regard to future reward.[1512] Thus there is left us only the
choice of deriving the name of the Sadducees from one Zadok, unknown to us, who
in some time equally unknown founded the party of the aristocrats, or of
referring it to the priestly race of the Zadokites. The former is possible, and
is preferred e.g. by Kuenen and Montet,[1513] but the latter is certainly the
more probable.[1514] The posterity of Zadok performed priestly service in the
temple from the time of Solomon. After the Deuteronomic reformation, which
interdicted all sacrifice out of Jerusalem, the rites there carried on were
alone esteemed legitimate. Hence Ezekiel in his ideal picture of the theocracy
awards to the “Zadokites” (בְּנֵי צָדוֹק) alone the right of officiating as
priests in the temple at Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 43:19; Ezekiel 44:15;
Ezekiel 48:11). Ezekiel’s demand did not indeed entirely prevail on the
restoration of worship after the captivity, since some of the other priestly
races were also able to maintain their rights.[1515] Still the Zadokites formed
the pith and chief element of the priesthood in the post-exilian period. This is
seen especially from the circumstance, that the Chronicler in his genealogy
traces back the house of Zadok to Eleasar, the elder son of Aaron, thus giving
us to understand, that the Zadokites had, if not the only, still the first and
nearest claim to the priesthood (1 Chron. v. 30-41). This procedure of the
Chronicler at the same time proves, that the name of the ancestor of this race
was still vividly remembered in his times, and therefore in the Greek period
also. Consequently a party which attached itself to the aristocratic priests
might very well be named the Zadokitian or Sadducaean. For though the
aristocratic priests were but a fraction of the בְּנֵי צָדוֹק, they were still
its authoritative representatives and their tendency the Zadokian.[1516] [1501]
So are they called in the Mishna, Jadajim iv. 6-7; Erubin vi. 2; Makkoth i. 6;
Para iii. 7; Nidda iv. 2. The singular is in Erubin vi. 2. צדוקי, which in the
Cod. de Rossi is pointed צָדּוּקִי (Kametz and Pathach being often interchanged
in this manuscript; in the other passages the name is not vowelized). [1502] So
in Josephus and the New Testament. [1503] So already in many of the Fathers,
e.g. Epiphanius, haer. 14: ἐπονομάζουσι δὲ οὗτοι ἑαυτοὺς Σαδδουκαίους, δῆθεν ἀπὸ
δικαιοσύνης τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ὁρμωμένης. Σεδέκ γὰρ ἑρμηνεύεται δικαιοσύνη.
Hieronymus, Comm. in Matthew 22:23 (Vallarsi, vii. 1. 177): Sadducaei autem, qui
interpretantur justi. In recent times the derivation from צַדִּיק has been again
advocated by Derenbourg (Histoire, p. 78) and Hamburger (Enc. p. 1041). [1504]
That this is the only possible derivation has been most carefully shown by
Montet (Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien, pp. 45-60).
Comp. also besides Geiger, Hitzig, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, p. 469. Keim, i.
274 sq. Hanne, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1867, p. 167. Hausrath, Zeitgesch. i.
118; Bibellex. iv. 520. Wellhausen, p. 45 sqq. Kuenen, De godsdienst van Israël,
ii. 342 sq.; Theol. Tijdschr. 1875, p. 639. Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1876, p. 136.
Oort, De naam Sudducëen (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1876, pp. 605-617). Reuss, Gesch.
der heil. Schrift A. T.’s, § 396. Sieffert in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xiii.
230. [1505] Wieseler indeed feigns an adjective zadduk, for the existence of
which however the proof is still due. [1506] The name Zadok occurs in the O. T.,
according to the statement of Brecher’s Concordance (1876), in all 53 times.
Among these in ten passages in Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezekiel 40:46;
Ezekiel 43:19; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 48:11; Ezra 7:2; Nehemiah 3:4; Nehemiah
3:29; Nehemiah 10:21; Nehemiah 11:11; Nehemiah 13:13), the LXX. has the form
Σαδδούκ, i.e. according to the correct text, which certainly has in some
passages to be restored by the revision according to the MSS. of the printed
text. [1507] A Pharisee Σάδδουκος is mentioned Antt. xviii. 1. 1. Comp. also
Ανανίας Σαδδουκί, Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 10, 21. 7, where Σαδδουκί cannot mean
“Sadducee,” the person in question being, according to Vita, 39, a Pharisee.
[1508] In the Cod. de Rossi 138 the name of Rabbi Zadok is indeed only vowelized
in a minority of passages; still where this is the case it is almost always
צַדּוּק (or צָדּוּק, Pathach and Kametz being often interchanged), viz. in the
following passages, Pea ii. 4; Terumoth x. 9; Shahbath xxiv. 5; Pesachim iii. 6,
vii. 2, x. 3. [1509] Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 5: “Antigonus of Socho received
the tradition from Simon the Just. He said: Be not like servants, who serve
their Lord for the sake of reward, but be like those who do service without
regard to recompense, and be always in the fear of God, that your reward may be
double in the future. Antigonus of Socho had two disciples, who taught his
saying. They delivered it to their pupils, who in their turn delivered it to
theirs. Then they stood up and tampered with its meaning and said: What then did
our fathers think, when they spoke thus? Is it possible that a workman should
work all day and not receive his wages in the evening? If our fathers had known,
that there is a future life and a resurrection of the dead, they would not so
have spoken. Then they stood up and renounced the Thorah, and a twofold schism
proceeding from them branched off: Sadducees and Boethosees, the Sadducees after
the name of Zadok, the Boethosees after the name of Boethos.” See the passage
also in Tailer, Tractatus de patribus (London 1654), p. 33. Geiger, Urschrift,
p. 105. Herzfeld, iii. 382. Wellhausen, p. 46. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers (1877), p. 126. Baneth, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums,
ninth year, 1882, p. 4 (here is found the translation given above). The
Boethosees (בויתסים), who are also once mentioned in the Mishna (Menachoth x.
3), derived their name from the high-priestly family Boethos in the time of
Herod (see vol. i. p. 204). Hence they are in any case related to the Sadducees.
[1510] Baneth, Magazin f. die Wissensch. des Judenth. ix. 1882, pp. 1-37, 61-95.
[1511] Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 5: “Antigonus of Socho received the tradition
from Simon the Just. He said: Be not like servants, who serve their Lord for the
sake of reward, but be like those who do service without regard to recompense,
and be always in the fear of God, that your reward may be double in the future.
Antigonus of Socho had two disciples, who taught his saying. They delivered it
to their pupils, who in their turn delivered it to theirs. Then they stood up
and tampered with its meaning and said: What then did our fathers think, when
they spoke thus? Is it possible that a workman should work all day and not
receive his wages in the evening? If our fathers had known, that there is a
future life and a resurrection of the dead, they would not so have spoken. Then
they stood up and renounced the Thorah, and a twofold schism proceeding from
them branched off: Sadducees and Boethosees, the Sadducees after the name of
Zadok, the Boethosees after the name of Boethos.” See the passage also in
Tailer, Tractatus de patribus (London 1654), p. 33. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 105.
Herzfeld, iii. 382. Wellhausen, p. 46. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers
(1877), p. 126. Baneth, Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, ninth year,
1882, p. 4 (here is found the translation given above). The Boethosees
(בויתסים), who are also once mentioned in the Mishna (Menachoth x. 3), derived
their name from the high-priestly family Boethos in the time of Herod (see vol.
i. p. 204). Hence they are in any case related to the Sadducees. [1512] Comp.
Wellhausen, p. 46. The saying of Antigonus of Socho, on which the combination
depends, is found Aboth i. 3. See vol. i. p. 352. [1513] Kuenen, De godsdienst
van Israël, ii. 342 sq.; Theol. Tijdschrift, 1875, p. 639. Montet, Essai, p. 59.
[1514] So think all named in note 75, except Kuenen and Montet. [1515] This is
to be inferred from the fact, that in 1 Chronicles 10 besides the line of
Eleasar (i.e. the Zadokitea), the line of Ithamar also appears as authorized to
fill the priestly service. [1516] Comp. especially, Wellhausen, Pharisäer und
Sadducäer, pp. 47-50. Idem, Gesch. Israels, i. 127-130, 230 sq. Also Kuenen,
Zadok en de Zadokieten (Theol. Tijdschr. 1869, pp. 463-509). This distinctive
mark of the Sadducees, viz. their aristocratic character, being now settled, the
further mark must next be added, that they acknowledged only the written Thorah
as binding, and on the other hand rejected the entire traditionary
interpretation and further development of the law during the course of centuries
by the scribes. “The Sadducees say, only what is written is to be esteemed as
legal. On the contrary, what has come down from the tradition of the fathers
need not be observed.”[1517] So far removed were they from the principle of
absolute authority as held by the Pharisees, that they thought it, on the
contrary, commendable to oppose their teachers.[1518] It is evident, that what
was in question was simply a rejection of the παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, and
therefore of the entire mass of legal decisions which had been made by the
Pharisaic scribes for the completion and application of the written law. The
opinion of many Fathers, that the Sadducees acknowledged only the Pentateuch,
but rejected the prophets,[1519] is not confirmed by documentary authority, and
has therefore been given up as erroneous by modern scholars.[1520] Beside these
main principles, on which the Sadducees opposed the entire Pharisaic tradition,
specific legal differences between Sadducees and Pharisees have but a minor
interest. A number of differences of this kind are mentioned in Rabbinical
literature.[1521] Some of these notices cannot however be esteemed as historical
tradition, especially the statements of the very late commentary on Megilloth
Taanith. So far as they are trustworthy, they are so isolated and unconnected
that no unifying principle can be perceived in them, and certainly not that
discovered by Geiger, viz. an advocacy of priestly interests by the
Sadducees.[1522] In penal legislation the Sadducees were, according to Josephus,
the more, and the Pharisees the less severe.[1523] This may be connected with
the fact that the former strictly adhered to the letter of the law, while the
latter sought to mitigate its severity by interpretation. In one point mentioned
in the Mishna the Sadducees even went beyond the demands of the law. They
required compensation, not only if an ox or an ass (Exodus 21:32; Exodus 21:35
sq.), but also if a man-servant or a maid-servant had injured any one.[1524] On
the other hand, they insisted that false witnesses should be put to death, only
when the accused had already been executed in consequence of their false witness
(Deuteronomy 19:19-21), while the Pharisees required that this should take place
so soon as sentence had been passed.[1525] Thus in this instance the latter were
the more severe. These differences were evidently not differences of principle.
The same is the case in questions of ritual. For here too a difference of
principle can only so far be spoken of, that the Sadducees did not regard as
binding Pharisaic decrees with respect e.g. to clean and unclean. They derided
their Pharisaic opponents on account of the oddities and inconsistencies into
which their laws of cleanness brought them.[1526] On the other hand, the
Pharisees pronounced all Sadducees unclean, “if they walk in the ways of their
fathers.”[1527] How far however the Sadducees were from renouncing the principle
of Levitical uncleanness in itself, appears from the fact of their demanding
even a higher degree of cleanness for the priests who burnt the red heifer, than
the Pharisees did.[1528] This last is at the same time the only point in which a
certain amount of priestly interest, i.e. of interest in priestly cleanness, is
perceived. With respect to the festival laws it is mentioned that the
“Boethosees” (who must be regarded as a variety of the Sadducees) maintained
that the sheaf of first-fruits at the Passover was not to be offered on the
second day of the feast, but on the day after the Sabbath in the week of the
festival,[1529] and that consequently the feast of Pentecost, seven weeks later
(Leviticus 23:15), was always to be kept on the day after the Sabbath.[1530]
This difference is however so purely technical, that it merely gives expression
to the exegetic view of the Sadducees, who did not acknowledge tradition. It
certainly never had any practical importance.[1531] The only difference of
importance in the law of festivals, and especially in the interpretation of the
law of the Sabbath, is that the Sadducees did not acknowledge as binding the
confused mass of Pharisaic enactments.[1532] The difference in principle then
between the two parties is confined on the whole to this general rejection of
Pharisaic tradition by the Sadducees. All other differences were such as would
necessarily result, if the one did not acknowledge the obligation of the other’s
exegetical tradition. Nor must it be thought, that the Sadducees rejected
Pharisaic tradition according to its entire tenor. Quite apart from the fact,
that since the time of Alexandra they had no longer carried out their views into
practice, they also theoretically agreed with Pharisaic tradition in some,
perhaps in many particulars. They only denied its obligation, and reserved the
right of private opinion. [1517] Antt. xiii. 10. 6. Comp. xviii. 1. 4. [1518]
Antt. xviii. 1. 4. [1519] Origenes, Contra Celsum. i. 49 (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch,
xviii. 93): οἱ μόνου δὲ Μωσέως παραδεχόμενοι τὰς βίβλους Σαμαρεῖς ἢ Σαδδουκαῖοι.
Idem, Comment. in Matth. vol. xvii. c. 35 (on Matthew 22:29, in Lommatzsch, iv.
166): τοῖς Σαδδουκαίοις μὴ προσιεμένοις ἄλλην γραφὴν ἢ τὴν νομικήν … τοὺς
Σαδδουκαίους, ὅτι μὴ προσιέμενοι τὰς ἑξῆς τῷ νόμῳ γραφὰς πλανῶνται. Ibid. vol.
xvii. c. 36 (on Matthew 22:31-32, in Lommatzsch, iv. 169): καὶ εἰς τοῦτο δὲ
φήσομεν, ὅτι μύρια δυνάμενος περὶ τοῦ ὑπάρχειν τὴν μέλλουσαν ζωὴν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
παραθέσθαι ἀπὸ προφητῶν ὁ Σωτὴρ, τοῦτο οὐ πεποίηκεν διὰ τὸ τοὺς Σαδδουκαίους
μόνην προσίεσθαι τὴν Μωσέως γραφὴν, ἀφʼ ἧς ἐβουλήθη αὐτοὺς συλλογισμῷ δυσωπῆσαι.
Hieronymus, Comment. in Matthew 22:31-32 (Vallarsi, vii. 1. 179): Hi quinque
tantum libros Moysis recipiebant, prophetarum vaticinia respuentes. Stultum ergo
eratinde proferre testimonia, cujus auctoritatem non sequebantur.
Philosophumena, ix. 29: προφήταις δὲ οὐ προσέχουσιν, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ ἑτέροις τισὶ
σοφοῖς, πλὴν μόνῳ τῷ διὰ Μωσέως νόμῳ, μεδὲν ἑρμηνεύοντες. Pseudo-Tertullian,
adv.haer. c. 1: Taceo enim Judaismi haereticos, Dositheum inquam Samaritanum,
qui primus ausus est pro-phetas quasi non in spiritu sancto locutos repudiare,
taceo Sadducaeos, qui ex hujus erroris radice surgentes ausi sunt ad hanc
haeresim etiam resurrectionem carnis negare. With this corresponds almost
verbally Hieronymus, contra Luciferanos, c. 23 (Vallarsi, ii. 197): Taceo de
Judaismi haereticis, qui ante adventum Christi legem traditam dissiparunt: quod
Dosithaeus Samaritanorum princeps prophetas repudiavit: quod Sadducaei ex illius
radice nascentes etiam resurrectionem carnis negaverunt. [1520] It is still
defended e.g. by Serarius, Trihaeresium, lib. ii. c. 21. Against him, see
Scaliger, Elenchus trihaeresii Serarii, c. 16; Drusius, De tribus sectis
Judaeorum, lib. iii. c. 9. Further literature in Carpzov, Apparatus, p. 208 sq.
Winer RWB. ii. 353 sq. [1521] Comp. Herzfeld, iii. 385 sqq. Jost, i. 216-226.
Grätz, 3rd ed. iii. 652 sqq., note 10. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 134 sqq. Sadducäer
und Pharisäer, pp. 13-25. Derenbourg, p. 135 sqq. Kuenen, De godsdienst van
Israël, ii. 456 sqq. Wellhausen, pp. 56-75. Hamburger, ii. 1047 sqq. Montet, p.
236 sqq. [1522] Against Geiger, see especially Wellhausen, as above. [1523]
Antt. xx. 9.1: Σαδδουκαίων, οἵπερ εἰσὶ περὶ τὰς κρίσεις ὠμοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς
Ἰουδαίους. Antt. xiii. 10. 6: Ἄλλως τε καὶ φύσει πρὸς τὰς κολάσεις ἐπιεικῶς
ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. [1524] Jadajim iv. 7‌b. For the wording of these and the
following passages, see above, p. 384 sqq. [1525] Makkoth i. 6. [1526] The
attacks of the Sadducees upon the Pharisees, mentioned Jadajim iv. 6 and 7‌a,
can only be meant in derision. For the Sadducees would certainly not have gone
in for “antagonistic books” defiling the hands (Jadajim iv. 6), or for declaring
that the “stream” which flows in pouring from a clean vessel into an unclean is
clean (Jadajim iv. 7‌a). They are only deriding the Pharisees for their
peculiarities. [1527] Nidda iv. 2. [1528] Para iii. 7. [1529] Menachoth x. 3.
That is to say, that they understood by the שבת, Leviticus 23:11, not the first
day of the feast, but the weekly Sabbath. The traditional interpretation, which
understands by it the first day of the feast, and therefore by “the day after
the Sabbath” the second day of the feast, is the correct one. See Wellhausen,
pp. 59 sq., 67. Adler, Pharisäismus und Sadducäismus und ihre differirende
Auslegung des ממחרת השבת (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth.
1878, pp. 522 sqq., 568 sqq., 1879, p. 29 sqq.). [1530] Chagiga ii. 4. Those who
say עצרת אחר השבת (Pentecost falls on the day after the Sabbath) are indeed here
spoken of only in general. But that the Sadducees (Boethosees) are intended must
certainly be admitted, according to Menachoth x. 3. [1531] Comp. Wellhausen, p.
59 sq. [1532] It might indeed be thought, from Erubin vi. 2, that the Sadducees
also observed Pharisaic subtleties with respect to the Sabbath. For the case is
there assumed as possible, of a Sadducee depositing something, in a manner quite
Pharisaic, in an artificially fenced off space for the purpose of securing to
himself the right of freer movement therein on the Sabbath day. In truth,
however, the connection shows that the Sadducees were among those who did not
observe the “law of Erub.” The purpose of a Sadducee in such an action could
only have been to annoy his Pharisaic neighbour, who was thus deprived of the
space so occupied by the Sadducee. In this rejection of the legal tradition of
the Pharisees, the Sadducees represented the older standpoint. They stopped at
the written law. For them the whole subsequent development was without binding
power. They also represented a like, one might say archaic, standpoint by their
religious views, the chief of which have already been spoken of (vol. ii. p. 12
sqq.)—(1) they refused to believe in a resurrection of the body, and retribution
in a future life, nay in any personal continuity of the individual; (2) they
denied angels and spirits; (3) lastly, they maintained, “that good and evil are
at the choice of man, who can do the one or the other at his discretion,” and
consequently, that God exercises no influence upon human actions, and that man
is therefore himself the cause of his own prosperity and adversity.[1533] With
regard to the two first points, the Sadducees undoubtedly represented the
original standpoint of the Old Testament, in distinction from the later Jewish.
For with the exception of the Book of Daniel the Old Testament also knows of no
resurrection of the body, and no retribution in another world in the sense of
later Judaism, that is to say, no personal salvation of the individual after
this earthly life, nor any punishment in the world to come for the sins of this
life, but only a shadowy continued existence in Sheol. So too is the belief in
angels and demons, in the development which it subsequently attained, still
foreign to the Old Testament. The Sadducees then in both these respects remained
essentially at the more ancient standpoint. Only we must not indeed say, that
their special motive was the conservative feature, the cleaving to the old as
such. On the contrary, it is evident that a certain amount of worldliness was
the result of the superior political position of the Sadducees. Their interests
were entirely in this world, and they had no such intensively religious interest
as the Pharisees. Hence it was their slighter amount of religious energy which
made the older standpoint seem sufficient for them. Nay, it is probable that in
their case, as men of rank and culture, illuministic motives also intervened.
The more fantastically the imaginary religious sphere of Judaism was fashioned,
the less were they able to follow the course of its development. It is from this
point of view indeed that the stress laid by the Sadducees on human freedom is
chiefly to be explained. If the statements of Josephus on this point are on the
whole worthy of credence, we can only perceive in this stronger insistance upon
liberty also, a recession of the religious motive. They insisted that man was
placed at his own disposal, and rejected the thought that a divine co-operation
takes place in human actions as such. [1533] Halévy, Traces d’aggadot
saducéennes dans le Talmud (Revue des études juives, vol. viii. 1884, pp.
38-56), tries to point out traces of these Sadducaean views even in the Talmud.
They are, however, very indistinct. The last-named particulars also show in
part, how it was just the high aristocracy that acceded to the tendency
designated as “Sadducean.” In order to understand the genesis of this tendency,
we must start from the fact, that the whole conduct of political affairs was
already in the Persian, but especially in the Greek period, in the hands of the
priestly aristocracy. The high priest was chief of the State, eminent priests
undoubtedly stood at the head of the Gerusia (the Sanhedrim of the day). The
duties of the priestly aristocracy were therefore quite as much political as
religious. This necesarily involved a very real regard to political interests
and points of view in all their proceedings. But the more decidedly these came
to the foreground, the more did those of religion recede. This seems to have
been especially the case in the Greek period, and indeed for this reason, that
political interests were now combined with Greek culture. They who then wanted
to effect anything in the political world must of necessity stand on a more or
less friendly footing with Hellenism. Thus Hellenism gained ground more and more
in the higher ranks of the priesthood at Jerusalem, which was in the same
proportion alienated from the Jewish religious interest. Hence it is
comprehensible, that it was just in these circles that Antiochus Epiphanes most
easily found an admission of his demands. A portion of the priests of rank were
even ready without further ceremony to exchange Jewish for heathen rites. This
triumph of heathenism was not indeed of long continuance, the Maccabaean rising
putting a speedy end to it. Still the tendencies of the priestly aristocracy
remained essentially the same. Though there was no longer any talk of heathen
rites, though the special friends of the Greeks were either expelled or
silenced, there was still among the priestly aristocracy the same
worldly-mindedness and the same at least comparative laxity of interest in
religion. On the other hand, however, a revival and strengthening of religious
life was the result of the Maccabaean rising. The rigidly legal party of the
“Chasidees” gained more and more influence. And therewith their pretensions also
increased. Those only were to be acknowledged as true Israelites who observed
the law according to the full strictness of the interpretation given to it by
the scribes. But the more strenuously this demand was made, the more decided was
the recusancy of the aristocrats. It seems as though it were just the religious
revival of the Maccabaean period which led to a firmer consolidation of parties.
The “Chasidees” were consistent with their principles, and became “Pharisees.”
The high aristocracy rejected the results that had been reached during the last
few centuries in both the interpretation of the law and the development of
religious views. They saw in the παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων an excess of legal
strictness which they refused to have imposed upon them, while the advanced
religious views were, on the one hand, superfluous to their worldly-mindedness,
and on the other, inadmissible by their higher culture and enlightenment. The
heads of this party belonging to the ancient priestly race of the Zadokites,
they and their followers were called Zadokites or Sadducees by their opponents.
Under the earlier Maccabees (Judas, Jonathan, and Simon) this “Zadokite”
aristocracy was necessarily in the background. The ancient high-priestly family
which, at least in some of its members, represented the extreme
philo-Hellenistic standpoint, was supplanted. The high-priestly office remained
for a time unoccupied. In the year 152, Jonathan was appointed high priest, and
thus was founded the new high-priestly dynasty of the Asmonaeans, whose whole
past compelled them at first to support the rigidly legal party. Nevertheless
there was not in the times of the first Asmonaeans (Jonathan, Simon) an entire
withdrawal of the Sadducees from the scene. The old aristocracy was indeed
purged from its more extreme philo-Grecian elements, but did not therefore at
once wholly disappear. The Asmonaean parvenus had to come to some kind of
understanding with it, and to yield to it at least a portion of seats in the
“Gerusia.” Things remained in this position till the time of John Hyrcanus, when
the Sadducees again became the really ruling party, John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus
I., and Alexander Jannaeus becoming their followers. The reaction under
Alexandra brought the Pharisees back to power. Their political supremacy was
however of no long duration. Greatly as the spiritual power of the Pharisees had
increased, the Sadducean aristocracy were able to keep at the helm in politics,
and that notwithstanding the overthrow of the Asmonaeans and Herod’s
proscriptions of the ancient nobility who had leagued with them. The
high-priestly families of the Herodian-Roman period belonged also to the
Sadducean party. This is decidedly testified for at least the Roman
period.[1534] The price at which the Sadducees had to secure themselves power at
this later period was indeed a high one, for they were obliged in their official
actions actually to accommodate themselves to Pharisaic views. “Nothing is, so
to speak, done by them, for whenever they obtain office they adhere, though
unwillingly and by constraint, to what the Pharisees say, as otherwise the
multitude would not tolerate them.”[1535] [1534] Acts 5:17. Joseph. Antt. xx. 9.
1. [1535] Antt. xviii. 1. 4. It is a complete misunderstanding to read from
these words that the Sadducees only took office unwillingly (so even Winer, RWB.
p. 356). On the contrary, they eagerly strove for it. The words ἀκουσίως μὲν καὶ
κατʼ ἀνάγκας are, as the μέν and δέ prove, to be combined with those which
follow. Comp. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 108, note. The same, Sadducäer und
Pharisäer, p. 18. Hanne, Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. Keim, i. 282, note.
Wellhausen, p. 45. With the fall of the Jewish State the Sadducees altogether
disappear from history. Their strong point was politics. When deprived of this
their last hour had struck. While the Pharisaic party only gained more strength,
only obtained more absolute rule over the Jewish people in consequence of the
collapse of political affairs, the very ground on which they stood was cut away
from the Sadducees. Hence it is not to be wondered, that Jewish scholars soon no
longer even knew who the Sadducees really were. In the Mishna we still find some
trustworthy traditions concerning them; but the Talmudic period, properly so
called, has but a very misty notion of them.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 73: � 27. SCHOOL AND SYNAGOGUE
========================================================================

§ 27. SCHOOL AND SYNAGOGUE “THE people which knoweth not the law is accursed”
(John 7:49). Such was the fundamental conviction of post-exilian Judaism. And
this of itself implies that a knowledge of the law was esteemed as the
possession worthy above all others to be striven after. Hence the exhortation:
To the law! is sounded abroad in every key. Joses ben Joeser said: Let your
house be a house of assembly for those wise in the law (חֲכָמִים); let yourself
be dusted by the dust of their feet, and drink eagerly their teaching.[1536]
Joshua ben Perachiah said: Get thyself a teacher (רַב).[1537] Shammai said: Make
the study of the law thy special business (קְבַע).[1538] Rabban Gamaliel said:
Appoint for thyself a teacher, so wilt thou avoid what is doubtful.[1539] Hillel
said: An ignorant man cannot be truly pious (לֹא עַם הָאָרֶץ חָסִיר).[1540] He
also said: The more teaching of the law, the more life; the more school, the
more wisdom; the more counsel, the more reasonable action. He who gains a
knowledge of the law gains life in the world to come.[1541] R. Joses ha-Kohen
said: Give thyself the trouble to learn the law, for it is not obtained by
inheritance.[1542] R. Eleasar ben Arach said: Be diligent in the study of the
law.[1543] R. Chananiah ben Teradion said: When two sit together and do not
converse about the law, they are an assembly of scorners, of which it is said:
sit not in the seat of scorners. When however two sit together and converse
about the law, the Shechinah is present among them.[1544] B. Simon said: When
three eat together at one table and do not converse about the law, it is as
though they ate of the offerings of the dead. But when three eat together at one
table and converse about the law, it is as though they ate at the table of
God.[1545] B. Simon said: He who in walking repeats the law to himself, but
interrupts himself and exclaims, How beautiful is this tree! How beautiful is
this field ! the Scripture will impute it to him as though he had forfeited his
life.[1546] R. Nehorai said: Always travel towards a place where there is
instruction in the law, and say not that it will come after thee, or that thy
companions will preserve it for thee; also depend not upon thine own
acuteness.[1547] The same R. Nehorai said: I lay aside all the trade of the
world, and teach my son only the law, for its reward is enjoyed in this world,
and the capital (הַקֶּרֶן) remains for the world to come.[1548] The following
things have no measure: the Peah, the first-fruits, pilgrimage, benevolence, the
study of the law. The following are things whose interest (פֵּירוֹת) is enjoyed
in this world, while the capital (הַקֶּרֶן) remains for the world to come:
reverence for fathers and mothers, benevolence, peace-making among neighbours,
and the study of the law above them all.[1549] A bastard who knows the law takes
precedence of a high priest if he is ignorant.[1550] [1536] Aboth i. 4. [1537]
Aboth i. 6. [1538] Aboth i. 15. [1539] Aboth i. 16. [1540] Aboth ii. 5. [1541]
Aboth ii. 7. [1542] Aboth ii. 12. [1543] Aboth ii. 14. [1544] Aboth iii. 2;
comp. iii. 6. [1545] Aboth iii. 2. [1546] Aboth iii. 7. [1547] Aboth iv. 14.
[1548] Kiddushin iv. 14. [1549] Peah i. 1. [1550] Horajoth iii. 8. Comp. on the
necessity and value of the study of the law, Weber, System der altsynagogalen
palästinischen Theologie (1880), pp. 28-31. Such an estimation of the law would
necessarily impel to the employment of every possible means for bestowing upon
the whole people the benefit of the most thorough knowledge and practice of the
law. What the Pharisaic scribes had established in their schools as the law of
Israel, was to become both in theory and practice the common possession of the
whole nation. For both the knowledge and practice of the law were required.
Josephus boasts of it as an excellence of the Israelitish nation, that in their
case neither one nor the other received a one-sided preference, as in the case
of the Spartans, who educated by custom, not by instruotion (ἔθεσιν ἐπαίδευον,
οὐ λόγοις), and, on the other hand, of the Athenians and other Greeks, who
contented themselves with theoretic instruction, and neglected practice. “But
our lawgiver very carefully combined the two. For he neither left the practice
of morals silent, nor the teaching of the law unperformed.”[1551] The
instruction which formed the prerequisite of practice began in early youth, and
continued during the whole life of the Israelite. The care of its foundation
rested with the school and family, that of its farther carrying on with the
synagogue. [1551] Contra Apion. ii. 16-17.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 74: I. THE SCHOOL
========================================================================

I. THE SCHOOL THE LITERATURE Ursinus, Antiquitates Hebraicae
Scholastico-Academicae, Hafniae 1702 (also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.).
Pacht, De eruditione Judaica (dissertatio, quam praeside A. G. Waehnero examini
submittet auctor J. L. Pacht), Gotting. 1742. It specially treats, pp. 50-55: de
ludis puerorum. Andr. Georg Waehner, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, vol. ii. (Gottingae
1742), pp. 783-804: de eruditione Ebraeorum. Ant. Theod. Hartmann, Die enge
Verbindung des A. T. mit dem Neuen (1831), pp. 377-384. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert
des Heils, i. 186-192. Winer, RWB., arts. “Kinder” and “Unterricht.” Still more
literature is here given. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 243,
266-268. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, i. 424 sqq. Diestel, art. “Erziehung,” in Schenkel’s
Bibetlex. ii. 172 sq. Ginsburg, art. “Education,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of
Biblical Literature. S. R. Hirsch, Aus dem rabbinischen Schulleben. Frankf. a.
M. 1871 (Progr.). Elias van Gelder, Die Volksschule des jüdischen Alterthums
nach talmudischen und rabbinischen Quellen. Berl. 1872 (Leipziger Dissertat.).
Leop. Löw, Die Lebensalter in der jüdischen Literatur (Szegedin 1875), pp. 196
sqq., 407 sqq. Mos. Jacobson, Versuch einer Psychologie des Talmud (Hamburg
1878), pp. 93-101. Jos. Simon, L’éducation et l’instruction des enfants chez les
anciens Juifs d’après la Bible et le Talmud, 3rd ed. Leipzig 1879, O. Schulze.
Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. i. art. “Erziehung,”
Div.ii.arts. “Lehrer,” “Mizwa,” “Schule,” “Schüler,” “Unterricht.” According to
the statement of Josephus, Moses had already prescribed “that boys should learn
the most important laws, because this is the best knowledge and the cause of
prosperity.”[1552] “He commanded to instruct children in the elements of
knowledge (reading and writing), to teach them to walk according to the laws,
and to know the deeds of their forefathers. The latter, that they might imitate
them; the former, that growing up with the laws they might not transgress them,
nor have the excuse of ignorance.”[1553] Josephus repeatedly commends the zeal
with which the instruction of the young was carried on. “We take most pains of
all with the instruction of children, and esteem the observation of the laws and
the piety corresponding with them the most important affair of our whole
life.”[1554] “If any one should question one of us concerning the laws, he would
more easily repeat all than his own name, Since we learn them from our first
consciousness, we have them, as it were, engraven on our souls; and a
transgression is rare, but the averting of punishment impossible.”[1555] In like
manner does Philo express himself: “Since the Jews esteem their laws as divine
revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from their earliest
youth, they bear the image of the law in their souls.”[1556] “They are taught,
so to speak, from their swaddling-clothes by their parents, teachers, and those
who bring them up, even before instruction in the sacred laws and the unwritten
customs, to believe in God the one Father and Creator of the world.”[1557]
Josephus boasts of himself, that in his fourteenth year he had already so
accurate an acquaintance with the law, that the high priest and chief men of
Jerusalem used to come to him to learn particulars respecting the law.[1558] In
view of all this testimony it cannot be doubted, that in the circles of genuine
Judaism boys were from their tenderest childhood made acquainted with the
demands of the law.[1559] That this education in the law was, in the first
place, the duty and task of parents is self-evident. But it appears, that even
in the age of Christ, care was also taken for the instruction of youth by the
erection of schools on the part of the community. It does not indeed say much.
when later tradition fells us that Simon ben Shetach already prescribed that
children (תינוקות) should frequent the elementary schools (בית הספר).[1560] For
this Simon ben Shetach is quite a point of meeting for all kinds of myths. In
any case however, in the period of the Mishna, and therefore at latest in the
second century after Christ, the existence of elementary schools is assumed.
There are e.g. legal appointments with regard to the חַוָּן (servant of the
congregation), who instructs children (תינוקות) in reading on the Sabbath.[1561]
Or it is ordained, that an idle man shall not keep a school for children, לא
ילמוד אדם רוק סופרים.[1562] Or it is appointed, that in certain cases the
testimony of an adult with respect to what he saw as a child (קטן) in the
elementary school (בית הספר) is valid.[1563] Hence the later tradition, that
Joshua ben Gamla (= Jesus the son of Gamaliel) enacted that teachers of boys
(מלמדי תינוקות) should be appointed in every province and in every town, and
that children of the age of six or seven should be brought to them, is by no
means incredible.[1564] The only Jesus the son of Gamaliel known to history is
the high priest of that name, about 63-65 after Christ (see above, vol. i. p.
201). It must therefore be he who is intended in the above notice. As his
measures presuppose a somewhat longer existence of boys’ schools, we may without
hesitation transfer them to the age of Christ, even though not as a general and
established institution. [1552] Antt. iv. 8. 12: Μανθανέτωσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ παῖδες
πρώτους τοὺς νόμους μάθημα κάλλιστον καὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας αἴτιον. [1553] Apion.
ii. 25: Καὶ γράμματα παιδεύειν ἐκέλευσε [scil. τοὺς παῖδας], περί τε τοὺς νόμους
ἀναστρέφεσθαι καὶ τῶν προγόνων τὰς πράξεις ἐπίστασθαι, τὰς μὲν ἵνα μιμῶνται,
τοῖς δʼ ἵνα συντρεφόμενοι μήτε παραβαίνωσι μήτε σκῆψιν ἀγνοίας ἔχωσι. On
γράμματα = the elements of knowledge (reading and writing), see Passow’s WB.
s.v. [1554] Apion. i. 12: Μάλιστα δὲ πάντων περὶ παιδοτροφίαν φιλοκαλοῦντες, καὶ
τὸ φυλάττειν τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὴν κατὰ τουτους παραδεδομένην εὐσέβειαν ἔργον
ἀναγκαιότατον παντὸς τοῦ βίου πεποιημένοι. [1555] Apion. ii. 18: Ἡμῶν δʼ
ὁντινοῦν εἴ τις ἔροιτο τοὺς νόμους, ῥᾷον ἂν εἴποι πάντας ἢ τοὔνομα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ.
Τοιγαροῦν ἀπὸτῆς πρώτης εὐθὺς αἰσθήσεως αὐτοὺς ἐκμανθάνοντες ἔχομεν ἐν ταῖς
ψυχαῖς ὥσπερ ἐγκεχαραγμένους, καὶ σπάνιος μὲν ὁ παραβαίνων, ἀδύνατος δʼ ἡ τῆς
κολάσεως παραίτησις. [1556] Legat. ad Cajum, § 31, Mang. ii. 577. Θεόχρηστα γὰρ
λόγια τοὺς νόμους εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνοντες, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ πρώτης ἡλικίας τὸ μάθημα
παιδευθέντες, ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀγαλματοφοροῦσι τὰς τῶν διατεταγμένων εἰκόνας.
[1557] Legat. ad Cajum, § 31, Mang. ii. 577: Δεδιδαγμένους ἐξ αὐτῶν τρόπον τινὰ
σπαργάνων ὑπὸ γονέων καὶ παιδαγωγῶν καὶ ὑφηγητῶν, καὶ πολὺ πρότερον τῶν ἱερῶν
νόμων καὶ ἔτι τῶν ἀγράφων ἐθῶν, ἕνα νομίζειν τὸν πατέρα καὶ ποιητὴν τοῦ κόσμου
θεόν. [1558] Vita, 2. [1559] In Christian communities also children were
instructed in the Holy Scriptures. Comp. 2 Timothy 3:15 : ἀπὸ βρέφους ἱερὰ
γράμματα οἶδας. [1560] Jer. Kethuboth viii. 11 (32c above). [1561] Shabbath i.
3. [1562] Kiddushin iv. 13. [1563] Kethuboth ii. 10. [1564] Bab. Baba bathra
21a: “Rab Judah said in the name of the Rabbi: Truly it may be remembered to
this man’s credit! Joshua ben Gamla is his name. If he had not lived, the law
would have been forgotten in Israel. For at first, he who had a father was
taught the law by him, he who had none did not learn the law.… Afterwards it was
ordained, that teachers of boys should be appointed in Jerusalem.… But he who
had a father was sent to school by him, he who had none did not go there. Then
it was ordained, that teachers should be appointed in every province, and that
boys of the age of sixteen or seventeen should be sent to them. But he whose
teacher was angry with him ran away, till Joshua ben Gamla came and enacted,
that teachers should be appointed in every province and in every town (בכל מדינה
ומדינה ובכל עיר ועיר), and children of six or seven yean old brought to them.”
The subject of instruction, as already appears from the above passages of
Josephus and Philo, was as good as exclusively the law. For only its inculcation
in the youthful mind, and not the means of general education, was the aim of all
this zeal for the instruction of youth. And indeed the earliest instruction was
in the reading and inculcation of the text of Scripture. Hence the elementary
school was called simply the בֵּית הַסֵּפֶר, because it had to do with the book
of the Thorah, or as is once expressly declared, with the text of Scripture (the
סִקְרָא) in distinction from בֵּית הַמִּדִרָשׁ, which was devoted to further
“study.”[1565] It was therefore at bottom only the interest in the law, which
made instruction in reading pretty widely diffused. For since in the case of the
written Scripture (in distinction from oral tradition) great importance was
attached to its being actually read (see below on the order of public worship),
elementary instruction in the law was necessarily combined with instruction in
reading. A knowledge of reading must therefore be everywhere assumed, where a
somewhat more thorough knowledge of the law existed. Hence we find even in
pre-Christian times books of the law in the possession of private
individuals.[1566] On the other hand however the difficult art of writing was
less general.[1567] [1565] Jer. Megilla iii. 1 (73d): “R. Pinchas said in the
name of R Hoehaiah that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, and each had a
Beth-Sefer and a Beth-Talmud, the former for the Mikra (the text of Scripture),
the latter for the Mishna (the oral tradition).” [1566] Comp. 1Ma_1:56 sq. In
the Mishna, Jebamoth xvi. 7, a story is told of a Levite, who died on a journey,
in an inn, and whose property consisted of a stick, a travelling-bag, and a book
of the law. [1567] Comp. Winer, RWB., art. “Schreibkunst.” Habitual practice
went hand in hand with theoretical instruction. For though children were not
actually bound to fulfil the law, they were yet accustomed to it from their
youth up. It was made a duty of adults e.g. to enjoin children to keep the
Sabbath.[1568] Children were to be gradually accustomed to strict fasting on the
day of atonement one or two years before the age when it was incumbent.[1569]
Certain points were even binding upon children. They were not bound indeed e.g.
to the reading of the Shema and the putting on of Tephillin, but they were so to
the usual prayer (the Shemoneh Esreh) and to prayer at table.[1570] Boys had to
be present at the tenderest age in the temple at the chief festivals.[1571]
Especially were boys bound to the observance of the feast of Tabernacles.[1572]
As soon then as the first signs of manhood appeared, the growing Israelite was
bound to the full observance of the law,[1573] he then entered upon all the
rights and duties of a full-grown Israelite, and was henceforth a בַּר
מִצְוָה.[1574] Thus the widely-diffused opinion, supported especially by the
remarks of Lightfoot and Wetzstein on Luke 2:42, that the attainment of the
twelfth year formed the boundary between being bound and not bound to the
observance of the law, is in two respects inaccurate: first, because, a younger
boy was bound by certain precepts, and next because no definite age but the
signs of approaching puberty formed this boundary. Besides, when a definite age
was subsequently fixed, it was not that of twelve, but of thirteen years.[1575]
[1568] Shabbath xvi. 6. [1569]a Joma viii. 4. [1570] Berachoth iii. 3: “Women,
slaves and children are released from reading the Shema and from the Tephillin,
but are bound to the Tephilla (the Shemoneh Esreh), to the Mesusa, and prayer at
table.” [1571] Chagiga i. 1: “Every one is bound to appear in the temple at the
chief feasts, except the deaf, idiots, children, eunuchs, mongrels, women,
unemancipated slaves, the lame, blind, sick, infirm, and generally those who
cannot walk. What is here meant by a child (קָטָן)? According to the school of
Shammai: Every one who cannot yet ride upon his father’s shoulder from Jerusalem
to the temple mount. But the school of Hillel said: Every one who cannot yet go
up from Jerusalem to the temple mount led by his father’s hand.” It may indeed
be inferred from Luke 2:42, that as a rule those dwelling away from Jerusalem
took part in the pilgrimages from their twelfth year. [1572] Sukka ii. 8:
“Women, slaves and children are free from the law of the feast of Tabernacles. A
child however, who no longer needs his mother, is bound by it. The
daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder once brought forth a son at the feast of
Tabernacles. He then left the roof open and covered it in over the bed with
branches for the sake of the child.” Sukka iii. 15: “A boy who is capable of
shaking the lulab is bound to keep it.” [1573] Nidda vi. 11: “A boy in whom the
two hairs appear is bound to all the commands which are said in the law.” The
like applies to girls, with the difference, that women neither share in all the
rights nor in all the legal duties of men. [1574] The expression Bar-Mizvah is
found already in the Talmud (Baba mezia 96a below, see Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb.
i. 258b), but was not generally used as the designation of a full-grown
Israelite till the Middle Ages, see Löw, Die Lebensalter, pp. 210, 410. [1575]
Thus in the appendix (a work of the post-Talmudic period) to the treatise Aboth,
Aboth v. 21: “At five years old (he comes) to the reading of Scripture, at ten
to the Mishna, at thirteen (בן שלש עשרה) to the practice of the commands, at
fifteen to the Talmud, at eighteen to marriage,” etc. In a special point, viz.
the absolute validity of the oath, the attainment of the thirteenth year was
also already appointed in the Mishna; see Nidda v. 6: “When a child is twelve
years and one day old, his oaths are tested; when he is thirteen years and a
day, they are valid without further ceremony.” Comp. Löw, Die Lebensalter, p.
143 sqq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Mizva.” The
material contributed by Lightfoot (Horae hebr.) and Wetzstein (Nov. Test.) on
Luke 2:42 does not prove, that the twelfth year formed the boundary between
obligation and non-obligation. On the one hand, only the views of individual
authorities, which are opposed by other authorities, are on the whole dealt
with; and on the other it is only said by them, that the strict practice of the
law had to begin at twelve years of age, not that its obligation then began; so
especially in the passages Joma 82a, Kethuboth 50a. Nor can more be inferred
from Luke 2:42, than that at the age of twelve the strict practice of the law
began.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 75: II. THE SYNAGOGUE
========================================================================

II. THE SYNAGOGUE THE LITERATURE Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla (in his great
work Mishne Thorah), gives a systematic statement of such tradition concerning
the nature of the synagogue as was held valid in his time. Vitringa, De synagoga
vetere libri tres: quibus tum de nominibus, structura, origine, praefectis,
ministris et sacris synagogarum agitur, tum praecipue formam regiminis et
ministerii earum in ecclesiam christianum translatam esse demonstrator,
Franequerae 1696. Joh. Gottl. Carpzov, Apparatus historico criticus (1748), pp.
307-326. A number of older monographs on single subjects is collected in
Ugolini’s Thesaurus Antiquitatum sacrarum, vol. xxi. Hartmann, Die enge
Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen (1831), pp. 225-376. Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832), pp. 1-12, 329-360. Winer,
Realwörterb. ii. 548-551, “Synagogen.” Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael,
iii. 129-137, 183-226. Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, i. 168 ff. Keil,
Handbuch der biblischen Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 164 ff., 444 ff. Leyrer,
art. “Synagogen,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xv. (1862), pp. 299-314.
De Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jüd. Archäologie (4th ed. 1864), pp. 369-374.
Hausrath, Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch., 2nd ed. vol. i. (1873) pp. 73-80. Haneberg,
Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel (1869), pp. 349-355, 582-587. Ginsburg,
art. “Synagogue,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Plumptre, art.
“Synagogue,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Kneucker, art. “Synagogen,” in
Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. pp. 443-446. Sieffert, Die jüdische Synagoge zur Zeit
Jesu (Beweis des Glaubens, 1876, pp. 3-11, 225-239). Hamburger,
Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. 1883, art. “Synagoge.” Löw,
Leop., Der synagogale Ritus (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth.
1884, pp. 97 ff., 161 ff., 214 ff., 305 ff., 364 ff., 458 ff.). Strack, art.
“Synagogen,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xv. 96-100. A deeper and more
professional acquaintance with the law could only be obtained at the feet of the
scribes in the Beth-ha-Midrash (see above, § 25). It was in the nature of
things, that only a small fraction would acquire this. For the bulk of the
people it was no small advantage, if only an elementary knowledge should become
and remain a common property. But even this object was only attainable through
an institution, by means of which the law was being brought nearer and nearer
during his whole life to each individual of the nation. Such an institution was
created by post-exilian Judaism in the custom of the reading of Scripture on the
Sabbath day in the synagogue. For it is necessary first of all to remark, that
the main object of these Sabbath day assemblages in the synagogue was not public
worship in its stricter sense, i.e. not devotion, but religious instruction, and
this for an Israelite, was above all instruction in the law. Josephus rightly
views the matter in this light: “Not once or twice or more frequently did our
lawgiver command us to hear the law, but to come together weekly, with the
cessation of other work, to hear the law and to learn it accurately.”[1576] Nor
was Philo in the wrong, when he called the synagogues “houses of instruction,”
in which “the native philosophy” was studied and every kind of virtue
taught.[1577] In the New Testament too, the διδάσκειν always figures as the
chief function of the synagogue.[1578] The origin of these meetings on the
Sabbath in buildings erected for the purpose, must at any rate be sought for in
the post-exilian period. The first traces of them are the מוֹעֲדֵי אֵל of Psalms
74:8, probably of the Maccabaean era. But their commencement may well be
transposed considerably farther back, perhaps to the time of Ezra. In the times
of Christ the “teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath day” was already an
established and naturalized institution (Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16; Luke
4:31; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10; Acts 13:14; Acts 13:27; Acts 13:42; Acts 13:44; Acts
15:21; Acts 16:13; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4). According to Acts 15:21, Moses “had
from generations of old (ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων) in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Josephus and Philo, and subsequent
Judaism in general, trace back the whole system to Moses himself.[1579] This is
indeed of interest only as showing that later Judaism regarded it as an
essential element of its religious institutions. The utter absence of testimony
forbids our thinking of a pre-exilian origin. [1576] Apion. ii. 7: Οὐκ εἰσάπαξ
ἀκροασαμένους οὐδὲ δὶς ἢ πολλάκις, ἀλλ ἑκάστης ἑβδομάδος τῶν ἄλλων ἔργων
ἀφεμένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκρόσιν τοῦ νόμου ἐκέλευσε συλλέγεσθαι καὶ τοῦτον ἀκριβῶν
ἐκμανθάνειν. [1577] Vita Mosis, iii. 27 (Mang. ii. 168): Ἀφʼ οὗ καὶ εἰσέτι νῦν
φιλοσοφοῦσι ταῖς ἑβδόμαις Ἰουδαῖοι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν, τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον
ἀναθέντες ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ θεωρίᾳ τῶν περὶ φύσιν. Τὰ γὰρ κατὰ πόλεις προσευκτήρια τὶ
ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἢ διδασκαλεῖα φρονήσεως καὶ ἀνδρίας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης,
εὐσεβείας τε καὶ ὁσιότητος καὶ συμπάσης ἀρετῆς, ἧ κατανοεῖται καὶ κατορθοῦται τά
τε ἀνθρώπεια καὶ θεῖα. Comp. Legat. ad. Cajum, § 23 (Mang. ii. 568): Ἠπίστατο
οὖν (scil. Augustus of the Roman Jews) καὶ προσευχὰς ἔχοντας καὶ συνιόντας εἰς
αὐτὰς, καὶ μάλιστα παῖς ἱεραῖς ἑβδόμαις, ὅτε δημοσίᾳ τὴν πάτριον παιδεύονται
φιλοσοφίαν. [1578] Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:21; Luke 4:15; Luke 4:31; Luke 6:6; Luke
13:10; John 6:59; John 18:20. [1579] Comp. besides the two already cited
passages (Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 17; Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 27), especially
Philo, fragm. apud Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7, in Vitringa, p. 283 sqq. The
statement of Winer (RWB. ii. 548, referring to his Diss. de Jonathanis in
Pentat. paraphrasi chald. i. 30), that the Targums transfer the institution to
the patriarchal period, is not quite correct. It is certainly said in Onkelos,
Genesis 25:27, that Jacob served in a house of instruction (בית אולפנא), and in
Targ. Jerus. 1, Genesis 33:17, that Jacob built a house of teaching (בי מדרשא).
But in neither case is a synagogue proper intended. In Targ. Jerus. 1, Exodus
18:20, it is said, that the father-in-law of Moses exhorted him to teach the
people the prayer, which they were to use in their synagogue (בבית כנישתהון).
But here the age of the patriarchs in the stricter sense is out of question. So
too do the other passages quoted by Winer equally refer to a later period. It
would nevertheless be quite in accordance with the spirit of the Targums to
transpose the synagogues also to the times of the patriarcha. The whole system
presupposes above all things the existence of a religious community. And here
the question arises, whether in the time of Christ the civil and religious
community was so separated in the towns and provinces of Palestine, that the
latter possessed an independent organization. To gain clearness on the subject,
we must first consider that the political constitution differed in the different
towns of Palestine. We have seen (vol. i. p. 148) that a threefold variety was
in this respect possible, and actually existed. The Jews might be excluded from
civic rights, or Jews and non-Jews might have equal civil rights, or Jews only
might be in possession of them. The first two cases were possible in towns with
a chiefly Greek or strongly mixed population. In both cases the Jews would, in
respect of their religious wants, be thrown back upon self-organization as a
religious community. For whether they co-operated or not in the direction of
civil affairs, the necessity of independent organization for religious matters
was the same. In both these cases therefore the question started must be
answered in the affirmative, and consequently the position of the synagogal
community would be the same in these towns as in those of the Dispersion. Quite
different however was the state of affairs in towns of an entirely or an almost
exclusively Jewish population. Here the local authorities certainly consisted of
Jews, and the few non-Jewish inhabitants were excluded from the college of
elders or town senate. Of this there is no doubt with respect to Jerusalem.
Since then the local authorities had often to deal also with religious affairs
(for the Jewish law knows of no severance of these from civil affairs), it is a
priori very probable, that the matters of the synagogue were under their
jurisdiction. Or would a separate council of elders be appointed for this
special purpose? In small places at all events this would have been very
un-natural. But even in the larger towns, where there were several synagogues,
there was no occasion for it. It was enough if the necessary officials for each
synagogue (a ruler of the synagogue, an almoner and a minister), who had to care
for its special concerns, were appointed by the local authorities. At least
there was no urgent reason for the formation of a college of elders for each
separate synagogue, though with the scantiness of our material we have to
concede the possibility of this being done. Nay, in one case it is even
probable; for the Hellenistic Jews in Jerusalem, the Libertines, Cyrenians,
Cilicians and Asiatics evidently formed separate communities (Acts 6:9).[1580]
But these were special circumstances, the difference of nationality making a
special organization necessary. A separation of the political and religious
community would have been quite unnatural for the simple circumstances
especially of the smaller places of Palestine. It would disagree with the
character of post-exilian Judaism, which indeed knows of the political, only in
the form of the religious community. But there are not wanting also positive
proofs, that the civil community as such also directed the affairs of the
synagogue. In the Mishna e.g. it is presupposed as quite self-evident, that the
synagogue, the sacred ark, and the sacred books were quite as much the property
of the town, and therefore of the civic community, as e.g. the roads and the
bathing establishment.[1581] The inhabitants of the town (בְּנֵי הָעִיר) had
therefore the right of disposing of the former as of the latter.[1582] When
Eleasar ben Asariah says, that the Musaph-prayer may only be used in a town
congregation (בְּחֶבֶר עִיר), we may infer that the town congregation included
the civic community as such in the synagogue worship.[1583] We may consequently
assume it as probable that the congregation of the synagogue had only in towns
with a mixed population an independent existence beside the political community.
In purely Jewish localities, the elders of the place will have been also the
elders of the synagogue. So far as the community is viewed as religious, it is
called כְּנֵסֶת (properly assembly, Greek συναγωγή, Aramaean כנישתא), its
members therefore בְּנֵי הַכְּנֵסֶת.[1584] [1580] The Λιβερτῖνοι can only be
Roman “freed men” and their descendants, therefore descendants of those Jews,
whom Pompey despatched as prisoners to Rome, and who were there soon liberated
by their masters (Philo, Leg. ad Cajum, § 23. M. ii. 568). Many of these may
have subsequently returned to Jerusalem and have here formed a separate
congregation. So too the numerous Hellenistic Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria,
Cilicia and Asia dwelling in Jerusalem formed separate congregations. For the
old matter of dispute as to how the passage from the Acts is to be construed,
whether so as to make it mention one or two or five synagogues, must certainly
be decided in the latter sense (so already, Vitringa, p. 253). [1581] Nedarim v.
5: “Things which belong to a town are e.g. the roads, the bathing institution,
the synagogue, the sacred chest or ark, the sacred books.” [1582] Megilla iii.
1: “If the inhabitants of a town have sold the open place of the town, they may
with the produce buy a synagogue; if a synagogue, then a sacred ark; if a sacred
ark, then veils for the Holy Scriptures; if these, then the Holy Scriptures; if
these, then a book of the law.” [1583] Berachoth iv. 7: “R. Eleasar ben Asariah
says: The Musaph-prayer (that added to the usual prayer on Sabbaths and holy
days) is only used in a town congregation. The learned say: In a town
congregation and out-side one. R. Judah says in the name of the latter: Wherever
there is a town congregation, an individual is free from the Musaph-prayer.” The
unusual word חבר עיר is, it is true, variously explained. Since however it means
in any case an associated community (not as Maimonides explains it, an
individual scholar), and since the religious community is elsewhere called, not
חכר, but כנסת, חבר must mean just a civil associated community, which also very
well suits the passage cited from Megilla 27b, by Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v.
[1584] Bechoroth v. 5; Sabim iii. 2. כְּנֵסֶת must be written, not with Segol,
but with Tsere in the penultimate. Comp. the Aramaic כנישתא, and Cod. de Rossi
138, where indeed כְּנֵסֶת is not quite constantly but still in most passages
correctly pointed. The Greek συναγωγή is used in the sense of “congregation,”
e.g. Acts 6:9; Acts 9:2. Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 1004 sq. Add. n. 2114b,
2114bb (Inscriptions of the Pantikapaion in the Cimmerian Bosphorus):
συνεπιτροπεώσης τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Frequently in Roman-Judaic epitaphs.
Corp. Inscr. Grace. n. 9902 sqq. That it was in later Judaism the usual
expression for “congregation” is evident, especially from the language of the
Fathers, who only distinguish between συναγωγή and ἐκκλησία to make the former
signify the Jewish, the latter the Christian congregation. Nay the Ebionites
retained the expression συναγωγή for the Christian congregation also (Epiphan.
haer. xxx. 18: συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ οὐχὶ
ἐκκλησίαν). And even in patristic literature συναγωγή is sometimes used for the
Christian congregation (see Harnack, Zeitschr. für Wissenschaftl. Theol. 1876,
p. 104 sqq., and his note on Hermas Mandat, xi. 9, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s
edition of the Patr. Apostol.). In Christian Palestinian Aramaic, כנישתא, which
answers to the Greek συναγωγή, seems to have been the usual word for “church”
(see Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iv. 217. Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 335). Still
in the Christian sphere ἐκκλησία has certainly from the first, even from the
time of St. Paul, maintained the supremacy. This contrast between the Jewish and
Christian usage of language is at first sight strange, since no actual
distinction is made in the Old Testament between συναγωγή and ἐκκλησία. The LXX.
put συναγωγή for עֵדָה, and as a rule ἐκκλησία for קָהָל; as the Targums do
כנישתא for עדה, and generally קהלא for קהל. The former is chiefly used in the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Joshua, the latter in Deuteronomy , 1
and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (for particulars see the Concordances), both
very frequently without real difference to designate the “congregation” of
Israel. Later Judaism however seems already to have made a distinction in the
use of the two terms, and such an one that συναγωγή designated the congregation
more on the side of its empirical reality, ἐκκλησία more on that of its ideal
signification; συναγωγή being the associated congregation as constituted in some
one place; ἐκκλησία, on the other hand, the assembly of those called by God to
salvation, especially like קָהָל, the ideal church of Israel (on קָהָל, comp. in
the Mishna, Jebamoth viii. 2; Kiddushin iv. 3; Horajoth i. 4-5; Jadajim iv. 4).
When then Augustine says συναγωγή = congregatio, which is used also of animals,
ἐκκλησία = convocatio, which is on the contrary used rather of men (see Enarrat.
in Ps. lxxxi. 1), this much at least is true, that the latter is in fact the
worthier term. Συναγωγή only expresses the empiric matter of fact, ἐκκλησία
contains as well a dogmatic judgment of value. From this distinction between the
terms which, as it seems, soon became a prevailing one even in Judaism, it is
easily understood, that Christian usage took possession almost exclusively of
the latter expression. Lastly, we have here to note in passing the expression
צִבּוּר so frequently used in the Mishna. It denotes generally the Church, not
as a community, but only as an aggregate in contrast to the individual, thus
e.g. in the yet to be discussed expression שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, Berachoth v. 5;
Rosh hashana iv. 9. In sacrificial language the public sacrifices, which were
offered in the name of all Israel, are קרבנות צבור, Shekalim iv. 1, 6; Sukka v.
7; Sebachim xiv. 10; Menachoth ii. 2, viii. 1, ix. 6, 7, 9; Temura ii. 1;
Kerithoth i. 6; Para ii. 1. Comp. also חטאת צבור, Joma vi. 1; Sebachim v. 3 and
elsewhere; זבחי שלמי צבור, Pesachim vii. 4; Sebachim v. 5 and elsewhere. A
public fast is called a fast, which was ordered, על הצבור, Taanith i. 5, 6, ii.
9, 10. צִבּוּר then is everywhere not the “community,” but the “aggregate.” The
authority of the elders of the community in religious matters must be conceived
of as analogous to that which they possessed in civil affairs. As then the civil
administration and jurisdiction were entirely in their hands, so presumably was
the direction of religious matters exclusively their affair. There is at least
no trace of any direct deliberation and determination of the whole congregation
in individual cases of discipline and government, of the kind which we meet with
in the Christian Church at Corinth, In the Jewish community, on the contrary,
these were administered by means of appointed officials, i.e. the elders of the
congregation. In particular were the latter very probably competent to exercise
that most important act of religious discipline, the infliction of
excommunication or exclusion from the congregation. The strict administration of
this means of discipline was for post-exilian Judaism nothing less than a vital
question. In its continual contact with its heathen neighbours, the Jewish
Church could only keep itself intact by the most careful separation from itself
of all foreign elements. As then the firmer organization of the post-exilian
Church had begun by the proclamation, that every one who would not submit to the
new order should be excluded from the congregation (Ezra 10:8), so had care to
be continually exercised for the exclusion of opposing elements in the way of
Church discipline. That this regulation actually existed in the time of Christ
is proved by repeated allusions in the New Testament (Luke 6:22; John 9:22; John
12:42; John 16:2). The only question is, whether there were various kinds of
exclusion. Many scholars have, after the example of Elias Levita († 1549) in his
“Tishbi,” distinguished three different kinds: (1) נִדּוּי, (2) חֵרֶם, (3)
שַׁמַּתָּא. Of these however the latter forthwith falls away, נִדּוּי and
שַׁמַּתָּא being, as Buxtorf already showed, used in the Talmud
synonymously.[1585] Only the distinction between two kinds has been handed down:
the נִדּוּי or temporary exclusion, and the חֵרֶם or permanent ban.[1586] It is
however difficult to say how old this distinction is. All that is directly
testified to in the New Testament is the ἀφορίζειν (Luke 6:22) or ἀποσυνάγωγον
ποιεῖν or γίνεσθαι (John 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2), therefore only the custom
of expulsion as such. When in the well-known passage of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians the expression παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ (ver. 5) also occurs beside
αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου (ver. 2), it is just a question, whether by the former we are to
understand a stricter form of excommunication. In the Mishna too expulsion is
only mentioned as such and the possibility of readmission assumed.[1587] On the
other side, the Old Testament is already acquainted with the term חֵרֶם, i.e.
the permanent excommunication or curse; and that it was current (in the sense of
the curse) at least as a dogmatic notion to later Judaism also, is proved by the
expressions ἀνάθεμα and ἀναθεματίζειν so repeatedly occurring in the New
Testament (Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9;
Mark 14:71; Acts 23:12; Acts 14:21). The actual practice of anathematizing in
the synagogues is proved from the 2nd century after Christ and onwards by the
statement of Justin and other Fathers, that the Jews in their daily prayer
always pronounced curses upon the Christians.[1588] It is true that the
infliction of the ἀνάθεμα upon certain individuals is not here spoken of, and it
is also questionable, whether the curses were pronounced directly upon
Christians. But at any rate the actual custom of anathematizing in public
worship at that period is proved. It is therefore at least possible, that so
early as the time of Christ, two kinds of exclusion from the congregation took
place, either without or with the infliction of the ἀνάθεμα. Nothing more
definite can be asserted in the absence of direct evidence.[1589] It is highly
probable that only the elders of the congregation were authorized to inflict
this extreme penalty. For as in post-exilian Judaism the bulk of the people as
such nowhere—so far as we know—exercised jurisdiction, we must not assume it
with respect to excommunication. In fact we see, e.g. from John 9:22, that it
was inflicted by the Ἰουδαίοις, i.e. in the language of this Gospel, by the
authorities of the nation. And this is indirectly confirmed by the circumstance,
that in the era of the Mishna, when the political organization of the nation was
dissolved, and the professional scribes more and more acquired the powers of the
former local authorities, it was just the “learned” (חֲכָמִים) who inflicted and
abolished excommunication.[1590] In the Talmudic and post-Talmudic periods also,
this was in the hands of competent church authorities.[1591] [1585] Lex. Chald.
col. 2462-2470 (s.v. שמתא). Comp. also Levy, Chald. Wörterb. s.v. חרם. [1586] So
Maimonides in Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 739. [1587] Taanith iii. 8; Moed katan
iii. 1-2; Edujoth v. 6; Middoth ii. 2. [1588]a Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 16.
Epiphan. haer. xxix. 9. Further particulars in the appendix on the Shemoneh
Esreh. [1589] Compare on the excommunication in general, Buxtorf, Lex. Chald.,
col. 827-829 (s.v. חרם), col. 1303-1307 (s.v. נדוי), col. 2462-2470 (s.v. שמתא).
Selden, De synedriis, lib. i. cap. viii. Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 729-768.
Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 554-562. Bindrim, De gradibus
excommunicationis apud Hebraeos, in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxvi. Gottl. Isr.
Musculus, De excommunicatione Hebraeorum et ejusdem in Novo Testamento
vestigiis, Lips. 1703. Danz, Ritus excommunicationis (in Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex
Talmude illustratum, pp. 615-648). For other and older discussions, see Meusel,
Bibliotheca historica, i. 2. 198 sq. Winer, RWB., art. “Bann.” Merx in
Schenkel’s Bibellex. s.v. Hamburger, Real-Enc. f. Bibel und Talmud, Div. i. s.v.
Wiesner, Der Bann in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig 1864. [1590]
See especially Moed katan iii. 1-2. [1591] In Justinian’s Novell. 146, in which
the reading of the Greek text of the Scriptures is allowed in Jewish synagogues,
and the Jewish authorities directed not to obstruct this by the infliction of
excommunication, in respect of the latter it is said: Οὐδὲ ἄδειαν ἕξουσιν οἱ
παρʼ αὐτοῖς ἀρχιφερεκῖται ἢ πρεσβύτεροι τυχὸν ἢ διδάσκαλοι προσαγορευόμενοι
περινοίαις τισὶν ἢ ἀναθεματισμοῖς τοῦτο κωλύειν. Maimonides assumes it as
self-evident, that excommunication is inflicted by the בית דין. See on the
subject in general, Vitringa, pp. 744-751. Besides the elders who had the
general direction of the affairs of the congregation, special officers were
appointed for special purposes. But the peculiarity here is, that just for the
acts proper to public worship—the reading of the Scriptures, preaching and
prayer—no special officials were appointed. These acts were, on the contrary, in
the time of Christ still freely performed in turn by members of the
congregation, on which account e.g. Christ was able, whenever He came into a
synagogue, to immediately address the congregation (see further particulars
below on the order of public worship). But though no official readers, preachers
and liturgists were appointed, it was above all necessary that: (1) An official
should be nominated, who should have the care of external order in public
worship and the supervision of the concerns of the synagogue in general. This
was the Ruler of the synagogue.[1592] Such ἀρχισυνάγωγοι are met with in the
entire sphere of Judaism, not only in Palestine,[1593] but also in Egypt,[1594]
Asia Minor,[1595] Greece,[1596] Italy,[1597] and the Roman Empire in
general.[1598] The office and title were also transferred from the Jews to the
Judaeo-Christian churches of Palestine,[1599] nay it is also found occasionally
in Christian churches beyond Palestine.[1600] The Hebrew title רֹאשׁ
הַכְּנֵסֶת[1601] is undoubtedly synonymous with it. That this office differed
from that of an elder of the congregation is proved by the joint occurrence of
the titles πρεσβύτεροι and ἀρχισυνάγωγοι.[1602] But it is most instructive, that
according to the evidence of the inscriptions one and the same person could fill
the offices of both ἄρχων and ἀρχισυνάγωγος.[1603] The ἄρχοντες were in the
Dispersion the “chiefs” of the congregation, in whose hands lay the direction in
general. The office therefore of the Archisynagogos was at all events distinct
from theirs. Nor can he have been the chief of the archontes, who was called
γερουσιάρχης (see below, § 31, on the Dispersion). He had therefore nothing to
do with the direction of the community in general. His office was, on the
contrary, that of specially caring for public worship. He was called
“archisynagogus,” not as head of the community, but as conductor of their
assembly for public worship. As a rule he was indeed taken out of the number of
the elders of the congregation. Among his functions is specially mentioned e.g.
that of appointing who should read the Scriptures and the prayer,[1604] and
summoning fit persons to preach.[1605] He had to take care that nothing
unfitting should take place in the synagogue (Luke 13:14), and had also the
charge of the synagogue building.[1606] There was generally but one
archisynagogus for each synagogue. Sometimes however more than one are mentioned
for one synagogue; so especially Acts 13:15 (ἀπέστειλαν οἱ ἀρχισυνάγωγοι πρὸς
αὐτούς), while the more indefinite expression εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων (Mark 5:22)
may also be explained as: one of the class of the presidents of the synagogues
(see Weiss on the passage). In later times the title ἀρχισυνάγωγος seems to have
been bestowed as a mere title upon even minors and women.[1607] It is remarkable
that archisynagogi occur in heathen worship also. It may however be here left
undecided, whether the use of the expression originated in the Jewish or heathen
sphere.[1608] [1592] Comp. on the Archisynagogi my article: Die
Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit (Leipzig 1879), pp. 25-28.
The older literature is unproductive as jumbling together so much that is
heterogeneous. We bring forward Vitringa, Archisynagogus observationibus novis
illustratus, Franeq. 1685. Idem, De synagoga vetere, pp. 580-592, 695-711.
Rhenferd, Investigatio praefectorum et ministrorum synagogae, c. i. (Opp. phil.
p. 480 sqq.; also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). [1593] Mark 5:22; Mark
5:35-36; Mark 5:38; Luke 8:49; Luke 13:14. Evang. Nicodemi in Thilo, Codex
apocr. Nov. Test. pp. 514 sq., 640, 645 (= Acta Pilati in Tischendorf, Evang.
apocr. 1876, pp. 221, 270, 275, 284). [1594] Hadrian’s letter to Servianus in
Vopiscus, Vita Saturnin. c. viii. (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, ed. Peter,
1865, ii. 209). [1595] Acts 13:15 (the Pisidian Antioch). Epiphan. haer. xxx. 11
(Cilicia). The Inscription of Smyrna, Revue des études juives, vol. vii. No. 14,
1883, p. 161 sq. [1596] Acts 18:8; Acts 18:17 (Corinth). Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
9894 (Aegina). [1597] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9906 (Rome). Garrucci, Cimitero
degli antichi Ebrei scoperto recentemente in Vigna Randanini, p. 67 (Rome).
Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. n. 3657 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n. 3905 (Capua).
Ascoli, Iscrizioni inedite o mal note greche latine ebraiche di antichi sepolcri
giudaici, 1880, p. 49, n. 1, pp. 52, 57 (Venusia in Lower Italy). The same three
inscriptions in Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. (1883), n. 6201, 6205, 6232. The last
two also in Lenormant, La Catacombe juive de Venosa in Revue des études juives,
vol. vi. No. 12 (1883), pp. 208-204. The three first named inscriptions from
Rome and Capua are given also in the appendix to my work, Die Gemeindeverfassung
der Juden in Rom, Nos. 5, 19, 42. [1598] Codex Theodosianus (ed. Haenel), xvi.
8. 4, 13, 14. Comp. also Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 137. [1599] Epiphan. haer.
xxx. 18: πρεσβυτέρους γὰρ οὖτοι ἔχουσι καὶ ἀρχισυναγώγους. [1600]a We have at
least one example in North Africa. In the ruins of an ancient Basilica at
Hammâm-el-Enf, in the neighbourhood of Tunis, is found an inscription, upon
which, among other things, it is said: Asterius filius Rustici acrosinagogi,
Margarita Riddei partem portici tesselavit. The monogram added, and certainly
belonging to the original state of the inscription, proves the inscription to be
Christian. Jewish influence is however seen in the addition of the
seven-branched candlestick along with the Christian monogram. See Ephemeris
epigraphica, vol. v. 1884, p. 537, n. 1222 (communicated by Johannes Schmidt
after the Bulletin épigraphique de la Gaule, iii. 1883, p. 107). [1601] Sota
vii. 7-8. At the blessing of the high priest on the day of atonement the
procedure is as follows: “The minister of the synagogue (chassan ha-keneseth)
takes a roll of the law and gives it to the archisynagogus (rosh ha-keneseth),
he hands it to the president of the priests, and he to the high priest, who
receives it standing and reads standing.… (8) At the reading of passages by the
king on the first day of the feast of Tabernacles, the procedure is as follows:
A wooden tribune (βῆμα) is erected for the king in the fore-court, and he takes
his seat upon it.… The minister of the synagogue takes a roll of the law and
hands it to the archisynagogus (rosh ha-keneseth), he hands it to the president
of the priests, he to the high priest, he to the king, and the king receives it
standing and reads sitting,” etc. The first half of this passage is also in Joma
vii. 1. [1602] Epiphan. haer. xxx. 11. 18. Codex Theodosianus, xvi. p. 13. Acta
Pilati in Tischendorf, p. 221. [1603] Garrucci, Cimitero, p. 67, Stafulo arconti
et archisynagogo. Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. n. 3657. Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x.
n. 3905; Alfius Juda, arcon arcosynagogus. Comp. also Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
9906: Ἰουλιανὸς ἱερεὺς ἄρχων … υἱὸς Ἰουλιανοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου. [1604] See Rashi,
Bartenora and Sheringam on Joma vii. 1 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 244, 246).
Rashi, Bartenora and Sheringam on Sota vii. 7 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 266,
267). [1605] In Acts 13:15, Paul and Barnabas are summoned by the archisynagogi,
in Antioch in Pisidia, to speak, if they have a λόγος παρακλήτεως. [1606] Corp.
Inscr. Graec. n. 9894. The archisynagogus in Aegina directs the building of a
synagogue (ἐχ θεμελίων τὴν συναγ[ωγὴν] οἰκοδόμησα). [1607]a Corp. Inscr. Lat.
vol. ix. n. 6201 (= Ascoli, Iscrizioni, p. 49, note 1): Καλλιστου νιπιου
αρχοσσιναγωγου ετων γ μηνων γ. Revue des études juives, vol. vii. No. 14, p. 161
sq.: Ρουφεινα Ιουδαια αρχισυναγωγος. [1608] Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 10. 4,
mentions an ἀρχισυνάγωγος τῶν ἀπʼ Αἰγύπτου μάγων. Upon an inscription in Olynth
(Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 994, Addend. n. 2007b) occurs an Αἰλιανὸς
Νείκων ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος θεοῦ ἥρωος καὶ τὸ κολλήγιον Βειβίῳ Ἀντωνίῳ ἀνέστησεν τὸν
βωμόν. Upon an inscription in Chios (Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 1031,
Addend. 2221c) five [ἀρχισυ]νάγωγοι οἱ ἄρξαντες. A jumble of religions being the
order of the day in Egypt, and the two Greek inscriptions very recent, a
borrowing from Judaism is very possible in all three cases. When lastly
Alexander Severus was derisively called a Syrus archisynagogus (Lamprid. Vita
Alex. Sev. c. 28, in Script. Hist. Aug. ed. Peter, i. 247), it is uncertain,
whether we have to think of a heathen or Jewish archisynagogus. Besides the
ruler of the synagogue, we meet with as officers of the congregation (2) the
receivers of alms נַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה.[1609] They had certainly nothing to do with
public worship as such, and are therefore, where the civil and the religious
communities were not separated, to be regarded rather as civil officials. They
must however be named here, because it was in the synagogues that the collection
of alms took place.[1610] According to the Mishna the collection was to be made
by at least two, the distribution by three persons.[1611] Not only was money
collected (in the box, קוּפָּה), but also natural products (in the dish,
תַּמְחוּי).[1612] Lastly we have to name the minister, Hebr. חַוָּן
הַכְּנֵסֶת;[1613] Greek ὑπηρέτης.[1614] His office was to bring forth the Holy
Scriptures at public worship and to put them by again.[1615] He was in every
respect the servant of the congregation, having e.g. to execute upon those
condemned to it the punishment of scourging,[1616] and also to instruct children
in reading.[1617] The שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, who had to pronounce the prayer at
public worship in the name of the congregation, is also generally regarded as
one of its officers.[1618] In truth however the prayer was not said by a
permanent officer, but by any member of the congregation (see below on Public
Worship). Hence whoever said the prayer in the name of the congregation was
always called שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר, “plenipotentiary of the congregation.” And the
“ten unemployed men” (עֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין, decem otiosi), whose business it
was, especially in the post-Talmudic period, to be always present for a fee in
the synagogue at public worship, for the purpose of making up the number of ten
members required for a religious assembly, are still less than the
Sheliach-Zibbur to be regarded as officials.[1619] Besides, the arrangement was
still quite unknown in the time of the Mishna. The expression itself occurs
indeed in the Mishna,[1620] but it can originally have designated none else than
such persons as were not prevented by business from visiting the synagogue even
on week days. For on the Sabbath every Israelite was unemployed, and therefore
otiosum esse would be no specific mark of individuals. That such is the meaning
also in this passage of the Mishna is quite clear from the context. Hence the
usual Sabbath day worship is not even thought of in it; and still less is it
said, that in every congregation ten unemployed men must be present. On the
contrary, it is only stated, as a mark of a large town, that even on week days
there was always without difficulty a sufficient number of synagogue frequenters
present. It was not till considerably later, that the above-named arrangement
was made, and an altered meaning thus given to the term. [1609] Demai iii. 1;
Kiddushin iv. 5. In the latter passage it is said, that the posterity of the
גבאי צדקה are without special investigation accounted Israelites of pure blood,
with whom members of the priestly class may intermarry. It is thus seen that
they were really officials. [1610] Matthew 6:2, and Lightfoot (Horae Hebr.)
thereon and Wetzstein (Nov. Test.); also Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 211 sq.
[1611] Peah viii. 7. [1612] Peah viii. 7; Pesachim x. 1. For more exact
information concerning the functions of the almoners in Talmudic and
post-Talmudic Judaism, see Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 375 (s.v. גבאי), 2095 (s.v.
קופה), 2604 (s.v. תמחוי). Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad Matt. vi. 2. Vitringa, De
synagoga, p. 544. Rhenford, De decem otiosis, Diss. i. c. 78-88. Werner, De
fisco et paropside pauperum, Jenae 1725 (cited by Winer, RWB. i. 46). [1613]
Sota viii. 7-8; Joma vii. 1; Makkoth iii. 12; Shabbath i. 3 (in the latter
passage only חזן). Tosefta, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 198, 23. 199. 8, 216. 7.
Aramaic חזנא, Sota ix. 15. Comp. Epiphan. haer. xxx. 11: Ἀζανιτῶν τῶν παρʼ
αὐτοῖς διακόνων ἑρμηνευομένων ἢ ὑπηρετῶν. The title is also found in mediaeval
Hebrew epitaphs, e.g. in Paris (Longpérier, Journal des Savants, 1874, p. 668,
n. 42). חזנים also occur in the temple, Sukka iv. 4; Tamid v. 3. [1614] Luke
4:20. Such a minister of the synagogue is certainly also meant in the
Roman-Judaic epitaph: Φλαβιος Ἰουλιανος ὑπηρετης. Φλαβια Ἱουλιανη θυγατηρ πατρι.
Ἐν εἰρηνη ἡ κοιμησις σου (Garrucci, Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario
argomento, vol. ii. 1865, p. 166, n. 22; also in my Gemeindeverfassung der Juden
in Rom, Appendix, No. 30). [1615] Sota vii. 7-8; Joma vii. 1; Luke 4:20. The
commentaries on Sota and Joma (Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 266 sq., ii. 246).
[1616] Makkoth iii. 12. [1617] Shabbath i. 3. [1618] Berachoth v. 5; Rosh
hashana iv. 9. [1619] Buxtorf, Lex Chald. col. 292 (s.v. בטלן): Apud Rabbinos de
decem בטלנין crebra fit mentio. Sunt autem decem viri otiosi, Synagogae Judaicae
quasi Stipendiarii, qui stipendium accipiunt, ut in precibus et aliis
conventibus sacris, in Synagoga semper frequentes adsint et ab initio ad finem
cum sacerdote aut sacrorum praefecto perdurent, ne synagoga unquam in sacris sit
vacua aut sacerdos solus. This precise explanation of Buxtorf is confirmed by
Rabbinical authorities, e.g. Rashi on Baba kamma 82a (in Vitringa, De synagoga,
p. 532), Bartenora on Megilla i. 3 (Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 388 sq.). In the
Talmud the עשרה בטלנין are not often mentioned, Jer. Megilla i. 6 (70b below),
Bab Megilla 5a, Baba kamma 82a, Sanhedrin 17b (in Vitringa, De decemviris otios,
c. 2; De synag. p. 531); as it is in none of these passages exactly stated what
was the case with these men, Lightfoot was able to set up the mistaken
hypothesis (Horae Hebr. ad Matthew 4:23), that the decem otiosi were officials
of the synagogue, thus making the whole number of synagogue officials to consist
of these ten men. This mistake called forth a learned controversy, in which
Rhenford unsparingly, and Vitringa more gently, attacked Light-foot’s opinion.
See especially, Rhenford, De decem otiosis synagogae, Franequerae 1686.
Vitringa, Dedecemviris otiosis, Franequerae 1687 (both also in Ugolini’s
Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 530-549. A short statement of
the whole controversy will be found in Carpzov’s Apparatus historico-crit. pp.
310-312. [1620] Megilla i. 3: “What is a large town? One in which are ten
unemployed men. If there are fewer, it is a village.” The building, in which the
congregation assembled for public worship, was called בֵּית הַכְּנֵסֶת,[1621]
Aramaic בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא or merely כְּנִישְׁתָּא,[1622] Greek συναγωγή[1623] or
προσευχή.[1624] The designations συναγώγιον,[1625] προσευκτήρον[1626] and
σαββατεῖον[1627] appear in single instances. Synagogues were built by preference
outside the towns and near rivers, or on the seashore for the sake of giving
every one a convenient opportunity for performing such Levitical purification as
might be necessary before attending public worship.[1628] The size and
architecture were of course very various.[1629] In northern Galilee ruins of
ancient synagogues are preserved to the present time, the oldest of which are of
the second, nay possibly of the first century after Christ. They may perhaps
give an idea of the style of building employed for synagogues in the time of
Christ.[1630] The large synagogue at Alexandria is said to have had the form of
a Basilica.[1631] It is possible, that they were sometimes built like theatres,
without a roof, but this is only really testified concerning those of the
Samaritans.[1632] It is certainly true, that on their fast days the Jews did not
offer their public prayers in the synagogue, but in an open space, perhaps also
at the sea-shore.[1633] But this was done in quite open spaces, and does not
prove the existence of unroofed buildings. Still more improbable is it, that
just such buildings were called προσευχαί in a narrower sense, in distinction
from the synagogues proper (as was after the precedent of others, admitted in
the 1st edition of this work). For the testimony of Epiphanius, the supposed
chief authority, by no means proves this.[1634] The Acts of the Apostles seems
rather to speak for a distinction between the terms προσευχή and συναγωγή, since
here, chap. 16:13, 16, a προσευχή is spoken of at Philippi, and then directly
after, chap. 17:1, a συναγωγή at Thessalonica. If however any distinction at all
is to exist, it can only be, that the προσευχή was intended solely for prayer,
the συναγωγή for other acts of worship also. But even this distinction is
untenable in Acts 16:13; Acts 16:16, since here the προσευχή is evidently the
usual place of the Sabbath assembly, in which Paul also embraces the opportunity
of preaching. And since, on the other hand, Philo in particular uses the word of
the synagogue proper, no material distinction can be established between the two
expressions.[1635] [1621] In the Mishna in the following places: Berachoth vii.
3; *Terumoth xi. 10; Bikkurim i. 4; Erubim x. 10; *Pesachim iv. 4; Sukka iii.
13; Rosh hashana iii. 7; Megilla iii. 1-3; Nedarim v. 5, ix. 2; Shebuoth iv. 10;
*Aboth iii. 10; Negaim xiii. 12. In the passages marked * the plural form בתי
כנסיות occurs. [1622] See Levy, Chald. WB. s.v. Idem, Neuhebr. WB. s.v. [1623]
Frequently in the New Testament. In Josephus only three times, Antt. xix. 6. 3;
Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 4-5, vii. 3. 3. In Philo, Quod omnis probis liber, § 12, ed.
Mang. ii. 458 (on the Essenes): εἰς ἱεροὺς ἀφικνούμενοι τόπλους, οἵ καλοῦνται
συναγωγαί. Frequently also in the later literature, e.g. Codex Theodosianus,
xvi. 8, passim. Comp. also Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9894 (Aegina). The use of the
term συναγωγή to designate a Christian place of worship can as yet be only twice
pointed out, one strange to say among the anti-Judaistic Marcionites in an
inscription of A.D. 319 at Deir-Ali, about three miles south of Damascus:
συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν κώμ(ης) Λεβάβων (Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions
grecques et latines, vol. iii. n. 2558. Comp. also Harnack, Zeitschr. für
wissenschaft. Theol. 1876, p. 103). The other example is the inscription of
Hammâm el-Enf (already mentioned, note 62a), which begins: Sancta synagoga Naron
pro salutem suam ancilla tua Julia Gnar de suo proprio tesselavit (read: Sanctam
synagogam Naron [itanam] pro salute sua ancilla tua Julia Nar[onitana] de suo
proprio tesselavit). [1624] Philo, In Flaccum, § 6, 7, 14 (Mang. ii. 523, 524,
535). Legat. ad Caj. § 20, 23, 43, 46 (Mang. ii. 565, 568, 596, 600). Acts 16:13
: ἔξω τῆς πύλης παρὰ ποταμὸν οὗ ἐνομίζομεν προσευχὴν εἶναι. Joseph. Vita, c. 54:
συνάγονται πάντες εἰς τὴν προσευχήν, μέγιστον οἴκημα πολὺν ὄχλον ἐπιδέξασθαι
δυνάμενον. Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 1004 sq. Addend. n. 2114b, 2114bb
(Inscriptions of Pantikapaion on the Cimmerian Bosphorus). Juvenal, Sat. iii.
296: Ede, ubi consistas, in qua te quaero proseucha? Gruter, Corp. Inscr. p.
651, n. 11: Dis M. P. Corfidio Signino pomario de aggere a proseucha, etc.
(Corfidius of Signia, fruit seller at the wall near the proseuche.) Comp.
3Ma_7:20 : τόπον προσευχῆς. The word occurs also in heathen worship as the
designation of a place of prayer. See Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2079 (Inscription
of Olbia on the Pontus Euxinus). Epiphan. haer. lxxx. 1, on the heathen
Massalians (see the words farther on). Also in Gruter, Inscr., it is surely
rather a heathen proseuche that is meant. [1625] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 40
(Mang. ii. 591). Idem, De somniis, ii. 18 (Mang. i. 675). Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
9908: πατηρ συναγωγιων. [1626] Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 27 (Mang. ii. 168).
[1627] Joseph. Antt. xvi. 6. 2 (in an edict of Augustus). The learned Hug
thought that a “Sabbath house” was also mentioned upon a Greek inscription at
Thyatira (Einl. in das N. T. 4th ed. ii. § 89, p. 290). See Corp. Inscr. Graec.
n. 3509: Φάβιος Ζώσιμος κατασκευάσας σορὸν ἔθετο ἐπὶ τόπου καθαροῦ, ὄντος πρὸ
τῆς πόλεως πρὸς τῷ Σαμβαθείῳ ἐν τῷ Χαλδαίου περιβόλῳ κ.τ.λ. This Σαμβαθεῖον
however is a sanctuary of the Chaldean or Persian sibyl, whose name was
according to Suidas properly Σαμβήθη See Stephanus, Thes. s.v. Σαμβήθη. [1628]a
See especially Acts 16:13. Deutsch. Sacra Judaeorum ad littora frequenter
exstructa, Lips. 1713. Comp. also note 92, below. There is not indeed a trace of
this in Rabbinical literature, but on the contrary the injunction is to build
the synagogues upon the highest point in the town (Tosefta, Megilla iv. p. 277,
lin. 16 sq., ed. Zuckermandel). For this reason the fact asserted by us has been
quite disputed by Löw (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884,
pp. 167-170). But this theoretic injunction is no proof that the custom existed
(comp. note 117, below). Löw even points out, that synagogues were frequently
built outside the towns (pp. 109 sqq., 161 sqq.). That in doing this the
neighbourhood of water should be sought, where it was to be had, is at least
very probable. Comp. Aristeas (ed. Mor. Schmidt, p. 67) on the seventy
interpreters: ὡς δʼ ἔθος ἐστὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἀπονιψάμενοι τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς
χεῖρας, ὡς ἂν εὔξωνται πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Jdt_12:7. Clemens, Alex. Strom. iv. 22.
142. It is not said, that the hands must always be washed or bathed before
prayer, but that one or the other must be done in proportion to the degree of
Levitical uncleanness which may exist. Cautious persons may have preferred to do
too much, rather than too little in this respect. See in general, Vitringa, De
synag. pp. 1091, 1105 sq. It is well known, that the custom of washing the hands
and of other lustrations was practised also in heathenism (Odyss. ii. 261, iv.
750 sqq.; Ilias, vi. 266 sq. Potter, Archaeolog. graec. ii. 4), and in the
Christian church (see Tertullian, De oratione, c. 13: Ceterum quae ratio est,
manibus quidem ablutis, spiritu vero sordente orationem obire. Passages from
Chrysostom in Suicerus, Sacrorum observationum, lib. sing. p. 153). See in
general, Pfannenschmidt, Das Weihwasser im heidnischen und christlichen Cultus,
1869. [1629] See in general, Löw, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissenschaft des
Judenth. 1884, p. 214 sqq. [1630]a The importance and great antiquity of these
ruins was already rightly recognised by Robinson (Recent Biblical Researches,
vol. iii. pp. 70, 71, 74, 342, 346, 367, 368 sq.). They were afterwards
thoroughly treated of especially by Renan (Mission de Phénicie, pp. 761-783).
For delineations, see The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and
Kitchener, vol. i. pp. 231, 232, 252, 397-399, 401. Comp. also the articles of
Wilson and Kitchener in the Quarterly Statement, 1869 and 1878, printed in the
Survey, etc. Special Papers, pp. 294-305. Also Bädeker-Socin, Palästina, pp.
387, 390, 391, 398, 394, 397. Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, i. 342-345, 502.
Guérin, Galilée, i. 198-201, 227-231, 241 sq., ii. 95, 100 sq., 357 sq., 429
sq., 441, 447-449. On the ruins of Tell Hum specially, The Recovery of
Jerusalem, by Wilson, Warren, etc. (1871), pp. 342-346. The ruins discovered
are: Kasiun, Kefr Birim, el-Djisch, Meiron, Nabartein, Kedes (?), Tell Hum,
Keraze, Irbid. The five first lie west and south-west of Lake Merom, Kedes
north-west (the meaning of the ruins there is however doubtful), Tell Hum and
Keraze on the Lake of Gennesareth, Irbid north-west of Tiberias. In Kefr Birim,
el-Djisch, Meiron and Irbid ruins are already spoken of by Jewish pilgrims of
the Middle Ages, who for the most part attribute their building to Simon ben
Jochai (second century after Christ); the synagogue at Irbid is even referred to
the much more ancient Nittai of Arbela. See Carmoly, Itinéraires de la Terre
Sainte des xiiie, xive, xve, xvie, et xviie siècle, traduits de l’hebreu
(Bruxelles 1847), pp. 132, 136, 380 (Kefr Birim), pp. 262, 452 sq. (Gush Caleb =
el-Djisch), pp. 133 sq., 184, 260 (Meiron), pp. 131, 259 (Arbel = Irbid). The
date of the synagogue at Kasiun is decided by a Greek inscription of the time of
Septimus Severus (A.D. 197) found among the ruins (Renan, p. 774). The style of
the other synagogues being more or less akin to this, it is very probable, that
they all belong to the flourishing period of Rabbinical Judaism in Galilee, i.e.
to the second, third and fourth centuries after Christ. Renan tries to refer
some even to the first century, especially the very well preserved one in Kefr
Birim (p. 773). Pious imagination may therefore indulge in the thought, that the
ruins at Tell Hum (= Capernaum) may possibly be those of the synagogue built by
the Roman centurion, in which Jesus often taught (Wilson in The Recovery, p.
345. Guérin, Galilée, i. 229 sq. Bädeker, 390). Almost all these synagogues lie
north and south, so that the entrance is at the south. As a rule they appear to
have had three doors in the front, one chief entrance and two smaller side doors
(so in Kefr Birim, Meiron, Tell Hum). In some it is still discernible, that they
were divided by two rows of columns into three aisles (as in Nabartein and
Kasiun); the synagogue at Tell Hum had even five aisles. Some had a portico in
front (as in Kefr Birim and Meiron). In general the architecture was influenced
by the Graeco-Roman, while it yet very characteristically differed from it. It
was especially distinguished by rich and superfluous ornamentation. [1631] Jer.
Sukka v. 1, fol. 55ab; the same passage is also in Tosefta, Sukka 198, 20 sqq.,
ed. Zuckermandel. Philo too mentions among the proseuchae of Alexandria a
μεγίστη καὶ περισημοτάτη (Leg. ad Caj. § 20, Mang. ii. 565). [1632] Epiph. haer.
lxxx. 1. [1633] Taanith ii. 1: How is the order of the fast day solemnity? The
ark (in which are the rolls of the law) is brought to the open space of the
town, ashes of burnt wood are spread upon the ark and upon the heads of the
prince and the chief of the court of justice, and every one else puts ashes on
his own head. The eldest among those present, etc.… (here follow further
liturgical directions). Tertullian, De jejunio, c. 16: Judaicum certe jejunium
ubique celebratur, cum omissis templis per omne litus quocunque in aperto
aliquando jam precem ad caelum mittunt. Id. Ad nationes, i. 13: Judaici ritus
luceanarum et jejunia cum azymis et orationes litorales. Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10.
23: καὶ τὰς προσευχὰς ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τῇ θαλάσσῃ κατὰ τὸ πάτριον ἔθος. Comp. also
Philo, In Flaccum, § 14, Mang. ii. 535. Löw, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und
Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, p. 166 sq. [1634] Epiphan. haer. lxxxi. (on the
Messalians): Τινὰς δὲ οἴκους ἑαυτοῖς κατασκευάσαντες ἢ τόπους πλατεῖς, φόρων
δίκην, προσευχὰς ταύτας ἐκάλουν. Καὶ ἦσαν μὲν τὸ παλαιὸν προσευχῶν τόποι ἔν τε
τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἔξω πόλεως καὶ ἐν τοῖς Σαμαρείταις, ὡς καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν
ἀποστόλων ηὕρομεν (here follows the quotation Acts 16:13). Ἀλλὰ καὶ προσευχῆς
τόπος ἐν Σικίμοις, ἐν τῇ νυνὶ καλουμένῃ Νεαπόλει ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, ἐν τῇ πεδιάδι,
ὡς ἀπὸ σημείων δύο, θεατροειδής, οὕτως ἐν ἀέρι καὶ αἰθρίῳ τόπῳ ἐστὶ
κατασκευασθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν πάντα τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων μιμουμένων. In
explanation we remark (1) that what Epiphanius says of the heathen Messalians is
of course not the rule for Jewish proceedings. And yet even they used the
designation προσευχή or both kinds of places of prayer, the οἴκοι and the τόποι
πλατεῖς. (2) Epiphanius certainly means to say by the learned remark which
follows, that there were also among the Jews and Samaritans places of prayer
under the open sky, called προσευχαί. He has however independent knowledge of
this fact only among the Samaritans. With respect to the Jews he knows nothing
more of it (comp. the praeterite ἦσαν τὸ παλαιόν), and only rests his assertion
on Acts 16:13. And supposing he was in the right, this would not prove, that
these places of prayer were called proseuchae in distinction from the
synagogues. [1635] Carpzov, Apparatus historico-crit. p. 320 (where too see
other authorities for and against), also declares for the identity of the two.
Considering the value laid on these Sabbath assemblies, we must assume that
there was in every town of Palestine, and even in smaller places, at least one
synagogue.[1636] In the post-Talmudic period it was required, that a synagogue
should be built wherever but ten Israelites were dwelling together.[1637] In the
pre-Talmudic age indeed this requirement cannot be literally shown to have
existed, though quite in agreement with its spirit. In the larger towns there
was a considerable number of synagogues, as e.g. in Jerusalem,[1638]
Alexandria,[1639] Rome.[1640] The different synagogues of one and the same town
seem to have been sometimes distinguished from each other by special emblems.
Thus there was in Sepphoris a “synagogue of the vine” (כנישתא דגופנא),[1641] in
Rome a synagogue of the olive tree (συναγωγὴ ἐλαίας).[1642] [1636] We find
synagogues e.g. in Nazareth (Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16), Capernaum
(Mark 1:21; Luke 7:5; John 6:59). Comp. Acts 15:21 : κατὰ πόλιν. Philo, De
Septenario, c. 6 (Mang. ii. 282 = Tischendorf, Philonea, p. 23): Ἀναπέπταται
γοῦν ταῖς ἑβδόμαις μυρία κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν διδασκαλεῖα φρονήσεως καὶ σωφροσύνης
καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν. [1637] Maimonides, Hilchoth
Tephilla xi. 1. See Vitringa, De Synagoga, pp. 232-239. That at least ten
persons form an assembly for public worship is already said in the Mishna. See
Megilla iv. 3; Sanhedrin i. 6. Comp. also Megilla i. 3. With respect to the
Passover, Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 9, 3. [1638] Acts 6:9; Acts 24:12. A synagogue
of Alexandrines in Jerusalem, also in Tosefta, Megilla iii., ed. Zuckermandel,
p. 224. 16; Jer. Megilla 73d (in Lightfoot, Horae on Acts 6:9). The Talmudic
myth, that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, is indeed simply
characteristic of the insipidity of these legends. [1639] Philo, Leg. ad Caj. c.
20 (Mang. ii. 565): πολλαὶ δέ εἰσι καθʼ ἕκαστον τμῆμα τῆς πόλεως. [1640] Philo,
Leg. ad Caj. c. 23 (Mang. ii. 568), speaks of προσευχαί in Rome in the plural.
For farther particulars concerning the Roman synagogues, see below, § 31. [1641]
Jer. Nasir vii. 1, fol. 56a. Lightfoot mistakenly translates “synagogue of the
Gophnites” (Horae Hebr., Centuria Matthaeo praemissa, c. 55; Opp. ii. 211).
[1642] Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9904. De Rossi, Bulletino, v. 1867, p. 16. I
formerly felt great hesitation as to the meaning of the expression (see my
Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, p. 17), but now consider the above
explanation undoubtedly correct. The fittings of the synagogues were in New
Testament times very simple. The chief was the closet (תֵּיבָה) in which were
kept the rolls of the law and the other sacred books.[1643] These were wrapped
in linen cloths (מִטְפָּחוֹת),[1644] and lay in a case (תִּיק = θήκη).[1645] An
elevated place (בימה = βῆμα, tribune), upon which stood the reading-desk, was
erected, at least in post-Talmudic times, for him who read the Scriptures aloud
or preached.[1646] Both are mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud,[1647] and may
well be assumed for the time of Christ. Among other fittings, lamps may also be
mentioned.[1648] Lastly trombones (שׁוֹפָרוֹת) and trumpets (הֲצוֹצְרוֹת) were
indispensable instruments in public worship. The former were blown especially on
the first day of the year, the latter on the feast days.[1649] [1643] The
תֵּיבָה is mentioned: Megilla iii. 1; Nedarim v. 5; Taanith ii. 1-2 (according
to the latter passage it was transportable); also in the frequently recurring
formula, עבר לפני התיבה (see below on Public Worship). Chrysost. Orat. adv.
Judaeos, vi. 7 (Opp. ed. Montf. vol. i.): Ἄλλως δὲ, ποία κιβωτὸς νῦν παρὰ
Ἰουδαίοις, ὅπου ἱλαστήριον οὐκ ἔστιν; ὅπου οὐ χρησμὸς, οὐ διαθήκης πλάκες … Ἐμοὶ
τῶν ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγορᾶς πωλουμένων κιβωτίων οὐδὲν ἄμεινον αὕτη ἡ κιβωτὸς κιβωτὸς
διακεῖσθαι δοκεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλῷ χεῖρον. See on the whole subject, Vitringa, pp.
174-182. On the keeping of the sacred books in the synagogue, see Josephus,
Antt. xvi. 6. 2. Chrysost. Orat. adv. Judaeos, i. 5: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ εἰσί τινες, οἵ
καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν σεμνὸν εἶναι τόπον νομίζουσιν, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ πρὸς τούτους
ὀλίγα εἰπεῖν … Ὁ νόμος ἀπόκειται, φησὶν, ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ βιβλία προφητικά. Καὶ τί
τοῦτο; Μὴ γὰρ, ἔνθα ἂν ᾖ βιβλία τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὁ τόπος ἅγιος ἔσται; Οὐ πάντως.
Similarly Orat. vi. 6 and 7. Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla xi. 3, in Vitringa,
p. 182, and Bartenora on Taanith ii. 1 (Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 361), expressly
say, that the sacred books were kept in the תיבה. [1644] Kilajim ix. 3; Shabbath
ix. 6; Megilla iii. 1; Kelim xxviii. 4; Negaim xi. 11. [1645] Shabbath xvi. 1.
The word תיק is also in Kelim xvi. 7-8. On the use of book-cases in classical
antiquity, see Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (1882), pp. 64-66. Many expositors
insist on understanding the φελόνης of 2 Timothy 4:13 as such a book-case. A
representation of an old silver case for the Pentateuch among the modern
Samaritans is given in The Survey of Western Palestine, etc., vol. ii. 1882, p.
206. [1646] Maimonides, Hilchoth Tephilla xi. 3; Vitringa, pp. 182-190. [1647]
Jer. Megilla iii. 1, fol. 73d, below. The reading-desk is here called אנלגין =
ἀναλογεῖον. For so must we read with Aruch, instead of אנגלין, as given in the
editions. The same word also in Kelim xvi. 7, 8. See Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb.
s.v. [1648] Terumoth xi. 10; Pesachim iv. 4; Vitringa, pp. 194-199. [1649] Rosh
hashana iii. 3, 4, 7, and generally iii.-iv.; Taanith ii.-iii. Surenhusius’
Mishna, ii. 341. Vitringa, pp. 203-211 (and at p. 209, also many passages from
Chrysostom). Winer, RWB., art. “Musikalische Instrumente.” Gesenius’ Thesaurus,
pp. 513, 1469. Leyrer, art. “Musik,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. According to Jer.
Shabbath xvii. fol. 16, Bab. Shabbath 35b, the dawn of the Sabbath was also
announced by the blowing of instruments (see the passages in Levy, Neuhebr.
Wörterbuch, s.v. חצוצרת; Vitringa, p. 1123 sq.). Whether this was general in
former times (for which Chullin i. fin. speaks), or only took place in the
temple at Jerusalem (which is at all events evidenced by Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv.
9. 12; Sukka v. 5), must here be left undecided. The order of divine worship was
in New Testament times already tolerably developed and established. The
congregation sat in an appointed order, the most distinguished members in the
front seats, the younger behind; men and women probably apart.[1650] In the
great synagogue at Alexandria the men are said to have sat apart according to
their respective trades (אוּמָנוּת).[1651] If there was a leper in the community
a special division was prepared for him. So at least the Mishna required.[1652]
Ten individuals were necessary to form a regular assembly for public worship
(see above, vol. ii. p. 67). The chief parts of the service were, according to
the Mishna, the recitation of the Shema, prayer, the reading of the Thorah, the
reading of the prophets, the blessing of the priest.[1653] To these were added
the translation of the portions of Scripture read, which is assumed in the
Mishna (see below), and the explanation of what had been read by an edifying
discourse, which in Philo figures as the chief matter in the whole
service.[1654] [1650] On the πρωτοκαθεδρία of the scribes and Pharisees, see
Matthew 23:6; Mark 12:39; Luke 11:43; Luke 20:46. Philo says at least of the
Essenes, that the order was according to age, the younger sitting “below” (i.e.
behind) the elder, Quod omnis probus liber, c. 12 (Mang. ii. 458): καθʼ ἡλικίας
ἐν τάξεσιν ὑπὸ πρεσβυτέροις νέοι καθέζοντι. The separation of the sexes must be
assumed as self-evident, although it does not happen to be mentioned in any of
the more ancient authorities. For what is said in Pseudo-Philo, De vita
contemplativa, c. 9, init. (Mang. ii. 482), of the Therapeutae cannot be here
taken into account. Nor is a special division for women mentioned in the Talmud;
see Löw, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, p. 364 sqq.,
especially 371. [1651] Jer. Sukka v. 1, fol. 55ab. [1652] Negaim xiii. 12.
[1653] The enumeration of these parts, Megilla iv. 3. [1654] We have three
summary descriptions of the public worship of the synagogue in Philo: 1. Fragm.
apud Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7. 12-13, ed. Gaisf. (Mang. ii. 630), from the
first book of the Hypothetica: Τί οὖν ἐποίησε [scil. ὁ νομοθέτης] ταῖς ἐβδόμαις
ταύταις ἡμέραις; Αὐτοὺς εἰς ταυτὸν ἠξίου συνάγεσθαι, καί καθεζομένους μετʼ
ἀλλήλων σὺν αἰδοῖ καὶ κόσμῳ τῶν νόμων ἀκροᾶσθαι τοῦ μηδένα ἀγνοῆσαι χάριν. Καὶ
δῆτα συνέρχονται μὲν ἀεὶ, καὶ συνεδρεύουσι μετʼ ἀλλήλων· οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ σιωπῇ,
πλὴν εἴ τι προσεπιφημίσαι τοῖς ἀναγινωσκομένοις νομίζεται· τῶν ἱερέων δέ τις ὁ
παρὼν ἢ τῶν γερόντων εἶς ἀναγινώσκει τοὺς ἱεροὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς, καὶ καθʼ ἕκαστον
ἐξηγεῖται μέχρι σχεδὸν δείλης ὀψίας. 2. De Septenario, c. 6 (Mang. ii. 282 =
Tischendorf, Philonea, p. 23): Ἀναπέπταται γοῦν ταῖς ἑβδόμαις μυρία κατὰ πᾶσαν
πόλιν διδασκαλεῖα φρονήσεως καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων ἀρετῶν. Ἐν οἷς οἱ μὲν ἐν κόσμῳ καθέζονται, σὺν ἡσυχίᾳ τὰ ὦτα ἀνωρθωκότες,
μετὰ προσοχῆς πάσης, ἕνεκα τοῦ διψῆν λόγων ποτίμων. Ἀναστὰς δέ τις τῶν
ἐμπειροτάτων ὑφηγεῖται τἄριστα καὶ συνοίσοντα, οἷς ἅπας ὁ βίος ἐπιδώσει πρὸς τὸ
βέλτιον. 3. Of the Essenes, Quod omnis probus liber, c. 12 (Mang. ii. 458, also
in Euseb. Praep. Evang. viii. 12. 10, ed. Gaisf.): Ὁ μὲν τὰς βίβλους ἀναγινώσκει
λαβὼν, ἕτερος δὲ τῶν ἐμπειροτάτων, ὅσα μὴ γνώριμα παρελθὼν ἀναδιδάσκει. I here
further mention, that in the post-Talmudic period, especially in the treatise
Soferim, c. 10-21 (best edition: Masechet Soferim, edited by Joel Müller, 1878),
there is a series of detailed directions for the synagogue worship. Vitringa, De
synagoga, pp. 946-1121, following Maimonides, gives an exhaustive description of
the ritual of the post-Talmudic period; comp. also pp. 667-711. The works of
Jewish scholars, of which 100 are recorded by Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd
ed. xv., and chiefly among these Zunz, Die ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes
entwickelt, Berlin 1859, may also be consulted for the history of the synagogue
ritual in the post-Talmudic period. The Shema, so called from its commencing
words, יִשְׂרָאֵל, consists of the sections Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy
11:13-21, Numbers 15:37-41, together with certain benedictions before and after
(see particulars in Appendix). It was always distinguished from prayer proper,
and is rather a confession of faith than a prayer. Hence the “reciting” not the
“praying” of the Shema is spoken of (קריאת שמע). As the Shema undoubtedly
belongs to the times of Christ, it is evident that certain established prayers
were then already customary in public worship. It can however hardly be
ascertained, how much of the somewhat copiously developed liturgy of
post-Talmudic Judaism reaches back to that period.[1655] The formula by which
the reader summoned to prayer, בָּרְכוּ אֶת יהוה, is expressly mentioned in the
Mishna.[1656] The custom too of praying the three first and three last
benedictions of the Shemoneh Esreh (of which particulars are given in the
Appendix) at Sabbath and festival worship, reaches back to the age of the
Mishna.[1657] It was the custom to pray standing and with the face turned
towards the Holy of Holies, i.e. towards Jerusalem.[1658] The prayer was not
uttered by the whole congregation, but by some one called upon for this office
(the שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר) by the ruler of the synagogue, the congregation making
only certain responses, especially the אָמֵן.[1659] He who pronounced the prayer
stepped in front of the chest in which lay the rolls of the law. Hence עָבַר
לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה is the usual expression for “to lead in prayer.”[1660] Every
adult member of the congregation was competent to do this.[1661] The same
individual, who said the prayer, might also recite the Shema, read the lesson
from the prophets and, if he were a priest, pronounce the blessing.[1662] [1655]
For a description of it, according to Maimonides, see Vitringa, De synagoga, pp.
1075-1090, in general, pp. 1022-1113. Every orthodox Jewish prayer-book also
gives information on the subject. On the details, see especially in Hamburger’s
Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii., the articles “Abendgebet,” “Kaddisch,”
“Keduscha,” “Kiddusch,” “Minchagebet,” “Morgengebet,” “Mussafgebet,” “Schema,”
“Schemone-Esre.” The so-called Kaddisch is especially interesting on account of
its points of contact with the Lord’s Prayer. See Hamburger as above, ii. p. 603
sqq. [1656] Berachoth vii. 3. [1657] Comp. on the general subject, Vitringa, p.
1024 sq. (after Maimonides). Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 367. That
the custom reaches back to the period of the Mishna is evident from Rosh hashana
iv. 5. [1658] On standing at prayer, see Matthew 6:5; Mark 11:25; Luke 18:11;
Berachoth v. 1; Taanith ii. 2. Lightfoot (Horae Hebr.) and Wetzstein (Nov Test.)
on Matthew 6:5. On turning towards the Holy of Holies, viz. towards Jerusalem,
Ezekiel 8:16; 1 Kings 8:48; Daniel 6:11; Berachoth iv. 5-6; Sifre 71b, ed.
Friedmann in Weber, System der altsynag. Theol. p. 62. The same passage also in
Tosefta, Berachoth iii. p. 8, ed. Zuckermandel (comp. also Löw, Monatsschr. für
Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1884, p. 310). It is striking that the still
remaining ruins of ancient synagogues in Galilee have almost all the entrance
towards the south (see above, note 89a). According to this it would be supposed
that the Holy Land lay to the north, and that the congregation sat or stood
facing the north. Or was it that the turning towards Jerusalem, i.e. towards the
south, was required from the reader only? In after times, when the synagogues
were regarded as an exchange for the temple, we meet with the direction to have
the entrance as in the temple at the east (Tosefta, Megilla iv. p. 227, 15th ed.
Zuckermandel). It seems, however, that this direction was never complied with.
In the European congregations of the Middle Ages, it was the rule to place the
entrance at the west, so that the worshippers might turn to the east. For
further particulars, see Löw, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth.
1884, p. 305 sqq. Comp. on the subject generally, Winer, RWB., art. “Gebet.”
Hölemann, Die biblische Gestalt der Anbetung, in Bibelstudien, i. 96-153. [1659]
On the summons to deliver the prayer by the archisynagogus, see above, vol. ii.
p. 65; on שליח צבור, p. 67. The responsive אָמֵן is already found in the Old
Testament, Deuteronomy 27:15 sqq.; Nehemiah 8:6; 1 Chronicles 16:36; Tob_8:8.
See also Berachoth viii. 8; Taanith ii. 5. Also in Christian worship from the
first, 1 Corinthians 14:16. Justin, Apol. maj. 65, 67. See generally, Buxtorf,
Lex. Chald. s.v. Vitringa, De synagoga, p. 1093 sqq. Wetzstein and other
expositors on 1 Cor. 14:46; Suicer, Thes. s.v. ἀμήν. Otto’s note on Justin, c.
65. Older literature in Wolf, Curae philol. in Nov. Test. on Matthew 6:13 and 1
Corinthians 14:16. [1660] Berachoth v. 3-4; Erubin iii. 9; Rosh hashana iv. 7;
Taanith i. 2, ii. 5; Megilla iv. 3, 5, 6, 8. Comp. also Taanith ii. 2. [1661]
Megilla iv. 6. In Christian congregations also the prayer was said by some
member of them, see 1 Corinthians 11:4. [1662] Megilla iv. 5. The Scripture
lessons (from both the Pentateuch and the prophets) might also be read by any
member of the congregation, and even by minors.[1663] The latter were only
excluded from reading the Book of Esther at the feast of Purim.[1664] If priests
and Levites were present, they took precedence in reading the lesson.[1665] It
was customary for the reader to stand (Luke 4:16 : ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι).[1666] Both
sitting and standing were allowed at the reading of the Book of Esther,[1667]
and the king was also allowed to sit when he read his portion of Scripture at
the feast of Tabernacles in the Sabbatic year.[1668] The lesson from the Thorah
was so arranged that the whole Pentateuch consecutively was got through in a
cycle of three years,[1669] for which purpose it was divided into 154 sections
(פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת).[1670] On Sabbaths several members of the congregation, at the
least seven, who were summoned for the purpose by some official, originally
indeed by the ruler of the synagogue, took part in the reading.[1671] The first
and the last of these had to pronounce a thanksgiving (בְּרָכָה) at the
beginning and at the end.[1672] Each had (at the reading of the Thorah) to read
at least three verses,[1673] and might never repeat them by heart.[1674] Such at
least was the order prescribed by the Mishna, which certainly was observed only
in the synagogues of Palestine. The Talmud expressly remarks of non-Hebraist
Jews, that among them the whole Parashah was always read by one;[1675] and with
this agrees Philo, who evidently assumes that the lesson from the Thorah was
read by one person (see the passages, vol. ii. p. 76). The reading of the law
was already followed in New Testament times by a paragraph from the prophets
(i.e. the נְבִיאִים, which include the older historical books), as we see from
Luke 4:17, where Jesus reads a section from Isaiah, and from Acts 13:15 :
ἀνάγνωσις τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. These lessons from the prophets are
mentioned also in the Mishna.[1676] As these formed the conclusion of the
reading from the Scriptures, it was called הִפְטִיר בַּנָּבִיא (to close with
the prophet), on which account the prophetic paragraphs were called Haphtaroth.
For these no lectio continua was required;[1677] hence a choice of them was
open,[1678] and they were always read by one person.[1679] They were moreover
only read at the chief services on the Sabbath, and not also at week-day and
Sabbath afternoon services.[1680] [1663] Megilla iv. 5-6. That the reading of
the Scripture lesson was not the work of a permanent official is evident from
Philo, Fragm. ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7. 13 (see above, vol. ii. p. 76).
[1664] Megilla ii. 4. [1665] Gittin v. 8: “The following things have been
ordained for the sake of peace. The priest is the first to read, then the
Levite, then the Israelite for the sake of peace.” Maimonides testifies that it
was the custom in his time to give an unlearned priest precedence in reading
over a learned Israelite, a proceeding which indeed he does not approve. See
Maimonides, Commentary on Gittin v. 8 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 341), and
Hilchoth Tephilla xii. 18 (in Vitringa, p. 981). Comp. also Hamburger, Real-Enc.
ii. 1267. Philo too points out the precedence of the priests; only he assumes
therewith that there would be but one to read the lesson, Fragm. ap. Euseb.
Praep. evang. viii. 7. 13: τῶν ἱερεων δέ τις ὁ παρὼν ἢ τῶν γερόντων εἷς. [1666]
Comp. Joma vii. 1; Sota vii. 7 (vol. ii. p. 64 sq.). Lightfoot on Luke 4:16.
[1667] Megilla iv. 1. [1668] Sota vii. 8. [1669] Megilla 29b. [1670] See Zunz,
Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 3 sq. Hupfeld, Stud. und Krit. 1837, p. 830
sq. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 209-215. Grätz, Ueber Entwickelung
der Pentateuch-Perikopen-Verlesung (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d.
Judenth. 1869, pp. 385-399). Hamburger, Real-Enc. f. Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii.
art. “Vorlesung aus der Thora.” The present custom of reading the Pentateuch in
fifty-four sections in one year is of later origin. [1671] On the summons to the
Thorah, see Vitringa, pp. 980, 1122 (after Maimonides). According to Maimonides
this was certainly done by the Chassan. But he had in the post-Talmudic period
an entirely different position from that which he formerly occupied. That it was
originally done by the archisynagogus may be admitted as probable from his
position in other respects. Rashi and Bartenora at least testify (in the
passages named above, vol. ii. p. 65) that the archisynagogus (Rosh hakeneseth)
had to determine who was to read the lesson from the prophets, the Shema, and
the prayer. [1672] Megilla iv. 2. Maimonides in Vitringa, p. 983. [1673] Megilla
iv. 4. [1674] Zunz, p. 5. Comp. Megilla ii. 1 (with respect to the Book of
Esther). Taanith iv. 3 (where reciting by heart is mentioned as an exception).
[1675]A Jer. Megilla iv. 3, fol. 75a (on the direction of the Mishna that on the
Sabbath seven persons should always be called upon to read the Thorah). “The
foreign-speaking Jews (הלעוזות) have not this custom, but one person reads the
whole Parashab.” See the passage in Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p.
59, note, and in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. ii. 515a, s.v. לעוז. [1676] Megilla iv.
1-5. Further particulars in Vitringa, p. 984 sqq. Herzfeld, iii. 215 sqq. Adler,
Die Haftara (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth. 1862, pp. 222-228).
Hamburger, Real-Enc.f. Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Haftara.” [1677] Megilla
iv. 4. [1678] Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 336. Comp. Luke 4:17 sqq. [1679] Megilla
iv. 5. [1680] Megilla iv. 1-2. Of the Kethubim only the five Megilloth were
used, and these only on particular occasions in the year, in the synagogue
service; see Kisch, Monatsschr. 1880, p. 543 sqq. The sacred language in which
the sections of Scripture were read aloud being no longer familiar to the bulk
of the people, it was necessary to ensure their better understanding by
translation. Hence the reading was accompanied by a continuous translation into
the Aramaic dialect. Whether the translator (מְתוּרְגְּמָן) was a permanent
official, or whether any competent members of the congregation officiated by
turns as interpreters, must, in the absence of more definite evidence, be here
left uncertain. In the lesson from the Thorah the reader had to read one verse
at a time for the translator, in the lesson from the prophets three, unless one
verse formed a separate paragraph, when he was then to read it also alone.[1681]
[1681] Comp. Megilla iv. 4, 6, 10. Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 1015-1022. Zunz,
Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 8. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. art.
“Targum.” The like is also incidentally testified of Christian congregations.
Thus in Scythopolis, in the time of Diocletian, the Scriptures were read in
Greek, but translated by an interpreter into Aramaic. See the Syriac text of
Euseb. De mart. Palaest. in Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron (1881), p. 19. The
reading of the Scriptures was followed by an edifying lecture or sermon
(דְּרָשָׁה), by which the portion which had been read was explained and applied.
That such explanations were the general practice is evident from the διδάσκειν
ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς,[1682] so frequently mentioned in the New Testament, from
Luke 4:20 sqq., and from the express testimony of Philo (see above, p. 76). The
preacher (דַּרְשָׁן)[1683] used to sit (Luke 4:20 : ἐκάθισεν) on an elevated
place.[1684] Nor was such preaching confined to appointed persons, but, as
appears especially from Philo, open to any competent member of the
congregation.[1685] The service closed with the blessing, pronounced by a
priestly member of the congregation, to which the whole congregation responded
(אָמֵן).[1686] If no priest were present, the blessing was not pronounced, but
made into a prayer.[1687] [1682] Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:15;
Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10; John 6:59; John 18:20. [1683] Ben Soma was a celebrated
דַּרְשָׁן (Sota ix. 15). [1684] Comp. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p.
337. Delitzsch, Ein Tag in Capernaum, p. 127 sq. [1685]a See Hamburger,
Real-Enc., Div. ii. art. “Predigt.” [1686] Berachoth v. 4. Megilla iv. 3, 5, 6,
7. On the Blessing ritual, see Sota vii. 6 (= Tamid vii. 2): “How is the
priestly blessing pronounced? In the country in three sentences, in the temple
in one. In the temple the name of God is pronounced as written (יהוה), in the
country according to its appellation (אדוני). In the country the priests raise
their hands only as high as the shoulder, in the temple above the head, with the
exception of the high priest, who must not raise his hands above the plate of
the mitre. R. Judah says: He also raised his hands above the plate of the
mitre.” According to Rosh hashana 31b, Sota 40b, Johanan ben Sakkai is said to
have ordered that after the destruction of the temple the priests should only
pronounce the blessing barefooted (Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 305,
n. 3). On the whole subject, see Wagenseil on Sota vii. 6 (Surenhusius’ Mishna,
iii. 264 sq.). Vitringa, pp. 1114-1121. Lundius, Die alten jüdischen
Heiligthümer, b. iii. c. 48. Haener, De ritu benedictionis sacerdotalis, Jenae
1671 (also in Thesaurus theol. philologicus, Amst. 1701-1702, vol. ii. p. 936
sq.). Hottinger, De benedictione sacerdotali, Marburg 1709 (also in Thesaurus
novus theol.-phil., ed. Hasaeus et Ikenius, vol. i. p. 393 sqq.). Hamburger,
Real-Enc. ii. 1265, art. “Priestersegen.” [1687] Vitringa, p. 1120 (after
Maimonides). The order above described is that of the principal service on the
forenoon of the Sabbath. The congregation assembled also on the Sabbath
afternoon at the time of the Minchah offering. When then Philo says, that the
Sabbath assemblies lasted μέχρι σχεδὸν δείλης ὀψίας (see above, p. 76), this is
not without foundation considering the length of these services. At the
afternoon service no lesson from the prophets, but only one from the Pentateuch,
was read. And only three members of the congregation, neither more nor less,
took part in the reading.[1688] The same order was also observed at week-day
services, which were regularly held on the second and fifth week-days (Mondays
and Fridays).[1689] There was also a meeting for the reading of the Thorah, in
which four members of the congregation shared in the Parashah.[1690] Nor was
there any festival in the year, which was not distinguished by public worship
and reading from the law; and the Mishna prescribed lessons from the Pentateuch
for every festival.[1691] [1688] Megilla iii. 6, iv. 1. [1689] Megilla iii. 6,
iv. 1. Comp. i. 2, 3. [1690] Megilla iv. 2. [1691] Megilla iii. 5-6. Comp.
Herzfeld, iii. 213. Hamburger, ii. 1265 sq. (art. “Vorlesung aus der Thora”).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 76: APPENDIX
========================================================================

APPENDIX The Shema and the Shemoneh Esreh The Shema and the Shemoneh Esreh
occupy, on the one hand from their antiquity, on the other from the high
estimation in which they were held, so prominent a position in the Jewish
liturgy, that further particulars concerning them must here be given. 1. The
Shema[1692] consists of the three paragraphs, Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy
11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41; therefore of those passages of the Pentateuch,
in which is chiefly inculcated that Jehovah alone is the God of Israel, and in
which the use of certain mementos is prescribed for the constant remembrance of
Him. The three paragraphs are expressly named in the Mishna by the words with
which they begin: (1) שְׁמַע, (2) וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ, and (3) וַיּאֹמֶר.[1693]
Around this nucleus are grouped at the beginning and end thanksgivings
(Berachahs); and the Mishna prescribes that two benedictions should be said
before, and one after, the morning Shema, and two before, and two after, the
evening Shema.[1694] The initial words of the concluding benediction are cited
in the Mishna just as they are used to this day, viz. אֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב.[1695] If
then the wording of the benedictions was subsequently considerably increased,
they still belong fundamentally to the period of the Mishna.[1696] This prayer,
or more correctly this confession of faith, was to be said twice a day, viz.
morning and evening, by every adult male Israelite;[1697] women, slaves and
children were not required to repeat it.[1698] It was not necessary that it
should be recited in Hebrew, any other language being admissible for the
purpose.[1699] How ancient this custom of repeating the Shema was, appears from
the fact that the Mishna already gives such detailed directions concerning
it.[1700] It mentions moreover that it was already repeated by the priests in
the temple, which assumes the use of it at least before A.D. 70.[1701] Nay, for
Josephus the origin of this custom is lost in so hoar an antiquity, that he
regards it as an enactment of Moses himself.[1702] [1692] See Vitringa, De
synagoga, pp. 1052-1061. Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, pp. 367, 369-371.
Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 1087-1092. [1693] Berachoth ii. 2; Tamid v. 1. [1694]
Berachoth i. 4. [1695] Berachoth ii. 2; Tamid v. 1. [1696] Zunz (as above) has
attempted to separate the ancient portions from the modern additions. [1697]
Berachoth i. 1-4. [1698] Berachoth iii. 3. [1699] Sota vii. 1. [1700]a Comp. in
general also, Pesachim iv. 8; Taanith iv. 3; Sota v. 4; Aboth ii. 13. [1701]
Tamid iv. fin., v. 1. [1702] Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 13: Δὶς δʼ ἑκάστης ἡμέρας,
ἀρχομένης τε αὐτῆς καὶ ὁκότε πρὸς ὕπνον ὥρα τρέπεσθαι, μαρτυρεῖν τῷ θεῷ τὰς
δωρεὰς ἃς ἀπαλλαγεῖσιν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῆς Αἰγυπτίων γῆς παρέσχε, δικαίας οὔσης φύσει
τῆς εὐχαριστίας καὶ γενομένης ἐπʼ ἀμοιβῇ μὲν τῶν ἤδη γεγονότων ἐπὶ δὲ προτροπῇ
τῶν ἐσομένων. That Josephus means by this the custom of reciting the Shema
cannot be doubtful. He rightly views the Shema as a thankful confession of
Jehovah, as the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt. Comp. especially, Numbers
15:41. 2. The Shemoneh Esreh.[1703] Somewhat more recent than the Shema, but
still very ancient as to its groundwork, is the Shemoneh Esreh, i.e. the chief
prayer, which every Israelite, even women, slaves and children, had to repeat
three times a day, viz. morning, afternoon (at the time of the Minchah offering)
and evening.[1704] It is so much the chief prayer of the Israelite, that it is
also called merely הַתְּפִלָּה, “the prayer.” In its final, authentic and fixed
form it does not consist, as its name שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה denotes, of eighteen,
but of nineteen Berachahs. Its words, as given in every Jewish prayer-book, are
as follow:— [1703] See Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 1031-1051. Zunz, Die
gottesdienstl. Vorträge, pp. 367-369. Delitzsch, Zur Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie
(1836), pp. 191-193. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 200-204. Bickell,
Messe und Pashah (1872), pp. 65 sq., 71-73. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 1092-1099.
[1704] Berachoth iii. 3 (women, children, slaves), iv. 1 (three times a day).
“1. Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God and the God of our fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the great God, the mighty and
tremendous, the Most High God, who bestowest gracious favours and createst all
things, and rememberest the piety of the patriarchs, and wilt bring a redeemer
to their posterity, for the sake of Thy name in love. O King, who bringest help
and healing and art a shield. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the shield of Abraham.
2. Thou art mighty for ever, O Lord; Thou restorest life to the dead, Thou art
mighty to save; who sustainest the living with beneficence, quicken est the dead
with great mercy, supporting the fallen and healing the sick, and setting at
liberty those who are bound, and upholding Thy faithfulness unto those who sleep
in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, Lord, the Almighty One; or who can be
compared unto Thee, O King, who killest and makest alive again, and causest help
to spring forth? And faithful art Thou to quicken the dead: Blessed art Thou, O
Lord, who restorest the dead. 3. Thou art holy and Thy name is holy, and the
saints daily praise Thee. Selah. Blessed art Thou, O Lord; the God most holy. 4.
Thou graciously impartest to man knowledge, and teachest to mortals reason. Let
us be favoured from Thee with knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Blessed art
Thou, O Lord, who graciously impartest knowledge. 5. Cause us to turn, O our
Father, to Thy law, and draw us near, O our King, to Thy service, and restore us
in perfect repentance to Thy presence. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who delightest
in repentance. 6. Forgive us, our Father, for we have sinned; pardon us, our
King, for we have transgressed; ready to pardon and forgive Thou art. Blessed
art Thou, O Lord, most gracious, who dost abundantly pardon. 7. Look, we beseech
Thee, upon our afflictions, and plead our cause and redeem us speedily for the
sake of Thy name, for a mighty Redeemer Thou art. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the
Redeemer of Israel. 8. Heal us, O Lord, and we shall be healed; save us, and we
shall be saved; for our praise art Thou; and bring forth a perfect remedy unto
all our infirmities; for a God and King, a faithful healer, and most merciful
art Thou. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who healest the diseases of Thy people
Israel. 9. Bless unto us, O Lord our God, this year and grant us an abundant
harvest, and bring a blessing on our land, and satisfy us with Thy goodness; and
bless our year as the good years. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who blessest the
years. 10. Sound with the great trumpet to announce our freedom; and set up a
standard to collect our captives, and gather us together from the four corners
of the earth. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who gatherest the outcasts of Thy people
Israel. 11. O restore our judges as formerly, and our counsellors as at the
beginning; and remove from us sorrow and sighing; and reign over us, Thou O Lord
alone, in grace and mercy; and justify us. Blessed art Thou, O Lord the King,
for Thou lovest Righteousness and justice. 12. To slanderers let there be no
hope, and let all workers of wickedness perish as in a moment; and let all of
them speedily be cut off; and humble them speedily in our days. Blessed art
Thou, O Lord, who destroyest enemies and humblest tyrants. 13. Upon the just and
upon the pious and upon the elders of Thy people the house of Israel, and upon
the remnant of their scribes, and upon righteous strangers, and upon us, bestow,
we beseech Thee, Thy mercy, O Lord our God, and grant a good reward unto all who
confide in Thy name faithfully; and appoint our portion with them for ever, and
may we never be put to shame, for our trust is in Thee. Blessed art Thou, O
Lord, the support and confidence of the righteous. 14. And to Jerusalem Thy city
return with compassion, and dwell therein as Thou hast promised; and rebuild her
speedily in our days, a structure everlasting; and the throne of David speedily
establish therein. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the builder of Jerusalem. 15. The
offspring of David Thy servant speedily cause to flourish, and let his horn be
exalted in Thy salvation; for Thy salvation do we hope daily. Blessed art Thou,
O Lord, who causest the horn of salvation to flourish. 16. Hear our voice, O
Lord our God, pity and have mercy upon us, and accept with compassion and favour
these our prayers, for Thou art a God who heareth prayers and supplications; and
from Thy presence, O our King, send us not empty away, for Thou hearest the
prayers of Thy people Israel in mercy. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearest
prayer. 17. Be pleased, O Lord our God, with Thy people Israel, and with their
prayers; and restore the sacrificial service to the Holy of Holies of Thy house;
and the offerings of Israel, and their prayers in love do Thou accept with
favour; and may the worship of Israel Thy people be ever pleasing. O that our
eyes may behold Thy return to Zion with mercy. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who
restorest Thy glory (שְׁכִינָה) unto Zion. 18. We praise Thee, for Thou art the
Lord our God and the God of our fathers for ever and ever; the Rock of our life,
the Shield of our salvation, Thou art for ever and ever. We will render thanks
unto Thee, and declare Thy praise, for our lives which are delivered into Thy
hand, and for our souls which are deposited with Thee, and for Thy miracles
which daily are with us; and for Thy wonders and Thy goodness, which are at all
times, evening and morning and at noon. Thou art good for Thy mercies fail not,
and compassionate for Thy loving-kindness never ceaseth; our hopes are for ever
in Thee. And for all this praised and extolled be Thy name, our King, for ever
and ever. And all that live shall give thanks unto Thee for ever, Selah, and
shall praise Thy name in truth; the God of our salvation and our aid for ever.
Selah. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, for all-bountiful is Thy name, and unto Thee it
becometh us to give thanks. 19. Great salvation bring over Israel Thy people for
ever, for Thou art King, Lord of all salvation. Praised be Thou, Lord, for Thou
blessest Thy people Israel with salvation.” From the contents of this prayer it
is evident, that it first attained its finally authentic form after the
destruction of Jerusalem, that is, after A.D. 70. For it presupposes in its 14th
and 17th Berachah the destruction of the city and the cessation of the
sacrificial service. On the other hand, it is already cited in the Mishna under
the name שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה,[1705] and it is mentioned, that R. Gamaliel II., R.
Joshua, R. Akiba and R. Elieser—all authorities of the beginning of the second
century—debated whether all the eighteen thanksgivings or only a selection from
them must be said daily,[1706] also in what manner the additions concerning the
rainy season and the Sabbath should be inserted, and in what form to pray on New
Year’s day.[1707] Hence it must have virtually attained its present form about
A.D. 70-100, and its groundwork may safely be regarded as considerably more
ancient. This inference is confirmed by the definite information of the Talmud,
that Simon the cotton dealer at Jabne in the time of Gamaliel II. arranged the
eighteen thanksgivings according to their order, and that Samuel the Little, at
R. Gamaliel’s invitation, inserted the prayer against apostates (מִינִים), which
makes it consist, not of eighteen, but of nineteen sections.[1708] [1705]
Berachoth iv. 3; Taanith ii. 2. [1706] Berachoth iv. 3. [1707] Berachoth v. 2;
Rosh hashana iv. 5; Taanith i. 1-2. At the close of the Sabbath the so-called
הַבְדָּלָה, i.e. the “separation,” by which the Sabbath was separated from the
week-day, was inserted. See Berachoth v. 2 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 18).
Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. הבדלה. [1708] Berachoth 28b: שמעון הפקולי הסדיר
שמונה עשרה ברכות לפני רבן כלום יש אדם, גמליאל על הסדר ביבנה· אמר להם רבן גמליאל
לחכמים שיודע לתקן ברכת המינים ? עמד שמואל הקטן ותקנה·. The question is
immediately before asked, why there are nineteen instead of eighteen Berachoth.
The ברכת המינים (for this is undoubtedly the correct reading instead of ברכת
הצדוקים, which the editions have, see Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. מין) forms
the 12th Berachah. But instead of the original מינים, we have in the present
text of the prayer מַלְשִׁינִים (slanderers), the former being corrected by the
insertion of only two letters. Comp. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p.
345 sq. The מִינִים are “apostates” in general, not merely Jewish Christians, as
is often supposed. The Fathers were not however quite in the wrong when they
referred the Birkath hamminim chiefly to Jewish Christians. Comp. Epiphan. haer.
xxix. 9: Οὐ μόνον γὰρ οί τῶν Ἰουδαίων παῖδες πρὸς τούτους κέκτηνται μῖσος, ἀλλὰ
καὶ ἀνιστάμενοι ἕωθεν καὶ μέσης ἡμέρας καὶ περὶ τὴν ἐοπέραν, τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας,
ὅτε εὐχας ἐπιτελοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς, ἐπαρῶνται αὐτοῖς, καὶ
ἀναθεματίζουσι τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας φάσκοντες ὅτι Ἐπικαταράσαι ὁ θεὸς τοὺς
Ναζωραίους. Hieronymus ad Jesaj. v. 18-19, ed. Vallarsi, iv. 81: (Judaei) usque
hodie perseverant in blasphemiis et ter per singulos dies in omnibus synagogis
sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizant vocabulum Christianum. Idem, ad Jesaj.
xlix. 7, ed. Vallarsi, iv. 565: (Judaei Christo) ter per singulos dies sub
nomine Nazarenorum maledicunt in synagogis suis. Idem, ad Jesaj. lii. 4 ff., ed.
Vallarsi, iv. 604: (Judaei) diebus ac noctibus blasphemant Salvatorem et sub
nomine, ut saepe dixi, Nazarenorum ter in die in Christianos congerunt
maledicta. Less decidedly Justinus, Dialog. c. Tryph. c. 16: Καταρώμενοι ἐν ταῖς
συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν τοὺς πιστεύοντας ἐπὶ τὸν Χριστόν. Justin frequently expresses
himself in the same manner (see Otto on the passage). Comp. also especially c.
137: Συμφάμενοι οὖν μὴ λοιδορῆτε ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, μηδὲ Φαρισαίοις
πειθόμενοι διδασκάλοις τὸν βασιλέα τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπισκώψητέ ποτε, ὁποῖα διδάσκουσιν
οἱ ἀρχισυνάγωγοι ὑμῶν, μετὰ τὴν προσευχήν. It is striking, that according to
this, the cursing formula was pronounced after the prayer. Perhaps this rests
upon a mistake of Justin’s; it is however also possible that the Birkath
hamminim originally had this position. Comp. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 1201 sq.
Vitringa, De synagoga, pp. 1047-1051. Herzfeld, iii. 203 sq. Grätz, Gesch. der
Juden, iv. 434 sq. Derenbourg, p. 345 sq. Hamburger, ii. 1095 sq.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 77: � 28. LIFE UNDER THE LAW
========================================================================

§ 28. LIFE UNDER THE LAW I ALL zeal for education in the family, the school and
the synagogue aimed at making the whole people a people of the law. The common
man too was to know what the law commanded, and not only to know, but to do it.
His whole life was to be ruled according to the norm of the law; obedience
thereto was to become a fixed custom, and departure therefrom an inward
impossibility. On the whole this object was to a great degree attained. Josephus
declares: “Even if we are deprived of wealth, of towns, and of other
possessions, the law remains to us for ever. And no Jew will be so far from his
native land, nor so much fear a hostile ruler, as not to fear the law more than
him.”[1709] So faithfully did most of the Jews adhere to their law, that they
willingly incurred even torture and death itself in consequence. “Often
already,” says Josephus, “have many of the prisoners been seen to endure the
rack and all kinds of death in theatres, for the sake of not uttering a word
against the law and the other Holy Scriptures.” [1710] [1709] Apion. ii. 38: Κἂν
πλούτου καὶ πόλεων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν στερηθῶμεν, ὁ γοῦν νόμος ἡμῖν ἀθάνατος
διαμένει· και οὐδεὶς Ἰουδαίων οὔτε μακρὰν οὕτως ἂν ἀπέλθοι τῆς πατρίδος οὔτʼ
ἐπίπικρον φοβηθήσεται δεσπότην ὡς μὴ πρὸ ἐκείνου δεδιέναι τὸν νόμον. [1710]
Apion. i. 8: Ἤδη οὖν πολλοὶ πολλάκις ἑώρανται τῶν αἰχμαλώτων στρέβλας καὶ
παντοίων θανάτων τρόπους ἐν θεάτροις ὑπομένοντες ἐπὶ τῷ μηδὲν ῥῆμα προέσθαι παρὰ
τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὰς μετὰ τούτων ἀναγραφάς. Comp. also Apion. i. 22 (from
Hekatäus), and ii. 30: πολλοὶ καὶ πολλάκις ἤδη τῶν ἡμετέρων περὶ τοῦ μηδὲ ῥῆμα
φθέγξασθαι παρὰ τὸν νόμον πάντα παθεῖν γενναίως προείλοντο. But what were the
motives, whence sprang this enthusiasm for the law, what the means whereby it
obtained this enormous sway over minds? To answer briefly: it was faith in
Divine retribution, and that a retribution in the strictest juristic sense. The
prophetic idea of the covenant, which God had entered into with the chosen
people, was apprehended in the purely juristic sense; the covenant was a legal
one, by which both the contracting parties were mutually bound. The people to
observe the law given them by God, exactly, accurately and conscientiously:
while God was also bound in return to pay the promised recompense in proportion
to their performances. And the obligation held good not only with respect to the
nation as a whole, but to every individual; performance and recompense always
stood in corresponding relations to each other. He who did much had to expect
from God’s justice the bestowal of much reward; while on the other hand every
trangression entailed its corresponding punishment.[1711] The externalism with
which this belief in retribution weighed, on the one side transgression and
punishment, on the other the fulfilment of the law and reward by each other,
will appear from what follows: “Seven different plagues came into the world on
account of seven chief transgressions. (1) If part of the people tithe their
fruits and part do not, such a famine arises through drought that part of the
people are in want and part have enough. (2) If no one tithes, there follows a
famine from the devastations of war and from drought. (3) If nowhere the heave
dough has been separated, a famine consuming all arises. (4) A pestilence rages
when such crimes gain the upper hand as have in Scripture the penalty of death
pronounced upon them, but whose perpetrators are not delivered up to justice for
its execution. (5) War devastates the land because of delay of sentences,
turning aside of law and illegal interpretation of Scripture, (6) Wild beasts
get the upper hand on account of perjury and the desecration of the divine name.
(7) Carrying away into foreign lands is the punishment for idolatry, incest,
murder, and neglect of the Sabbatic year.”[1712] With like conscientiousness was
the reward for the fulfilling of the law computed. “Whoever fulfils only one
law, good is appointed to him, his days are prolonged, and he will inherit the
land.”[1713] “According to the proportion of pains taken will be the reward”
(לְפוּם צַעֲרָא אַגְרָא).[1714] “Know that everything is taken account of” (דַּע
שֶׁהַכֹּל לְפִי הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן).[1715] Thus every fulfilment of the law involves
its corresponding reward. And God only gave so many commandments and so many
laws to the people of Israel, that they might obtain great rewards.[1716] Both
punishment and reward are bestowed on men in the present life. But full
retribution does not follow till the life to come, the עוֹלָם הַבָּא. Then will
all seeming inequalities be reconciled. He, who was in this life visited with
sorrows, notwithstanding his righteousness, will then receive the fuller reward.
But apart from this, full recompense does not take place till the world to come.
For the present world is still a world of imperfection and of evil. In the
future world all weakness will cease. Then will Israel, both as a nation and as
individuals, be rewarded for a faithful fulfilling of the law by a life of
undisturbed happiness. Good works—such as reverence of parents, benevolence,
peace-making among neighbours, and above all the study of the law—may therefore
be looked upon as a capital, whose interest is already enjoyed in this life,
while the capital itself remains for the life to come. This hope of a future
retribution was therefore the mainspring of all zeal for the law. Nay the entire
religious life of the Jewish people during the period of which we are treating
just revolved round these two poles: Fulfilment of the law and hope of future
glory. Zeal for the former derived its vitality from the latter. The saying of
Antigonus of Socho: “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of
reward, but be like those who do service without respect to reward,”[1717] is by
no means a correct expression of the keynote of Pharisaic Judaism, which was in
fact like the servants who serve for the sake of recompense. [1711] Comp. Weber,
System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie (1880), pp. 235 ff., 290 ff.
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Lohn und
Strafe” (pp. 691-703), and “Vergeltung” (pp. 1252-1257). [1712] Aboth v. 8-9. So
too e.g. Shabbath ii. 6. The promises and threats of the blessing and the curse
in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are the Old Testament foundation for this.
But the casuistic carrying out into parallels is alien to the Old Testament.
[1713] Kiddushin i. 10. [1714] Aboth v. 23. [1715] Aboth iv. 22. [1716] Makkoth
iii. 16. [1717] Aboth i. 3. To what results then did this zeal for the law lead?
They corresponded with its motives. As the motives were essentially of an
external kind, so also was the result an incredible externalizing of the
religious and moral life. This result was indeed inevitable, when once religion
was made into law, and that indeed in such wise, that all religion was made to
consist in nothing else, than in the strict obedience to a law, which regulated
the civil and social as well as the individual life in all its relations. By
this view of religious duty, which forms the characteristic distinction of
post-exilian Judaism, the whole religious and moral life was drawn down into the
sphere of law, and the result necessarily was as follows: (1) First of all the
individual life was thus regulated by a norm, whose application to this sphere
at all is an evil. The province of law is simply to order the relations of men
to one another according to certain standards. Its object is not the individual
as such, but only civil society as a whole. The functions of the latter are to
be so regulated, that the fulfilment of his individual task within this
framework is to be made possible to each. The application of the legal norm to
the individual life therefore of itself subjects the latter to a false standard.
For if external constraint is of the essence of law, freedom is of the essence
of moral action. The moral life of the individual is a healthy one, only when it
is governed by internal motives. Its regulation by external standards is an
adulteration of it in its very principle. (2) The application of the legal norm
to the religious and moral life also involves the placing of the most varying
avocations of life upon a level, as though of equal value. For every employment
is regulated absolutely by the law, not merely the behaviour of men to one
another in the State and in society, but also those most special manifestations
of the inner life of the individual: how he shows his gratitude to God or
evidences his repentance for sins he has committed, how he manifesta his love to
his neighbour, how he fashions his daily life in its most external respects, in
manners and customs. All falls under the same point of view—under the norm of
the law, and that a law which comes forward with Divine authority. Thus the
purport of an act is comparatively indifferent. Merely conventional demeanour in
outward matters and ceremonies is of the same value as the fulfilment of the
highest religious and moral duties. The former is raised to the rank of the
latter, and the latter lowered to that of the former. There is always and
everywhere only one duty—the fulfilling of the law, i.e. the fulfilling of all
that has once been commanded by God, no matter of what kind it may be. (3) Hence
it is self-evident, that all in reality depends upon satisfying the law. There
is no higher task in the department of law. If the requirement of the law is
exactly fulfilled, duty is satisfied. Thus the only question that can be raised
is: what is commanded? and what must be done that the commandment may be
fulfilled? That every art should be directed only to compounding with the letter
of the law is an inevitable consequence. This task will perhaps be aggravated,
more rather than less will be done for the sake of meeting in practice the whole
extent of the law. But still one purpose only will be kept in view, that of
satisfying the letter. And this cannot be done without damage to the substance.
The real value of the good is left out of account. Not the doing of the good as
such, but merely formal accuracy in fulfilling the letter of the law is the aim.
And notwithstanding all zeal, nay just because of it, true morality must of
necessity be a loser. (4) Lastly the purely formal point of sight has the
further consequence, that the moral duty is split up into an endless atomistic
multitude of separate duties and obligations. All law is necessarily casuistic,
for it lays down a multiplicity of individual statutes. All casuistry is by its
nature endless. The one case may have been divided into ever so many
sub-species; but each sub-species can again be split into sub-divisions, and
there is here no end to the dividing. The most conspicuous proof of this is
furnished by the marvellous labours of the Pharisaic scribes. With all their
diligence and acuteness in making distinctions, they never came to an end. But
the testimony cannot be refused them, that they really worked hard to do so.
Jewish law became in their hands a widely ramified science. They cut up the law
into thousands upon thousands of single commands, and thus, as far as in them
lay, set up a rule for the direction of every conceivable case of practical
life. Marvellous however as were their performances, it is here that their most
grievous error is found. All free moral action was now completely crushed under
the burden of numberless separate statutory requirements. The greater their
number, the more fatal is the effect of the fundamental error of transferring
the juristic mode of treatment to the region of religion and morality. In every
department of life action no longer proceeds from inward motive, is no longer
the free manifestation of a moral disposition, but results from the external
constraint of statutory requirement. And such requirement reaches equally to
everything, to the greatest as to the least, to the most important as to the
most indifferent; every act, whether great or trifling, when estimated by a
moral standard, is now of the same value; there is but one point of view for
all: to do what is commanded, because it is commanded. And thus there is of
course no higher vocation, than to be faithful to the letter for the letter’s
sake. All depends, not on the inward motive, but on the external correctness of
an action. And all this petty and mistaken zeal insisted finally on being the
true and genuine service of God. The more men wearied themselves out with it,
the more they thought to gain the Divine approbation. As St. Paul says: ζῆλον
θεοῦ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν (Romans 10:2). How far this unwise zeal for
God went astray, and what a heavy burden it laid upon the life of the Israelite,
may be made evident by a series of concrete examples.[1718] [1718] In this
series those points are chiefly brought forward, which are touched on in the
Gospels. It should then be remembered, with respect to the date to which the
material here adduced belongs, that the authorities cited in the Mishna almost
all belong to the hundred years between A.D. 70-170. Hence Jewish law is here
presented to us in that form which it maintained in about the first half of the
second century. This form will however be essentially that which is handed down
from the beginning of the Christian era, from the time of Hillel and Shammai.
For the differences of their two schools already related to the subtlest
distinctions. II One of the most important points, both with respect to its
extent and the value attributed to it, was that of Sabbath sanctification.[1719]
The brief prohibition of work on the Sabbath which is found in the Pentateuch,
and which hardly at all enters into detail (Exodus 16:23-30; Exodus 20:8-11;
Exodus 23:12; Exodus 31:12-17; Exodus 34:21; Exodus 35:1-3; Leviticus 23:3;
Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 5:12-15. Comp. Jeremiah 17:21-24; Amos 7:5;
Nehemiah 10:32; Nehemiah 13:15 sqq.), was in the course of time developed in so
many-sided a manner as to form of itself an extensive branch of knowledge. For
of course the Rabbis could not rest satisfied with this simple prohibition. They
must also accurately define what work was forbidden. And consequently they at
last, with much ingenuity, got out of it, that on the whole thirty-nine kinds of
work were prohibited, but very few are of course anywhere alluded to in the
Pentateuch. These thirty-nine prohibited works are: (1) sowing, (2) ploughing,
(3) reaping, (4) binding sheaves, (5) threshing, (6) winnowing, (7) cleansing
crops, (8) grinding, (9) sifting, (10) kneading, (11) baking, (12) shearing
wool, (13) washing, (14) beating, (15) dyeing, (16) spinning, and (17) warping
it, (18) making two cords, (19) weaving two threads, (20) separating two
threads, (21) making a knot, (22) untying a knot, (23) sewing two stitches, (24)
tearing to sew two stitches, (25) catching a deer, (26) killing, (27) skinning,
and (28) salting it, (29) preparing its skin, (30) scraping off the hair, (31)
cutting it up, (32) writing two letters, (33) blotting out for the purpose of
writing two letters, (34) building, (35) pulling down, (36) putting out a fire,
(37) lighting a fire, (38) beating smooth with a hammer, (39) carrying from one
tenement to another.[1720] [1719] Comp. in the Mishna the treatises Shabbath,
Erubin, Beza, the Book of Jubilees, cap. 50 (Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 70); also
Winer, Realwörterb. ii. 343-349. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xiii.
193-204 (in the 2nd ed. revised by Orelli, xiii. 156-166). Saalechütz, Das
Mosaische Recht, i. 388 sqq. Mangold in Schenkel’a Bibellex. v. 123-126. Riehm’s
Wörterb. s.v. [1720] Shabbath vii. 2. The translation here and in what follows
is always that of Jost’s edition of the Mishna. Comp. also the enumeration in
the Book of Jubilees, c. 50 (Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 70). Each of these chief
enactments again require further discussions concerning their range and meaning.
And here, properly speaking, begins the work of casuistry. We will bring forward
just a few of its results. According to Exodus 34, ploughing and reaping were
among the forbidden works. But to gather a few ears of corn was already looked
upon as reaping.[1721] When on one occasion the disciples did this on the
Sabbath, they were found fanlt with by the Pharisees, not on account of plucking
the ears, which (according to Deuteronomy 23:26) was permitted, but because they
were thus guilty of doing reaping work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-2; Mark
2:23-24; Luke 6:1-2). The prohibition of making and untying a knot (Nos. 21 and
22) was much too general to rest satisfied with. It was also necessary to state
to what kind of knot this applied, and to what it did not “The following are the
knots, the making of which renders a man guilty: The knot of camel-drivers and
that of sailors; and as one is guilty by reason of tying, so also of untying
them. R. Meir says: Guilt is not incurred by reason of a knot, which can be
untied with one hand. There are knots by reason of which one is not guilty, as
one is in the case of the camel-driver’s and sailor’s knots. A woman may tie up
a slit in her shift and the strings of her cap, those of her girdle, the straps
of the shoes and sandals, of skins of wine and oil, of a pot with meat”[1722]
And to tie strings of the girdle being permitted, it was agreed that a pail also
might be tied over the well with a girdle, but not with a rope.[1723] The
prohibition of writing on the Sabbath (No. 32) was further defined as follows:
“He who writes two letters with his right or his left hand, whether of one kind
or of two kinds, as also if they are written with different ink or are of
different languages, is guilty. He even who should from forgetfulness write two
letters is guilty, whether he has written them with ink or with paint, red
chalk, India-rubber, vitriol, or anything which makes permanent marks. Also he
who writes on two walls which form an angle, or on the two tablets of his
account-book, so that they can be read together, is guilty. He who writes upon
his body is guilty. If any one writes with dark fluid, with fruit juice, or in
the dust on the road, in sand, or in anything in which the writing does not
remain, he is free.[1724] If any one writes with the wrong hand, with the foot,
with the mouth, with the elbow; also if any one writes upon a letter of another
piece of writing, or covers other writing; also if any one meaning to write ח
has only written two ז ז, or if any one has written one letter on the ground and
one upon the wall, or upon two walls of the house, or upon two pages of a book,
so that they cannot be read together, he is free. If in forgetfulness he writes
two letters at different times, perhaps one in the morning and one towards
evening, R. Gamaliel pronounces him guilty, the learned declare him free.”[1725]
According to Exodus 16:23, it was forbidden to bake and to boil on the Sabbath.
Hence the food, which it was desired to eat hot on the Sabbath, was to be
prepared before its commencement, and kept warm by artificial means. In doing
this however care must be taken, that the existing heat was not increased, which
would have been “boiling.” Hence the food must be put only into such substances
as would maintain its heat, not into such as might possibly increase it. “Food
to be kept warm for the Sabbath must not be put into oil-dregs, manure, salt,
chalk, or sand, whether moist or dry, nor into straw, grape-skins, flock, or
vegetables, if these are damp, though it may if they are dry. It may, however,
be put into clothes, amidst fruits, pigeons’ feathers, and flax-tow. R. Jehudah
declares flax-tow unallowable, and permits only coarse tow.”[1726] According to
Exodus 35:3, it was forbidden to kindle a fire on the Sabbath. This prohibition
was supplemented by that of extinguishing a fire. With regard to the latter, the
question arose, how it was to be observed, when a non-Israelite approached a
fire. “If a non-Israelite comes to extinguish a fire, one must neither say to
him: ‘put it out,’ nor ‘do not put it out,’ and that because one is not obliged
to make him rest.”[1727] It is self-evident that the prohibition to extinguish
fire would be extended to lights and lamps. Concerning these it was ordained as
follows: “He who extinguishes a light because he is afraid of heathen, robbers,
or the evil spirit, or for the sake of one sick, that he may sleep, is free. If
it is done however to save the oil, the lamp, or the wick, he is guilty. R.
Joses declares him in each case free, except with respect to the wick, because
he thus prepares, as it were, a coal.”[1728] “A vessel may be placed under a
lamp to catch the sparks, but water may not be put therein, lest the lamp be
extinguished.”[1729] Very specially copious material for discussion was
furnished by the last of the thirty-nine chief works, the carrying a burden from
one tenement to another (הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת), which was, according to Jeremiah
17:21-24, forbidden. We shall see farther on, what refined sophistry was applied
towards enlarging the notion of the רְשׁוּת. It may here be briefly mentioned,
that even the bulk of what might not be carried from one place to another on the
Sabbath was exactly determined. Thus e.g. he was guilty of Sabbath desecration
who carried out so much food as was equal in weight to a dry fig,[1730] or so
much wine as was enough for mixing in a goblet, or milk enough for one swallow,
honey enough to put upon a wound, oil enough to anoint a small member, water
enough to moisten an eye-salve,[1731] paper enough to wiite a custom-house
notice upon,[1732] parchment enough to write the shortest portion of the
Tephillin, i.e. the שמע ישראל, upon, ink enough to write two letters,[1733] reed
enough to make a pen of, etc.[1734] It was forbidden also to carry such garments
as did not belong to clothing proper. A warrior might not go out with coat of
mail, helmet, greaves, sword, bow, shield, or spear.[1735] A cripple might,
according to R. Meir, go out with his wooden leg, R. Joses, on the other hand,
does not allow it.[1736] Only on the breaking out of a fire are some concessions
made with respect to burden-bearing. “All the Holy Scriptures may be saved from
a conflagration. The case of the book may be saved with the book, that of the
Tephillin with the Tephillin, even if there is money in it. Food for the three
Sabbath meals may be saved. If a fire breaks out on the evening of the Sabbath,
let food be saved for three meals; if it takes place in the forenoon, for two;
if in the afternoon, for one only. A basketful of bread may also be saved, even
if enough for a hundred meals, a cake of figs, a cask of wine.”[1737] [1721]a
Comp. Maimonides in Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on Matthew 12:2. [1722] Shabbath xv.
1-2. [1723] Shabbath xv. 2. [1724] On the statements “he is guilty” (חייב) and
“he is free” (פטור), see Jost’s introd. to the treatise Shabbath. The former
means: the wilful transgressor forfeits his life, and is, if there are
witnesses, to be stoned, or if he has sinned after warning, but without
witnesses, he is sentenced to the penalty of extirpation. And he who has sinned
from negligence or ignorance must offer the legal sin-offering. פטור means he is
free from these penalties, but not from the scourging ordered by the court, so
that the act iteelf (a few cases deducted) is not thereby declared allowable.
[1725] Shabbath xii. 3-6. [1726] Shabbath iv. 1, and the commentary in
Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 18. [1727] Shabbath xvi. 6. [1728] Shabbath ii. 5.
[1729] Shabbath ii. 6, fin. [1730] Shabbath vii. 4. [1731] Shabbath viii. 1.
[1732] Shabbath viii. 2. [1733] Shabbath viii. 3. [1734] Shabbath viii. 5.
[1735] Shabbath vi. 2, 4. [1736] Shabbath vi. 8. [1737] Shabbath xvi. 1-3. The
caution of these guardians of the law did not however confine itself to
asserting what was forbidden on the Sabbath itself. They extended their
prohibitions to every transaction, which might only possibly lead to a
desecration of the Sabbath. This prophylactic care was the cause of the
following enactments: “Let not a tailor go out at twilight with his needle, for
he might forget (when the Sabbath begins) and go out with it. Nor the writer
with his reed.”[1738] “Meat, onions and eggs may not be cooked, unless there is
time to cook them by day. Bread may not be put into the oven in the twilight,
nor cakes upon the coals, unless their surfaces can harden while it is still
day. R. Elieser says: If there is only time for the under surface to
harden.”[1739] Caution goes still farther, when e.g. it is forbidden to read by
lamplight on the Sabbath, or to cleanse clothing from vermin. For both are
transactions in which a clear light is especially necessary. And thus there is
obviously a temptation to stoop the lamp for the purpose of leading more oil to
it, and this would offend against the prohibition of kindling fire. Hence these
actions are altogether forbidden. It is indeed permitted to a schoolmaster to
take care how children read by light. But he himself may not read by a
light.[1740] [1738] Shabbath i. 3. [1739] Shabbath i. 10. [1740] Shabbath i. 3.
Besides these thirty-nine chief works, many other actions and employments, which
cannot be summed up under any of them, are also forbidden. We learn of some of
them e.g. from the following prescription with regard to the holy days (on which
the rest was less strict). “All things, by which punishment is incurred on the
Sabbath, because of their breaking its rest, or because of acts arbitrary in
themselves, or acts legal at other times, are also not allowed on the holy day.
The following because of the rest: one may not climb a tree, ride upon a horse,
swim in the water, clap with the hands, strike upon the hips, or dance. The
following because the acts are arbitrary: one may not hold a court of justice,
acquire a wife by earnest money, pull off the shoe (the Chaliza on account of a
refusal of levirate marriage), nor consummate levirate marriage. The following
because they are legal transactions: one may not consecrate anything, put a
value on anything, devote anything, nor separate heave and tithe. All this is
declared unlawful on a holy day, not to mention a Sabbath.”[1741] To such
appointments belongs also the enactment, that no one should on the Sabbath go
farther than 2000 cubits from his dwelling, i.e. from where he is at the
beginning of the Sabbath. This was called the “Sabbath limit,” תְּחוּם
הַשַּׁבָּת,[1742] and a distance of 2000 cubits a Sabbath day’s journey (Acts
1:12 : σαββάτου ὁδός). How ingeniously this prescription, founded on Exodus
16:29, as well as that concerning the carrying of burdens, was evaded, will be
shown farther on. [1741] Beza v. 2. [1742] Erubin v. 5. The distance of 2000
cubits (according to Numbers 35:1-8), Erubin iv. 3, 7, v. 7. Compare in general,
Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, col. 2582-2586 (s.v. תחם). Lightfoot, Horae Hebr.
on Acts 1:12. Winer, RWB. ii. 350 sq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xiii. 203 sq.
Leyrer, ibid. xiii. 213 sq. Arnold, ibid. ix. 148 (all according to the 1st
ed.). Mangold in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 127 sq. Notwithstanding the great
strictness with which the commandment to hallow the Sabbath was treated, certain
cases, in which exceptions were tolerated, had of necessity to be acknowledged.
Some such exceptions were allowed for the sake of humanity and some on account
of a still higher and more sacred command. In the latter respect the necessities
of the temple-ritual came especially under consideration. The daily
burnt-offering must be offered on the Sabbath also, nay a special offering
besides was ordered on the Sabbath day (Numbers 28:9-10). Hence it was
self-evident, that all the transactions necessary for offering these sacrifices
must be lawful even on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:5 : τοῖς σάββασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ
ἱερῷ τὸ σάββατον βεβηλοῦσιν καὶ ἀναίτιοί εἰσιν.[1743] The acts necessary for
offering the Passover sacrifice were also allowed on the Sabbath, but in this
case it was very carefully settled what transactions were and what were not
permitted.[1744] To the same category belongs also the command of circumcision.
All that was necessary for circumcision might be done on the Sabbath, so far,
that is, as it could not be done on the day before. For whatever could have been
done on the day before was forbidden.[1745] For the sake of humanity it was
permitted to render assistance to a woman at her delivery,[1746] and it was laid
down as a general principle, that all danger to life should supersede the
Sabbath (כָּל־סָפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת).[1747] “If a building
falls upon any one, and it is doubtful whether he is under it or not, whether he
is alive or dead, whether he is a non-Israelite or an Israelite, the ruins over
him may be cleared away on the Sabbath. If he is found alive, they may be
cleared farther; if he is dead, they must be left.”[1748] A physician may attend
a patient if he is in danger. R. Matthijah ben Charash even allowed that a
remedy might on the Sabbath be put into the mouth of any one feeling pain in the
throat, because it might be dangerous.[1749] This is however cited as only the
opinion of this scholar, and by no means as holding good in general. At any rate
medical assistance was only allowed on the assumption that life was in danger.
“A fracture (of a limb) may not be attended to. If any one has sprained his hand
or foot, he may not pour cold water on it.”[1750] “A priest officiating in the
temple may, on the Sabbath, put on again the plaister which he took off during
his ministration; otherwise this may not be done; a plaister may not be put on
for the first time on the Sabbath.… If a priest hurts his finger, he may on the
Sabbath bind it with rushes for service in the sanctuary, otherwise this is not
allowed; for the pressing out of the blood, it is everywhere forbidden.”[1751]
It quite agrees with this, that the enmity of the Pharisees should have been
excited against Jesus on account of His cures on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13;
Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10; Luke 13:10-17; Luke 14:1-6; John 5:1-16; John
9:14-16).[1752] Even the principle, that danger to life should supersede the
Sabbath, was by no means regarded as at all times decisive. At the beginning of
the Maccabaean rising a troup of legalists let themselves perish to the last
man, rather than have recourse to the sword on the Sabbath.[1753] From that time
forward it was determined to take up the sword for defence, but not for attack
upon the Sabbath.[1754] And this principle was on the whole adhered to.[1755]
But use was made of it only in cases of extreme necessity. And it often happened
even in later times, that hostile generals were able to make use of the Jewish
Sabbath to the disadvantage of the Jews.[1756] How strictly the observance of
the Sabbath was universally adhered to by Jewish soldiers, appears from the
fact, that a man like Josephus regards it as a thing self-evident,[1757] and
that the Romans even found themselves obliged to release the Jews entirely from
military service, because Jewish Sabbatarianism and Roman discipline were
irreconcilable contrasts.[1758] [1743] Comp. Book of Jubilees, c. 50 (Ewald’s
Jahrb. iii. 70). Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Wetzstein on Matthew 12:5. Wolf, Curae
philol. on the same passage. Wünsche, Der lebensfreudige Jesus (1876), p. 424.
[1744] Pesachim vi. 1-2. On other exceptions from the Sabbath command in favour
of the temple service, see also Erubin x. 11-15. [1745] Shabbath xix. 1-5. Comp.
John 7:22-23 (one of those features, which prove the intimate acquaintance of
the fourth evangelist with Jewish matters). [1746] Shabbath xviii. 3. [1747]
Joma viii. 6. Comp. also the passage from Synesius in Winer, RWB. ii. 345.
[1748] Joma viii. 7. [1749] Joma viii. 6. [1750] Shabbath xxii. 6. [1751] Erubin
x. 13-14. Comp. also Edujoth ii. 5. [1752] The Rabbinic material has been
treated of from a one-sided and distorted point of view in Danz, Christi curatio
sabbathica vindicata ex legibus Judaicis (Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude
illustratum, 1736, pp. 569-614). Zipser in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des Orients,
1847, p. 814 sqq.; Jahrg. 1848, pp. 61 sqq., 197 sqq. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur
Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrash (1878), pp. 150-152. Comp.
also Winer, RWB. ii. 346. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xiii. 202 (1st ed.). On
cattle which falls into a pit on a holy day, see Beza iii. 4. [1753]
1Ma_2:34-38. Joseph. Antt. xii. 6. 2. [1754] 1Ma_2:39-42. Joseph. Antt. xii. 6.
2. [1755] Joseph. Antt. xii. 1-3, xiv. 4. 2, xviii. 9. 2. That to fight on the
Sabbath was considered as “forbidden in after times also” (Lucius, Der
Essenismus, p. 96, note), is not so universally correct. Josephus expressly
says, that the law allowed the repulse of a personal attack (Antt. xiv. 4. 2).
[1756] Antt. xiii. 12. 1, xiv. 4. 2. Comp. also Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22, s.
fin. (Ptolemy I. Lagos took Jerusalem on a Sabbath). Book of Jubilees, c. 50
(Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 70). [1757] Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 8 = Vita, 32. [1758] Antt.
xiv. 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19. Under the Ptolemies the Jews still took
military service (Antt. xii. 1 and 2. 4, according to “Pseudo-Aristeas” in
Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 107. Merx’ Archiv, i. 260). Comp. also Antt. xi. 8.
5, fin., xiv. 8. 1. III Far deeper was the influence upon daily life of the
manifold and far-reaching ordinances concerning cleanness and uncleanness and
the removal of the latter,[1759] than that of the law of the Sabbath. The Old
Testament (Leviticus 11-15; Numbers 5:1-4, and especially chap, 19) had already
given tolerably numerous and stringent precepts on these points, by declaring
(for what reasons may be left undiscussed) first certain incidents of sexual
life, then certain appearances on persons and objects comprised under the joint
term of leprosy, and lastly, the corpses of both men and animals, as unclean and
imparting uncleanness. It also gives detailed prescriptions concerning
purification by sacrifices or lustrations, which are of very different kinds
according to the kind and degree of uncleanness. But ample as were these
enactments, they are still but poor and scanty compared with the abundance
stored in the Mishna. No less than twelve treatises (filling the whole of the
last part of the Mishna) deal with the matters appertaining to this subject. The
enumeration of the “chief kinds of uncleanness” (אְַבוֹת הַטֻּמְאוֹת), which it
must be owned are for the most part based on the enactments of the Pentateuch
(Leviticus 11-15), form the foundation of all these discussions. On this
foundation however is raised an enormous and very complicated structure. For
with each of the chief kinds the question has again to be dealt with: under what
circumstances such uncleanness is incurred, in what manner and to what extent it
is transferred to others, what utensils and objects are and what are not capable
of contracting uncleanness, and lastly, what means and regulations are required
for its removal. To give at least a notion to what an extensive branch of
knowledge this doctrine of uncleanness had been developed, some of the
enactments concerning the utensils, which do and which do not contract
uncleanness and by contact propagate it, are here given. The Old Testament basis
is in Numbers 19:14-15; Numbers 31:20-24. [1759] Comp. generally, Winer, RWB.
ii. 313-319 (art. “Reinigkeit”). Leyrer, art. “Reinigungen,” in Herzog’s
Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xii. pp. 620-640. Keil, Bibl. Archäologie (2nd ed.
1875), pp. 295-323. Haneberg, Relig. Alterthümer, pp. 459-476. Schenkel’s
Bibellex. v. 65-73. Kamphausen in Riehm’s Wörterb. p. 1274 sqq. König in
Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xii. 617-637. A main question is first of all
concerning the material of which the utensils are composed, and next concerning
their form: whether they are hollow or flat. With respect to hollow earthen
vessels, it is determined that the air in them contracts and propagates
uncleanness, as does also the hollow of the foot, but not their outer side.
Their purification can only result from their being broken.[1760] But how far
must the breaking go to effect purification? To this question too we receive an
exact answer. A fraction is still esteemed a vessel (and therefore susceptible
of defilement) “if, of a vessel holding a log, so much is left as to be able to
hold enough to anoint the little toe with; and if, of a vessel holding from a
log to a seah, space for a quarter of a log, from one to two seahs space for
half a log; and from two or three seahs to five, space for a log is left.”[1761]
“While then hollow earthen vessels are not susceptible of defilement outside,
though they are so within, the following earthen vessels contract no uncleanness
at all: a flat plate without a rim, an open coal-shovel, a gridiron with holes
in it for grains of wheat, brick gutters, although they are bent and have a
hollow, and others besides.[1762] The following are, on the contrary, capable of
defilement: a plate with a rim, a whole coal-shovel, a plate full of bowl-like
receptacles, an earthen spice-box or a writing apparatus with several
receptacles.[1763] Of wooden, leathern, bone and glass vessels, the flat ones
are also insusceptible of defilement; the deep ones, on the contrary, not only
like the earthen ones, contract defilement in their atmosphere, but also on the
outside. If they break, they are clean. If utensils are again made of them, they
are again susceptible of defilement.[1764] Here too arises again the difficult
question: When are they to be accounted broken? “In all vessels for domestic
purposes the measure (of a hole producing cleanness) is a pomegranate. R.
Elieser says: The measure depends upon the use of the utensil.”[1765] “The
pomegranate appointed as a measure is one not too large, but of a medium
size.”[1766] “If a foot is wanting to a chest, a trunk or a press, it is clean,
although capable of holding things. R. Joses considers all these as susceptible
of defilement if, though not in proper repair, they are capable of holding the
measure.”[1767] “A (three-footed) table, to which one foot is wanting, is clean,
so is it if a second foot is gone, but if the third is also gone and it is to be
used as a flat board, it is susceptible of defilement.”[1768] “A seat of which
one side plank is missing is clean, so is it although a second is missing. If a
hand-breadth in height is left it is capable of defilement.”[1769] Moreover in
hollow utensils not only are the inside and outside, but also the “place for
laying hold,” to be distinguished. “If e.g. the hands are clean and the outside
of the cup unclean, and the cup is held at the part which serves for holding,
one need not be anxious lest the hands should be defiled by the outside of the
cup.”[1770] “Of metal vessels the smooth and the hollow are capable of
defilement. If they are broken, they are clean; if vessels are again made out of
them they are in their former uncleanness.”[1771] “Every metal vessel, which has
a special name of its own, is capable of defilement; except a door, the bolt,
the lock, the hinge-socket, the hinge, the knocker and a gutter; because they
are fastened to the ground.”[1772] “In a bridle, the bit is capable of
defilement, the plates on the cheeks are clean; according to R. Akiba, unclean.
The learned say: only the bit is unclean, but the plates, only when they are
fastened to it.”[1773] “Round horns (for blowing) are susceptible of defilement,
straight ones are clean. If the mouthpiece is of metal, it is capable of
defilement.”[1774] “Wood used on metal utensils is capable of defilement, metal
used on wooden ones is clean. E.g. a wooden key with metal teeth is capable of
defilement, even if the tooth is of only one piece. But if the key is of metal
and the tooth of wood, it is not capable of defilement.”[1775] [1760] Kelim ii.
1. [1761] Kelim ii. 2. [1762] Kelim ii. 3. [1763] Kelim ii. 7. [1764] Kelim ii.
1, xv. 1. [1765] Kelim xvii. 1. [1766] Kelim xvii. 4-5. [1767] Kelim xviii. 3.
[1768] Kelim xxii. 2. [1769] Kelim xx. 3. [1770] Kelim xxv. 7, 8. [1771] Kelim
xi. 1. [1772] Kelim xi. 2. [1773] Kelim xi. 5. [1774] Kelim xi. 7. [1775] Kelim
xiii. 6. The enactments concerning the removal of defilement by sacrifices and
lustrations form a fit pendant to those concerning defilement. We will here
quote a few of the latter. The main question in this matter is, as to what water
is adapted to the different kinds of purification: to the sprinkling of the
hands, the washing of utensils, the bath of purification for persons. The Mishna
distinguishes six gradations of water reservoirs: 1. A pond and the water in
ditches, cisterns or pits, also spring water no longer flowing, and collected
water to the amount of less than forty seahs. All this, so far as it has not
been defiled, is adapted for (the preparation of) Challa,[1776] and for legal
washing of the hands. 2. Spring water still running. This may be used for the
heave (Terumah) and for the washing of the hands. 3. Collected water which
amounts to forty seah. In this one may plunge oneself (take a bath of
purification) and utensils. 4. A spring with little water, into which more drawn
water has been poured. It resembles the former by purifying as a plunging bath
in the place where it is collected (i.e. without running), and clean spring
water, in that vessels are purified in it although there is but little of it. 5.
Running water in which a change has taken place (i.e. water arising from mineral
or warm springs). This purifies in running. 6. Clean spring water. This serves
as a plunging-bath for running sores, for the sprinkling of lepers, and is
suitable for sanctifying with ashes of purification.[1777] These general maxims
then form the foundation of a casuistry, which here again loses itself in
endless detail. The Mishna especially launches forth in wearying diffuseness on
what conditions and prerequisites the “collected water” mentioned in No. 3 (i.e.
such rain, spring or river water as is not drawn, but conducted directly through
gutters or pipes into a receptacle) is fit for bathing and for plunging of
utensils, for which purpose the chief matter is that no “drawn water” should be
mingled with it. We give a few examples by way of illustration. “R. Elieser
says: A quarter of a log of drawn water, to begin with, makes the water, which
afterwards falls into it, unfit for a plunging bath; but three logs of drawn
water, if there was already other water there. The learned say: three logs,
whether at the beginning or to make up the quantity.”[1778] “If any one places
vessels under the pipes (which run into the plunging bath), they make the bath
unsuitable (because it then counts as drawn water). According to the school of
Shammai it is all the same, whether they have been placed there or forgotten;
according to the school of Hillel, they do not make it unfit, if they were only
forgotten.”[1779] “If drawn water and rain water are mixed in the court, or in
the excavation, or upon the steps of the bathing-place, the bath is fit, if
there is most of the fit water, and unfit, if there is most of the unfit, or if
there is an equal quantity of both. But only so, if they were mixed before they
arrived at the collected water. If both run into the bath, then if it is certain
that there were in it forty seahs of proper water before three logs of drawn
water fell into it, it is fit, but otherwise unfit.”[1780] It was also disputed,
whether snow, hail, hoar frost, ice and the like were fit to mix in the filling
of a plunging bath or not.[1781] Extremely minute too are the directions
concerning the washing or correct pouring upon the hands. It was needful that
the hands should always have water poured on them before eating. (To dip them in
water was only necessary for eating holy things, i.e. things pertaining to
sacrifices.) Then it was fully discussed, from what vessels such pouring should
take place, what water was suitable for it, who might pour it, and how far the
hands must be poured on.[1782] We see with what zeal all these enactments
concerning the washing of hands and the cleansing of cups, pots, dishes and
seats were already observed in the time of Christ, from repeated allusions in
the Gospels, which again receive their full light and aptest illustration
through the details of the Mishna (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:2-5; Matthew 23:25-26;
Luke 11:38-39). [1776] The heave offering of dough, which must be separated at
baking. [1777] Mikwaoth i. 1-8. [1778] Mikwaoth ii. 4. [1779] Mikwaoth iv. 1.
[1780] Mikwaoth iv. 4. [1781] Mikwaoth vii. 1. [1782] Berachoth viii. 2-4;
Chagiga ii. 5-6; Edujoth iii. 2; Jadajim i. 1-5, ii. 3. Lightfoot and other
expositors on Matthew 15:2. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der
Evangelien (1878), p. 180 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc., art. “Händewaschen.” IV From
what has been stated it is abundantly evident, what enormous importance was
everywhere attributed to external correctness of action, which is indeed a
self-evident result, when once moral obligations are regarded in a legal manner.
Highly characteristic of this strong tendency to externalism are the three
mementoes, by which every Israelite, who is faithful to the law, is to be
constantly reminded of his duties towards God. These three mementoes are: 1. The
Zizith (צִיצִית, plur. צִיצִיּוֹת), κράσπεδα in the LXX. and in the New
Testsment, כרוספדין in the Targum Onkelos, and τὸ κόκκινον ῥάμμ in Justin
Martyr,[1783] tassels or fringes of hyacinth blue or white wool, which every
Israelite, by reason of the prescription, Numbers 15:37 sqq., Deuteronomy 22:12,
had to wear at the four corners of his upper garment. They were to be used, as
it is said in the passage first quoted, “that ye may look upon them and remember
all the commandments of the Lord and do them.”[1784]. The Mesusa (מְזוּזָה), an
oblong box, fixed to house and room doors above the right hand door-post, on
which was written (according to the direction, Deuteronomy 6:9; Deuteronomy
11:20), in twenty-two lines, the two paragraphs, Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy
11:13-21.[1785]. The Tephillin or prayer-straps, which every male Israelite had
to put on at morning prayer (except on Sabbaths and holy days), in the Old
Testament טוֹטָפוֹת (frontlets and bracelets), in Rabbinic Hebr. תְּפִלִּין
(from תְּפִלָּה, prayer), in the New Testament φυλακτήρια (preservatives,
amulets), incorrectly translated “Denkzettel” (memorandum) by Luther. Their use
is founded upon the passages Exodus 13:9; Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8;
Deuteronomy 11:18. There were two of them: (a) The תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד (Tephilla
for the hand) or תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל זְרוֹעַ (Tephilla for the arm),[1786] a small
dice-shaped hollow parchment case, in which lay a small roll of parchment, on
which were written the passages Exodus 13:1-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy
11:13-21. It was fastened by means of a strap drawn through it to the upper part
of the left arm. (b) The תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל ראֹשׁ (Tephilla for the head), a case of
the same kind, but differing from the former by being divided into four
compartments, holding four little rolls of parchment, on which were the
above-named passages from the Bible. It was fastened by means of a strap to the
forehead just below the hair.[1787] Of these three mementoes the first is at any
rate founded on the directions of the Pentateuch, and probably the two others
also, inasmuch as, at least in the passage of Deuteronomy, the literal
interpretation is certainly the correct one (see Dillmann on Exodus 13:16). But
the value which was set upon these externals, and the care with which everything
was here ordered down to the smallest detail, is quite characteristic of later
Judaism. How many threads the Zizith were to consist of, how long they were to
be, how many knots were to be tied in them, and in what manner these were to be
made, how the paragraphs of the Mesusa and Tephillin were to be written, how
large the cases and how long the straps of the latter were to be, how they were
to be fastened to the head and arm, and how often the straps should be bound
round the latter: all this was settled with the most anxious care. There was
almost as great reverence for the Tephillin as for the Scriptures.[1788] It was
permitted to rescue the former as well as the latter from a fire even on the
Sabbath.[1789] The Tephillin and Mesusa were held in such superstitious
estimation that they were looked upon as preservatives against demoniacal
powers, as is evident in the case of the former from the name φυλακτήρια. [1783]
Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 46, s. fin. (ed. Otto, ii. 154). The editions have
indeed τὸ κόκκινον βάμμα (colour), which gives no sense. That the true reading
is ῥήμμα is evident from Hesychius, Lex. s.v. κράσπεδα· τὰ ἐν τῷ ἄκρῳ τοῦ
ἱματίου κεκλωσμένα ῥάμματα καὶ τὸ ἄκρον αὐτοῦ. [1784] Comp. Pseudo-Aristeas, ed.
Mor. Schmidt, in Merx’ Archiv, i. 281. 13 sq.; Matthew 9:20; Matthew 14:36;
Matthew 23:5; Mark 6:56; Luke 8:44. The LXX. and Targum Onkelos on Numbers 15:38
and Deuteronomy 22:12. Mishna, Moed Katan iii. 4; Edujoth iv. 10; Menachoth iii.
7, iv. 1. The Rabbinical directions are brought together in an edition of the
treatise Zizith by Raphael Kirchheim (Septem libri Talmudici parvi
Hierosolymitani, ed. Raph. Kirchheim, 1851). Hiller, De vestibus fimbriatis
Hebraeorum (Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, pp.
160-170; Lex. Chald. col. 1908 sq. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 197
sqq. Bodenschatz, Kirchl. Verfassung der heutigen Juden, iv. 9-14. Levy, Chald.
Wörterb. ii. 322. Winer, RWB., art. “Saum.” Haneberg, Relig. Alterlhümer, pp.
592-594. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien, pp. 274 f., 378.
Weber, System der altsynagogalen palänt. Theologie, pp. 26-28. Riehm’s Wörterb.,
art. “Läpplein.” The colour of the Zizith is now white, while originally it was
to be of hyacinth blue. The Mishna, Menachoth iv. 1, already presupposes that
both are allowed. They are also not now worn, as the Pentateuch directs, and as
was still the custom in the time of Christ, on the upper garment (טַלִּית,
ἱμάτιον), but on the two square woollen shawls, one of which is always worn on
the body, while the other is only wound round the head during prayer. Both these
shawls are also called Tallith. [1785] Comp. Pseudo-Aristeas, ed. Mor. Schmidt,
in Merz’ Archiv, i. 281. 15 sqq. Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 13. Mishna, Berachoth
iii. 3; Shabbath viii. 3; Megilla i. 8; Moed Katan iii. 4; Gittin iv. 6;
Menachoth iii. 7; Kelim xvi. 7, xvii. 16. The Rabbinical directions are put
together in the treatise Mesusa (edited by Kirchheim in the above-named
collection). Dassovius, De ritibus Mezuzae (Ugolini, Thesaurus, t. xxi.).
Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, pp. 581-587; Lex. Chald. col. 654. Bodenschatz,
Kirchl. Verfassung der heutigen Juden, iv. 19-24. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. ii. 19
sq. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xi. 642 (2nd ed. xi. 668). Haneberg, Relig.
Alterthümer, pp. 595-598. Hamburger, Real-Enc., art. “Mesusa.” [1786] The former
e.g. Menachoth iv. 1; the latter Mikwaoth x. 3. [1787] Comp. Pseudo-Aristeas,
ed. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv, i. 281. 18 sqq.; Matthew 23:5. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8.
13. Justinus Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 46, s. fin. (ed. Otto, ii. 154). Origen
on Matthew 23:5 (ed. Lommatzsch, iv. 201); the patristic expositors in general,
on Matthew 23:5. Mishna, Berachoth iii. 1, 3; Shabbath vi. 2, viii. 3, xvi. 1;
Erubin x. 1-2; Shekalim iii. 2; Megilla i. 8, iv. 8; Moed Katan iii. 4; Nedarim
ii. 2; Gittin iv. 6; Sanhedrin xi. 3; Shebuoth iii. 8-11; Menachoth iii. 7, iv.
1; Arachin vi. 3, 4; Kelim xvi. 7, xviii. 8, xxiii. 1; Mikwaoth x. 2, 3, 4;
Jadajim iii. 3, Targum Onkelos on Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8. Pseudo-Jonathan
on Exodus 39:31; Deuteronomy 11:18. Targum on the Son_8:3; on Esther 8:16.
Babylon. Talmud, Shabbath 28b, 62a; Erubin 95b to 97a; Megilla 24b; Menachoth
34b to 37a, 42b to 44b. (The passages from the Targum and Talmud after Pinner.)
The treatise Tefllin (edited by Kirchheim) gives a collection of Rabbinical
prescriptions. Ugolini, De Phylacteriis Hebraeorum (Thesaurus, tom. xxi.).
Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, pp. 170-185; Lex. Chald. col. 1743 sq. Spencer, De
natura et origine Phylacteriorum (in De legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus, ed.
Tübing. 1732, pp. 1201-1232). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp.
190-197. Bodenschatz, Kirchl. Verfassung der heutigen Juden, iv. 14-19.
Lightfoot on Matthew 23:5. Wolf, Curae phil., and other expositors on Matthew
23:5. Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Test, mit dem Neuen, pp. 360-362.
Winer, RWB. ii. 260 sq. (art. “Phylakterien”). Pinner, Uebersetzung des
Tractates Berachoth, fol. 6a, Explanation 33. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael, iii. 223-225. Leyrer, art. “Phylakterien,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st
ed. xi. 639-643 (2nd ed. xi. 666-669). Haneberg, Relig. Alterthümer, pp.
587-592. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. ii. 549 sq. Delitzsch, art. “Denkzettel,” in
Riehm’s Wörterb. (with illustrations). Klein, Die Totaphoth nach Bibel und
Tradition (Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol. 1881, pp. 666-689). Hamburger, Real-Enc.,
art. “Tephillin.” [1788] Jadajim iii. 3. [1789] Shabbath xvi. 1. Such external
formalism is, as all can see, very far removed from true piety. The latter
certainly might even under such a burden still continue to maintain a bare
existence; but when besides this even prayer itself, that centre of the
religious life, was bound in the fetters of a rigid mechanism, vital piety could
scarcely be any longer spoken of. This fatal step had also been already taken by
Judaism in the time of Christ. The two chief prayers then always customary for
private use are: (1) the Shema, which was to be recited twice a day, not a
prayer properly speaking, but a confession of the God of Israel; and (2) the
Shemoneh Esreh, the usual daily prayer, which was to be said morning, noon and
evening (particulars § 27, Appendix). These prayers too were now made the
subjects of casuistic discussions, and their use was thereby degraded to an
external function.[1790] This applies especially to the Shema, to which we may
here the more confine ourselves, in that it is questionable, whether the
Shemoneh Esreh had in the time of Christ already attained a settled form. First
of all, the period of time within which the evening and morning Shema were to be
said had to be exactly determined. The point of commencement for the former was
the time “when the priests return to eat their Terumah (Heave);” the point of
conclusion, according to R. Elieser, the end of the first night-watch; according
to the usual view, midnight; according to R. Gamaliel, the appearance of
dawn.[1791] The morning Shema may be said “as soon as one can distinguish
between blue and white. R. Elieser says: between blue and leek-green.” It may be
said “till the sun appears. R. Joshua says till three o’clock (nine according to
our reckoning), for it is the custom of the children of princes not to rise till
three.”[1792] The Shema, consisting chiefly of paragraphs from the Bible, the
question next arose, whether any one, who at the time for saying the Shema is
reading the Bible, and reads the paragraphs in question in the midst of their
context, has sufficiently done his Shema duty or not. To this it is answered: If
he thought of it (אִם כִּוֵּן לִבּוֹ), he has sufficiently done it; but not
otherwise.[1793] It is very characteristic, and a confirmation of the saying of
Christ (Matthew 6:5) concerning praying in the streets, that the question is
also discussed, whether and under what circumstances salutations may be made
while praying the Shema. Three cases came under consideration: (1) Salutations
from fear (מִפְּנֵי הַיִרְאָה); (2) salutations from reverence (מִפְּנֵי
הַכָּבוֹד); and (3) salutations of every one (לְכָל אָדָם); besides which a
salutation and a response to a salutation were to be distinguished; and lastly,
it was to be considered, that there were in the Shema itself natural breaks,
viz. between the first and second Berachah, betwen the latter and the paragraph
Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and between that and the paragraph Numbers 15:37-41, and
lastly between that and the final Berachah. R. Meir therefore allowed that at
the breaks the salutation from reverence might be made and returned, but that in
the middle only the salutation from fear might be given and returned. R. Jehudah
however went a step farther, and allowed also to return the salutation of
reverence in the middle, and at the breaks to return the salutation of every
one.[1794] The following general directions were given: “He who prays the Shema,
without making it audible to his ear, has performed his duty. R. Joses says: He
has not performed it. He who prays and has not exactly noticed the letters has,
according to R. Joses, satisfied his duty; but according to R. Jehudah he has
not. He who prays in a wrong order has not done his duty. He who makes a mistake
must begin again where he made the mistake. Workmen may pray in a tree or upon
the wall.”[1795] [1790] Comp. also Weber, System der altsynagogalen
palästinischen Theologie, pp. 40-42. [1791] Berachoth, i. 1. [1792] Berachoth i.
2. [1793] Berachoth ii. 1. [1794] Berachoth ii. 1-2. [1795] Berachoth ii. 3-4.
It was a good custom, that food and drink should (according to the precept
Deuteronomy 8:10) never be partaken of without thanksgiving to God. Grace
(Berachoth) was said both before and after meals, and also by women, slaves and
children.[1796] But here too regulations were made down to the pettiest detail:
viz. what form was to be used for the fruits of the trees, what for wine, what
for the fruits of the ground, for bread, for vegetables, for vinegar, for unripe
fallen fruit, for locusts, milk, cheese, eggs; and scholars contended as to when
this and when that form was suitable.[1797] “If a blessing has been spoken on
wine before the meal, the wine after the meal is exempt.” “If the blessing has
been pronounced over a side-dish before the meal, the side-dish after the meal
is exempt. If the blessing has been said over the bread, the side-dish is
exempt.”[1798] “If salted food is set before any one first and bread afterwards,
the blessing is to be spoken over the salted food and the bread exempted.”[1799]
“If any one has eaten figs, grapes and pomegranates, he is to say three
blessings afterwards. This is the opinion of R. Gamaliel. The learned say: one
blessing of threefold purport.”[1800] “For how much food is formal preparation
for thanksgiving requisite? For food the size of an olive. R. Jehudah says: of
an egg.”[1801] “If any one has eaten and forgotten to say grace, he must,
according to the school of Shammai, return to his place and say grace; the
school of Hillel allows him to say it where he remembers it. How long does the
obligation to say grace last? Till the food is digested.”[1802] [1796] Berachoth
iii. 3-4. It is well known, that grace at meals was also a custom with
Christians from the very first (Romans 14:6; 1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Timothy
4:4), as indeed Jesus Himself always practised this usage (Matthew 14:19;
Matthew 15:36; Matthew 26:26, and parallel passages). See in general, Winer,
RWB. i. 398. Arnold, art. “Mahlzeiten der Hebräer,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. viii.
6. 88 (2nd ed. ix, 202). [1797] Berachoth vi. 1-3. [1798] Berachoth vi. 5.
[1799] Berachoth vi. 7. [1800] Berachoth vi. 8. [1801] Berachoth vii. 2. [1802]
Berachoth viii. 7. When such restriction was laid upon prayer by the legal
formula, it could not but be chilled into an external performance. Of what avail
was it that the prayers themselves were beautiful and copious (as must be
admitted especially of the Shemoneh Esreh), if they were nevertheless only said
for the sake of “fulfilling a duty”? Of what avail was it for R. Elieser to
declare, that “he who makes his prayer an appointed duty (קְבַע), his prayer is
no devout supplication,”[1803] when he himself contributed to make it the
former? If a legalistic treatment of the moral life in general is an evil, it is
twice and thrice such in the case of prayer, that tenderest blossom of the
inmost heart. It was only the necessary result of such a mode of treatment, that
men sank so low as to degrade prayer to the service of vanity (Matthew 6:5), and
to misuse it as a covering of inward impurity (Matthew 15:7 sq.; Mark 7:6; Mark
12:40; Luke 20:47). [1803] Berachoth iv. 4. Comp. Aboth ii. 13. A further point,
in which the utter externalism of the religious life comes to light, is that of
fasting. That the Pharisees fasted often, and set great value upon this act, we
learn in a general manner from the Gospels (Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33).
Particulars as to the kind and manner of fasting are found in the Mishna, whose
details are again confirmed by the Gospels. Public or general fasts (which were
ordered especially on the failure of rain in autumn, and at all times of public
misfortune) were always delayed till the second and fifth days of the week
(Monday and Thursday), and so that they always began on the second. Thus a three
days’ fast would fall upon the second, fifth and second (Monday, Thursday,
Monday), and a six days’ fast would then continue on the fifth, second and
fifth, etc.[1804] Besides these general and appointed fasts, to which every one
had to submit, there was also much voluntary fasting, and the strictest went so
far as to fast on the two above-named weekdays all the year round.[1805] The
external behaviour differed according to the strictness of the fast. In the
slighter kind they used still to wash and anoint themselves; in the stricter
both were omitted; and in the strictest of all, every kind of pleasant
transaction, even mutual greetings, were abstained from.[1806] It was generally
preferred to practise fasting in the most public manner possible, and thus to
make a show of pious zeal. But the worst was the fundamental view, from which
all this proceeded. It was thought by such self-infliction to put a pressure
upon God, and as it were to extort favours from Him if He withheld them. The
longer the rain was delayed in autumn, the stricter did the fasting become. If
the 17th Marcheshvan came before the rain fell, individuals began to hold fasts
of three days. If the new moon of Chisleu appeared without rain having fallen,
three general fasts were ordered. If after these had taken place no rain had
fallen, three more fast days, and indeed with certain severities, were ordered.
If these passed by without rain, seven general fast days were prescribed, again
with fresh severities.[1807] [1804] Taanith ii. 9. Comp. Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα
ἀποστόλων (ed. Bryennios, 1883), c. 8; Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν
ὑποκριτῶν· νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρᾳ σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε
τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν. The same almost literally in Const. apost. vii. 23.
Epiphan. haer. xvi. 1 (ed. Petav. p. 34): ἐνήστευον δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου, δευτέραν
καὶ πέμπτην. Josephi Hypomnesticum, c. 145 (in Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. Vet.
Test. vol. ii. Appendix). [1805] Ev. Luc. xviii. 12; comp. Taanith fol. 12a (in
Lightfoot and Wetzstein on Luke 18:12): יחיד שקיבל עליו שני וחמישי ושני של כל
שנה. “An individual who takes it upon himself on the second, fifth, and second
days during the whole year,” etc. The widely-spread opinion, that all the
Pharisees observed the two fast days during the whole year is, according to
this, incorrect. [1806] Taanith i. 4-7; in all points confirmed by Matthew
6:16-18 (where the figurative construction of the direction given by Jesus is
not, as Meyer thinks, self-evident, but utterly preposterous. Jesus meant to say
that fasting should not be shown externally, and therefore the usual washing and
anointing not omitted). Comp. also Joma viii. 1. [1807] Taanith i. 4-6. V The
examples brought forward will have made sufficiently evident the manner in which
the moral and religious life was conceived of and regulated from the juristic
point of view. In all questions everything depended only upon settling what was
according to law, and that with the utmost possible care, that so the acting
subject might have certain directions for every individual case. In a word:
ethic and theology were swallowed up in jurisprudence. The evil results of this
external view on practical matters are very evident. And such results were its
necessary consequence. Even in that most favourable case of juristic casuistry
moving on the whole in morally correct paths, it was in itself a poisoning of
the moral principle, and could not but have a paralysing and benumbing effect
upon the vigorous pulsation of the moral life. But this favourable case by no
means occurred. When once the question was started: “What have I to do to fulfil
the law?” the temptation was obvious, that a composition with the letter would
be chiefly aimed at, at the cost of the real demands of morality, nay of the
proper intention of the law itself. A tolerably harmless, and in its
harmlessness a ludicrous example of the manner in which elaborate ingenuity may
find ways and means of at once evading the law and yet fulfilling it, is given
by the appointments concerning the so-called Erubh. It was, as we know,
forbidden among other things to carry on the Sabbath an object out of one
tenement (רְשׁוּת) into another. This had the inconvenient effect of preventing
almost all freedom of movement on the Sabbath, for the term רְשׁוּת (or more
exactly רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד), the private tenement or dwelling, was a very narrow
one. If however this term could be enlarged, and the largest possible tenements
instituted, the evil would happily be remedied. The first means adopted for the
attainment of this object was the so-called commixture or connection of courts
(עֵרוּב חֲצֵרוֹת), i.e. the connection of several houses standing in one court
(each of which forms a רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד) into one רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. Such a
connection was effected by all the inhabitants collecting a certain amount of
food before a Sabbath or holy day and placing it in an appointed place, thus
showing that they regarded the whole court, with all the dwellings in it, as a
common whole. By this contrivance it became lawful to the joint inhabitants to
carry in and out within this רְשׁוּת on a holy day.[1808] Of course it was now
settled with great conscientiousness, what kind of food might be used for this
Erubh, and how much food was necessary, and what particulars were to be
observed, as may be read at length in the Mishna.[1809] Not very much however
was obtained by this connection of courts. Hence another means supplementary of
the former and far more prolific was hit upon, viz. the “connection of
entrances” (עֵרוּב מָבוֹי), i.e. the shutting off of a narrow court or of a
space enclosed on three sides by a cross beam, a rope or a string, by which
these became רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, and thus spaces within which carrying in and out
was allowed. In this case also it was very anxiously debated, how high and how
broad the openings, the shutting up of which was in question, must be, and of
what kind must be the means of closure, the beams, ropes, etc., how thick, how
wide, etc.[1810] [1808] Jost’s introduction to the treatise Erubin. [1809]
Erubin vi.-vii. [1810] Erubin i. 1 sqq., vii. 6 sqq. Besides the carrying of
things from one tenement to another, walking a distance of more than 2000 cubits
on the Sabbath was also forbidden. For this too a means of mitigation was
devised by the “connection of boundaries” (עֵרוּב תְּחוּמִין). That is, he who
desired to go farther than 2000 cubits had only before the beginning of the
Sabbath to deposit somewhere within this limit, and therefore perhaps at its
end, food for two meals. He thus declared, as it were, that here would be his
place of abode, and he might then on the Sabbath go not merely from his actual
to his legal abode, but also 2000 cubits from the latter.[1811] Nay such
particular preparation was not necessary in all cases. If e.g. any one should be
on the road when the Sabbath began, and see at a distance of 2000 cubits a tree
or a wall, he might declare it to be his Sabbath abode, and might then go not
only 2000 cubits to the tree or wall, but also 2000 cubits farther. Only he must
do the thing thoroughly, and say: “My Sabbath place shall be at its trunk”
(שְבִיתָתִי בְעִקָּרוֹ). For if he said only: “My Sabbath place shall be under
it” (שְׁבִיתָתִי תַחְתָּיו), this did not hold good, because it was too general
and indefinite.[1812] [1811] Jost’s introduction to the treatise Erubin. More
particular enactments, Erubin iii. iv. viii. [1812] Erubin iv. 7. Innocent as
such trifling may be in itself, it nevertheless erribly shows, that the moral
point of view was entirely superseded by the legal and formal one, that the
effort was merely to do justice to the letter of the law, even though its
meaning was evaded. Such shifting of the right point of view necessarily led, in
more important cases than those just touched upon, to results in direct
opposition to a moral view of things. The woe pronounced by our Lord upon the
scribes for lightly trifling with the oath by saying: “Whosoever shall swear by
the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple,
he is bound: and whosoever sweareth by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever
sweareth by the sacrifice that is on it, he is bound” (Matthew 23:16-18), is
well known.[1813] So too is their lax interpretation of the injunction
concerning divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1 : That a man might put away his wife if he
had found anything shameful in her (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר), Only the school of Shammai
left the words their proper meaning. The school of Hillel explained them away
as: If she has even spoiled his food. And lastly, according to R. Akiba, a man
was allowed to put away his wife if he had found another fairer than she
was.[1814] The laws of purification gave occasion for treating the sphere of the
intercourse of the sexes in a manner very similar to the slippery casuistry of
the Jesuits—a striking proof how the casuistic method, as such, leads by an
inward necessity to such errors,[1815] Another point too affords a striking
parallel with Jesuitism, viz. the postponement of the duties of natural piety,
e.g. towards a father or mother, to supposed religious obligations: “If a man
shall say to his father or his mother, that whereby thou mightest have been
profited by me is Corban, that is to say, given to God, you allow him to do no
more for father or mother” (Mark 7:11-12; comp. Matthew 15:5); it is thus that
Jesus reproves the Pharisees, and in agreement with this we read in the Mishna,
that a vow made cannot be revoked “on account of the honour due to parents”
(בכבור אביו ואמו).[1816] Thus the religious obligation, in its external and
formal sense, stands above the supreme duty of natural piety. [1813] Comp.
Shebuoth iv. 13: He who swears “by heaven and earth,” if he swears falsely, is
not guilty of perjury. See in general, Shebuoth iv. 3 sqq. Maimonides also says
that an oath by heaven and earth is no oath. See the passage in Lightfoot, Horae
hebr. on Matthew 5:33 (Opp. ii. 293). Schöttgen, Horae hebr. i. 40. [1814]
Gittin ix. 10. Comp. Matthew 19:3. On these dilutions in general, see Keim,
Geschichte Jesu, ii. 248 sqq. [1815] Comp. the treatises Nidda and Sabim. [1816]
Nedarim ix. 1 (only R. Elieser permits it, but he stands alone). Comp. also
Wünsche, Neue Beiträge, pp. 184-186. All attempts to explain away the testimony
of Jesus, agreeing as it does with the Mishna, are in vain, e.g. von Rosenberg
in Delitzsch’s Saat und Hoffnung, 1875, pp. 37-40. All this shows that the Lord
had only too much reason for rebuking His contemporaries for straining out a
gnat and swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24), and for hurling in their faces the
heavy accusation of making clean the outside of the cup and platter, but being
within full of extortion and excess. Like whited sepulchres, which indeed
appeared beautiful without, but within are full of dead men’s bones and of all
uncleanness, they also appeared righteous before men, but within were full of
hypocrisy and iniquity (Matthew 23:27-28; Luke 11:44). It would however be
unjust to find in such words of rebuke, however well founded, a universal
characteristic of the whole period. Justice requires us to mention, that many an
excellent saying of the learned men of that age, affording proof, that all moral
judgment was not stifled under the rubbish of Halachic discussions, has been
preserved. We may recall perhaps the already mentioned exhortation of Antigonus
of Socho, to be like servants, who do service without regard to reward,[1817] or
that of R. Elieser, not to make prayer a settled duty.[1818] Hillel’s motto was,
judge not thy neighbour till thou come into his place.[1819] R. Elieser ben
Hyrkanos said: Let your neighbour’s honour be as dear to you as your own.[1820]
R. Jose ha-Kohen said: Let your neighbour’s property be as dear to you as your
own. He also said: Do all your acts in the name of God.[1821] R. Judah ben Tema
said: Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a stag, and strong as a
lion, to do the will of your Father in heaven.[1822] [1817] Aboth i. 3. [1818]
Berachoth iv. 4. Comp. Aboth ii. 13. [1819] Aboth ii. 4. [1820] Aboth ii. 10.
[1821] Aboth ii. 12. [1822] Aboth v. 20. Comp. Saalschütz, Archäologie der
Hebräer, i. 247 sqq. Weiss (Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Tradition, vol. i.
1871) has collected a number of Talmudic parallels to sayings of Christ, given
also in German by Weber in Delitzsch’s Saat auf Hoffnung, 1872, p. 89 sqq. So
too has Duschak, Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud, Brüun 1877. But when
we look away from the single rays of light, and from the deeper shadows which
form their contrast, we cannot better characterize the entire tendency of the
Judaism of that period, than by the words of the apostle: “They have a zeal for
God, but not according to knowledge. It was a fearful burden which a spurious
legalism had laid upon the shoulders of the people. They bind heavy burdens and
grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4; Luke
11:46). Nothing was left to free personality, everything was placed under the
bondage of the letter. The Israelite, zealous for the law, was obliged at every
impulse and movement to ask himself, what is commanded? At every step, at the
work of his calling, at prayer, at meals, at home and abroad, from early morning
till late in the evening, from youth to old age, the dead, the deadening formula
followed him. A healthy moral life could not flourish under such a burden,
action was nowhere the result of inward motive, all was, on the contrary,
weighed and measured. Life was a continual torment to the earnest man, who felt
at every moment that he was in danger of transgressing the law; and where so
much depended on the external form, he was often left in uncertainty whether he
had really fulfilled its requirements. On she other hand, pride and conceit were
almost inevitable for one who had attained to mastership in the knowledge and
treatment of the law. He could indeed say that he had done his duty, had
neglected nothing, had fulfilled all righteousness. But all the more certain is
it, that this righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20), which
looked down with proud thanks to God upon the sinner (Luke 18:9-14), and
pompously displayed its works before the eyes of the world (Matthew 6:2; Matthew
23:5), was not that true righteousness which was well-pleasing to God.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 78: � 29. THE MESSIANIC HOPE
========================================================================

§ 29. THE MESSIANIC HOPE THE LITERATURE[1823] [1823] See the older literature in
Hase, Leben Jesu, § 34. De Wette, Biblische Dogmatik (3rd ed.), p. 163.
Bretschneider, Systematische Entwickelung aller in der Dojmatik vorkommenden
Begriffe (4th ed. 1841), p. 553 sqq. Schöttgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae,
vol. ii. De Messia, 1742. (A work of eminent scholarship, but ruled by the
effort to make the Rabbis into Christian theologians. Even the doctrine of the
communicatio idiomatum is proved from Rabbinic works.) Bertholdt, Christologia
Judaeorum Jesu apostolorumque aetate in compendium redacta observationibusque
illustrata. Erlangae 1811. Moraht, De iis, quae ad cognoscendam Judaeorum
Palaestinensium, qui Jesu tempore vivebant, Christologiam evangelia nobis
exhibeant, deque locis messianis in illis allegatis. Gotting. 1828. De Wette,
Biblische Dogmatik Alten und Neuen Testaments (3rd ed. 1831), pp. 159-179. The
same, Commentatio de morte Jesu Christi expiatoria (Opuscula theologica, 1830,
pp. 1-148). Von Cölln, Biblische Theologie, vol. i. (1836), pp. 479-511. Mack,
Die messianischen Erwartungen und Ansichten der Zeitgenossen Jesu (Tüb. Theol.
Quartalschr. 1836, pp. 3-56, 193-226). Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils (also
under the title, Gesch. des Urchristenthums, vols. i.-ii. 1838), ii. 195-444.
Bauer (Bruno), Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. i. 1841,
pp. 391-416. Zeller, On the Assertion that prae-Christian Judaism had no
Messianic Dogmatic (Theol. Jahrb. 1843, pp. 35-52). Hellwag, Baur, and Zeller’s
Theol. Jahrb. 1848, pp. 151-160 (in the article, On the notion of the
pre-existence of Christ in the primitive Church). Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische
Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung. Jena 1857. Oehler, art.
“Messias,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. ix. p. 408 sqq., 422-441. In the
2d ed. revised by Orelli, ix. 641 ff. Colani, Jésus-Christ et les croyances
messianiques de son temps, 2nd ed. Strasbourg 1864, pp. 1-68. Langen, Das
Judenthum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi. Freiburg 1866, pp. 391-461. Ewald,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. v. (3rd ed. 1867) pp. 135-160. Keim,
Geschichte Jesu, vol. i. 1867, pp. 239-250. Holtzman, Die Messiasidee zur Zeit
Jesu (Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1867, pp. 389-411). The same in Weber and
Holtzmann’s Gesch. des Volkes Israel (1867), ii. 191-211. Hausrath,
Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. (2nd ed. 1873) pp. 165-176.
Weiffenbach, Quae Jesu in regno coelesti dignitas sit synopticorum sententia
exponitur (Gissae 1868), pp. 47-62. Ebrard, Wissenschaftl. Kritik der
evangelischen Geschichte (3rd ed. 1868), pp. 835-849. Wittichen, Die Idee des
Reiches Gottes, dritter Beitrag zur biblischen Thevlogie insbesondere der
synoptichen Reden Jesu (Göttingen 1872), pp. 105-165. Anger, Vorlesungen über
die Geschichte der messianischen Idee, edited by Krenkel (Berlin 1873), pp.
78-91. Castelli, Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, Firenze 1874 (p. 358). Vernes,
Histoire des idées messianiques depuis Alexandre jusqu’ à l’empereur Hadrien,
Paris 1874 (p. 294). Stähelin, Jahrb. für deutsch Theologie, 1874, pp. 199-218
(in the article, Zur paulinischen Eschatologie). Schönefeld, Ueber die
messianische Hoffnung von 200 vor Christo bis gegen 50 nach Christo, Jena 1874.
Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, a Critical History of the Messianic Idea among the
Jews from the rise of the Maccabees to the closing of the Talmud, London 1877
(p. 395). Stapfer, Les idées religieuses en Palestine à l’époque de Jésus-Christ
(2nd ed. 1878), pp. 111-182. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen
Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud dargestellt (Leipzig 1880), pp.
322-386. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments (1881), §
555, 556. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. (1883),
arts. “Messianische Leidenszeit,” “Messias,” “Messiasleiden,” “Messias Sohn
Joseph,” “Messiaszeit” (pp. 735-779). Comp. also “Armilus,” “Belebung der
Todten,” “Ewiges Leben,” “Lohn und Strafe,” “Paradies,” “Vergeltung,”
“Zukunftsmahl.” Within the sphere of the religious ideas held by the Jewish
people during the period with which we are occupied, two groups may be
distinguished: (1) General religious ideas, with respect to the relation of man
and of the world to God, and (2) Specific Israelitish ideas, which have for
their object the relation of the Jewish people to Jahveh as the God of Israel.
The latter are those which are the really prevailing ideas, they form the centre
around which the others are grouped and to which they are related. These
specific Israelitish ideas however received again their special tinge in later
times from the legal view of the relation between Jahveh and Israel. The
thought, that God had selected this one people for His possession and therefore
bestowed His benefits upon them exclusively, was now supplemented by the other,
that He had also given them a law, and thereby bound Himself to bestow His
benefits under the presupposition, that they observed this law. Thus the maxim,
that God gave many commands and ordinances to the people of Israel for the
purpose of providing them with much reward now formed the core of the religious
consciousness.[1824] Very simple observation however showed, that this reward
was in present experience bestowed neither upon the nation as a whole, nor upon
individuals, in the proportion to be expected. The more intensely therefore the
consciousness of the nation and the individual was penetrated by this thought,
the more must their gaze have been directed to the future, and the worse the
state of the present, the more ardent must that gaze have been. Hence we may
say, that in later times the religous consciousness was concentrated upon the
hope of the future. The better future to be expected was the special object
towards which all other religious ideas teleologically referred. As the work of
the Israelite was virtually the observance of the law, so was his faith
virtually belief in a better future. Round these two poles (as we have already
remarked, p. 93) did the religious life of the Jewish people revolve during our
period. They were zealous for the law in order one day to obtain reward. This
central position of the hope of the future in the religious consciousness of
Israel justifies us in again specially directing our attention thereto. [1824]
Makkoth iii. 16.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 79: I. RELATION TO THE OLDER MESSIANIC HOPE
========================================================================

I. RELATION TO THE OLDER MESSIANIC HOPE The hope of a better future was already
with the prophets of the Old Testament an essential element of their religious
consciousness. Nor was it ever entirely lost by the people, though it was not
always as lively as it again became in an increasing degree after the Maccabaean
rising. In the course of time however this hope of the future experienced many
changes. There was indeed far greater freedom of movement in the sphere of faith
than in that of action. While legal precepts were binding to their very smallest
details, and must therefore be handed down unaltered from one generation to
another, comparatively freer play was permitted to faith, and provided certain
fundamentals were adhered to, the individual need could here come forward more
freely (see above, § 25. III. Halachah and Haggadah). Hence too the hope of the
future was developed in very various manners. Still certain common ground lines
may here be observed, by which the later Messianic hope is on the average
characteristically distinguished from the older. The older Messianic hope
virtually moves within the boundary of the then present circumstances of the
world, and is nothing else than the hope of a better future for the nation. That
the nation should be morally purified from all bad elements, that it should
exist unmolested and respected in the midst of the Gentile world, whilst its
enemies were either destroyed or forced to acknowledge the nation and its God,
that it should be governed by a just, wise and powerful king of the house of
David, and that therefore internal justice, peace and happiness would prevail,
nay that all natural evils would be abolished and a state of unclouded
prosperity would appear—this may be said to have formed the foundation of the
future hope among the older prophets, This picture however underwent very
important alterations in the consciousness of a subsequent age, partly in the
times of the later prophets, but especially in the post-canonical period. 1. And
first, the view became more and more extended from the nation to the world: the
eye was fixed not only on the future of the nation, but on the future of the
world. While in the former vision the heathen nations were only objects of
consideration, so far as they stood in some kind of relation to Israel, the
expectation of after times fixed its gaze more and more decidedly upon the fate
of all mankind, nay of the whole world. The judgment was originally a visitation
by which either Israel was purified or its enemies destroyed; it subsequently
became the judgment of the world, in which the fate of all men and all nations
will be decided, and that either by God Himself or by His Anointed, the
Messianic, King of Israel. The ideal kingdom of the future does not, according
to former expectation, extend beyond the actual limits of the Holy Land;
according to the later view, the future kingdom of God comprises all mankind,
who willingly or by compulsion are united under the sceptre of Israel into a
universal monarchy. Thus the Messiah is the judge and ruler of the world. Nay
even the irrational creation, heaven and earth, and therefore the whole universe
in the strict sense, is transformed, the old destroyed and a new and glorious
one made in its stead. This extension of the idea of the future was partly
brought about by the extension of the political horizon. The more the small
separate states were absorbed by the great universal monarchies, the more
obvious was it to view the ideal kingdom of the future also as a universal
monarchy. After the overthrow of the last heathen universal monarchy God Himself
assumes the sceptre and founds a universal kingdom, which He, the heavenly King,
rules by means of His people. But still more important than the enlargement of
the political horizon in the development of the Messianic idea, was the
enlargement of the notion of God and of the view of the world in general. In the
original view Jehovah is only the God and King of Israel. He is subseqently more
and more decidedly and evidently regarded as the God and King of the world. With
this again is connected the ever increasing hold upon the consciousness of the
nation of “the world” as a single whole comprising all existence. The growing
universalism of the expectation of the future was virtually conditioned by this
enlargement of the religious consciousness in general. 2. With this enlargement
of the future hope is combined however, on the other hand, a far more decided
reference of this hope to the individual. This too is connected with the
development of the religious consciousness in general. Originally Jehovah is the
God of the nation, who directs with His mighty hand the woe or weal of the
people. The lot of the individual was hardly thought of. But as the religious
consciousness deepened, the individual could not but more and more feel himself
the object of God’s care. Each individual knew his fate to be in the hand of
God, and was sure that God would not forsake him. The strengthening of this
individual belief in providence gradually resulted in a more individual hope of
the future. This was indeed comparatively very late, as it cannot be pointed to
till the time of Daniel. The form in which it was first manifested was that of a
belief in the resurrection. The pious Israelite being certain, that his personal
and indeed his enduring and eternal salvation is the will of God, expects, that
he and all the godly will have a share in the future glory of the nation. He
then who is seized by death before this is realized, may hope, that he will one
day be raised up again by God and transplanted to the kingdom of His glory.
According to this the object of the resurrection is a participation in the
glorious future of the nation, and the basis of faith in the resurrection is the
ever more powerfully developing interest of personal salvation. But not only did
the interest of salvation take an individual form, but reflection was more and
more directed to the future fate of the individual in malam partem also. God
keeps in heaven an account of the deeds of each individual, at least of each
Israelite. And decision will be given at the judgment on the ground of what is
contained in these heavenly books, and reward or punishment meted to each
exactly according to his merits. The result of this again was, that the
expectation of a resurrection was now that of a general resurrection: not only
were the righteous, but the unrighteous also to rise, to receive their sentence
at the judgment. This expectation however never attained general acceptance,
many looking only for a resurrection of the just. Lastly however the individual
interest was no longer satisfied with a resurrection for the purpose of
participation in the Messianic kingdom. This was no longer regarded as the
ultimate and supreme felicity, but a higher, an eternal, a heavenly happiness
expected afterwards, even an absolutely glorious state in heaven; as on the
other hand for the wicked, not merely an exclusion from Messiah’s kingdom, but
eternal torment and punishment in hell. 3. These last particulars are already
connected with a further peculiarity, by which the hope of the future
entertained in later, is distinguished from that of older times; for it had now
become more and more transcendent, and was more and more trausferred to the
supernatural and supermundane. The older hope kept within the range of present
circumstances. A destruction of the enemies of Israel, a purification of the
people and their glorious future, were expected. However ideal the
representation of this future prosperity, it still remains within the circle of
present circumstances. In the later view the present and the future became more
and more pure contrasts, the gulf between the two ever deeper, the view ever
more dualistic. With the appearance of Messianic times a new course of the
world, a new עוֹלָם, is to begin. This future course of the world (עוֹלָם
הַבָּא) is however in all respects the entire contrast to the present course of
the world (עוֹלָם הַוֶּה). The present is under the rule of the ungodly powers
of Satan and his angels, and therefore sunk in sin and sorrow. The future is
under the rule of God and His Anointed: and only righteousness and happiness
prevail therein. There can scarcely be any connection between the two. By a
miraculous act of God the one will be destroyed, the other called into
existence. However much this view may be supported by the former representation,
the contrast between now and then is much more sharply drawn than in the former
view. The latter sees far more the gracious government of God in the present
time also. According to the later representation it might almost seem, as if God
had for the present given over the government to the Satanic powers, and had
reserved for the future world the full exercise of His sway. Accordingly the
future salvation is also more and more regarded as purely transcendental. All
the benefits of the future world come down from above, from heaven, where they
had pre-existed from all eternity. They are kept there for the saints as an
“inheritance,” which will one day be bestowed upon them. In particular does the
perfect, the glorious, new Jerusalem, which will at the time of the consummation
of all things descend to earth in the place of the old, exist there already. So
too the Messiah, the perfect King of Israel, chosen by God from eternity, is
already there in communion with God. All that is good and perfect can come only
from above, because all that is earthly is in its present condition the direct
contrary to the divine. At last therefore the hope of the future outsteps
altogether the limits of earthly existence. The final happiness is not even
found in the kingdom of glory upon the renewed earth, but in an absolute state
of glory in heaven. As the salvation itself, so also is the manner of its
realization more and more transcendentally conceived of. The judgment is a
forensic act, in which, without the intervention of earthly powers, the fate of
men is decided simply by the verdict of God, or of His Anointed; and the
execution of this sentence is effected only by supernatural powers, by a
miraculous act of God, which destroys the old and calls the new order of things
into existence. 4. Lastly, the Messianic hope received an entirely new colouring
in later times from the fact that it, like the whole circle of religious ideas
in general, was increasingly dogmatized by the diligent labour of the scribes.
In place of vigorous religious productiveness came the learned investigation of
the prophetic writings, by which the details of the Messianic picture of the
future were dogmatically settled. The task of the scribes was indeed at first
the settling and treatment of the law. But they then, according to the same
method, worked at and settled in detail the whole circle of religious ideas, and
especially the Messianic expectations. Thus the poetic picture became learned
dogma. While in the ideal imagery of the prophets the boundary of the literal
and figurative meaning is evidently a fluctuating one, the sacred text of the
prophets is taken at its word by the scribes of a later age, the poetic image is
stiffened into dogma, and the character of the whole picture of the future
becomes thereby increasingly an externally transcendental one. Not only moreover
were all the existing details collected and dogmatically arranged, but new
details were elicited by their learned combination, after the manner of Haggadic
Midrash (see above, § 25. III.). For the sake of obtaining new disclosures, the
most heterogeneous passages were with the utmost ingenuity brought into relation
with each other, and the details of Messianic theology thereby more accurately
and comprehensively determined. It cannot be denied however, that such learned
material also fluctuated, for it never became really binding like the details of
the law. Thus the individual was at liberty to appropriate now more now less of
it, and to fashion it according to his own perceptions, so that the Messianic
hope was always fluctuating and is met with in very different forms among
different individuals. It must moreover be also remarked, that the peculiarities
of the later Messianic expectation here described are by no means equally found
everywhere. Even in later times, the old hope of a glorious future for the
nation maintained the supremacy. This forms even in the later view of the future
the determining ground-plan of the picture. And just as upon this foundation the
characteristic peculiarities of the later view have stronger or weaker
influence, and produce this or that alteration, is the old image now more now
less, now in one way now in another, specially modified and supplemented. But
did this hope, we would next inquire, always continue active among the people ?
Did it not itself die out with the dying out of ancient prophecy, and revive to
new life through the Christian movement? The latter has been frequently
asserted, especially so far as the Messianic idea in its narrower sense of the
expectation of a Messianic King is concerned. It is thought, that this was again
stirred up by the appearance of Jesus Christ, and that it was thereby revivified
even in the circles of Judaism. This assertion has been made in a summary manner
by Bruno Bauer and Volkmar, in a more enlightened one and with better foundation
by Holtzmann. The statements adduced by the latter are about these. After the
almost total extinction of the Messianic idea in the last centuries before
Christ, it was reconstructed in the way of scholarship “by means of mere
literary investigation.” This process of new formation had in the time of Jesus
been already entered upon, but did not receive its completion till the Christian
period and under the partial influence of Christian ideas. The Messianic idea
was in the time of Christ by no means an active one in the popular
consciousness. An essential distinction between the later scholastic and the
former prophetic idea of the Messiah was, that the prophets did not expect His
appearance till after God Himself had in a decisive battle destroyed the hostile
powers, while according to the later dogmatic the Messiah was to come to hold a
judgment, and that a judgment in a forensic form. Setting aside for the present
the latter point, we may sum up our verdict on Holtzmann’s view by saying, that
he is decidedly in the right, when he insists on the scholastic character of the
later Messianic idea, but in the wrong, when he as good as denies the Messianic
idea to the last centuries before Christ, and represents it as not yet
transferred to popular consciousness during the life of Jesus. The latter is in
opposition to the gospel history, and the former he can only maintain by either
entirely disregarding evidence to the contrary (as Henoch, xc. 37-38; Orac.
Sibyll. 3:46-50; Philo, de praem. et poen. § 16), or casting doubt upon the time
of its composition (as the Psalterium Salomonis), or explaining it away in an
arbitrary manner (as Orac. Sibyll. 3:652 sqq., which is said to relate to Simon
the Maccabaean). In truth the Messianic idea never quite died out at least not
in its more general form of the hope of a better future for the nation. In any
case it was again very active in the last centuries before Christ, and
especially in the time of Christ, as the course of the gospel history shows. It
there appears as thoroughly alive among the people, without Jesus doing anything
to revive it; and indeed it appears as a rule in the last centuries before
Christ, not only in its general form as the hope of a better future of the
nation, but also in its special form as the hope of a Messianic King. This will
appear as we present in the following pages: (1) The development of the
Messianic idea in its historical course; and (2) give a Systematic view of
Messianic dogmatics.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 80: II. HISTORICAL SURVEY
========================================================================

II. HISTORICAL SURVEY The prophecies of the Book of Daniel (about 167 to 165
before Christ) had a profound influence upon the form of the Messianic idea. In
the time of the affliction (עֵת צָרָה, 12:1), which had come upon Israel by
reason of the insane measures of Antiochus Epiphanes, the prophet predicts the
approaching deliverance. God will Himself sit in judgment on the kingdoms of
this world, and will take from them power and dominion, and root up and destroy
them for ever. But “the saints of the Most High” will receive the kingdom and
possess it for ever and ever. All peoples and nations and tongues will serve
them, and their kingdom will never be destroyed (7:9-27, 2:44). The righteous
too who have fallen asleep will have their share in it; for they will awake from
the dust of the earth to everlasting life, but the ungodly to everlasting
contempt (12:2). Whether the author conceived of this kingdom of the saints of
the Most High, as with a Messianic King at its head, cannot be made out, at any
rate he makes no mention of him. For he, who appears in the form of a man
(כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ, 7:13), is by no means the personal Messiah, but, as the author
plainly and expressly says in the interpretation, the people of the saints of
the Most High (7:18, 22, 27). As the kingdoms of the world are represented by
beasts, which rise up out of the sea, so is the kingdom of the saints
represented by a human form, which descends from the clouds of heaven. The
coming up out of the sea, i.e. the abyss, points to the anti-divine origin of
the former, the coming from heaven to the divine origin of the latter. Thus the
core of Daniel’s Messianic hope is the universal dominion of the saints (see
especially 2:44, 7:14, 27). And indeed the author does not, as might appear from
chap. 7, conceive of this as brought about by a mere judicial sentence of God.
On the contrary, he says expressly (2:44), that the kingdom of the saints shall
“break in pieces and destroy,” i.e. conquer by force of arms the world-kingdoms,
by the help indeed of God and according to His will. It is also deserving of
attention, that in this book the hope in a resurrection of the body is for the
first time plainly and decidedly expressed (12:2). Hence here as formerly, the
Messianic hope is the hope of a glorious future for the nation, but with the
double modification that the future kingdom of Israel is conceived of as a
universal kingdom, and that all the saints who have died will share in it. In
the apocryphal books of the Old Testament[1825] the Messianic hope cannot, by
reason of the historical or didactic nature of these books, be brought
prominently forward. But it is by no means absent from them. Thus we find, in
the Book of Ecclesiasticus, all the essential elements of the older Messianic
hope, the expectation of penal judgment upon the heathen (Sir_32:18-19; Sir_33:1
sqq.), the deliverance of Israel from their troubles (Sir_50:24), the gathering
of the dispersed (33:11), the everlasting duration of the nation (37:25, 40:13),
nay, the everlasting duration of the Davidic dynasty (47:11). In the other
apocryphal books too, we meet first one and then another element: that God will
judge the heathen (Jdt_16:17), and gather the dispersed of Israel into one
nation again (2Ma_2:18; Bar_2:27-35; Bar_4:36-37; Bar_5:5-9); that the people
shall be established for ever (2Ma_14:15), and that the throne of David shall be
an eternal one (1Ma_2:57). The author of the Book of Tobit hopes, not only that
the righteous will be gathered, the nation of Israel exalted, and Jerusalem
rebuilt in the most splendid manner with gold and precious stones (Tob_13:12-18;
Tob_14:7), but also, in common with certain prophets of the Old Testament, that
all the heathen will be converted to God (Tob_13:11; Tob_14:6-7). In the
Hellenistic Wisdom of Solomon the national element is, as may be conceived, in
the background, nay the author cannot, by reason of his Platonistic
anthropology, expect true happiness for the soul till after death. With him
therefore the important element is, that the righteous dead will one day sit in
judgment upon the heathen (Wis_3:8; Wis_5:1; comp. 1 Corinthians 6:2 sq.). The
explanation of the just man in Wis_2:12-20 as the Messiah, which is prevalent in
older exegesis, is utterly unfounded.[1826] [1825] Comp. De Wette, Biblische
Dogmatik, p. 160 sq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. vol. ix. pp. 422-425 (2nd ed.
ix. pp. 653-655). Anger, Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Messianischen Idee,
pp. 78 sq., 84 sq. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p. 196 sqq. [1826] Comp.
Reusch. Is Wis_2:12-20 a Messianic prediction? (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1864,
pp. 330-346). The stream of Messianic prediction flows forth in copious
abundance in the oldest Jewish Sibyllines, which appeared about 140 B.C. Sibyll.
3:286 sq. must not indeed be referred to these (Καὶ τότε δὴ θεὸς οὐρανόθεν
πέμψει βασιλῆα, Κρινεῖ δʼ ἄνδρα ἕκαστον ἐν αἵματι καὶ πυρὸς αὐγῇ), where on the
contrary Cyrus is spoken of.[1827] Nor can the υἱὸς θεοῖο, 3:775, be appealed
to. For according to the correct supposition of Alexandre, we must read νηόν
instead of υἱόν. And lastly, it is quite a mistake to understand by the κόρη, in
whom, according to Sibyll. 3:748-786, God will dwell, the mother of Messiah (an
explanation into which, following Langen,[1828] even Weiffenbach[1829] suffered
himself to be seduced). For the κόρη, Hebr. בְּתוּלָה, is nothing else than
Jerusalem. Still after the withdrawal of all these passages, it remains certain,
that the whole section, Sibyll. 3:652-794, is of almost exclusively Messianic
purport, although only a short mention of the Messianic King is made at the
beginning. From the east (ἀπʼ ἠελίοιο), it is here said, will God send a king,
who will put an end to all war upon earth, killing some, and fulfilling the
promises to others. And he will do this not according to his own counsel, but in
obedience to the commands of God.[1830] At his appearance (for this is certainly
the meaning of the author), the kings of the heathen assemble once more for an
attack upon the temple of God and the Holy Land. They offer their idolatrous
sacrifices round about Jerusalem. But God will speak to them with a mighty
voice, and they will all perish by the hand of the Immortal. The earth will
quake and the mountains and hills be overturned, and Erebus will appear. The
heathen nations will perish by war, sword and fire, because they lifted their
spears against the temple (663-697). Then will the children of God live in peace
and quietness, because the hand of the Holy One protects them (698-709). And the
heathen nations seeing this will be encouraged to bless and praise God, to send
gifts to His temple and to accept His law, because it is the most just in all
the world (710-726). Peace will then prevail among all the kings of the earth
(743-760). And God will set up an eternal kingdom over all men. Men will bring
offerings to the temple of God from all parts of the earth. The prophets of God
will lay down the sword, for they are judges of men and just kings. And God will
dwell upon Zion and universal peace will prevail upon earth (766-794). The
writer lays the chief stress, as we see, upon the circumstance, that the law of
God will attain recognition and validity among all the nations of the earth, but
he expects not this alone, but the setting up of a universal kingdom over all
mankind (766-767: βασιλήϊον εἰς αἰῶνας πάντας ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπους) with Jerusalem as
its theocratic centre. It is only at the beginning that he thinks of the king
sent from God as the instrument for the establishment of the universal peace.
But he is undoubtedly to be thought of as the intervening cause, when it is
said, ver. 689, that God exterminates the attacking heathen by war and sword
(πολέμῳ ἠδὲ μαχαίρῃ). And if the prophets of God (θεοῦ μεγάλοιο προφῆται, i.e.
indeed the Israelites, the saints of the Most High as they are called in Daniel)
are only generally spoken of as judges and kings (780-781), still a theocratic
king at their head is at least not excluded by the words of the author. It is in
any case worthy of remark, that even an Alexandrian, when painting the future,
cannot dispense with the God-sent king. [1827] As even Hilgenfeld now admits
(Zeitschr. für w. Th. 1871, p. 36), after having formerly disputed it
(Apokalyptik, p. 64; Zeitschr. 1860, p. 315). [1828] Das Judenthum in Palästina,
p. 401 sqq. [1829] Quae Jesu in regno coelesti dignitas sit, p. 50 sq. [1830]
Sibyll. 3:652-656:— Καὶ τότʼ ἀπʼ ἠελίοιο θεὸς πέμψει βασιλῆα, Ὃς πᾶσαν γαῖαν
παύσει πολέμοιο κακοῖο, Οὓς μὲν ἄρα κτείνας, οἷς δʼ ὅρκια πιστὰ τελέσσας. Οὐδέ
γε ταῖς ἰδίαις βουλαῖς τάδε πάντα ποιήσει, Ἀλλὰ θεοῦ μεγάλοιο πιθήσας δόγμασιν
ἐσθλοῖς. The original portion of the Book of Enoch (in the last third of the 2nd
century before Christ) contains comparatively little that is Messianic. It is
the conclusion of the vision of Judgment (c. 90:16-38), which is here chiefly to
be considered. The author expects in the first place a last powerful attack of
the heathen (here chiefly the Syrian) power, which is however rendered vain by
the miraculous intervention of God (90:16-19). A throne is then erected in the
delightful land and God sits in judgment. First the fallen angels and then the
apostate Jews are cast into the fiery pit (90:20-27). Then the old Jerusalem
(for the “house” is Jerusalem) is done away with, and God brings a new Jerusalem
and places it on the spot where the old one stood (90:28-29). In this new
Jerusalem dwell the pious Jews, and the heathen do them homage (90:30). Hereupon
the Messiah appears (under the image of a white bullock), and all the heathen
pray to Him and are converted to God (90:37-38). The transcendent character of
the later Messianic idea here comes forward: the new Jerusalem has nothing in
common with the old, but is brought from heaven in a miraculous manner. We meet
with the Messianic King depicted in sharper outlines and fuller colours in the
Psalterium Salomonis, composed in the time of Pompey (63-48 B.C.). These Psalms
are instructive, if only because their author dwells both upon God Himself being
the King of Israel (17:1), and David’s house never becoming extinct before God
(17:5). Hence it must not be concluded, without further ceremony, that when the
former takes place, the latter is excluded. The longing for the Davidic king is
especially ardent in the author, for Jerusalem had, in his time, fallen under
the heathen rule of the Romans, and no hope for the future could be built upon
the Sadducean-minded dynasty of the Asmonaeans. Hence he hopes, that God will
raise up a prince of the house of David to rule over Israel, to crush their
enemies, and to cleanse Jerusalem from the heathen (17:23-27). He will gather a
holy people, and will judge the tribes of the nation, and not suffer
unrighteousness in their midst, he will divide them in the land according to
their tribes, and no stranger shall dwell among them (17:28-31). The heathen
nations will serve him and will come to Jerusalem, to bring the wearied children
of Israel as gifts and to see the glory of the Lord. He is a righteous king and
one taught of God (17:32-35). And there is no unrighteousness in his days, for
all are saints. And their king is the Lord’s anointed.[1831] He will not place
his trust in horse or rider. For the Lord Himself is his King. And he will
strike the earth with the word of his mouth for ever (17:36-39). He will bless
the people of the Lord with wisdom; and he is pure from sin; and he will rule
over a great people and not be weak. For God makes him strong by His Holy
Spirit. He will lead them all in holiness, and there is no pride among them
(17:40-46). This is the beauty of the king of Israel. Happy are they, who are
born in his days (17:47-51). The writer expects, as it appears, not godly kings
in general of David’s house, but a single Messiah endowed by God with miraculous
powers, pure from sin and holy (17:41, 46), whom God has made powerful and wise
by the Holy Spirit (17:2), and who therefore strikes his enemies not with
external weapons, but with the word of his mouth (17:39 after Isaiah 11:4). He
is however, notwithstanding such idealism, represented as quite a worldly ruler,
as an actual king of Israel. Comp. generally, Psalms 18:6-10, and especially
Psalms 11 : (the gathering of the dispersed) and 3:16, 14:2 sqq. (the
resurrection of the just). [1831] Χριστὸς κύριος, 17:36, like Lamentations 4:20,
is a wrong translation for מְשִׁיחַ יְהוָֹה. The correct Χριστὸς κυρίου is found
18:8. Comp. also 18:6. As the oppression of the Pompeian period was the occasion
of the Psalter of Solomon, so also was the despotism of Antony and Cleopatra
that of a more recent Sibylline piece (Orac. Sibyll. 3:36-92). When Rome had
then obtained dominion over Egypt also, the Sibyllist expected the appearance of
the kingdom of God on earth and the coming of a holy king to rule for ever over
every land. The passage in question (3:46-50) is as follows:— Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ Ῥώμη
καὶ Αἰγύπτου βασιλεύσει, Εἰς ἓν ἰθύνουσα, τότε δὴ βασιλεία μεγίστη Ἀθανάτου
βασιλῆος ἐπʼ ἀνθρώποισι φανεῖται. Ἥξει δʼ ἀγνὸς ἄναξ, πάσης γῆς σκῆπτρα κρατήσων
Εἰς αἰῶνας πάντας, ἐπειγομένοιο χρόνοιο. The immortal King, whose kingdom is to
appear among men, is of course God Himself. On the other hand, none other than
the Messiah can be meant by the ἁγνὸς ἄναξ, who is to possess the sceptre of
every kingdom. Here too, as in the Psalter of Solomon, we find the personal
Messiah and the idea of the kingdom of God in direct combination. If in the
Psalter of Solomon the form of the Messianic King is already one far surpassing
the ordinary human form, this feature comes out more strikingly in the
figurative discourses of the Book of Enoch (chap. 37-71). The image of the
Messiah is here chiefly drawn, in continuation of the Book of Daniel, by “the
Son of man” being understood of the person of Messiah, and the coming from
heaven taken literally; pre-existence being therefore ascribed to the Messiah.
But unfortunately the date of the composition of this book is so uncertain, that
we must renounce its insertion in the historical development. Use can only be
made of it for the systematic survey. The Assumptio Mosis, of about the
beginning of the Christian era, predicts in words of beautiful aspiration the
approach of the kingdom of God. The author, after bringing into view a time of
tribulation such as that under Antiochus Epiphanes, continues, chap. 10.: “Then
will his kingdom appear among all creatures, and the devil will have an end, and
sorrow will disappear with him. Then will the Heavenly One arise from the seat
of his kingdom and will come from his holy habitation with wrath and anger for
his children’s sake, and the earth will tremble to its ends, and the high
mountains be lowered, and the hills fall. The sun will give no light, and the
moon be changed into blood (comp. Joel 3:4), and the stars fall into confusion.
And the sea Will retreat to the abyss, and the water-springs fail, and the
rivers be dried up. Then will the most High God, the alone Eternal, come forth
to chastise the heathen and destroy all idols. Then wilt thou be happy, O
Israel, and wilt tread upon the neck and wings of the eagle. And God will exalt
thee and make thee soar to the firmament, and thou wilt thence look down upon
thine enemies on earth, and shalt see them and rejoice, and give thanks and
acknowledge thy Creator.” That in this magnificent picture of the future there
should be no mention of the Messianic King, is certainly not accidental, if it
is the case that the author belonged to the party of the Zealots (see below, §
32). This circumstance would then, as Wieseler justly remarks,[1832] be
explained by the fact, that the author’s ideal would be, not a monarchic, but,
if we may use the expression, a democratically constituted kingdom of God.
[1832] Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1868, p. 645. Equally without mention
of a Messianic King, and on the whole in merely general outlines, does the Book
of Jubilees describe the time of joy and delight, which will appear for Israel
on their repentance.[1833] “The days will begin to increase, and the children of
men will be older from generation to generation and from day to day, till the
length of their life approaches a thousand years. And there will be none old or
weary of life, but they will all be like children and youths, and will pass and
live all their days in peace and joy, without there being any Satan or other
evil spoiler; for all their days will be days of blessing and healing. At that
time will the Lord heal His servants, and they will arise and see ever deeper
peace and pursue again their enemies. And they will see it and give thanks, and
rejoice for evermore. And they will see all the judgments and all the curse of
their enemies. Their bones will indeed rest in the earth, but their spirits will
have many joys, and they will perceive, that it is the Lord who sits in judgment
and shows grace to hundreds and thousands and to all who love Him.” While it is
here said only in general, that the servants of the Lord “will again pursue
their enemies,” in another passage the dominion of the world is promised to the
seed of Jacob.[1834] God said to Jacob: “I am the Lord thy God, who made heaven
and earth. I will cause thee to grow and will greatly increase thee; and kings
shall proceed from thee and shall rule everywhere, even wherever the foot of the
children of men shall tread. And I will give to thy seed the whole earth, which
is under heaven, and they shall rule according to their choice over all nations;
and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and inherit it to
eternity.” [1833] Ewald’s Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft, 3rd year, p.
24. [1834] Ewald’s Jahrbücher, iii. 42. It is very characteristic testimony to
the intensity of the Messianic hope in the age of Jesus Christ, that even a
moralist like Philo should depict the happiness to be expected by the righteous,
in the frame and with the colouring of Jewish national expectations.[1835] Two
passages of his work “on the reward of the good and the punishment of the
wicked” come in this respect especially under consideration (De exsecrationibus,
§ 8-9, ed. Mang. ii. 435 sq., and De praemiis et poenis, § 15-20, ed. Mang. ii.
421-428). In the former passage he expresses the hope, that all Israelites, or
rather all who are converted to the law of God (for it depends on this and not
on natural descent from Abraham), will be gathered in the Holy Land. “Though
they should be in the ends of the earth as slaves among their enemies, who have
taken them captive, yet will they all be set at liberty at a given sign on one
day, because their sudden turning to virtue astonishes their masters. For they
will release them because they are ashamed of bearing rule over their betters.
When then this unexpected freedom is bestowed on those, who were before
scattered in Hellas and in barbarous countries, on islands and on the continent,
they will hasten with one impulse from all quarters to the place pointed out to
them, led by a Divine superhuman appearance, which, invisible to all others, is
visible only to the delivered.[1836] … When then they have arrived, the ruined
cities will be rebuilt, and the desert reinhabited, and the barren land become
fertile.” In the other passage (De praemiis et poenis, § 15 sqq., Mang. ii. 421
sqq.), Philo describes the time of prosperity and peace, which will appear when
men turn to God. Before all they will be safe from wild beasts. “Bears, lions,
panthers, Indian elephants, tigers and all kinds of beasts of uncontrollable
strength and power will turn from their solitary ways of life to one according
to law, and from intercourse with few, after the manner of gregarious animals,
will accustom themselves to the sight of man, who will not as formerly be
attacked by them, but feared as their master, and they will respect him as their
natural lord. Some even, emulating the tame animals, will offer him their homage
by wagging their tails like lap-dogs. The race too of scorpions, snakes and
other reptiles will then no longer have any harmful poison” (§ 15). A further
blessing of this time is peace among men. “Then says the prophecy (LXX. Numbers
24:7) a man who goes to battle and makes war shall go forth and subdue great and
populous nations, God Himself sending help to His saints. This consists in
unshaken boldness of mind and invincible strength of body, qualities each of
which singly is terrible to enemies, but which when combined nothing is able to
resist. But some of the enemies are, as the prophecy says, not even worthy to
perish by the hand of man. Against them He (God) will send swarms of wasps, who
fight to a shameful overthrow for the saints. But these (instead of τοῦτον we
must read τούτους, i.e. the saints) will not only have certain victory in battle
without bloodshed, but also invincible power of government for the welfare of
their subjects, who will submit from either love, fear, or reverence. For they
(the saints) possess three qualities, which are the greatest, and which found an
indestructible dominion. Holiness, great power and benevolence (σεμνότητα καὶ
δεινότητα καὶ εὐεργεσίαν), the first of which produces reverence, the second
fear, the third love, but if they are harmoniously combined in the soul, they
produce subjects, who are obedient to their rulers” (§ 16). Philo next mentions
riches and prosperity (§ 20), health and strength of body, as blessings of
Messianic times (§ 17-18). It is evident, that notwithstanding his efforts
always to lay the chief emphasis on the ethic, he was not able to avoid popular
notions. For he too expected, after the realization of the ethic ideal, a time
of external prosperity and happiness for the pious and virtuous, one feature of
which would be, that they should have dominion upon earth. Nor was the Messianic
King absent from this image. For who else than he could be intended by the man,
who goes to battle, carries on war and subdues great and populous nations? And
the less such a God-sent hero is required by Philo’s fundamental view, the more
worthy of remark is it, that he is nevertheless included in his description of
the Messianic age. [1835] Comp. on the Messianic idea in Philo, Gfrörer, Philo
und die Alexandrinische Theosophie, i. 495-534. Dähne, Gechichtl. Darstellung
der jülisch-alexandriniachen Religionsphilosophie, i. 432-438. J. G. Müller, Die
messianischen Erwartungen des Juden Philo. Basel 1870 (25, p. 4). [1836]
ξεναγούμενοι πρός τινος θειοτέρας ἢ κατἀ φύσιν ἀνθρωπίνης ὄψεως, ἀδήλου μὲν
ἑτέροις, μόνοις δὲ τοῖς ἀνασωζομένοις ἐμφανοῦς. That this divine appearance is
not the Messiah, but one analogous to the pillar of fire in the march through
the desert, scarcely needs mention. But even apart from such evidence, it is
already plain from the New Testament, that the Messianic idea was anything but
extinct in the popular consciousness in the period before Christ. We easily see
from the question of John: “Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for
another?” (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:19-29), that the coming One was expected. And
the whole course of the gospel history—to mention only Peter’s confession
(Matthew 16:13 sqq.; Mark 8:27 sqq.; Luke 9:18 sqq.)—clearly shows that Jesus in
acknowledging Himself to be the Messiah, was only connecting Himself with
existing ideas He by no means aimed in the first place at the revival and
animation of Messianic hopes. And yet we find, that at His entry into Jerusalem,
the whole multitude hailed Him as the Messiah (Matthew 21; Mark 11; Luke 19;
John 12). Such scenes are only to be explained on the assumption, that the
Messianic hope was, before His appearance, already active in the nation. This
also needs no proof for the period after Christ. The numerous popular tumults of
a politico-religious kind, which took place in the time of the Roman procurators
(A.D. 44-66), give sufficient evidence of the feverish tension, with which a
miraculous intervention of God in history and the appearance of His kingdom on
earth were expected. How else could men such as Theudas the Egyptian have found
believers for their promises by hundreds and thousands? Even Josephus
superabundantly confesses, that the Messianic hope was one of the most powerful
levers in the great insurrection against Rome. He himself did not indeed shrink
from applying the Messianic prophecies to Vespasian, and in this respect he
found approving faith from Tacitus and Suetonius.[1837] [1837] On the Messianic
notions of Josephus, see Gerlach, Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den
Schriften des Flavius Josephus (1863), pp. 41-89. Langen in the Tüb. Theol.
Quartalschrift, 1865, pp. 39-51. The passage in question in Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 4
is as follows: Τὸ δὲ ἐπᾶραν αὐτοὺς μάλιστα πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ἦν χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος
ὁμοίως ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς εὑρημένος γράμμασιν, ὡς κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον ἀπὸ τῆς
χώρας τις αὐτῶν ἄρξει τῆς οἰκουμένης. Τοῦτο οἵ μὲν ὡς οἰκεῖον ἐξέλαβον, καὶ
πολλοὶ τῶν σοφῶν ἐπλανήθησαν περὶ τὴν κρίσιν· ἐδήλου δʼ ἄρα τὴν Οὐεσπατιανοῦ τὸ
λόγιον ἡγεμονίαν, ἀποδειχθέντος ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίας αὐτοκράτορος. Comp. Tacit Hist. v.
13: Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso
tempore fore ut valesceret oriens profectique Judaea rerum potirentur. Quae
ambages Vespasianum ac Titum praedixerant; sed volgus more humanae cupidinis
sibi tantam fatorum magnitudinem interpretati ne adversia quidem ad vera
mutabantur. Sueton. Vesp. c. 4: Percrebuerat oriente toto vetus et constans
opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de
imperatore Romano, quantum postea eventu paruit, praedictum Judaei ad se
trahentes rebellarunt. It is hardly to be doubted, that Tacitus and Suetonius
drew, whether directly or indirectly, entirely from Josephus. Comp. Gieseler,
Kirchengesch. i. 1, p. 51. This is disputed by Keim in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st
ed. xvii. 164 (art. “Vespasianus”). On the state of the Messianic hope after the
destruction of the temple, and during the last decades of the first century
after Christ, we have copious information in the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra.
The Apolcaypse of Baruch describes the course of the last things as follows: A
time of general and terrible confusion will first of all occur, Men will
mutually hate and fight against each other. The disreputable will rule over the
respectable, the base will be exalted above the illustrious, the ungodly above
heroes. And the nations (whom God has previously prepared for the purpose—we
cannot but think of Gog and Magog) will come and fight against the princes who
remain. And it will come to pass, that he who escapes from war, will perish by
the earthquake, and he who escapes this, by fire, and he who escapes the fire,
by famine. And he who escapes all these ills will be delivered into the hands of
the Messiah (70:2-10). For he will be manifested, and destroy the hosts of the
last universal kingdom. And the last prince, who is left, will be chained and
brought to Zion, and the Messiah will convict him of ungodliness and put him to
death (39:7-40:2). The Messiah will gather the nations, and to some he will
grant life, and others he will destroy with the sword. He will grant life to
those who have submitted to the seed of Jacob. But those who have oppressed
Israel will be destroyed (72:2-6). Then will he sit upon the throne of his
kingdom for ever;[1838] and peace will appear, and sorrow and tribulation depart
from mankind, and joy prevail over the whole earth. And the wild beasts shall
come and serve men, and vipers and serpents shall be subject to children. And
the reapers shall not be faint, nor the builders weary (73-74; comp. 40:2, 3).
And the earth shall yield her fruits a thousandfold, and on one vine there shall
be a thousand branches, and on one branch a thousand clusters, and on one
cluster a thousand grapes, and one grape will yield a cor of wine.[1839] And
manna will again fall from heaven, and it shall be again eaten in those days
(29:5-8). And after the end of that time all the dead will arise, the just and
the unjust, in the same bodily form which they formerly had. Then will judgment
be held. And after the judgment the risen will be changed. The bodies of the
just will be transfigured in brightness, but those of the unjust will dwindle
and become uglier than before. And they will be given up to torment. But the
just will behold the invisible world, and will dwell in the high places of that
world. And Paradise spreads out before them, and they see the hosts of angels
who stand before the throne of God. And their glory is greater than that of the
angels (chap, 30, 50, and 51; comp. 44:15). [1838] Cap. lxxiii. 1: Et sedebit in
pace in aeternum super throno regni sui. xl. 3: Et erit principatus ejus stans
in saeculum, donec flniatur mundus corruptionis. From the last passage it
appears that the reign of Messiah is not to last “for ever” in the strict sense,
but only to the end of the present world. [1839] Comp. Papias in Irenaeus, v.
33. 3. The eschatological expectations of the fourth Book of Esdras agree in all
essential points with those of Baruch. He too predicts first a time of fearful
want and distress (5:1-13, 6:18-28, 9:1-12, 13:29-31). After this the Messiah,
the Son of God, will be revealed, and it will come to pass, that when the
nations hear His voice they will forget war amongst each other, and will
assemble in an innumerable multitude for an attack against the anointed. But he
will stand upon Mount Zion, and will convict them of their ungodliness, and
destroy them by the law without battle and without weapons (13:25-28, 32-38;
comp. 12:31-33). Then will the hidden city (viz. New Jerusalem) appear (7:26);
and the ten tribes will return to the Holy Land (13:39-47). And the anointed
will protect and rejoice the people of God in the Holy Land, and show them many
miracles for four hundred years (7:27, 28, 12:34, 13:48-50; comp. 9:8). And
after this the anointed and all men who have breath will die. And the world will
again return to the silence of death for seven days, as at the beginning. And
after seven days a world which now sleeps will awake, and the corrupt world will
perish. And the earth will restore those who sleep in it; and the receptacles
will give back the souls committed to them (7:29-32). And the Most High will
appear upon the judgment-seat, and long-suffering will have an end; only
judgment will remain, and the reward come to light (7:33-35). And the place of
torment will be revealed, and opposite to it the place of rest; the pit of hell,
and opposite to it Paradise. And the Most High will say to the risen: Behold Him
whom you denied and did not honour, and whose commands you did not obey. Here is
joy and delight, there is fire and torment. And the length of the day of
judgment will be a week of years (6:1-17, according to the computation of the
Ethiopic translation; comp. also vv. 59 and 68-72, ed. Fritzsche, in Bensley,
The Missing Fragment, etc. 1875, pp. 55-58, 64, 69 sq.). Thus the two
Apocalypses. That their hopes are not those of individuals, but form an
essential element of Jewish consciousness is still shown by the Shemoneh Esreh,
the daily prayer of the Israelites, which received its present form about A.D.
100. As it has been fully given above (p. 85 sq.), we need here only recall that
in the 10th petition the gathering of the dispersed, in the 11th the
reinstitution of the native authorities, in the 14th the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, in the 15th the sending of the son of David and the setting up of his
kingdom, and lastly, in the 17th, the restoration of the sacrificial worship at
Jerusalem, are prayed for. Such was the hope and prayer of every Israelite after
the destruction of the Jewish polity.[1840] [1840] The prayer for the rebuilding
of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Aboda (the sacrificial service) occurs
also in the Paschal Liturgy, Pesachim x. 6. We have in this survey purposely
passed over the Targums, in which “King Messiah” frequently appears.[1841] For
the opinion, that the older Targums originated in the time of Jesus Christ, may
now be regarded as given up. They probably belong to the third or fourth century
after Christ, at any rate, there is no proof of their greater antiquity, though
they often fall back upon older exegetical traditions. Their case is the same as
that of the other rabbinical works (the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash), viz. that
they are based upon older materials, but do not in their existing form belong to
the period of which we are treating. The essential outlines of the Messianic
hope of Judaism in this later time. (about the beginning of the third century)
are very well summed up by the author of the Philosophumena, who describes them
in the following manner:[1842] they say that the Messiah will proceed from the
house of David, not from a virgin and the Holy Ghost, but from a man and woman,
as it is appointed to all to be born from seed. He will, they believe, be king
over them, a warlike and powerful man, who will gather together the whole nation
of the Jews, and carry on war with all nations, and build Jerusalem as a royal
city for the Jews, in which he will assemble the whole nation, putting it into
its old condition as a ruling and a sacrifice-offering nation, which will long
dwell in safety. Afterwards war will arise against them collectively, and in
this war the Messiah will fall by the sword. Not long after will follow the end
and the conflagration of the world, and then will be fulfilled that which is
believed with respect to the resurrection, and retribution be done to every one
according to his works. [1841] See in Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 1268-1273, a
list of passages in the Targums applying to the Messiah. Comp. also Im. Schwarz,
Jesus Targumicus, 2 parts, 4. Torgau 1758-59. Ayerst, תקות ישראל, the hope of
Israel, or the doctrine of the ancient Jews concerning the Messiah, as stated in
the Targums, p. 52. Langen, Das Judenth. in Palästina, pp. 418-429. [1842]
Philosophum. ix. 30: Γένεσιν μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ [scil. τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ἐσομένην λέγουσιν
ἐκ γένους Δαβίδ, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐκ παρθένου καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ἀλλʼ ἐκ γυναικὸς καὶ
ἀνδρός, ὡς πᾶσιν ὅρος γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ σπέρματος, φάσκοντες τοῦτον ἐσόμενον βασιλέα
ἐπʼ αὐτούς, ἄνδρα πολεμιστὴν καὶ δυνατόν, ὃς ἐπισυνάξας τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος Ἰουδαίων,
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πολεμήσας, ἀναστήσει αὐτοῖς τὴν Ἰερουσαλὴμ πόλιν βασιλίδα, εἰς ἣν
ἐπισυνάξει ἅπαν τὸ ἔθνος καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τά ἀρχαῖα ἔθη ἀποκαταστήσει βασιλεῦον καὶ
ἱερατεῦον καὶ κατοικοῦν ἐν πεπονθήσει ἐν χρόνοις ἱκανοῖς· ἔπειτα ἐπαναστῆναι
κατʼ αὐτῶν πόλεμον ἐπισυναχθέντων· ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ πολέμῳ πεσεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν
μαχαίρῃ, ἔπειτα μετʼ οὐ πολὺ τὴν συντέλειαν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν τοῦ παντὸς ἐπιστῆναι,
καὶ οὕτως τὰ περὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν δοξαζόμενα ἐπιτελεσθῆναι, τάς τε ἀμοιβὰς ἑκάστῳ
κατὰ τὰ πεπραγμένα ἀποδοθῆναι.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 81: III. SYSTEMATIC STATEMENT
========================================================================

III. SYSTEMATIC STATEMENT We supplement this historical survey by giving also in
the following pages a systematic statement of Messianic doctrinal theology on
the foundation of the Shema, as resulting from the Apocalypse of Baruch and the
fourth Book of Esdras. For the eschatological expectation is most fully
developed in these two Apocalypses. 1. The last tribulation and
perplexity.[1843] Almost everywhere when the last things are referred to, the
thought recurs with different variations, that the appearance of redemption must
be preceded by a period of special trouble and affliction. It was indeed in
itself an obvious thought, that the path to happiness should pass through
tribulation. This was also expressly predicted in the Old Testament (Hosea
13:13; Daniel 12:1, and elsewhere); and thus was formed in Rabbinical theology,
the doctrine of the חֶבְלֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ, the travail of the Messiah, which must
precede His birth, i.e. His appearing (the expression according to Hosea 13:13;
comp. Matthew 24:8 : πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων; Mark 13:9 : ἀρχαὶ ὠδίνων
ταῦτα). The threatening troubles will be announced by omens of all kinds. The
sun and moon will be darkened, swords appear in heaven, trains of horse and foot
march through the clouds (Orac. Sibyll. 3:795-807; comp. 2Ma_5:2-3. Joseph.
Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3. Tacit. Hist. v. 13). Everything in nature falls into
commotion and confusion. The sun appears by night, the moon by day. Blood
trickles from wood, the stone gives forth a voice, and salt is found in fresh
water (4 Ezra 5:1-13). Places that have been sown will appear as unsown, full
barns be found empty, and the springs of the wells be stopped (4 Ezra 6:18-22).
Among men all the restraints of order will be dissolved, sin and ungodliness
rule upon earth. And men will fight against each other as if stricken with
madness, the friend against the friend, the son against the father, the daughter
against the mother. Nation will rise against nation, and to war shall be added
earthquakes, fire, and famine, whereby men shall be carried off (Book of
Jubilees in Ewald’s Jahrb. vol. iii. p. 23 sq. Apocal. Baruch 70:2-8; 4 Ezra
6:24, 9:1-12, 13:29-31; Mishna, Sota ix. 15).[1844] Comp. also Matthew 24:7-12;
Matthew 24:21; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:23; 1 Corinthians 7:26; 2 Timothy 3:1. [1843]
Comp. Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae, ii. 509 sqq., 550 sqq. Bertholdt,
Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 45-54. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 225
f., 300-304. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 436 f. (2nd ed. ix. 666). Renan,
L’Antichrist. Hamburger, Real-Enc., art “Messianische Leidenszeit” (pp.
735-738). [1844] Mishna, Sota ix. 15, according to Jost’s translation, is as
follows: “As traces of the approach of Messiah are to be regarded, that
arrogance increases, ambition shoots up, that the vine yields fruit and yet wine
is dear. The government turns to heresy. There is no instruction. The place of
assembly (the synagogue) is devoted to lewdness. Galilee is destroyed, Gablan
laid waste. The inhabitants of a district go from city to city, without finding
compassion. The wisdom of the learned is hated, the godly despised, truth is
absent. Boys insult old men, old men stand in the presence of children. The son
depreciates the father, the daughter rebels against the mother, the
daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law. A man’s enemies are his
house-fellows” (comp. Micah 7:6; Matthew 10:35-36; Luke 12:53). The whole
passage however does not belong to the genuine text of the Mishna. It is
wanting, e.g. in the Editio princeps, Naples 1492. Being in the Jerusalem
Talmud, it was certainly introduced thence into the Mishna. 2. Elijah as the
forerunner.[1845] The return of the prophet Elijah to prepare the way of the
Messiah was expected on the ground of Mal. 3:23, 24. This view is already taken
for granted in the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Sir_48:10-11). It is, as is well
known, frequently alluded to in the New Testament (see especially Matthew 17:10;
Mark 9:11; also Matthew 11:14; Matthew 16:14; Mark 6:15; Mark 8:28; Luke 9:8;
Luke 9:19; John 1:21). It was even transferred to the Christian circle of
ideas.[1846] According to Mal. 3:24, the object of his mission is chiefly
considered to be, to make peace upon earth and in general to substitute order
for disorder (Matthew 17:11 : ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα; Mark 9:12 : ἀποκαθιστάνει
πάντα). The chief passage in the Mishna is as follows:[1847] “R. Joshua said: I
received the tradition from R. Johanan ben Sakkai, who received it from his
teacher as a tradition in a direct line from Moses at Mount Sinai, that Elias
would not come to pronounce clean or unclean, to reject or admit families in
general, but only to reject those who had entered by violence, and to admit
those who had been rejected by violence. There was, beyond Jordan, a family of
the name of Beth Zerefa, which a certain Ben Zion had excluded by violence.
There was there another family (of impure blood), whom this Ben Zion had
admitted by violence. Therefore he comes to pronounce such clean or unclean, to
reject or to admit them. R. Jehudah says: only to admit, but not to reject. R.
Simon says: his mission is merely to arrange disputes. The learned say neither
to reject nor admit, but his coming is merely with the object of making peace in
the world. For it is said: ‘I send you, Elijah the prophet, to turn the heart of
the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers’
(Malachi 3:4).” To the duty of the institutors of peace and order belongs also
the decision of disputed cases. Therefore it is said in the Mishna, that money
and property whose owners are disputed, or anything found whose owner is
unknown, must wait “till Elijah comes.”[1848] The view that he will anoint the
Messiah,[1849] and raise the dead,[1850] is also found in single instances.
Besides Elijah, the prophet like Moses, who is promised Deuteronomy 18:15 (John
1:21; John 6:14; John 7:40), was expected by many, while by others this passage
was applied to the Messiah Himself. Allusions are also found in the New
Testament to other prophets as forerunners of the Messiah, as e.g. Jeremiah
(Matthew 16:14). In Christian authorities a return of Enoch is also spken of
(Ev. Nicodemi, c. 25, and the patristic exegetes on Revelation 11:3).[1851]
[1845] Comp. Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae, ii. 533 sqq. Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on
Matthew 17:10. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 58-68. Gfrörer, Das
Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 227-229. Alexandre, Oracula Sibyllina (1st ed.), ii.
513-516. S. K., Der Prophet Elia in der Legende (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und
Wissensch. des Judenth. 1863, pp. 241-255, 281-296). “Elias who was to come”
(Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, new series, vol. x. 1867, pp.
371-376). Renan, L’Antichrist. Castelli, Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, pp.
196-201. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theologie, pp. 337-339. [1846]
Commodian. Carmen apologet. v. 826 sq. Orac. Sibyll. 2:187-190 (of Christian
origin):— [1847] Edujoth viii. 7. [1848] Baba mezia iii. 4, 5, i. 8, ii. 8.
Comp. also Shekalim ii. 5, fin. [1849] Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 8: Χριστὸς δὲ
εἰ καὶ γεγένηται καὶ ἔστι που, ἄγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται
οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα, μέχρις ἂν ἐλθὼν Ἠλίας χρίσῃ αὐτὸν καὶ φανερὸν πᾶσι
ποιήσῃ. Ibid. c. 49: Καὶ γὰρ πάντες ἡμεῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων
προσδοκῶμεν γενήσεσθαι καὶ τὸν Ἠλίαν χρίσαι αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα. Comp. also John 1:31.
[1850] Sota ix. 15 (quite at the end): “The resurrection of the dead comes
through the prophet Elijah. The expectation is founded on the fact, that Elijah
figures in the Old Testament as a raiser of the dead.” [1851] Comp. Philo, Cod.
Apocr. Nov. Test. pp. 756-768, and the commentaries on John 11:3. Καὶ τόθʼ ὁ
Θεσβίτης γε, ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ ἅρμα τιταίνων Οὐράνιον, γαίῃ δʼ ἐπιβάς, τότε σήματα
τρισσὰ Κόσμῳ ὅλῳ δείξει τε ἀπολλυμένου βιότοιο 3. The appearing of the Messiah.
After these preparations the Messiah will appear. For it is by no means the
case, that pre-Christian Judaism did not expect the Messiah till after the
judgment, and that it was under the influence of Christianity, that the notion
of the Messiah Himself sitting in judgment upon His enemies was first found. For
not only in Baruch and Ezra, not only in the figurative addresses of the Book of
Enoch and in the Targums (where perhaps Christian influence might be admitted),
but also in the oldest Sibyll (3:652-656), in the Psalter of Solomon (17:24, 26,
27, 31, 38, 39, 41), and in Philo (De praemiis et poenis, § 16), and thus in
decidedly pre-Christian documents, does Messiah appear for the overthrow of the
ungodly powers. And the opposite view, that He will not appear till after the
judgment, is found only in a solitary instance, viz. in the groundwork of the
Book of Enoch (90:16-38). Hence His appearing must undoubtedly be spoken of in
this place. First with regard to his name as the appointed King of Israel and
the anointed of God, he is most frequently called the Anointed, the Messiah
(Enoch 48:10, 52:4; Apocal. Baruch 29:3, 30:1, 39:7, 40:1, 70:9, 72:2; Ezra
7:28, 29, where the Latin translation is interpolated; Ezra 12:32: Unctus);
Greek, Χριστὸς κυρίου (Psalt. Solom. 17:36, 18:6, 8); Hebr. הַמָּשִׁיחַ (Mishna,
Berachoth i. 5); Aramaic, מְשִׁיחָא (Mishna, Sota ix. 15); or מַלְכָּא מְשִׁיחָא
(both frequently in the Targums). The designation—the Son of man—which arose
from appropriating directly to the Messiah, the image in Daniel of one coming in
the clouds of heaven in the form of a man, but which, according to the context
in Daniel, signifies the church and kingdom of God, is peculiar to the
figurative addresses of the Book of Enoch (46:1-4, 48:2, 62:7, 9, 14, 63:11,
69:26, 27, 70:1). Inasmuch as the Messiah is the chosen instrument of God, and
the love of God rests upon Him, He is called the Elect (Enoch 45:3, 4, 49:2,
51:3, 5, 52:6, 9, 53:6, 55:4, 61:8, 62:1), or like the theocratic king in the
Old Testament, the Son of God (Enoch 105:2; 4 Ezra 7:28, 29, 13:32, 37, 52,
14:9). In Enoch the title Son of the Woman once occurs, perhaps as a Christian
interpolation, Enoch 62:5. It was universally acknowledged, on the ground of Old
Testament prophecy,[1852] that He would proceed from the race of David (Psalt.
Solom. 17:5, 23; Matthew 22:42; Mark 12:35; Luke 20:41; John 7:42; 4 Ezra
12:32;[1853] Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15).
Hence, Son of David is a usual title of the Messiah (frequently in the New
Testament υἱὸς Δαυίδ; in Targum Jonathan on Hosea 3:5, בַּר דָּיִד; in the
Shemoneh Esreh, 15th Berachah, צֶמַח דָּוִד). As Davidic He was also to be born
in Bethlehem, the town of David (Micah 5:1 with the Targum; Matthew 2:5; John
7:41-42). [1852] Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 11:10; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 30:9;
Jeremiah 33:15; Jeremiah 33:17; Jeremiah 33:22; Ezekiel 34:23 f., 37:24 f.;
Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11; Micah 5:1; Zechariah 12:8. [1853] The words, qui orietur
ex semine David, are indeed wanting in the Latin translation, but are to be
regarded as original according to the unanimous testimony of the Oriental
versions. Whether pre-Christian Judaism regarded the Messiah as simply human, or
as a being of a higher order, and especially whether it attributed to him
pre-existence, cannot, with the uncertainty about the dates of authorities, be
positively decided.[1854] The original Messianic hope did not expect an
individual Messiah at all, but theocratic kings of the house of David.[1855]
Subsequently the hope was consolidated and raised more and more into the
expectation of a personal Messiah as a ruler endowed by God with special gifts
and powers. In the time of Christ this form had at all events long been the
prevailing one. But this naturally implies that the picture would more and more
acquire superhuman features. The more exceptional the position awarded to the
Messiah, the more does He Himself step forth from ordinary human limits. In the
freedom with which the religious circle of ideas moved, this was effected in a
very different fashion. In general however the Messiah was thought of as a human
king and ruler, but as one endowed by God with special gifts and powers. This is
especially evident in the Solomonian Psalter. He here appears as altogether a
human king (17:23, 47), but a righteous one (17:35), free from sin and holy
(17:41, 46), endowed by the Holy Ghost with power, wisdom and righteousness
(17:42). It is the same view, only briefly expressed, which designates him as
ἁγνὸς ἄναξ (Orac. Sibyll. 3:49). Elsewhere, on the other hand, even
pre-existence is ascribed to him, and his whole appearing raised more to the
superhuman. So especially in the figurative addresses in the Book of
Enoch.[1856] It must not indeed be reckoned in this respect, that he is, as
already mentioned, called the Son of God. For the official predicate tells us
nothing at all of His nature; nor does His designation in Enoch as the Son of
man of itself tell us anything. The whole view of His person is however in both
the above-named works one essential super-natural. In the figurative addresses
in the Book of Enoch, it is said of Him: He was (before his manifestation on
earth) hidden and kept with God (46:1, 2, 62:7). His name was named before the
Lord of spirits, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars
were made (48:3).[1857] He was chosen and was hidden with God before the world
was created, and will be with Him to eternity (48:6). His countenance is as the
appearance of a man, and full of grace, like one of the holy angels (46:1). It
is he, who has righteousness, with whom righteousness dwells, and who reveals
all the treasures of that which is concealed, because the Lord of spirits has
chosen him, and his lot before the Lord of spirits has surpassed everything
through uprightness for ever (46:3). His glory is from eternity to eternity, and
his power from generation to generation. In him dwells the spirit of wisdom, and
the spirit of Him who gives knowledge, and the spirit of instruction and
strength, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness. And
he will judge the hidden things, and no one will be able to hold vain discourse
before him, for he is chosen before the Lord of spirits according to his good
pleasure (49:2-4). In essential agreement with this are the expressions of the
fourth Book of Ezra. Compare especially 12:32: Hic est Unctus, quem reservavit
Altissimus in finem; and 13:24: Ipse est, quem conservat Altissimus multis
temporibus. As his pre-existence is here expressly taught, so is it presupposed
when it is promised to Ezra, that after his admission into heaven he will return
with the Messiah (tu enim recipieris ab hominibus, et converteris residuum cum
filio meo et cum similibus tuis, usquequo finiantur tempora). And quite in
accordance with Enoch is his pre-existence designated as a state of concealment
with God (13:52): Sicut non potest hoc vel scrutinare vel scire quis, quid sit
in profundo maris, sic non poterit quisque super terram videre filium meum, vel
eos qui cum eo sunt, nisi in tempore diei. It has been in many respects
attempted, but hardly with justice, to refer this entire series of thought to
Christian influences. It is indeed perfectly comprehensible from Old Testament
premises. Such expressions as Micah 5:2, that the origins of Messiah are from of
old, from the days of eternity (מִקֶּרֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם), might easily be
understood in the sense of a pre-existence from eternity. Besides, the passage
Daniel 7:13-14 need only be understood of the person of the Messiah and taken
literally, and the doctrine of the pre-existence is already stated. For it is
self-evident, that he who comes down from heaven, was before in heaven. This
view was favoured by the fact that the whole course of the development tended
towards the notion, that everything truly valuable previously existed in
heaven.[1858] On the other hand, many traces show that post-Christian Judaism,
far from elevating the person of the Messiah, under Christian influence to the
supernatural, strongly emphasized the human side in opposition to Christianity.
We need only recall the saying in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, c. 49: πάντες
ἡμεῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων προσδοκῶμεν γενήσεσθαι. And akin with
this is a Talmudic passage Jer. Taanith ii. 1 (given by Oehler, ix. 437, 2nd ed.
667): “R. Abbahu said: If a man says to thee—I am God, he lies; I am the Son of
man, he will at last repent it; I ascend to heaven, if he said it he will not
prove it.” Thus it was just the humanity upon which post-Christian Judaism
strongly insisted. And so much the less cause have we to refer the view of the
pre-existence to Christian influence. [1854] For later Judaism, comp. Bertholdt,
Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 86-147. De Wette, Biblische Dogmatik, pp. 169-171.
Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 292-300. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc.
ix. 437 sq. (2nd ed. ix. 666 sq.). Castelli. Il Messia secondo gli Ebrei, pp.
202-215. Weber, System der altsynagogalen paläst. Theologie, p. 339 ff.
Hamburger, Real-Enc., art. “Messias,” pp. 738-765. [1855] The promise of a king
of David’s house “for ever” means, in the first place, only that the dynasty
should not die out. Thus e.g. the Maccabean Simon was chosen by the people as
ruler and high priest “for ever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 1Ma_14:41), i.e. the government
and high-priesthood were declared hereditary in his family. [1856] Comp.
Hellwag, Theol. Jahrb. 1848, pp. 151-160. [1857] Comp. Targum Jonathan on
Zechariah 4:7 : The Messiah whose name was named before eternity. [1858] See
above, p. 134, and Harnack on Hermas, Vis. ii. 4. 1 (according to Hermas the
Christian Church was pre-existent). In the Old Testament a heavenly model of the
tabernacle and its vessels is already assumed (Exodus 25:9; Exodus 25:40; Exodus
26:30; Exodus 27:8; Numbers 8:4). Concerning the time of Messiah’s appearing the
later Rabbis made all manner of ingenious computations.[1859] The view that the
present world would last six thousand years, corresponding to the six days of
creation, because one day is with God as a thousand years, seems to have been
pretty widely disseminated.[1860] But the date of the advent of Messiah seems
under this presupposition to have been very variously computed, according as his
days were identified with the future עוֹלם or still reckoned in the present
עוֹלָם (comp. below, No. 9). According to the former and older view, the
Messianic period would begin after the lapse of the sixth thousand (so Barnabas,
Irenaeus and others). On the latter supposition (that the days of the Messiah
belonged to the present עוֹלָם), the present course of the world was divided
into three periods: 2000 years without law, 2000 years under the law, and 2000
years of the Messianic period. According to this computation the time appointed
for the Messiah’s advent had already arrived, but he could not yet appear
because of the transgressions of the people.[1861] This latter was, at least in
rigidly legal circles, the general view: the Messiah cannot come until the
people repent and perfectly fulfil the law. “If all Israel would together repent
for a whole day, the redemption by Messiah would ensue.” If Israel would only
keep two Sabbaths properly, we should be immediately redeemed.[1862] [1859]
Sanhedrin 96b-97a, fully given in Delitzsch’s Commentar zum Briefe an die
Hebräer, pp. 762-764, and in Castelli, Il Messia, p. 297 sqq. Comp. Weber,
System, p. 334 sq. [1860] Barnabas, c. 15; Irenaeus, v. 28. 3, and Hilgenfeld’s
and Harnack’s notes to Barnabas, c. 15. [1861] See Delitzsch and Weber as above
(Sanhedrin 97a; Aboda sara 9a). [1862] See Weber, System, p. 333 sq. The manner
of Messiah’s advent is represented as sudden all at once he is there and appears
as a victorious ruler. As on the other hand it is assumed, that he is born as a
child in Bethlehem, the two views are combined by the admission, that he will at
first live in concealment and then suddenly come forth from concealment.[1863]
Therefore the Jews say in John 7:27 : ὁ Χριστὸς ὅταν ἔρχηται, οὐδεὶς γινώσκει
πόθεν ἐστίν. And in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone it is just on this account
that the possibility, that Messiah may have already been born, is left open to
the representative of the Jewish view.[1864] It is related in the Jerusalem
Talmud, that the Messiah was born on the day the temple was destroyed, but some
time after carried away from his mother by a tempest.[1865] In the Targum on
Micah 4:8 also, it is assumed that he is already present, but still concealed,
and that because of the sins of the people. In later writers is found the view
that he would proceed from Rome.[1866] The belief that he would at his advent
authenticate himself by miracles was universal (Matthew 11:4 sqq.; Luke 7:22
sqq.; John 7:31). [1863] Comp. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on John 7:27. Gfrörer,
Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 223-225. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 438
(2nd ed. ix. 668). Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p. 293 sq. Weber, System, p.
342 sqq. [1864] Dial. c. Tryph. c. 8: Χριστὸς δὲ εἰ καὶ γεγένηται καὶ ἔστι που,
ἀγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα. Ibid.
c. 110: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐληλυθέναι λέγουσιν, οὐ γινώσκεται ὅς ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἐμφανὴς
καὶ ἔνδοξος γένηται, τότε γνωσθήσεται ὅς ἐστι, φασί. [1865] See the whole
passage in Lightfoot’s Horae on Matthew 2:1. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p.
279 sq. [1866] Targum Jerushalmi on Ex. 13:42 and Bab. Sanhedrin 98a. The latter
passage is given in Delitzsch’s Commentar zum Hebrderbrief, p. 117, and in
Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias (1870), p. 57 sq. 4. Last attack of the hostile
powers.[1867] After the appearing of the Messiah, the heathen powers will
assemble against him for a last attack. This expectation too was suggested by
Old Testament passages, especially by Daniel 11. It is very plainly expressed
Orac. Sibyll. 3:663 sqq. and 4 Ezra 13:33 sqq., also in Enoch 90:16, only that
here it is not an attack against Messiah, but against the people of God. It is
frequently held, that this last attack takes place under the leadership of a
chief adversary of the Messiah, of an “Antichrist” (the name is in the N. T. in
the Johannean Epistles, 1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7; the
thing in Apoc. Baruch c. 40; 2 Thessalonians 2; Revelation 13).[1868] In later
Rabbinic authorities the enigmatical name Armilus (ארמילוס) occurs for this
chief adversary of the people of Israel.[1869] The reappearance of Gog and Magog
is also expected on the ground of Ezekiel 38-39, but as a rule not till after
the close of the Messianic kingdom, as a last manifestation of the ungodly
powers (Revelation 20:8-9).[1870] [1867] See Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, pp.
296-308. For the O. T. Herm. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie (2nd ed.
1878), p. 696. [1868] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 69-74.
Gesenius, art. “Antichrist,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Enc. sec. i. vol. iv. (1820)
p. 292 sq. Hausrath in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 137 sq. Kähler in Herzog’s
Real-Enc., 2nd ed. i. 446 sqq. For the history of the Christian doctrine, the
chief work is Malvenda, De Antichristo, Romae 1604. [1869] Buxtorf, Lex. Chald.
col. 221-224, s.v. ארמילוס. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum (1700), ii.
704-715. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 72 sq. (art. “Armilus”). Castelli, Il Messia,
p. 239 sqq. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 282, also pp.
130, 140. [1870] Comp. Orac. Sibyll. 3:319 sqq., 512 sqq. Mishna, Edujoth ii.
10. The commentaries on Revelation 20:8-9. The articles on Gog and Magog in the
Bible Dictionaries (Schenkel, Winer, Riehm) and in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed.
v. 263-265. Uhlemann on Gog and Magog (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1862,
pp. 265-286). Renan, L’Antichrist. Weber, System, p. 396 sqq. 5. Destruction of
the Hostile Powers.[1871] The destruction of the hostile powers takes place
according to Old Testament prediction by means of a great judgment, inflicted by
God Himself upon His adversaries.[1872] This view is most faithfully adhered to
in the Assumptio Mosis, the tenth chapter of which in many respects recalls Joel
chaps, 3 and 4 Closely akin to it is the statement in the groundwork of the Book
of Enoch, inasmuch as here too God Himself destroys the power of the heathen
nations (90:18, 19) and then sits in judgment, at which judgment however only
the fallen and disobedient angels and the apostate Israelites (the blinded
sheep) are condemned (90:20-27), while the heathen nations submit to the people
of God (90:30). The Messiah, who is altogether absent in the Assumptio Mosis,
here first appears after the judgment (90:37). It is common to both, that it is
God Himself who sits in judgment. The ordinary notion however was, that the
Messiah would destroy the hostile powers. Already in the oldest Sibyllist (3:652
sqq.) he appears “to put an end to all war upon earth, killing some and
fulfilling the promises given to others.” In Philo (De praem. et poen. § 16) it
is said of him, that he “takes the field and makes war and will subdue great and
populous nations.” Still more clearly does he appear in the Psalterium Salomonis
as the conqueror of the heathen adversaries of God’s people, and it is here
specially noteworthy, that he overthrows his enemies by the mere word of his
mouth (ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ, according to Isaiah 11:4). In entire agreement
with these older types is the destruction of the heathen world-powers
represented in the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra as the first
act of the Messiah, when he appears (Apoc. Baruch 39:7-40:2, 70:9, 72:2-6; 4
Ezra 12:32, 33, 13:27, 28, 35-38). The only difference is, that, according to
the fourth Book of Ezra, this destruction results from a sentence of God’s
anointed (13:28: non tenebat frameam neque vas bellicosum; 13:28: perdet eos
sine labore per legem), while in the Apocalypse of Baruch although forensic
forms are spoken of, yet weapons of war are also mentioned (the former 40:1, 2,
the latter 72:6). Still more decidedly than in the fourth Book of Ezra, is the
judgment of the Messiah upon an ungodly world described as purely forensic in
the figurative addresses in the Book of Enoch. One might indeed feel tempted to
ascribe to this book also the view of a war of extermination, since it is said
of the Son of man, chap. 46:4-6, that he stirs up the kings and the mighty ones
from their beds, loosens the bridles of the powerful and breaks the teeth of
sinners; that he thrusts kings from their thrones and out of their kingdoms, and
(52:4-9) that nothing on earth is able to resist his power. “There will be no
iron for war, nor coat of mail; brass will be of no avail, and tin will be of no
avail and will be of no esteem, and lead will not be desired.” But in other
places it is repeatedly said, that the elect, the Son of man, will sit upon the
throne of His glory to judge men and angels (45:3, 55:4, 69:27, 61:8, 9). In the
chief passage also, chap. 62., the judgment is described in purely forensic
forms. The Lord of spirits sits upon the throne of his glory (62:2), and the Son
of the woman, the Son of man, sits upon the throne of his glory (62:5 sqq.). And
the kings and mighty ones of the earth are struck when they see him with fear
and terror, and extol and praise and supplicate him, and entreat mercy from him
(62:4-9). But the Lord of spirits will reject them, so that they will speedily
flee before his face, and their faces be filled with shame. And the avenging
angels will receive them, to exercise retribution upon them, for having
ill-treated his children and his elect (62:10, 11). Finally, we again find in
the Targums the view, that the Messiah overcomes his enemies in battle, as a
mighty hero. So in Jonathan on Isaiah 10:27 : “The nations are crushed by the
Messiah;” and especially in Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerushalmi on Genesis 49:11 :
“How beautiful is King Messiah, who will proceed from the house of Judah. He
girds his loins and enters the field and sets the battle in array against his
foes and kills kings.” We just see from all this, that the general idea of a
destruction of the anti-godly powers by the Messiah is fashioned very variously
as to its particulars.[1873] Not till after the destruction of the ungodly can
the Messianic age appear, For “as long as there are sinners in the world, so
long does the wrath of God endure, but as they disappear from the world the
divine wrath also vanishes.”[1874] [1871] Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des
Heils, ii. 232-234. [1872] See in general, Knobel, Der Prophetismus der Hebräer,
i. 325 sq. [1873] In a passage of the Babylonian Talmud (Sukka 52a) and
frequently afterwards, the destruction of the hostile powers is represented not
as the task of the Messiah proper, but as that of a subordinate Messiah, of
“Messiah the son of Joseph” (משיה בן יוסף). He is also called “Messiah the son
of of Ephraim,” and is therefore the Messiah of the ten tribes, and has only the
comparatively subordinate task of fighting against the ungodly powers, in which
fight he will fall, while the Messiah, the son of David, will set up the kingdom
of glory. Compare on this very recent view, Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum,
pp. 75-81. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 258 sqq. Oehler in Herzog’s
Real-Enc. ix. 440 (2nd ed. ix. 669 sq.). Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, pp.
109-121. Castelli, Il Messia, pp. 224-236, 342 sqq. Drummond, The Jewish
Messiah, p. 356 sqq. Weber, System, p. 346 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 767-770
(art. “Messias Sohn Joseph”). [1874] Mishna, Sanhedrin x. 6, fin. 6. Renovation
of Jerusalem.[1875] Since the Messianic kingdom is to be set up in the Holy Land
(comp. e.g. 4 Ezra 9:9), Jerusalem itself must first of all be renovated. This
was however expected in diverse manners. In the simplest it was regarded only as
a purification of the holy city, especially “from the heathen, who now tread it
under foot” (Psalt. Salom. 17:25, 33). After the destruction of Jerusalem it
took the form of a rebuilding and indeed of a rebuilding “to an eternal
building” (Shemoneh Esreh, 14th Berachah). With this is however found the view,
that already in the pre-Messianic time a far more glorious Jerusalem than the
earthly exists with God in heaven, and that this will, at the commencement of
the Messianic age, descend to earth. The Old Testament foundation for this hope
is especially Ezekiel 40-48, also Isaiah 54:11 sqq., Isa 60; Haggai 2:7-9;
Zechariah 2:6-13; the new Jerusalem described in these passages being conceived
of as now already existing in heaven. This ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ (Galatians 4:26),
Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος (Hebrews 12:22) καινὴ Ἱερουσαλήμ (Revelation 3:12;
Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10) is also, as is well known, often spoken of in
the New Testament; comp. also Test. Dan. c. 5: ἡ νέα Ἱερουσαλήμ. According to
the Apocalypse of Baruch, this heavenly Jerusalem was originally in Paradise
before Adam sinned. But when he transgressed the command of God, it was taken
from him, as was also Paradise, and preserved in heaven. It was afterwards shown
in a vision of the night to Abraham, and also to Moses upon Mount Sinai (Apoc.
Bar 4:2-6). Ezra too saw it in a vision (4 Ezra 10:44-44). This new and glorious
Jerusalem is then to appear on earth in the place of the old one, which it will
far surpass in pomp and beauty, Enoch 53:6, 90:28, 29; 4 Ezra 7:26. Comp. also
Apoc. Baruch 32:4. [1875] Comp. Schoettgen, De Hierosolyma coelesti (Horae
Hebraicae, i. 1205-1248). Meuschen, Nov. Test, ex Talmude illustratum, p. 199
sq. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Galatians 4:26. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum,
ii. 839 sqq. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 217-221. Gfrörer, Das
Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 245 sqq., 308. Weber, System, p. 356 sqq. 7.
Gathering of the Dispersed.[1876] That the dispersed of Israel would share in
the Messianic kingdom, and for this purpose return to Palestine, was so
self-evident, that this hope would have been cherished even without the definite
predictions of the Old Testament. The Psalterium Salomonis (Psalms 11)
poetically describes how the dispersed of Israel will assemble from the west and
east, from the north and from the Isles, and come to Jerusalem. The Greek Book
of Baruch expresses a partly verbal agreement with the Psalt. Sal. (4:36, 37,
5:5-9). Philo sees the dispersed under the leadership of a divine appearance
coming from all quarters to Jerusalem (De exsecrationibus, § 8-9). The
prediction too of Isaiah, that the heathen nations shall themselves bring the
dispersed as an offering to the temple (Isaiah 49:22; Isaiah 60:4; Isaiah 60:9;
Isaiah 66:20) reappears in the Psalt. Salom. (17:34), while the gathering is at
the same time described as the work of the Messiah (Psalt. Salom. 17:28.
Jonathan on Jeremiah 33:13). According to the fourth Book of Ezra, the ten
tribes departed into a hitherto uninhabited country called Azareth (so the Latin
version) or Arzaph (finis mundi, so the Syrian), that they might there observe
their laws.[1877] Thence will they return at the commencement of the Messianic
period, and the Most High will dry up the sources of the Euphrates, that they
may pass over (4 Ezra 13:39-47). With this universal hope of the gathering of
the dispersed, it is striking, that the return of the ten tribes is altogether
doubted by individuals like R. Akiba.[1878] From the daily prayer however of the
Shemoneh Esreh: “Lift up a banner to gather our dispersed and assemble us from
the four ends of the earth,” it is seen that such doubts were confined to
individuals. [1876] Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 235-238. The
sequence is: (1) the renovation of Jerusalem; (2) the gathering of the
Dispersed, according to the Sohar in Gfrörer, ii. 217, above. [1877] Azareth =
ארץ אחרת, terra alia (4 Ezra 13:40); the Hebrew expression in Deuteronomy 29:27,
which passage is in the Mishna referred to the ten tribes (see the next note).
This undoubtedly correct explanation was first given by Schiller-Szinessy
(Journal of Philology, vol. iii. 1870), and afterwards by Bensly, The Missing
Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra (1875), p. 28,
note. [1878] Sanhedrin x. 3, fin.; “The ten tribes never more return, for it is
said of them (Deuteronomy 29:27): He will cast them into another land as this
day. Hence as this day passes away and does not return, so shall they pass away
and not return. So R. Akiba. But R. Elieser says: As the day grows darker and
then light again, so will it some day be light again with the ten tribes, with
whom it is now dark.” 8. The kingdom of glory in Palestine. The Messianic
kingdom will indeed have the Messianic King at its head, but its supreme ruler
is God Himself (comp. e.g. Orac. Sibyll. 3:704-706, 717, 756-759; Psalt. Salom.
17:1, 38, 51; Shemoneh Esreh, 11th Berachah. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 1). With
the setting up of this kingdom, the idea of God’s kingship over Israel becomes
full reality and truth. God is indeed already the King of Israel. He does not
however exercise His kingship to its full extent, but on the contrary
temporarily exposes His people to the heathen world-powers, to chastise them for
their sins. In the glorious future kingdom He again takes the government into
His own hand. Hence it is called in contrast to the heathen kingdoms, the
kingdom of God (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, in the New Testament, especially in Mark and
Luke. Sibyll. 3:47, 48: βασιλεία μεγίστη ἀθανάτου βασιλῆος. Comp. Psalt. Salom.
17:4; Assumptio Mosis 10:1, 3). Of similar meaning is the expression occurring
in Matthew, βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, “kingdom of heaven.”[1879] For “heaven” here
is, according to a very current Jewish expression, a metonymy for God. It is the
kingdom, which is governed not by earthly powers, but by heaven.[1880] [1879]
Comp. on this expression, Schoettgen, De regno coelorum (Horae Hebraicae, i.
1147-1152). Lightfoot, Horae on Matthew 3:2. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew
3:2. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 187-192. De Wette, Biblische
Dogmatik, pp. 175-177. Tholuck, Bergpredigt, p. 66 sq. Fritzsche, Evangelium
Matthaei, p. 109 sqq. (where still more literature is given). Kuinoel on Matthew
3:2. The Commentaries in general on Matthew 3:2. Wichelhaus, Commentar zu der
Leidensgeschichte (1855), p. 284 sqq. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, ii. 33 sqq. Schürer,
Der Begriff des Himmelreiches aus jüdischen Quellen erläutert (Jahrb. für prot.
Theol. 1876, pp. 166-187). Cremer, Bibl.-theol. Wörterb. s.v. βασιλεία. Also
Theol. Litztg. 1883, p. 581. [1880] I have shown in the article quoted (Jahrb.
für prot. Theol. 1876, p. 166 sqq.) how current this metonymy was in Judaism in
the time of Christ. The formula מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִּם in particular frequently
occurs, certainly not as a rule with the meaning of “kingdom of heaven,” but as
abstractum “the kingship, the government of heaven,” i.e. the rule of God (e.g.
Mishna, Berachoth ii. 2, 5). But just here there can be no doubt that שמים
stands metonymically for “God.” So much the stranger is it, to dispute the
correctness of this meaning, where βασιλεία stands as concretum (with the
signification “kingdom”); for the genitive τῶν οὐρανῶν remains the same, whether
βασιλεία means “the kingship,” or “the kingdom.” If accidentally the expression
מלכות שמים, not meaning “the kingdom of heaven,” should occur in Rabbinic
literature, this would be sufficiently explained by the fact that the Rabbis
seldom speak of the “kingdom of God” at all. They say instead “the days of
Messiah” or “the עולם to come,” or the like. It seems however, that the
expression does nevertheless occur with the meaning in question, so especially
Pesikta (ed. Buber) p. 51a: הגיע זמנה של מלכות, הגיע זמנה של מלכות הרשעה שתעקר
מן העולם שמים שתגלה, “The time of tlie ungodly Malkuth is come, that it should
be rooted out of the world; the time of the Malkuth of heaven is come, that it
should be revealed.” The same passage also in Midrash rabba on the Song of
Solomon (in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. מלכות). Comp. also Weber, System, p.
349. Cremer, Biblisch-theol. Wörterb. s.v. βασιλεία (3rd ed. p. 162). The Holy
Land forms the central point of this kingdom. Hence “to inherit the land” is
equivalent to having part in the Messianic kingdom.[1881] But it is not confined
to the limits of Palestine; on the contrary, it is as a rule conceived of as in
some way or other comprising the whole world.[1882] Already, in the Old
Testament, it was predicted that the Gentiles too should acknowledge the God of
Israel as the supreme Judge (Isaiah 2:2 sqq.; Micah 4:1 sqq., Micah 7:16 sq.),
be converted to Him (Isaiah 42:1-6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 51:4-5; Jeremiah 3:17;
Jeremiah 16:19 sq.; Zephaniah 2:11; Zephaniah 3:9; Zechariah 8:20 sqq.), and be
consequently admitted into the theocracy (Isaiah 55:5; Isaiah 56:1 sqq.;
Jeremiah 12:14; Zech. 2:15), so that Jahveh is King over the whole earth
(Zechariah 14:9) and the Messiah a banner for all nations (Isaiah 11:10). Most
decidedly is power over all the kingdoms of the world promised in the Book of
Daniel to the saints of the Most High (Daniel 2:14; Daniel 7:14; Daniel 7:27).
This hope was also stedfastly adhered to by later Judaism, though in a different
manner. According to the Sibyllines the heathen, when they see the quiet and
peace of God’s people, will of themselves come to reason, and praise and
celebrate the only true God, send gifts to His temple and walk after His laws
(Orac. Sibyll. 3:698-726). Then will God set up a kingdom over all men, in which
the prophets of God are judges and righteous kings (3:766-783). According to
Philo the pious and virtuous receive the rule over the world, because they
possess the three qualities, which especially make men competent to be rulers,
viz. σεμνότης, δεινότης and εὐεργεσία. And other men submit to them through
αἰδώς or φόβος or εὔνοια (De praem. et poen. § 16). Elsewhere the rule of the
saints appears more as one founded on power. The heathen do homage to the
Messiah, because they perceive that God has given him power (Enoch 90:30, 37.
Figurative addressee, xlviii, 5, liii. 1; Psalt. Salom. 17:32-35; Sibyll. 3:49:
ἁγνὸς ἄναξ πάσης γῆς σκῆπτρα κρατήσων. Apoc. Baruch 72:5. Targum on Zechariah
4:7 : The Messiah will rule over all kingdoms). This notion conies forward in
the most one-sided form in the Assumptio Mosis, whose author desires nothing
more ardently, than that Israel should tread upon the neck of the eagle (10:8:
tunc felix eris tu Istrahel, et ascendes supra cervices et alas aquilae).
According to the Book of Jubilees (Ewald’s Jahrb. vol. iii. p. 42) it was
already promised to Jacob, that kings should go forth from him, who should rule,
wherever the children of men had trodden. “And I will give unto thy seed the
whole earth, which is under heaven, and they shall rule at their pleasure over
all nations, and afterwards they shall draw to themselves the whole earth and
inherit it for ever” (comp. also Romans 4:13, and its expositors, especially
Wetzstein). [1881] Kiddushin i. 10. Comp. Matthew 5:5 (ed. Tischendorf, v. 4).
[1882] See Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 219 sq., 238-242. Weber,
System, p. 364 sqq. The Messianic period is moreover described, and that mostly
on the ground of Old Testament passages, as one of joy and gladness.[1883] All
war, strife, discord and quarrels shall cease, and peace, righteousness, love
and faithfulness prevail upon earth (Orac. Sibyll. 3:371-380, 751-760. Philo, De
praem. et poen. § 16; Apoc. Baruch 73:4, 5). The wild beasts also will lose
their enmity to man and serve him (Sibyll. 3:620-623, 743-750; Apoc. Baruch
29:5-8). Wealth and prosperity will prevail among men (Philo, De praem. et poen.
§ 17-18). The age of man will increase to near upon a thousand years, and yet
men will neither be old nor weary of life, but like children and youths
(“Jubilees” in Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 24). All will rejoice in bodily health and
strength. Women will bring forth without pain, and the reaper will not weary at
his work (Philo, De praem. et poen. § 20. Apoc. Baruch 73:2, 3, 7, 74:1).[1884]
[1883] Comp. Knobel, Prophetismus der Hebräer, i. 321 sqq. Gfrörer, Das
Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 242-252. Hamburger, Real-Enc. p. 770 sqq. (art.
“Messiaszeit”). [1884] Sometimes this future glory is also represented under the
figure of a feast (סְעוּדָה), which God prepares for the righteous. See
Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, ii. 872-889. Corrodi, Kritische Geschichte
des Chiliasmus, i. 329 sqq. Bertholdt, De Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 196-199.
Hamburger, Real-Enc. p. 1312 sqq. (art “Zukunftemahl”). Comp. Matthew 8:11; Luke
13:29. These external blessings are not however the only ones. On the contrary,
they result from the fact, that the Messianic Church is a holy nation, which God
has sanctified, and which the Messiah governs in righteousness. He suffers no
unrighteousness to remain in its midst, and there is not a man in it who knows
wickedness. There is no unrighteousness among His people, for they are all holy
(Psalt. Salom. 17:28, 29, 36, 48, 49, 18:9, 10). Life in the Messianic kingdom
is a continual λατρεύειν θεῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (Luke
1:74-75). And the rule of Messiah over the heathen world is by no means
conceived of as resting only on power, but frequently in such wise, that he is a
light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 51:4; Enoch 48:4; Luke
2:32. Comp. especially the already mentioned passages of the Sibyllines,
3:710-726). An Israelite being unable to conceive of a λατρεύειν θεῷ otherwise
than in the form of the temple worship and the observance of the law, it is in
truth self-evident, that these are not to cease in the Messianic kingdom. In
fact this is at least the prevailing view.[1885] Hence after the destruction of
the temple the daily prayer of the Israelite is for the restoration of the
sacrificial ritual (עֲבוֹדָה).[1886] [1885] For farther particulars, see Weber,
System, p. 359 sqq. Castelli, Il Messia, p. 277 sqq. [1886] Shemnneh Esreh, 17th
Berachah (see above, p. 87). Comp. also the Passover liturgy, Pesachim x. 6. In
this glorious future kingdom not only the dispersed members of the nation, but
also all deceased Israelites are to participate. They will come forth from their
graves to enjoy, with those of their fellow-countrymen who are then living, the
happiness of Messiah’s kingdom.[1887] [1887] Stähelin (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol.
1874, p. 199 sqq.) does not seem to me right in keeping the Messianic hope and
the hope of a resurrection as far apart as possible, nay in supposing that there
was originally no connection between them. In Daniel 12:2 and Psalt. Salom. 3:16
this connection is umnistakeable. For if in both passages it is said that the
just shall rise “to eternal life,” this life can, according to the sphere of
thought in both books, mean only life in the Messianic kingdom. The two books
know nothing of any other ζωή. Comp. also Enoch 51:1-5. The course of
development too seems to me just the reverse of that, which Stähelin lays down.
The hope of a resurrection and the Messianic hope were not originally
independent of, and subsequently combined with, each other. But, on the
contrary, from the hope of sharing in the Messianic kingdom, first arose the
hope of a bodily resurrection, and afterwards life during Messiah’s reign and
ζωὴ αἰώνιος were separated the one from the other. The eschatological
expectations of many terminate with this hope of a kingdom of glory in
Palestine, seeing its duration is conceived of as everlasting. As Old Testament
prophecy had promised to the people of Israel that they should dwell in the land
for ever (Jeremiah 24:6; Ezekiel 37:25; Joel 4:20), that David’s throne should
never be vacant (Jeremiah 33:17; Jeremiah 33:22), and David should always be the
king of Israel (Ezekiel 37:25), and as, especially in the Book of Daniel, the
kingdom of the saints of the Most High is designated an everlasting one
(מַלְכוּת עָלַם, Daniel 7:27), so also is eternal duration frequently ascribed
to the Messianic kingdom by later writers (Sibyll. 3:766; Psalt. Salom. 17:4;
Sibyll. 3:49-50; Enoch 62:14). Hence too the Jews say in. John 12:34 : Ἡμεῖς
ἠκούσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, showing that this view
was also current in later Jewish theology.[1888] Subsequently however the glory
of the Messianic kingdom was regarded as not ultimate and supreme, but a still
higher and heavenly happiness Was expected after it, and hence a duration
bounded by time,[1889] the measure of which is fully discussed in the
Talmud,[1890] was ascribed to the reign of the Messiah. The Apocalypse of Baruch
and the fourth Book of Ezra, among the more ancient monuments, hold this view
the most decidedly. It is indeed said of the Messiah in the former, c. 73:1,
that He sits in aeternum super throno regni sui. But what is meant by this is
seen from another passage, c. 40:3: Et erit principatus ejus stans in saeculum,
donec finiatur mundus corruptionis. Hence the rule of Messiah lasts only as long
as this transitory world. Similarly it is said in the fourth Book of Ezra
(12:34), that He will redeem and revive the people of God quoadusque veniat
finis, dies judicii. Still farther detail is given in the chief passage, 7:28,
29: Jocundabuntur, qui relicti sunt, annis quadragentis. Et erit post annos hos,
et morietur filius meus Christus et omnes qui spiramentum habent homines.[1891]
The duration of Messiah’s kingdom is by others, and also in the above-named
passage of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 99a), computed at 400 years. From it we also
learn that this computation rests upon Genesis 15:13 (the bondage in Egypt
lasted 400 years) compared with Psalms 90:15 : “Make us glad according to the
days wherein Thou hast afflicted us and the years wherein we have seen evil.”
Thus the time of happiness is to last as long as the time of affliction. A
different calculation is presupposed in the Revelation, the duration being
stated at 1000 years, according to the saying in the Psalm, that one day is with
God as a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6). This computation also is mentioned
in the Talmud.[1892] We see then, that wherever only a temporal duration is
ascribed to the kingdom of the Messiah, a renovation of the world and the last
judgment are expected at the end of this period. [1888] Comp. Bertholdt,
Christolgia Judaeorum, p. 155 sq. [1889] Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des
Heils, ii. 252-256. Renan, L’Antichrist. Weber, System, p. 355 sq. Drummond, pp.
312-318. [1890] Sanhedrin 99a, in Gfrörer, ii. 252 sqq. More fully (Sanhedrin
96b-99a) in Castelli, p. 297 sqq. [1891] The Latin and Arabic translations have
the number 400, the Syrian 30. In the Ethiopic and Armenian the number is
altogether wanting. [1892] Sanhedrin 97a. Comp. Gfrörer, ii. 254. Castelli, p.
300. Drummond, p. 317. Delitzach. Commentar zum Hebräerbrief, p. 763. 9.
Renovation of the world.[1893] The hope of a renovation of heaven and earth is
chiefly based on Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22 (comp. also Matthew 19:28;
Revelation 21:1; 2 Peter 3:13). Accordingly a distinction is made between a
present and a future world, הָעוֹלָם הַזֵּה and הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא,[1894] in the
New Testament frequently: ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος and ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων or ὁ ἐρχόμενος (e.g.
Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). But a difference of view arose, inasmuch
as some made the new world appear with the beginning of Messiah’s reign, while
others placed it after its conclusion. The former is found e.g. in the
figurative discourses of the Book of Enoch (c. 45:4, 5), “And at that day I will
let my elect dwell among you and will change the heaven and make it an eternal
blessing and light. And I will transform the earth and make it a blessing, and
cause my elect to dwell in it” (comp. also 91:16). The latter in the fourth Book
of Ezra, according to which, after the conclusion of the Messianic period, a
deathlike silence of seven days takes place upon earth, which is followed by the
dawn of the new and the setting of the old world (7:30, 31). According to these
different views the Messianic period is either identified with the future or
reckoned as belonging to the present world. The former, e.g. in the Targum of
Jonathan on 1 Kings 4:33 : “The future world of the Messiah” (עַלְמָא דְאָתֵי
דְמְשִׁיחָא), and Mishna, Berachoth i. 5, where the present world (הָעוֹלָם
הַוֶּה) and the days of the Messiah (יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ) are opposed to each
other, and therefore the latter identified with הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. In the fourth
Book of Ezra, on the contrary, the days of the Messiah are reckoned to the
present world, and the future world does not begin till the last judgment, which
follows the close of the Messianic period (see especially 7:42, 43, with which
indeed 6:9 is not easily reconcilable). The book Sifre also distinguishes
between “the days of the Messiah” and “the future world.”[1895] The older and
original view is in any case, that which identifies the days of Messiah with the
future עוֹלָם. For the “future course of the world” is in the first place
nothing else than the future happy Messianic period (so too in the New
Testament). It was not till a higher, a heavenly happiness was hoped for after
the close of the Messianic kingdom, that the Messianic period was reckoned as
belonging to the present Olam, and the renovation of the world not expected to
take place till that period had ended. In later Jewish theology this view became
the prevailing one (for particulars, see the literature named note [1896]
Sometimes a position between this world and the world to come is assigned to the
Messianic period. This is already found in the Apocalypse of Baruch, 74:2, 3:
Tempus illud (the Messianic time) finis est illius quod corrumpitur, et initium
illius quod non corrumpitur. … Ideo longe est a malis, et prope iis quae non
moriuntur. [1893] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, p. 213 sq. Gfrörer,
Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 272-275. The Rabbinic terminus technicus
therefore is חִדּוּשׁ הָעוֹלָם, Buxtorf, Lex. col. 711. Comp. Matthew 19:28 :
παλιγγενεσία. [1894] Mishna, Berachoth i. 5; Peah i. 1; Kiddushin iv. 14; Baba
mezia ii. 11; Sanhedrin x. 1-4; Aboth ii. 7, iv. 1, 16, 17, v. 19; Apocal.
Baruch 44:15, 48:50, 73:5; 4 Ezra 6:9, 7:12, 13, 42, 43, 8:1. Comp. Rhenferdius,
De saeculo futuro (Menschen, Nov. Test, ex Talmude illustratum, 1736, pp.
1116-1171). Witeius, De saeculo hoc et futuro (Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp.
1171-1183). Schoettgen, De saeculo hoc et futuro (Horae Hebraicae, i 1153-1158).
Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on Matthew 12:32. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew
12:32. Koppe, Nov. Test. vol. vi., epist. ad Ephes. Exc. i. Bertholdt,
Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 38-43. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii.
212-217. Bleek, Hebräerbrief, ii. 1, 20 sqq. Riehm, Lehrbegriff des
Hebräerbriefes, i. 204 sqq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 434 sq. (2nd ed.
ix. 664 sq.). Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1866, p. 124. Weber, System, p. 354
sq. [1895] See Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1866, p. 124. [1896] Mishna,
Berachoth i. 5; Peah i. 1; Kiddushin iv. 14; Baba mezia ii. 11; Sanhedrin x.
1-4; Aboth ii. 7, iv. 1, 16, 17, v. 19; Apocal. Baruch 44:15, 48:50, 73:5; 4
Ezra 6:9, 7:12, 13, 42, 43, 8:1. Comp. Rhenferdius, De saeculo futuro (Menschen,
Nov. Test, ex Talmude illustratum, 1736, pp. 1116-1171). Witeius, De saeculo hoc
et futuro (Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1171-1183). Schoettgen, De saeculo hoc et
futuro (Horae Hebraicae, i 1153-1158). Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on Matthew
12:32. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew 12:32. Koppe, Nov. Test. vol. vi.,
epist. ad Ephes. Exc. i. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 38-43. Gfrörer,
Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 212-217. Bleek, Hebräerbrief, ii. 1, 20 sqq.
Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefes, i. 204 sqq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc.
ix. 434 sq. (2nd ed. ix. 664 sq.). Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1866, p. 124.
Weber, System, p. 354 sq. 10. The general resurrection.[1897] A general
resurrection of the dead is to take place before the last judgment. So great a
variety of views with respect to this point, however, prevails in Jewish
theology, that it would lead us too far to enter into details.[1898] Only the
chief points can here be alluded to. The belief in a resurrection or reanimation
of the dead (תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים),[1899] which is clearly and decidedly
expressed for the first time in the Book of Daniel (12:2), was during our period
already firmly established (comp. e.g. 2Ma_7:9; 2Ma_7:14; 2Ma_7:23; 2Ma_7:36;
2Ma_12:43-44; Enoch 51:1; Psalt. Salom. 3:16, 14:2 sqq.; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1.
3; Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14; Apoc. Baruch 30:1-5, 50:1, 51:6; 4 Ezra 7:32; Testam.
XII. Patriarch. Judae, 25.; Benjamin 10.; Shemoneh Esreh, 2 Berachah; Mishna,
Sanhedrin x. 1; Aboth iv. 22; comp. also Berachoth v. 2; Sota ix. 15, fin.). At
least this applies with respect to all circles influenced by Pharisaism, and
these formed by far the majority. Only the Sadducees denied the
resurrection,[1900] while the Alexandrian theology placed in its stead the
immortality of the soul.[1901] A separation between the just and unjust in the
intermediate state between death and the resurrection was a rule accepted, a
preliminary state of happiness or torment being allotted to departed souls (see
especially Enoch 12 and in 4 Ezra the section rejected in the usual Latin text,
c. 6:49-76, according to the computation of the Ethiopic translation, ed.
Fritzsche, pp. 607-611).[1902] The same expectation lies at the root of the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:22). In the Apocalypse of Baruch
and the fourth Book of Ezra, receptacles (promptuaria), into which the souls of
the righteous are received after death, are frequently spoken of (Apoc. Baruch
30:2; 4 Ezra 4:35, 41, 7:32; in the rejected section, c. 6:54, 68, 74, 76, in
Bensly, vv. 80, 95, 101). In many passages of the New Testament the hope comes
forward, that immediately after death the removal to the state of supreme and
heavenly happiness will take place (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Php_1:23;
Acts 7:59; Revelation 6:9 sqq., Revelation 7:9 sqq.), and this is not without
analogy in the Jewish view, since here also the same is expected, at least for
eminent men of God (not only for Enoch and Elijah, but e.g. also for Ezra and
such as him, 4 Ezra 14:9: tu enim recipieris ab hominibus et converteris
residuum cum filio meo et cum similibus tuis usquequo finiantur tempora).[1903]
Established and generally accepted views on this point were not however
formed.[1904] The Apocalypse of Baruch gives detailed disclosures on the
resurrection body (50:1-51:6. Comp. also 4 Ezra 6:71 in the rejected section; in
Bensly, ver. 97). One main difference in the doctrine of the resurrection
consists in the expectation of a resurrection of the righteous only, for the
purpose of participating in the Messianic kingdom, or of a general resurrection
(of the righteous and the ungodly) to judgment; and that at one time before the
commencement of Messiah’s reign, at another after its conclusion. The oldest
form is certainly that first named (comp. note [1905] It is found e.g. in Psalt.
Salom. 3:16, 14:2 sqq., but is also mentioned by Josephus as an average
Pharisaic opinion (Antt. xviii. 1. 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14). The expectation of
a general resurrection to judgment, is the extension of this older resurrection
hope. So Daniel, Enoch. Apoc. Baruch , 4 Ezra, Testam. XII. Patriarch., and the
Mishna in the above-cited places.[1906] Here again the distinction arises, as to
whether the resurrection and judgment are expected before the commencement, or
after the close of the Messianic period. The former view represented Daniel
12:2, and Enoch 51., is certainly the more ancient, for originally the object of
the judgment was to inaugurate the Messianic period. Not till the Messianic
blessedness ceased to be regarded as ultimate and supreme, was the judgment
also, as the decision on man’s final destiny, transferred to the close of the
Messianic age. So especially Apoc. Baruch , 4 Ezra. In the New Testament
Apocalypse the expectation of a resurrection of the just before the appearance
of the Messianic kingdom is combined with that of a general resurrection after
its close. The awakening itself takes place by the sounding of the trump of God
(1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Corinthians 1 These. 4:16. Comp. Matthew 24:31; 4 Ezra
6:23).[1907] [1897] The order is, according to 4 Ezra 7:31-34: (1) The
renovation of the world; (2) The general resurrection; (3) The last judgment. So
also Gfrörer, ii. 272, 275, 285. [1898] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum,
pp. 176-181, 203-206. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 275-285, 308 sqq.
Herzfeld, Gesch. dex Volkes Jisrael, iii. 307-310, 328-333, 349-351, 504-506.
Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina, p. 338 sqq. Rothe, Dogmatik, ii. 2, pp.
68-71, 298-308. Oehler, Theologie des A. T. ii. 241 sqq. Herm. Schultz,
Alt-testamentl. Theologie, 2nd ed. pp. 713 sqq., 807 sqq. Hamburger, Real-Enc.
ii. 98 sqq. (art. “Belebung der Todten”). Stähelin, Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol.
1874, p. 199 sqq. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, p. 360 sqq. Weber, System, p.
371 sqq. Gröbler, Die Ansichten über Unsterbiblichkeit und Auferstehung in der
jüdischen Literatur der beiden letzten Jahrh. v. Chr. (Stud. und Krit. 1879, pp.
651-700). [1899] This expression, e.g. Berachoth v. 2; Sota ix. 15, fin.;
Sanhedrin x. 1. [1900] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 4. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14. [1901]
Wisd. iii. 1 sqq., iv. 7, v. 16. With respect to Philo, comp. Gfrörer, Philo und
die alexandrinische Theosophie, i. 403 sqq. According to Josephus the Essence
also did not teach a resurrection, but the immortality of the soul, see Antt.
xviii. 1. 5; Bell. Jud. ii. 8.11. Comp. also the Book of Jubilees in Ewald’s
Jahrb. iii. 24. [1902] In Benaly, The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation
of the Fourth Book of Ezra (1875), pp. 63-71, vv. 75-101. [1903]a Comp. also
Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Luke 23 p. 322 sqq. [1904] Comp. also on the
intermediate state Weber, System, p. 322 sqq. [1905] Stähelin (Jahrb. f.
deutsche Theol. 1874, p. 199 sqq.) does not seem to me right in keeping the
Messianic hope and the hope of a resurrection as far apart as possible, nay in
supposing that there was originally no connection between them. In Daniel 12:2
and Psalt. Salom. 3:16 this connection is umnistakeable. For if in both passages
it is said that the just shall rise “to eternal life,” this life can, according
to the sphere of thought in both books, mean only life in the Messianic kingdom.
The two books know nothing of any other ζωή. Comp. also Enoch 51:1-5. The course
of development too seems to me just the reverse of that, which Stähelin lays
down. The hope of a resurrection and the Messianic hope were not originally
independent of, and subsequently combined with, each other. But, on the
contrary, from the hope of sharing in the Messianic kingdom, first arose the
hope of a bodily resurrection, and afterwards life during Messiah’s reign and
ζωὴ αἰώνιος were separated the one from the other. [1906] In the Mishna, comp.
especially Aboth iv. 22: “They who are born are destined to die; the dead to be
awakened; the awakened to stand before the judgment-seat, that one may learn,
teach, and be convinced that He is the Almighty,” etc. In Sanhedrin x. 3 also
the resurrection is assumed to be general, since it is said only exceptionally
of certain prominent sinners, who have already in their lifetime received their
judgment, that they will not rise to judgment. [1907] See also Weber, System, p.
352 sq. Stähelin, Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol. 1874, pp. 198, 220, and the
commentaries on 1 Corinthians 15:52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16. 11. The Last
Judgment. Eternal Salvation and Condemnation.[1908] A last judgment at the close
of the Messianic period can only be spoken of, when limited duration is ascribed
to the Messianic kingdom. Hence among the older authorities it is only the
Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra which need here be considered,
In the rest the judgment coincides with the destruction of the hostile powers,
which takes place before the commencement of Messiah’s reign (see above, No. 5).
In the Apocalypse of Baruch, the judgment is but briefly alluded to (50:4). The
fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra 7:33-35 and the rejected section, c. 4 Ezra 6:17, in
Bensly, pp. 55-58) gives more detail. We here learn that it is God Himself who
sits in judgment. Nor can there be any doubt from these two books, that on the
day of judgment sentence will be passed not only on the people of Israel, but on
the whole race of mankind (Baruch 51:4, 5; Ezra 6:2, in Bensly, p. 55 sq.). It
holds good as a general principle, that all Israelites are to share in the world
to come (Sanhedrin x. 1: כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לְעוֹלָם הַבָּא). It
is self-evident however, that all the sinners of Israel (who are carefully
catalogued in the Mishna, Sanhedrin x. 1-4) are excluded. Since sentence is to
be passed upon each individual exactly in proportion to his works, the deeds of
men are, during their lifetime, written in heavenly books (Enoch 48:7, 8, 54:7,
also 89-90. Book of Jubilees in Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 38, and elsewhere. Test.
XII, Patr. Aser 7. Mishna, Aboth ii. 1. Luke 10:20; Php_4:3; Revelation 3:5;
Revelation 13:8; Revelation 20:15. Hermas, Vis. i. 3. 2),[1909] and sentence is
passed according to the contents of these books. The ungodly are cast into the
fire of Gehenna (Baruch 44:15; 51:1, 2, 4, 6; Ezra 6:1-3, 59, in Bensly, pp. 55
sq., 64).[1910] This condemnation is as a rule regarded as everlasting.[1911]
But the view is also met with of a temporal duration to the punishments of hell,
giving them only the signification of a purgatory.[1912] The righteous and godly
are received into Paradise, and dwell in the high places of that world, and see
the glory of God and of His holy angels. Their countenance will shine like the
sun, and they will live for ever (Daniel 12:3; Baruch 51:3; 51:7; 4 Ezra 6:1-3,
68-72, in Bensly, pp. 55 sq., 69 sq. Comp. also Assumptio Mosis 10:9, 10).[1913]
[1908] Comp. Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum, pp. 206-211, 221-226. Gfrörer,
Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 285 sqq., 311 sqq. Weber, System, p. 371 sqq.
[1909] Comp. on these heavenly books, especially Harnack’s note on Hennas, Vis.
i. 3. 2; also Fabricius, Cod. psendepigr. i. 551-562. Dillmann, Das Buch Enoch,
p. 245. Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 83. Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina, pp. 385,
499. [1910] The Hebrew גֵּיהִנּוֹם, Kiddushin iv. 14; Edujoth ii. 10; Aboth i.
5, v. 19, 20. Frequently in the Targums and Talmud. In the New Testament γέεννα,
Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:29; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 23:15; Matthew
23:33; Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6. Comp. also Enoch,
ch. 27. and 108:4 sqq. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenth. ii. 322-369. Liglitfoot,
Horae on Matthew 5:22. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. on Matthew 5:22. Buxtorf, Lex.
Chald., col. 395 sq. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. i. 135 sq. Id. Neuhebr. Wörterb. i.
323. Tholuck and Acbelis in their expositions of the Sermon on the Mount on
Matthew 5:22. The Lexicons of the New Testament, s.v. γέεννα. Dillmann, Das Buch
Enoch, p. 131 sq. Weber, System, p. 326 sqq. Elsewhere Hades and its darkness
are designated as the future lot of the wicked, e.g. Psalt. Salom. 14:6, 15:11,
16:2. [1911] Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 3:12; Matthew 25:46; Luke 3:17.
Test. XII. Patr. Sebulon 10. Aser 7. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14: ἀϊδίῳ
τιμωρίᾳ; Antt. xviii. 1. 3: εἱργμὸν ἀΐδιον (both passages are given in their
connection, vol. i. pp. 381 and 383). Comp. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils,
ii. 289. [1912] Edujoth ii. 10: “R. Akiba said, The execution of judgment upon
Gog and Magog lasts twelve months, and the time of the condemnation of the
ungodly lasts twelve months.” In this however regard is had only to sinners who
are Israelites. [1913] In Rabbinic Hebrew Paradise is generally called נַּן
עֵדֶן (so e.g. Aboth v. 20), or also פרדס, but the latter not so often (in the
Mishna this word is used only of a park in the natural sense, Sanhedrin x. 6;
Chullin xii. 1; Arachin iii. 2). In the Test. XII. Patr. both occur (Ἐδέμ Test.
Daniel 5, παράδεισος Test. Levi 18). In the New Testament παράδεισος, Luke
23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7. Much material in Eisenmenger,
Entdecktes Judenth. ii. 295-322. Wetzstein, Nov. Test. 818-820 (on Luke 23:43).
Comp. also Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on Luke 23:43; Schöttgen on 2 Corinthians 12:4
and Revelation 2:7. The interpreters of these New Testament passages in general.
Joh. Schulthess, Das Paradies, das irdische und überirdische, historische,
mythische und mystische (Zürich 1816), p. 345 sqq. Arnold, art. “Paradies,” in
Ersch and Gruber’s Encykl., sec. iii. vol. xi. (1838), p. 304 sqq., especially
310 sqq. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. p. 748 sqq. Klöpper, Commentar zum
zweiten Korintherbrief, p. 506 sqq. Weber, System, p. 330 sqq. Hamburger,
Real-Enc. ii. 892-897 (art. “Paradies”). 12. Appendix. The suffering
Messiah.[1914] So far we have had no occasion to speak of the sufferings, or of
any atoning death of the Messiah. For the prediction in the fourth Book of Ezra,
that the Messiah should die after reigning 400 years (4 Ezra 7:28, 29), has
evidently nothing in common with the idea of an atoning death. But the question,
whether Judaism in the age of Christ expected a suffering Messiah, and indeed a
Messiah suffering and dying as an atonement for the sins of men, must not be
left undiscussed. According to what has been said, the question seems answered,
as indeed it has been by many (especially after the most thorough investigation
by De Wette), in the negative. Others, on the contrary, as e.g. Wünsche, think
it may be as decidedly answered in the affirmative. Certainly the sufferings of
the Messiah are repeatedly spoken of in the Talmud. From the word וַהֲרִיחוֹ,
Isaiah 11:3, it is inferred that God loaded the Messiah with commands and
sorrows like mill-stones (במצות ויסורין כרחים).[1915] In another passage Messiah
is described as sitting at the gates of Rome and binding and unbinding His
wounds.[1916] More important is it, that in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone it is
repeatedly admitted, nay asserted as self-evident by the representative of the
Jewish standpoint, that the Messiah mast suffer. “When we name to them (relates
Justin, c. 68) the passages of Scripture, which clearly prove that the Messiah
must suffer, and is to be worshipped, and is God, they admit unwillingly indeed,
that the Messiah is there spoken of; but nevertheless they venture to maintain,
that this (Jesus) is not the Messiah. On the contrary, they believe that He will
first come and suffer and rule and be a God worthy of adoration.” Still more
decidedly does Trypho express himself in another passage, c. 89: Παθητὸν μὲν τὸν
Χριστὸν ὅτι αἱ γραφαὶ κηρύσσουσι, φανερόν ἐστιν· εἰ δὲ διὰ τοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ
κεκατηραμένου πάθους, βουλόμεθα μαθεῖν, εἰ ἔχεις καὶ περὶ τούτου ἀποδεῖξαι. Here
indeed only sufferings in general, and not atoning sufferings, are spoken of,
and the idea of death by crucifixion is decidedly rejected. But passages are
also found, in which, in conformity with Isaiah 53:4 sqq., a suffering for the
sake of the human race is spoken of. Thus among other names that of Chulja
(חוליא the sick, or according to another reading חִיוָּרָא, the leper) is at one
time attributed to the Messiah, and this is justified by an appeal to Isaiah
53:4 : “Surely He has borne our sicknesses and taken upon Himself our sorrows;
but we esteemed Him one stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”[1917] According
to the book Sifre, R. Joses the Galilean says: “King Messiah has been humbled
and made contemptible on account of the rebellious, as it is said, He was
wounded for our transgressions, etc. (Isaiah 53:5). How much more will He make
satisfaction therefore for all generations, as it is written, ‘And the Lord laid
on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6).’ ”[1918] The latter passage already
shows, that in the second century after Christ Isaiah 53:4 sqq. was in many
circles explained of the Messiah.[1919] This is confirmed by the saying of
Trypho, in Justin’s Dial. c. Tryph. c. 90: Παθεῖν μὲν γὰρ καὶ ὡς πρόβατον
ἀχθήσεσθαι οἴδαμεν· εἰ δὲ καὶ σταυρωθῆναι κ.τ.λ. Thus the Jewish opponent of
Justin admitted that Isaiah 53:7 is to be referred to the Messiah. Consequently
it cannot be disputed, that in the second century after Christ the idea of a
suffering Messiah, and indeed of a Messiah suffering as an atonement for human
sin, was, at least in certain circles, a familiar one. In this respect a
thought, which in itself was quite current in Rabbinic Judaism, was applied to
the Messiah, viz. the thought that the perfectly righteous man not only fulfils
all the commandments, but also atones by sufferings for sins that may have been
committed, and that the overplus suffering of the righteous man is of service to
others.[1920] But however much the idea of a suffering Messiah is from these
premises conceivable on the soil of Judaism, just as little did it become the
prevailing view of Judaism. The, so to speak official, Targum Jonathan allows
indeed the reference of Isaiah 53 to the Messiah to remain on the whole, but
denies the application to him of just those verses, which treat of the
sufferings of the servant of God.[1921] In not one of the numerous works
discussed by us have we found even the slightest allusion to an atoning
suffering of Messiah. That the Jews were far from entertaining such an idea, is
abundantly proved by the conduct of both the disciples and opponents of Jesus
(Matthew 16:22; Luke 18:34; Luke 24:21; John 12:34). Accordingly it may well be
said, that it was on the whole one quite foreign to Judaism in general. [1914]
Comp. De Wette, De morte Jesu Christi expiatoria (Opusc. c. pp. 1-148). Gfrörer,
Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 265-272. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. ix. 440 sq.
(2nd ed. ix. 670 sq.). Wünsche, יִסּוּרֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ oder Die Leiden des
Messias, Leipzig 1870. Delitzsch, Sehet welch’ ein Mensch! (Leipzig 1872), pp.
13, 30 sq. Castelli, Il Messia, pp. 216-224, 329 sqq., 335 sqq. Weber, System,
pp. 343-347. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 765-767 (art. “Messiasleiden”). De Wette
as above, pp. 6-9, gives a list of the older literature. [1915] Sanhedrin 93b,
given in Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, p. 56 sq. [1916] Sanhedrin 98a, in
Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, p. 117. Wünsche, p. 57 sq. [1917] Sanhedrin 98b, in
Gfrörer, ii. 266. Wünsche, p. 62 sq. [1918] S. Wünsche, p. 65 sq. Delitzsch,
Paulus’ Brief an die Römer (1870), p. 82 sq. Stellen aus späteren Midraschim und
anderen Werken jüdischer Theologen bei Wünsche, pp. 66-108 [1919] R. Joses the
Galilean was a contemporary of R. Akiba, and therefore lived in the first half
of the second century after Christ (see vol. i. p. 378). R. Tarphon, who is
probably identical with Justin’s Trypho, was also a contemporary of both (see
vol. i. p. 377). If then Trypho is ready to make those concessions, he thereby
only represented views held in the circles of his Palestinian colleagues. [1920]
See Weber, System, pp. 313-316. [1921] For particulars, see Oehler in Herzog’s
Real-Enc. ix. 441 (2nd ed. ix. 670 sq.). Weber, System, p. 344 sq. On the
history of the interpretation of Isaiah 53 by the Jews, comp. also Origenes, c.
Celsum, i. 55; and especially Driver and Neubauer, The fifty-third chapter of
Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters, 2 vols. (1) Texts; (2)
Translations. Oxford and London 1876-77 (Theol. Litztg. 1877, p. 567 sq.).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 82: � 30. THE ESSENES
========================================================================

§ 30. THE ESSENES THE LITERATURE Triglandius, Trium scriptorum illustrium de
tribus Judaeorum sectis syntagma, 2 vols., Delphis 1703. Job. Gottlob Carpzov,
Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatum sacri codicis (1748), pp. 215-240.
Ugolini, Trihaeresium, etc., in his Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, vol. xxii.
Bellermann, Geschichtliche Nachrichten aus dem Alterthume über Essäer und
Therapeuten, Berlin 1821. Credner, Ueber Essäer und Ebioniten und einen
theilweisen Zusammenhang derselben, in Winer’s Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl.
Theol. vol. i. No. 2 (1827), pp. 211-264, and No. 3 (1829), pp. 277-328.
Gfrörer, Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie, vol. ii. (1831) pp. 299-356.
Dähne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen
Religions-Philosophie, vol. i. (1834) pp. 439-497. The same, art. “Essäer,” in
Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Encyklop. § 1, vol. xxxviii. (1843) pp. 173-192.
Frankel, Die Essäer. A Sketch (Zeitschr. für die religiösen Interessen des
Judenthums, 1846, pp. 441-461). Frankel, Die Essäer nach thalmudischen Quellen
(Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1853, pp. 30-40, 61-73).
Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, vol. i. (1852) pp. 270-322.
Uhlhorn, art. “Essener,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. vol. iv. (1855) pp. 174-177 (2nd
ed. iv. 341-344). Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, Pt. 3, Div. ii. (1st ed.
1852), 2nd ed. 1868, pp. 234-292 (3rd ed. 1881, pp. 277-338). The same, Ueber
den Zusammenhang des Essäismus mit dem Griechenthum (Theol. Jahrbb 1856, pp.
401-433). Ritschl, Ueber die Essener (Theol. Jahrbb. 1855, pp. 315-356). The
same, Die Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche (2nd ed. 1857), pp. 179-203. Mangold,
Die Irrlahrer der Pastoralbriefe (1856), pp. 32-60. Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische
Apokalyptik (1857), pp. 243-286. The same, Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. vol.
i. 1858, p. 116 sqq.; iii. 1860, p. 358 sqq.; x. 1867, p. 97 sqq.; xi. 1868, p.
343 sqq.; xiv. 1871, p. 50 sqq.; xxv. 1882, p. 257 sqq. Herzfeld, Gesch. des
Volkes Jisrael, vol. iii. pp. 368 sqq., 388 sqq., 509 sqq. Jost, Geschichte des
Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol i. pp. 207-214. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden
(3rd ed.), vol. iii. pp. 99 sqq., 657-663 (note 10). Ewald, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, vol. iv. p. 483 sqq. Harnischmacher, De Essenorum apud Judaeos
societate, Bonn 1866 (Gymnasialprogramm). Keim, Geschichte Jesu, vol. i. pp.
282-306. Holtzmann in Weber and Holtzmann’s Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. ii
pp. 74-89. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine (1867), pp. 166-175, 460-462.
Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. 2nd ed. pp. 132-146.
Tidemann, Het Essenisme, Leiden 1868. The same, Esseners en Therapeuten
(Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1871, pp. 177-188). The same, De apocalypse van Henoch
en het Essenisme (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1875, pp. 261-296). Westcott, art.
“Essenes,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Abbot gives additional literature
in the American edition. Ginsburg, art. “Essenes,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of
Biblical Literature. The same, The Essenes, their history and doctrines, London
1864. Benamozegh, Storia degli Esseni, Firenze 1865. Lauer, Die Essäer und ihr
Verhältniss zur Synagoge und Kirche. Wien, Braumüller 1869 (a separate reprint
from the Austrian Quarterly Paper for Catholic Theology, 7th year, no. 4).
Lipsius, art. “Essäer,” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. vol. ii. pp. 181-192. Clemens,
Die Quellen für die Geschichte der Essener (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol.
1869, pp. 328-352). Geiger, Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben, vol.
ix. 1871, pp. 30-56. Clemens, Die essenischen Gemeinden (Zeitschr. für
wissenschaftl Theol. 1871, pp. 418-431). Sieffert, Christus und die Essäer
(Beweis des Glaubens, 1873, pp. 481-508). Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und
Talmud, ii. 172-178 (art. “Essäer”). Delaunay, Moines et sibylles dans
l’antiquité judéo-grecque, Paris 1874. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Colossians and to Philemon (2nd ed. London 1876), pp. 82-98, 349-419. Pick, Die
englische Literatur über die Essäer (Zeitschr. für die lutherischs Theologie,
1878, pp. 397-399). Demmler, Christus und der Essenismus (Theologische Studien
aus Würtemberg, 1st annual course, 1880, pp. 29 sqq., 122 sqq.). Bestmann,
Geschichte der christlichen Sitte, vol. i. (1880) p. 308 sqq. Lucius, Der
Essenismus in seinem Verhältniss zum Judenthum, Strassburg 1881. Reuss, Gesch.
der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments, §, 547. Klöpper, Der Brief an die
Colosaer (1882), pp. 76-95. Kuenen, Volksreligion und Weltreligion (German ed.
1883), pp. 197-206. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschte des Urchristenthums (1884), pp.
87-149. Apart from the great high road of Jewish life, there lived in Palestine
in the time of Christ a religious community which, though it grew up on Jewish
soil, differed essentially in many points from traditional Judaism, and which,
though it exercised no powerful influence upon the development of the people,
deserves our attention as a peculiar problem in the history of religion. This
community, the Essenes or Essaeans, is generally, after the precedent of
Josephus, placed beside the Pharisees and Sadducees as the third Jewish sect But
it scarcely needs the remark, that we have here to deal with a phenomenon of an
entirely different kind. While the Pharisees and Sadducees were large political
and religious parties, the Essenes might far rather be compared to a monastic
order. There is indeed much that is enigmatical in them as to particulars. Even
their name is obscure. Josephus generally calls them Ἐσσηνοί,[1922] but also
Ἐσσαῖοι.[1923] In Pliny they are called Esseni, in Philo always Ἐσσαῖοι. When
Philo asserts that their name is identical with ὅσιοι, this is but etymological
trifling.[1924] In truth it is in any case of Semitic origin, though but very
little has with any certainty been ascertained concerning it.[1925] The
explanation formerly accepted by many, אָסַיָּא, “Physicians,” too little suits
the peculiarity of the order, and has no support in the Greek θεραπευταί, the
Essenes being never called “physicians,” but only θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ (servants of
God).[1926] The derivation, advocated e.g. by Ewald, Hitzig, Lucius and others,
from חֲסֵא, pious, in the plural stat. absol. חֲסֵין, stat. emphat. חֲסַיָּא,
which though not indeed occurring in either Hebrew or Chaldee, is only the more
usual in Syrian, is that which is most suitable. The form Ἐσσηνοί corresponds
with the former, Ἐσσαῖοι with the latter.[1927] The origin of the Essenes is as
obscure as their name. Josephus first mentions them in the time of Jonathan the
Maccabee, about 150 B.C.,[1928] and speaks expressly of one Judas an Essene in
the time of Aristobulus I. (105-104 B.C.).[1929] According to this, the origin
of the order would have to be placed in the second century before Christ. But it
is questionable whether they proceeded simply from Judaism, or whether foreign
and especially Hellenistic elements had not also an influence in their
organization. To answer this question, we must first of all bring forward the
accounts of our authorities, viz. Philo,[1930] Josephus,[1931] and Pliny,[1932]
for the purpose of making upon these foundations some approximation to the
origin and nature of Essenism. [1922] So on the whole fourteen times, Antt.
xiii. 5. 9 (twice), xiii. 10. 6, xiii. 11. 2, xv. 10. 4, xv. 10. 5 (twice),
xviii. 1. 2, xviii. 1. 5; Vita, c. ii.; Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2, ii. 8. 11, ii. 8.
13, v. 4. 2 (comp. Harnischmacher, p. 5). [1923] So Antt. xv. 10. 4, xvii. 13.
3; Bell. Jud. i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1. [1924] Quod omnis probus
liber, § 12 (Mang. ii. 457): διαλέκτου Ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος. Ibid. § 13
(Mang. ii. 459): τὸν λεχθέντα ὅμιλον τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων. Mang. ii. 632 (=
Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11. 1, ed. Gaisford): καλοῦνται Ἐσσαῖοι παρὰ τὴν
ὁσιότητα, μοὶ δοκῶ, τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιωθέντες. It seems to me improbable, that
Philo was in these explanations thinking of the Semitic chasê (see Lucius, p.
89). On the contrary, he really derives the word from the Greek ὁσιότης. [1925]
See the list of the different views in Keim, Geschichte Jesu, i. 285. Zeller,
Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 278, 3rd ed. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to
the Colossians and to Philemon (2nd ed.), pp. 349-354. Lucius, Der Essenismus,
p. 89 sq. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, pp. 98-101. [1926] Philo, Quod omnis
probus liber, § 12 (Mang. ii. 457). [1927] That an initial ח followed by a
sibilant may be represented in Greek by ἐσσ or ἀσσ is seen e.g. from ἐσσήνης =
חֶשֶׁן (Joseph. Antt. iii. 7. 5, 8. 9), ἀσσιδαῖοι = חֲסִידִים, Ἐσσεβών =
חֶשְׁבּוֹן. The formations by ηνός and αῖος are in Hellenistic Greek used
promiscue; hence an appeal to the Semitic status absolutus and emphaticus is not
necessary to explain them; still a certain amount of influence upon the
structure of the Greek forms may probably be attributed to them. [1928] Antt.
xiii. 5. 9. [1929] Antt. xiii. 11. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 3. 5. [1930] Quod omnis
probus liber, § 12, 13 (Opp. ed. Mang. ii. 457-459); and the fragment in
Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, viii. 11, accepted by Mangey. On the
genuineness of the work, Quod omnis probus liber, see Lucius, pp. 13-23, and §
34, below. [1931] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2-13; Antt. xiii. 5. 9, xv. 10. 4-5, xviii.
1. 5. [1932] Hist. Nat. v. 17. The other authorities are either quite dependent
on the three above named, or so scanty and unreliable as to be of scarcely any
value. See generally on the authorities for the history of the Essenes,
Bellermann, Geschichtliche Nachrichten, pp. 36-145. Clemens, Zeitschr. für
wissensch. Theol. 1869, p. 328 sqq. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Colossians, etc., 2nd ed. p. 83 sq. Lucius, Der Essenismus, pp. 12-34.
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1882, pp. 266-289. Ketzergeschichte, pp. 87-149. In
Rabbinic literature (Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, Midrashim), the Essenes are
apparently nowhere mentioned, at least not under this name. When Jewish scholars
(Frankel, Herzfeld, Jost, Grätz, Derenbourg, Geiger, Hamburger) have insisted on
discovering them under other names, such identifications are some of them
decidedly mistaken, some at least very questionable, as has been in most
instances admitted by Geiger. See especially, Jüdische Zeitschrift für
Wissenschaft und Leben, 1871, pp. 49-56.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 83: I. THE FACTS
========================================================================

I. THE FACTS 1. Organization of the community. Philo and Josephus agree in
estimating the number of the Essenes in their time at above 4000.[1933] As far
as is known, they lived only in Palestine, at least there are no certain traces
of their occurrence out of Palestine.[1934] According to Philo, they lived
chiefly in villages, avoiding towns because of the immorality of their
inhabitants.[1935] Yet he himself says, in another passage, that they also dwelt
in many of the towns of Judaea,[1936] while according to Josephus they were to
be found in every town (of Palestine).[1937] Hence we should be much mistaken if
we were, according to Pliny’s description, to seek them only in the desert of
Engedi on the Dead Sea.[1938] On the contrary, the settlement there can only
have been distinguished above others on account of its numbers. For the sake of
living as a community, they had special houses of the order in which they dwelt
together.[1939] Their whole community was most strictly organized as a single
body. At the head were presidents (ἐπιμεληταί), whom the members were bound
unconditionally to obey.[1940] Whoever desired to enter the order received three
badges (the naming of which will hereafter be seen): a pickaxe (ἀξινάριον), an
apron (περίζωμα), and a white garment (λευκὴν ἐσθῆτα). He was not, however,
immediately received into the order, but had first to undergo a probation of one
year, after which he was admitted to the lustrations. Then followed a further
probation of two years. And not till this was ended was he allowed to
participate in the common meals, and to become a full member after first taking
a fearful oath. In this oath he had to bind himself both to absolute openness
towards the brethren, and to secrecy concerning the doctrines of the order to
non-members.[1941] Only adults were admitted as members.[1942] But children were
also received for the purpose of training in the principles of Essenism.[1943]
When Josephus says that the Essenes were divided into four classes according to
their time of entrance,[1944] such children are to be understood by the first
class, the two stages of the novitiate by the second and third, and the members
proper by the fourth. Transgressions of members of the order were decided upon
by a tribunal of at least one hundred of their fellow-members.[1945] Those who
had grievously transgressed were expelled from the community.[1946] [1933]
Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 457. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 5. It seems to me scarcely
doubtful, that Josephus has here made use of Philo. In the detailed description
given by Josephus himself, Bell. Jud. ii. 8, the following points are missing:
(1) The number 4000; (2) the repudiation of animal sacrifices; (3) agriculture
as the prevailing occupation; (4) repudiation of slavery. All these points are
mentioned by Philo, and inserted in the later account of Josephus, Antt. xviii.
1. 5, but certainly because they are found in Philo’s account. [1934] Whether
the Christian ascetics of Rome (Romans 14-15) and Colosse (Colossians 2) were
Christianized Essenes is very questionable. The occurrence of Essenes in Syria
only would be evidenced, if the traditional reading ἡ Παλαιστίνη καὶ Συρία in
the passage of Philo’s Quod omnis probus liber, § 12, Mang. ii. 457 (see next
note), is the correct one. It is however highly probable that the reading is ἡ
Παλαιστίνη Συρία. For (1) Eusebius, who also quotes the passage, reads ἡ ἐν
Παλαιστίνῃ Συρίᾳ. (2) The expression ἡ Παλαιστίνη Συρία is also elsewhere used
by Philo (De nobilitate, § 6. Mang. ii. 443: Θάμαρ ἦν τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Παλαιστίνης
Συρίας), and was moreover quite usual after Herodotus. See Herodot. i. 105: ἐν
τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ Συρίῃ; ii. 106, the same; iii. 5, Σύρων τῶν Παλαιστίνων
καλεομένων; iii. 91, Φοινίκη τε πᾶσα καὶ Συρίη ἡ Παλαιστίνη καλεομένη. Joseph.
Antt. viii. 10. 3, τὴν Παλαιστίνην Συρίαν. Polemon in Euseb. Praep. evang. x.
10. 5 (ed. Gaisford), ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ καλουμένῃ Συρίᾳ. Dio Cass. xxxvii. 15,
τὴν Συρίαν τὴν Παλαιστίνην. Still more material in Pape-Benseler, Wörterb. der
griech. Eigennamen, s.v. Παλαιστίνη. Forbiger, Geogr. ii. 673 sq. Pauly’s
Real-Enc. v. 1070. Kühn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung des röm. Reichs,
ii. 183 sq. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. i. (1881), p. 420 sqq.
Παλαιστίνη is here always an adjective (the Palestinian Syria). From the
passages quoted it is also evident, that, in the passage of Philo cited above,
the reading is not, as many insist, Παλαιστίνη Συρίας, but Συρία. See e.g.
Wieseler in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xxi. 291 (art. “Timotheusbriefe”).
[1935] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 457: Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ Παλαιστίνη [καὶ] Συρία
καλοκἀγαθίας οὐκ ἄγονος, ἣν πολυανθρωποτάτου ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὐκ ὀλίγη μοῖρα
νέμεται. Λέγονταί τινες παρʼ αὐτοῖς ὄνομα Ἐσσαῖοι κ.τ.λ. … Οὗτοι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον
κωμηδὸν οἰκοῦσι, τὰς πόλεις ἐκτρεπόμενοι, διὰ τὰς τῶν πολιτευομένων χειροήθεις
ἀνομίας, εἰδότες ἐκ τῶν συνόντων ὡς ἀπʼ ἀέρος φθοροποιοῦ νόσον ἐγγινομένην
προσβολὴν ψυχαῖς ἀνίατον. [1936] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 632 (= Euseb. Praep.
evang. viii. 11, 1st ed. Gaisford): Οἰκοῦσι δὲ πολλὰς μὲν πόλεις τῆς Ἰουδαίας,
πολλὰς δὲ κώμας, καὶ μεγάλους καὶ πολυανθρώπους ὁμίλους. [1937] Joseph. Bell.
Jud. ii. 8. 4: Μία δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν πόλις, ἀλλʼ ἐν ἑκάστῃ κατοικοῦσι πολλοί.
There were certainly Essenes in Jerusalem also, where they frequently make an
appearance in history (Antt. xiii. 11. 2, xv. 10. 5, xvii. 13. 3; Bell. Jud. ii.
20. 4), and where a gate was named after them (Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2, ἐπὶ τὴν
Ἐσσηνῶν πύλην), probably because the house of their order was near it. [1938]
Hist. Nat. v. 17: Ab occidente litora Esseni fugiunt usque qua nocent, gens
sola, et in toto orbe praeter ceteras mira, sine ulla femina, omini venere
abdicata, sine pecunia, socia palmarum. In diem ex aequo convenarum turba
renascitur large frequentantibus quos vita fessos ad mores eorum fortunae
fluctibus agit. Ita per seculorum milia (incredibile dictu) gens aeterna est. In
qua nemo nascitur. Tam fecunda illis aliorum vitae poenitentia est. Infra hos
Engada oppidum fuit, etc. Dio Chrysostomus (1st century after Christ) also,
according to the testimony of his biographer Synesius, mentioned the Essence as
a community at the Dead Sea. Synesii Opp. ed. Petav. p. 39: ὅτι καὶ τοὺς
Ἐσσηνοὺς ἐπαινεῖ που, πόλιν ὅλην εὐδαίμονα τὴν παρὰ τὸ νεκρὸν ὕδωρ ἐν τῇ
μεσογείᾳ τῆς Παλαιστίνης κειμένην παρʼ αὐτά που τὰ Σόδομα. Probably Pliny and
Dio Chrysostomus draw from a common source. Comp. Lucius, Der Essenismus, pp.
30-33. [1939] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 632 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11. 5, ed.
Gaisford): Οἰκοῦσι δʼ ἐν ταὐτῷ, κατὰ θιάσους ἑταιρίας καὶ συσσίτια ποιούμενοι,
καὶ πάνθʼ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινωφελοῦς πραγματευόμενοι διατελοῦσιν. Joseph. Bell. Jud.
ii. 8. 5, says at least that at meals they εἰς ἴδιον οἴκημα συνίασιν, ἔνθα
μηδενὶ τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ἐπιτέτραπται παρελθεῖν. Comp. also Philo, ed. Mang. ii.
458: Οὐδενὸς οἰκία τίς ἐστιν ἰδία, ἣν οὐχὶ πάντων εἶναι συμβέβηκε. Πρὸς γὰρ τὸ
κατὰ θιάσους συνοικεῖν, ἀναπέπταται καὶ τοῖς ἑπέρωθεν ἀφικνουμένοις των
ὁμοζήλων. [1940] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 6. [1941] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8.
7. [1942] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 632 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11, 3rd ed.
Gaisford). [1943] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2. [1944] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 10:
Διῄρηνται δὲ κατὰ χρόνον τῆς ἀσκήσεως εἰς μοίρας τέσσαρας. [1945] Bell. Jud. ii.
8. 9. [1946] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 8. The strongest tie by which the members were
united was absolute community of goods. “The community among them is wonderful,
one does not find that one possesses more than another. For it is the law, that
those who enter deliver up their property to the order, so that there is nowhere
to be seen, either the humiliation of poverty or the superfluity of wealth, but
on the contrary one property for all as brethren, formed by the collection of
the possessions of individuals.”[1947] “They neither buy nor sell among each
other; but while one gives to another what he wants, he receives in return what
is useful to himself, and without anything in return they receive freely
whatever they want.”[1948] “The managers (ἐπιμεληταί) of the common property are
chosen; and each is selected by all for administration of the possessions of the
community.”[1949] “They choose fitting persons as receivers of revenues
(ἀποδέκτας τῶν προσόδων) and of the produce of the earth, and priests for the
preparation of bread and food.”[1950] So Josephus. And in accordance with this
Philo declares “none desires to have any kind of property of his own, neither a
house, nor a slave, nor an estate, nor flocks, nor anything at all that
constitutes wealth. But by putting everything together without distinction, they
enjoy the common use of all.”[1951] “The wages which they earn by different
kinds of work, they give to a chosen manager (ταμίας). He receives them and buys
what is wanted, and dispenses abundant provision and whatever else human life
requires.”[1952] “Not only have they food, but also clothing in common. Thick
cloaks are ready for winter, and light overalls for summer, so that each may use
them at his pleasure. For what one has is regarded as the property of all; and
what all have as that of each individual.”[1953] “There is but one purse for
all, and common expenses, common clothes and common food in common meals. For
community of dwelling, of life and of meals is nowhere so firmly established and
so developed as with them. And this is intelligible. For what they receive daily
as wages for their labour, they do not keep for themselves, but put it together,
and thus make the profits of their work common for those who desire to make use
of it. And the sick are without anxiety on account of their inability to earn,
because the common purse is in readiness for the care of them, and they may with
all certainty meet their expenses from abundant stores.”[1954] [1947] Bell. Jud.
ii. 8. 3. [1948] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 4. [1949] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 3: Χειροτονητοὶ
δὲ οἱ τῶν κοινῶν ἐπιμεληται, καὶ αἱρετοὶ πρὸς ἁπάντων εἰς τὰς χρείας ἕκαστοι.
[1950] Antt. xviii. 1. 5: Ἀποδέκτας δὲ τῶν προσόδων χειροτονοῦσι καὶ ὁπόσα ἡ γῆ
φέροι ἄνδρας ἀγαθούς, ἱερεῖς τε διὰ ποίησιν σίτου τε καὶ βρωμάτων. [1951] Philo,
ed. Mang. ii. 632 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11. 4). [1952] Philo, ed. Mang.
ii. 633 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11. 10): Ἐκ δὴ τῶν οὕτως διαφερόντων
ἕκαστι τὸν μισθὸν λαβόντες ἑνὶ διδόασι τῷ χειροτονηθέντι ταμίᾳ. Λαβὼν δʼ ἐκεῖνος
αὐτίκα τἀπιτήδεια ὠνεῖται, καὶ παρέχει τροφὰς ἀφθόνους, καὶ τἄλλα ὧν ὁ
ἀνθρώπινος βίος χρειώδης. [1953] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 623 (= Euseb. Praep.
evang. viii. 11, 12). [1954] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 458 sq.: Εἶτʼ ἐστὶ ταμεῖον ἕν
πάντων καὶ δαπάναι, καὶ κοιναὶ μὲν ἐσθῆτες. κοιναὶ δὲ τροφαὶ συσσίτια
πεποιημένων. Τὸ γὰρ ὁμωρόφιον ἢ ὁμοδίαιτον ἢ ὁμοτράπεζον οὐκ ἄν τις εὕροι παρʼ
ἑτέροις μᾶλλον ἔργῳ βεβαιούμενον. Καὶ μήποτʼ εἰκότως; Ὅσα γὰρ ἂν μεθʼ ἡμέραν
ἐργασάμενοι λάβωσιν ἐπὶ μισθῷ, ταῦτʼ οὐκ ἴδια φυλάττουσιν, ἀλλʼ εἰς μέσον
προτιθέντες κοινὴν τοῖς ἐθέλουσι χρῆσθαι τὴν ἀπʼ αὐτῶν παρασκευάζουσιν ὠφέλειαν.
Οἵτε νοσηλεύοντες οὐχ ὅτι πορίζειν ἀδυνατοῦσιν ἀμελοῦνται, πρὸς τὰς νοσηλείας ἐκ
τῶν κοινῶν ἔχοντες ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ὡς μετὰ πάσης ἀδείας ἐξ ἀφθονωτέρων ἀναλίσκειν. As
already intimated in the above quoted passages, it is self-evident, that in this
strictly communistic life all the needy of the order would be cared for. If any
one was sick, he was tended at the common expense. The old enjoyed a happy old
age under the care of the younger, just as if they had had many and excellent
children about them.[1955] Every one had the right to help the needy from the
common purse, according to his discretion. Only when relatives were in question,
had he to obtain the consent of the managers (ἐπίτροποι).[1956] Travelling
members of the order found hospitality everywhere. Nay a special officer
(κηδεμών) was appointed in every town, to care for the wants of travelling
brothers.[1957] [1955] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 633 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. viii.
11. 13) [1956] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 6. The managers (ἐπιμεληται, Bell. Jud.
ii. 8. 3; ἀποδέκται τῶν προσόδων, Antt. xviii. 1. 5; ταλίαι, Philo, ii. 633 =
Euseb. viii. 11. 10; ἐπίτροποι, Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 6) seem to have been at the
same time the presidents of the order. For the latter also are called ἐπιμεληταί
(Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 5, 6). [1957] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 4. The daily labour of the
Essenes was under strict regulation. It began with prayer, after which the
members were dismissed to their work by the presidents. They reassembled for
purifying ablutions, which were followed by the common meal. After this they
again went to work, to assemble again for their evening meal.[1958] The chief
employment of members of the order was agriculture.[1959] They likewise carried
on, however, crafts of every kind. On the other hand, trading was forbidden as
leading to covetousness, and also the making of weapons or of any kind of
utensils that might injure men.[1960] [1958] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 5. [1959]
Antt. xviii. 1. 5: τὸ πᾶν πονεῖν ἐπί γεωργίᾳ τετραμμένοι. [1960] Philo, ed.
Mang. ii. 457, 633 (= Euseb. viii. 11. 8-9). 2. Ethics. Manners and Customs. The
Essenes are described by both Philo and Josephus as very connoisseurs in
morality. Josephus calls them Βέλτιστοι ἄνδρες τὸν τρόπον.[1961] And Philo
competes with him in sounding their praise.[1962] Their life was abstemious,
simple and unpretending. “They condemn sensual desires as sinful, and esteem
moderation and freedom from passion as of the nature of virtue.”[1963] They only
take food and drink till they have had enough;[1964] abstaining from passionate
excitement, they are “just dispensers of wrath.”[1965] At their meals they are
“contented with the same dish day by day, loving sufficiency and rejecting great
expense as harmful to mind and body.”[1966] They do not cast away clothes and
shoes until they are utterly useless.[1967] They do not collect treasures of
gold and silver, nor earn them from the desire to acquire large estates, but
only what is needed for the wants of life.[1968] [1961] Antt. xviii. 1. 5.
[1962] Comp. especially what Philo says, ii. 458, concerning their instruction,
with the matter of the oath, which according to Josephus each had to take on
entering the community. [1963] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2: τὰς μὲν ἡδονὰς ὡς κακίαν
ἀποστρέφονται, τὴν δὲ ἐγκράτειαν καὶ τὸ μὴ τοῖς πάθεσιν ὑποπίπτειν ἀρετὴν
ὑπολαμβάνουσι. [1964] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 5, fin. The cause of rest and quietness
at meals is ἡ διηνεκὴς νῆψις καὶ τὸ μετρεῖσθαι παρʼ αὐτοῖς τροφὴν καὶ ποτὸν
μέχρι κόρου. [1965] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 6: ὀργῆς ταμίαι δίκαιοι, θυμοῦ καθεκτικοί.
[1966] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 633 (= Euseb. viii. 11. 11). [1967] Joseph. Bell.
Jud. ii. 8. 4. [1968] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 457. Beside these general features of
simplicity and moderation however, we meet in their moral principles, in their
usages and customs, a series of special points, which we shall here simply
enumerate, reserving the explanation of them for a later occasion. (1) There is
not a slave among them, but all are free, mutually working for each other.[1969]
(2) “All that they say is more certain than an oath. They forbid swearing,
because it is worse than perjury. For that which does not deserve belief without
an appeal to God, is already condemned.”[1970] (3) They forbid anointing with
oil. And if one has been anointed against his will, he wipes it off. “For they
regard a rough exterior as praiseworthy.”[1971] (4) Before every meal they bathe
in cold water.[1972] They do the same after performing the functions of
nature.[1973] Nay even mere contact with a member of the order of a lower class
requires a purifying bath.[1974] (5) They esteem it seemly to wear white raiment
at all times,[1975] on which account a white garment is delivered to each member
on entrance.[1976] (6) They behave with special modesty in performing natural
functions. They dig with the pickaxe (σκαλίς, ἀξινάριον), which each member
receives, a hole of a foot deep, cover themselves with a mantle, that they may
not offend the brightness of God (ὡς μὴ τὰς αὐγὰς ὑβρίζοιεν τοῦ θεοῦ), relieve
themselves into the hole, and throw in again the earth that had been dug out.
They choose the most solitary place for the purpose, and bathe afterwards as the
unclean are accustomed to do. On the Sabbath they entirely abstain from the
act.[1977] Their modesty is also shown in other ways. In bathing they bind an
apron about their loins.[1978] They also avoid spitting forwards or to the right
hand.[1979] (7) They entirely condemned marriage.[1980] Josephus indeed knew of
a branch of Essenes who permitted marriage.[1981] But these must at all events
have formed a small minority. For Philo says expressly: Ἐσσαίων οὐδεὶς ἄγεται
γυναῖκα. (8) They sent gifts of incense to the temple, but offered no animal
sacrifices, because they esteemed their own sacrifices more valuable. They were
on this account excluded from the temple at Jerusalem.[1982] (9) Lastly, a chief
peculiarity of the Essenes was their common meals, which bore the character of
sacrificial feasts. The food was prepared by priests,[1983] with the observance
probably of certain rites of purification; for an Essene was not permitted to
partake of any other food than this.[1984] The meals are described as follows by
Josephus: “After the bath of purification they betake themselves to a dwelling
of their own, entrance into which is forbidden to all of another faith. And
being clean they go into the refectory as into a sanctuary. And after they have
quietly taken their seats, the baker lays down the bread in order, and the cook
sets before each a vessel with a single kind of food. The priest prays before
the meal, and none may eat before the prayer. After the meal he prays again. At
the beginning and end they honour God as the giver of food. Then they put off
their garments as sacred and go back to their work till evening. Returning, they
feed again in the same manner.”[1985] (10) The wide-spread opinion, that the
Essenes abstained from the use of meat and wine, has no support from the older
authorities, and has lately been rightly opposed by Lucius.[1986] As indirect
arguments are usually adduced (a) their rejection of animal sacrifices, the
reason of which was, that the Essenes regarded the slaughter of animals in
general as objectionable; and (b) the refusal of the kindred sects of the
Therapeutae Pythagoreans and Ebionites to partake of meat and wine. It cannot
however be proved, that their repudiation of animal sacrifices proceeded from
the motives mentioned, and the degree of affinity between Essenism and the
above-named tendencies respectively must first be ascertained from established
facts. Jerome certainly ascribes to the Essence an abstinence from flesh and
wine. But his assertion can be proved to rest only upon gross carelessness in
rendering the words of Josephus.[1987] [1969] Philo, ed. Mang. ii. 457: Δοῦλός
τε παρʼ αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ εἱς ἐστίν, ἀλλʼ ἐλεύθεροι πάντες, ἀνθυπουργοῦντες ἀλλήλοις.
Comp. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 5: οὔτε δούλων ἐπιτηδεύουσι κτῆσιν. [1970] Bell.
Jud. ii. 8, 6: πᾶν μὲν τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπʼ αὐτῶν ἰσχυρότερον ὅρκου, τὸ δὲ ὀμνύειν
περιίστανται, χεῖρόν τι τῆς ἐπιορκίας ὑπολαμβάνοντες· ἤδη γὰρ κατεγνῶσθαί φασι
τὸ ἀπιστούμενον δίχα θεοῦ. Comp. Antt. xv. 10. 4 (Herod exempts the Essence from
oaths). Philo, ii. 458: they teach τὸ ἀνώμοτον, τὸ ἀψευδές. [1971] Bell. Jud.
ii. 8. 3: κηλῖδα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνονσι τὸ ἔλαιον, κἂν ἀλιφᾖ τις ἄκων, σμήχεται τὸ
σῶμα· τὸ γὰρ αὐχμεῖν ἐν καλῷ τίθενται. [1972] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 5: ἀπολούονται
τὸ σῶμα ψυχροῖς ὕδασι. [1973] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 9, fin. [1974] Bell. Jud. ii. 8.
10, init. [1975] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 3: τὸ γὰρ αὐχμεῖν ἐν καλῷ τίθενται,
λευχειμονεῖν τε διὰ παντός. [1976] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7. [1977] Bell. Jud. ii. 8.
9. [1978] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 5. [1979] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 9: τὸ πτύσαι δὲ εἰς
μέσους ἢ τὸ δεξιὸν μέρος φυλάσσονται. [1980] Philo, ii. 633-634 (= Euseb. viii.
11. 14-17). Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2; Antt. xviii. 1. 5. Plin. Hist. Nat. v.
17. [1981] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 13. [1982] Philo, ii. 457: οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες, ἀλλʼ
ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1.
5: εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήματα στέλλοντες θυσίας οὐκ ἐπιτελοῦσι διαφορότητι
ἁγνειῶν ἃς νομίζοιεν, καὶ διʼ αὐτὸ εἰργόμενοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τεμενίσματος ἐφʼ αὐτῶν
τὰ θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι. [1983] Antt. xviii. 1. 5. [1984] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 8.
[1985] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 5. Undoubtedly we must behold in these meals the
sacrifices (θυσίαι) which the Essence, according to Josephus (Antt. xviii. 1.
5), regarded as of more value than those at Jerusalem. The ἱεραὶ ἐσθῆτες were
certainly linen garments. For the Essence always wore white raiment. Hence the
distinctive quality of their sacred garments must have lain in their material.
[1986] Lucius, Die Therapeuten, p. 38 f. The same, Die Essenismus, p, 56 f.
[1987] Hieronymus adv. Jovinian. ii. 14 (Opp. ed, Vallarsi, ii, 343): Josephus
in secunda Judaicae captivitatis historia et in octavo decimo antiquitatum libro
et contra Apionem duobus voluminibus tria describit dogmata Judaeorum:
Pharisaeos, Sadducaeos, Essaenos. Quorum novissimos miris effert laudibus, quod
et ab uxoribus et vino et carnibus semper abstinuerint et quotidianum Jejunium
verterint in naturam. The commencement of these words proves, that Jerome was
not in them using Josephus at all, but Porphyry, who in his work, de
abstinentia, iv. 11-13, restores the account of Josephus (comp. de abstinentia,
iv, 11: Ἰώσηπος … ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἱστορίας … καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ
τῆς ἀρχαιολογίας … καὶ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῷ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας; the last statement is
a mistake, the sects not being mentioned in the books contra Apionem). But
neither Josephus nor Porpbyrius tells us anything about the Essenes abstaining
from flesh and wine. Porphyrius himself certainly requires throughout his work
abstinence from the use of flesh. But he is accurate enough not to introduce any
extraneous matter into the narrative of Josephus (hence the statement in Lucius,
p. 56, is incorrect; comp. also Zeller, p. 287). It was Jerome who first
undertook this completion. But as he supports his assertion solely on Josephus,
it is entirely without value. For the partaking of flesh and wine by the Essenes
at least two probable reasons may be adduced: (1) According to Philo, ii. 633 =
Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11. 8, they also carried on cattle-rearing. (2)
Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 5 declares the peace and silence of their meals to
result from the circumstance, that they partook of meat and drink (τροφὴν καὶ
ποτόν) only till they had had enough, which has no meaning unless they drank
wine. 3. Theology and Philosophy. The view of the world held by the Essenes was
fundamentally the Jewish. When Josephus ascribes to them belief in an
unalterable fate, by which human freedom was absolutely abolished,[1988] this
must undoubtedly be understood only in the sense of an absolute belief in
Providence.[1989] And when he says that the Essenes make everything, the
Sadducees nothing dependent on fate, while the Pharisees occupy a middle
position between the two, thus much may be true, that the Essenes were
particularly decided in their adherence to that belief in Providence, which they
held in common with the Pharisees. The Essenes are in this point only decided
Pharisees, as they are also in a high esteem for the Law and the Lawgiver. “Next
to God, the name of the Lawgiver is with them an object of the greatest
reverence, and whoever blasphemes it is punished with death.”[1990] “Their
pursuit of ethic is especially thorough, since they take for instructors the
laws of their fathers, which no human soul could possibly have conceived without
Divine inspiration.”[1991] In their worship, as well as in that of other Jews,
the Holy Scriptures were read and explained; and Philo remarks, that they
specially delighted in allegorical interpretation.[1992] They were
extraordinarily strict in the celebration of the Sabbath. They did not venture
on that day to move a vessel from its place, nor even to perform the functions
of nature.[1993] In other respects too they showed themselves to be Jews. Though
they were excluded from the temple they sent gifts of incense (ἀναθήματα)
there.[1994] And they seem to have kept to the priesthood of the house of
Aaron.[1995] [1988] Joseph. Antt. xiii. 5. 9. Comp. xviii. 1-5: Ἐσσηνοῖς δʼ ἐπὶ
μὲν θεῷ καταλιπεῖν φιλεῖ τὰ πάντα ὁ λόγος. [1989] Comp. what is remarked above,
p. 16, on the Pharisees. [1990] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 9: Σέβας δὲ μέγιστον
παρʼ αὐτοῖς μετὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ νομοθέτου· κἂν βλασφημήσῃ τις εἰς τοῦτον,
κολάζεται θανάτῳ. [1991] Philo, ii. 458: Τὸ ἠθικὸν εὖ μάλα διαπονοῦσιν,
ἀλείπταις χρώμενοι τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις, οὓς ἀμήχανον ἀνθρωπίνην ἐπινοῆσαι ψυχὴν
ἄνευ κατακωχῆς ἐνθέου. Comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8-12: βίβλοις ἱεραῖς καὶ
διαφόροις ἁγνείαις καὶ προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι. Whether, on the
other hand, the Holy Scriptures are intended by the συγγράμμασι τῶν παλαιῶν,
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 6, is questionable, since according to Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7 the
sect had also its special books. [1992] Philo, ii. 458. In explanation of the
passage, comp. Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 426; Philosophie der Griechen,
iii. 2. 293 sq. [1993] Bell. Jud. ii. 8.9. [1994] Antt. xviii. 1. 5. [1995] The
question here is concerning the interpretation of the passage, Antt. xviii. 1.
5: Ἀποδέκτας δὲ τῶν προσόδων χειροτονοῦσι καὶ ὁπόσα ἡ γῆ φέροι ἄνδρας ἀγαθούς,
ἱερεῖς τε διὰ ποίησιν σίτου τε καὶ βρωμάτων. This is generally translated: “They
choose excellent men as receivers of revenues and of what the earth produces,
and (they choose just such men) as priests for the sake of the preparation of
bread and food.” But it should rather be translated, “and (they choose) priests
for the preparation of bread and food.” In the former case the meaning would be,
that they knew of no hereditary, but only an elective priesthood; in the latter
it would be stated, that they took their bakers and cooks out of the number of
the priests (of the house of Aaron). On this decidedly Jewish foundation, it is
self-evident, that any real worship of the sun is out of the question. When
therefore Josephus declares that “daily before the rising of the sun, they
address to it old traditional prayers, supplicating it, as it were, to
rise,”[1996] this cannot be meant in the sense of an adoratio, but only in that
of an invocatio (observe the εἰς αὐτόν). Certainly such an invocatio is of
itself striking in Jewish monotheists, as being apparently founded on the idea
(so alien to Jewish consciousness), that the sun is the representative of the
Divine light? That they did proceed upon the latter conception must be assumed
from the motive stated by them for their caution in the performance of their
needs, viz. that they might not offend the brightness of God.[1997] [1996] Bell.
Jud. ii. 8. 5: Πρὶν γὰρ ἀνασχεῖν τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων,
πατρίους δέ τινας εἰς αὐτὸν εὐχάς, ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι. [1997] Bell.
Jud. ii. 8. 9: ὡς μὴ τὰς αὐγὰς ὑβρίζοιεν τοῦ θεοῦ. The contrary assumption is
incidentally met with in the Testam. XII. Patriarch. Benjamin, c. 8: ὁ ἥλιος οὐ
μιαίνεται προσέχων ἐπὶ κόπρον καὶ βόρβορον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀμφότερα ψύχει καὶ
ἀπελαύνει τὴν δυσωδίαν. An intermingling of heterogeneous elements is here
already found, and much that is peculiar and alien to traditional Judaism
appears in their teaching in general, When indeed Josephus says, that whoever
entered their order had to swear not to teach any of their ordinances (δόγματα)
otherwise than he had himself received them,[1998] it may, by reason of the
extensiveness of the notion of δόγμα, be doubtful whether special doctrines are
meant thereby. At any rate however the order was in possession of special books,
the careful preservation of which was made the duty of the members.[1999] And
with respect to their doctrines certain peculiarities are at least known to us.
They searched the writings of the ancients (it is not clear whether the books of
the sect or the canonical Scriptures are meant) to discover what would profit
the soul and the body, the sanatory powers of roots, and the properties of
stones.[2000] They must have highly estimated their angelology. The novice had
to swear carefully to preserve the names of the angels.[2001] By reason of their
study of Scripture and their purifications they ensured a knowledge of the
future, and Josephus asserts that they were seldom mistaken in their
predictions,[2002] and gives several examples of correct prophecies by Essenes,
e.g. by one Judas in the time of Aristobulus I.,[2003] one Menahem in the time
of Herod,[2004] and one Simon in the time of Archelaus.[2005] Concerning their
doctrine of the soul and of its immortality, Josephus expresses himself most
fully. If we may trust his account, they taught that bodies are perishable, but
souls immortal, and that the latter dwelt originally in the subtlest aether, but
being debased by sensual pleasures united themselves with bodies as with
prisons; but when they are freed from the fetters of sense they will joyfully
soar on high, as if delivered from long bondage. To the good (souls) is
appointed a life beyond the ocean, where they are troubled by neither rain, nor
snow, nor heat, but where a gentle Zephyr is ever blowing. But to the bad
(souls) is appointed a dark cold region full of unceasing torment.[2006] [1998]
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7: μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς
μετέλαβεν. [1999] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7: συντηρήσειν ὁμοίως τά τε τῆς αἱρέσεως
αὐτῶν βιβλία. [2000] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 6: Σπουδάζουσι δὲ ἐκτόπως περὶ τὰ τῶν
παλαιῶν συγγράμματα, μάλιστα τὰ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἐκλέγοντες.
Ἑνθεν αὐτοῖς πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν ῥίζαι τε ἀλεξητήριοι καὶ λίθων ἰδιότητες
ἀνερευνῶνται. [2001] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7: συντηρήσειν … τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα.
[2002] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 12. [2003] Antt. xiii. 11. 2; Bell. Jud. i. 3. 5.
[2004] Antt. xv. 10. 5. [2005] Antt. xvii. 13. 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 3. [2006]
Bell. Jude. 8. 11: Καὶ γὰρ ἔρρωται παρʼ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ
σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτοῖς, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν, καὶ
συμπλέκεσθαι μέν, ἐκ τοῦ λεπτοτάτου φοιτώσας αἰθέρος, ὥσπερ είρκταῖς τοῖς
σώμασιν ἴυγγι τινι φυσικῇ κατασπωμένας, ἐπειδὰν δὲ τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεώρους
φέρεσθαι κ.τ.λ.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 84: II. NATURE AND ORIGIN OF ESSENISM
========================================================================

II. NATURE AND ORIGIN OF ESSENISM Full as are the descriptions of our
authorities, especially Josephus, the question from what point of view these
various phenomena are to be explained, and from what general views and motives
they proceed, remains to this day undecided. Some (and they now form the
majority) insist on explaining Essenism wholly from Judaism, regarding it either
as virtually identical with Pharisaism, or at least deriving it (with all its
divergences) from Chasidaic or Pharisaic Judaism. So especially the Jewish
scholars Frankel, Jost, Grätz, Derenbourg, Geiger, and among Christian scholars,
Ewald, Hausrath, Tideman, Lauer, Clemens, Reuss, and Kuenen. Ritschl advocates
this standpoint in a peculiar manner. He regards Essenism as only a consistent
carrying out of the idea of the universal priesthood (Exodus 19:6). He
endeavours to explain all the single facts from one, viz. that the Essenes
desired to be a nation of priests. Similarly Bestmann, only he does not see in
Essenism the carrying out of the idea of the universal, but of the Aaronic
priesthood. Lucius also esteems Essenism as a purely Jewish formation, and
explains its origin from the exclusively “pious” having in the Maccabaean period
renounced the Jerusalem temple-worship, because they regarded it as
illegitimate. From this renunciation of the temple-worship, all the
peculiarities of Essenism are to be explained. In another manner again did
Hilgenfeld formerly derive Essenism purely from Judaism. He thought (in his work
on Jewish Apocalypse, 1857, p. 243 sqq.), that the Essenes must be regarded as
merely a school of Jewish apocalyptics. The object of their asceticism (as in
Daniel 10:2-3; Enoch 83:2, 85:3, 4; Ezra 9:24-26, 12:51) was, he says, solely
that of making themselves worthy and capable of receiving revelations. “It was
the higher illumination, the reception of revelations especially by
dream-visions, which they sought in this way to attain” (p. 253). Hilgenfeld,
after defending this view in his Zeitschrift for 1858, p. 116 sqq., hinted
already in that for 1860 at the possibility of Persian influence. Subsequently,
in that for 1867, p. 97 sqq., he sought decidedly to prove, that not only
Parseeism, but also Buddhism had exercised essential influence upon the
formation of Essenism, to which view he adhered for a longer time (1868, p. 343
sqq.; 1871, p. 50 sqq.).[2007] In his more recent publications he again insists
upon the Jewish foundation and admits only Parsee influences (Zeitsehr. 1882, p.
299; Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, pp. 141-149); he thinks the Essenes
were originally Rechabites, who settled in a place called Essa, westward of the
Dead Sea (Zeitschr. 1882, pp. 268 sqq., 286 sqq.; Ketzergeschichte des
Urchristenthums, pp. 100 sqq., 139 sqq.).[2008] Lightfoot also (St. Paul’s
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon 1:2 nd ed. pp. 355-396) adopts the
opinion of a virtual Jewish foundation, with secondary Parsee influence. Lipsius
too declares the origin of Essenism to be chiefly Jewish; he however concedes
the co-operation of foreign influences, only not on the part of Greek philosophy
or Parseeism, and still less of Buddhism, but on that of Syro-Palestinian
heathenism. The development of Essenism “took place entirely on Palestinian
soil” (Bibellexikon, ii. 189, 190). While all the above-named regard Essenism as
exclusively or chiefly a Jewish product, Lutterbeck, Zeller, Mangold and
Holtzmann, following the precedent of Baur and Gfrörer, explain some more, some
fewer, of the peculiarities which distinguish Essenism from traditional Judaism,
by the influence of Pythagoreanism, with which Josephus (Antt. xv. 10. 4) had
already compared Essenism. It was especially Zeller, who in his discussions with
Ritschl sought, on the basis of his comprehensive acquaintance with Greek
philosophy, to point out parallels with Pythagoreanism in nearly all points.
Herzfeld occupied a medium position, by finding that in Essenism “a Judaism of
quite peculiarly blended ultra-Pharisaic and Alexandrinian views appears in
alliance with Pythagoreanism and with many rites of Egyptian priests” (iii.
369). Keim too is of opinion, that while all the peculiarities of Essenism might
he derived from Judaism, the parallels between Pythagoreanism and Essenism are
too numerous and striking to suffer us to dispute the influence of the former
upon the latter (Gesch. Jesu, i. 300 sqq.). [2007] In a certain sense he had
already a predecessor in Philo, who adduces as examples of asceticism first the
Persian Magi, then the Indian Gymnosophists, and immediately after the Essenes
(Quod omnis probut liber, § 11, 12, ed. Mang. ii. 456, 457: Ἐν Πέρσαις μὲν τὸ
Μάγων,… Ἐν Ἰνδοῖς δὲ τὸ Γυμνοσοφιστῶν, … Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ Παλαιστίνη [καὶ] Συρία
καλοκἀγαθίας οὐκ ἄγονος κ.τ.λ.). [2008] This place, Essa west of the Dead Sea,
has been fabricated by Hilgenfeld purely ad hoc. He is himself only able to
point out an Ἔσσα in Peraea, which is identical with Gerasa (Joseph. Antt. xiii.
15. 3, comp. with Bell. Jud. i. 4. 8). He thinks however that the name means
“foundation,” and may therefore occur as the name of several places. But
unfortunately this Ἔσσα in Peraea does not exist at all, since the reading must
be Γέοασα, by reason of Bell. Jud. i. 4-8, and also the parallel passage, Antt.
xiii. 15. 3. Comp. note 257, vol. i. p. 117. It is not easy to find a way out of
this labyrinth of views. The question will be simplified by first subjecting to
an examination the peculiar hypotheses of Ritschl, Lucius, and Hilgenfeld. 1.
The hypothesis of Ritschl is tempting, inasmuch as the Essenes certainly desire
to exhibit, like the Israelitish priests, a condition of special purity and
holiness. Hence the parallels between the two are very numerous. On the other
hand however it leaves essential points unexplained, especially their rejection
of animal sacrifices, marriage, the oath, and the anointing oil.[2009] It is
impossible to deduce all these phenomena satisfactorily from a single
standpoint. 2. And still less is this the case if the point is that chosen by
Lucius. His attempt to explain all the singularities of the Essenes by their
rupture with the illegitimate worship at Jerusalem may be designated a failure.
For how should they have thus arrived at their rejection of marriage, oaths,
slavery, trading, and their peculiarly puritanical tendency in general?[2010] In
other respects too this starting-point is unfortunately chosen. For if the
Essenes agreed, as Lucius admits, with the Pharisees in their legalistic
tendencies, they had, at least after the time of Alexandra, no longer any reason
for withdrawing from the temple-worship, since all sacred rites were then
performed in a thoroughly correct manner. 3. The same objections as those
against Ritschl and Lucius virtually apply to Hilgenfeld’s earlier view of the
Essenes as a community of Apocalyptics. Here too several peculiarities are left
unexplained.[2011] If Essenism in general can be regarded as a purely Jewish
formation, it is certainly most simple to view it as a climax of the Pharisaic
tendency, for its starting-point and many of its peculiarities are identical
with those of the latter. Hence the question may be simplified to: Is JEssenism
nothing more than a peculiar offshoot of Pharisaism, or did foreign and alien
influences co-operate in its origin and development? And if the latter question
be answered in the affirmative, what were these influences, Buddhism (as in
Hilgenfeld’s earlier view), Parseeism (Hilgenfeld and Lightfoot),
Syro-Palestinian heathenism (Lipsius), or lastly, the Orpheo-Pythagorean
tendency of the Greeks (Zeller and others)? [2009] Comp. Zeller, Theol. Jahrb.
1856, p. 413 sqq. Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 315 sqq. [2010] Against
Lucius, see also my notice in the Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1881, 492-496. [2011]
Comp. Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 315 sqq. It cannot be denied
that very many, nay, most particulars may be explained from the Judaeo-Pharisaic
basis. Two main features especially, the rigid legalism and the punctilious care
for ceremonial cleanness, are genuinely Pharisaic. Their high regard for the
great lawgiver Moses and for the Holy Scriptures, their strict, nay, rigorous
Sabbath-keeping, place them completely on the soil of Judaism. Their
non-observance of certain precepts of the law, those especially concerning
animal sacrifices, may have been the result either of some case of necessity or
of an allegorical interpretation of the laws in question. In any case, it is not
inconsistent with their unconditional acknowledgment of the formal authority of
the law. Then their punctilious care for purity is essentially Pharisaic. The
value attributed to Levitical purity, and to the baths and lustrations by which
this was restored when defilement had been incurred, is a characteristic of
Pharisaism.[2012] Especially is the Essenian bathing before meals analogous to
practices of Pharisaic Judaism, and is at most an increase of the Pharisaic
custom.[2013] Bathing after the performance of natural functions was required at
least of officiating priests.[2014] If then this was required by the Essenes of
all the members of their association, it only shows that they desired to realize
in themselves the highest degree of purity according to Jewish notions. We are
also vividly reminded of Pharisaic views by the Essenian custom of bathing even
after contact with a member of the order of a lower grade (i.e. a novice). For
just what the unclean Am-haarez was to the Pharisees, was the novice not
actually admitted into the society to the Essenes. Essenism then is in the first
place merely Pharisaism in the superlative degree. From the effort to carry out
completely the purity of life thus required may be explained also the Essenian
separation, their organization in narrow and exclusive communities. If the
Pharisee avoided as much as possible all intercourse with the unclean Am-haarez,
the Essene completely separated himself from the multitude and formed exclusive
societies, in which similarity of disposition and endeavour afforded the
possibility of realizing the ideal of a life of absolute ceremonial cleanness.
The common meals of these societies, the food for which was prepared by the
priests, were a guarantee to the Essene that only clean food would be set before
him. This close brotherly connection led to community of goods. The strict
requirements made from members of the order made it necessary to admit new
members into the society only after a long and strict novitiate. The purity and
holiness which the Essenes strove to realize were indeed different, more exalted
and special than those of the Pharisees. But almost all their peculiarities had
at least their starting-point in Pharisaism. Their white raiment corresponded
with the official dress of Israelitish priests, and therefore only shows, that
the Essenes desired to manifest the highest degree of Jewish purity and
holiness.[2015]… Their caution in bathing,[2016] and even their custom of not
spitting forwards or to the right has its analogues in the Talmud.[2017] Their
repudiation of marriage is indeed a matter quite heterogeneous to genuine
Judaism.[2018] But even this may be explained from Jewish premises. For since
the act of marriage as such made an individual unclean and necessitated a
Levitical bath of purification,[2019] the effort to attain to the highest degree
of purity might well lead to the entire repudiation of marriage. In all these
points a surpassing of ordinary Judaism is apparent, and this is also the case
in the strongly puritanical trait, by which the Essenian mode of life is
characterized. They saw in many of the social customs and institutions, which
the development of culture entailed, a perversion of the primitive and simple
ways of life prescribed by nature. They thought therefore that they manifested
true morality by a return to the simplicity of nature and of natural ordinances.
Hence their rejection of slavery, oaths, anointing oil, and of luxury in
general; hence their principle of living a simple life and allowing themselves
only so much food and drink as nature required. It cannot be shown that they
practised actual asceticism by fastings and mortifications, by abstinence from
flesh and wine. It was only the exceeding what nature required that they
condemned.[2020] Their rejection of trade is quite in accordance with this ethic
radicalism; they desired a communistic state, in which each worked for the whole
body, and none enriched himself at the expense of others. [2012] Tertullian, De
baptismo, c. 15: Ceterum Israel Judaeus quotidie lavat, quia quotidie
inquinatur. When Hemerobaptists (= καθʼ ἡμέραν βαπτιζόμενοι) are mentioned by
Epiphanius, haer. xvii., as a Jewish sect, we have but the fabrication of a
special sectarian name from a characteristic peculiarity of all Jews. [2013] Ev.
Mark 7:3-4 : οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς
χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν … καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται (al. βαπτίσωνται) οὐκ
ἐσθίουσιν. Comp. also Matthew 15:2; Luke 11:38. Chagigah ii. 5: “For the
partaking of Chullin (profane food), tithe and heave, the hands must be washed
(properly poured upon); for the eating of holy things they must first be dipped”
(the latter precept applies only to those who partake of “holy” food, i.e. food
proceeding from sacrifices). Comp. also p. 111. Bathing the whole body before
eating cannot be shown to be a general precept in Rabbinic literature. The
interpretation of the New Testament passages is questionable. [2014] Joma iii.
2. Comp. concerning the cleanuess required of the priests, vol. i. p. 278.
[2015] According to Berachoth 61b, it was forbidden to perform the functions of
nature towards the east or the west (it was allowed only towards the north or
the south) to prevent exposure towards the temple. [2016] According to Mishna,
Berachoth iii. 5, if any one happened to be bathing at the time for praying the
Shema, and had not time to rise up and clothe himself, he must at least cover
himself with water. Bab. Berachoth 24b requires of any one unclothed before
praying the Shema to wind the Tallith round his neck or his heart, that the
upper parts of his body may not see the shame. See Herzfeld, iii. 389. Comp.
also Lucius, p. 68. [2017] According to Jer. Berachoth iii. 5, it was forbidden
to spit forwards or to the right at prayer; see Herzfeld, iii. 387. This custom
is observed to this very day. [2018] Comp. on the debitum tori, Jebamoth vi. 6:
“No one must withdraw from the duty of propagation, unless he has children
already, according to the school of Shammai two sons, according to that of
Hillel at least a son and daughter.” Also Kethuboth v. 6, 7; Gittin iv. 5;
Edujoth i. 13, iv. 10. [2019] Joseph. Apion. ii. 24: καὶ μετὰ τὴν νόμιμον
συνουσίαν ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἀπολούσασθαι κελεύει ὁ νόμος. Comp. Exodus 19:15;
Leviticus 15:16-18; Deuteronomy 23:11-12. [2020] The prohibition of the use of
anointing oil during the stricter kinds of fasts by Pharisaic Judaism (Taanith i
6; Joma viii. 1; comp. Daniel 10:3; Matthew 6:17) does not therefore fall under
quite the same point of view. It was to be a total abst nence. If the bounds of
ordinary Judaism are exceeded by the traits already depicted, this is still more
the case in the extremely striking fact of the repudiation of animal sacrifices.
That the point of view set up by Lucius in explanation of this fact does not
load to the goal, has been already remarked.[2021] The sole point of contact for
it, on Jewish ground, seems to me, on the contrary, to be the contention of many
of the prophets against the over-estimation of sacrifice. As the prophets
insist, that God does not take pleasure in sacrifices, but in purity of
intention, so, according to the Eesenian view, not the slaughter of beasts, but
the sanctification of the body is true worship. [2021] Comp. also Theol.
L’teraturzcitung, 1881, p. 494. This also is based upon a certain amount of
moral radicalism. But the rejection of animal sacrifices involves a complete
breach with Judaism proper, which is not done away with by the fact, that the
Essenes used to send gifts of incense to the temple at Jerusalem. A still
stranger phenomenon presented on Jewish soil is their peculiar conduct with
respect to the sun. It is quite impossible that their εὐχὴ εἰς τὸν ἥλιον can be
only the Jewish Shema repeated before sunrise;[2022] on the contrary, they
turned towards the sun while praying, because they saw in it the representative
of the Divine light. This is proved especially by the circumstance, that in
doing their needs they carefully avoided uncovering themselves towards the sun.
The information too of Epiphanius, that the Ossaians (who are certainly
identical with the Essenes) had united with the Sampsitae, i.e. adorers of the
sun, leads to the conclusion, that they were in real earnest in their religious
estimation of the sun.[2023] However this may be, the very turning to the sun in
prayer was contrary to Jewish customs and notions, which on the contrary
required the turning to the temple, and expressly repudiated the direction
towards the sun as heathenish.[2024] [2022] So most Jewish scholars, also
Derenbourg, p. 169, note 3. Comp. on saying the Shema before sunrise, Berachoth
i. 2, and on the Shema in general, p. 83 sq. [2023] See Epiphanius, haer. xx. 3:
καὶ Ὀσσαίων τὸ λεῖμμα οὐκέτι ἰουδαΐζον, ἀλλὰ συναφθὲν Σαμψίταις τοῖς κατὰ
διαδοχὴν ἐν τῷ πέραν τῆς νεκρᾶς θαλάσσης ὑπερκειμένοις. Comp. also Epiphan.
haer. xix. 2, liii. 1-2. Light-foot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians,
etc., 2nd ed. pp. 88, 374 sq. The identity of the Essence and Ossaians is
scarcely doubtful, though Epiphanius treats them as two different sects, haer.
x. and xix. (Lightfoot, p. 83). He correctly explains (haer. liii. 2) the name
Σαμψαῖοι by Ἡλιακοί (from שמש, the sun). [2024] See especially Ezekiel 8:16 sqq.
According to Sukka v. 4, two priests used to blow with trumpets in the morning
at cock-crowing at the feast of Tabernacles, first of all at the door which led
from the court of the men to the court of the women, then at the eastern door of
exit from the latter; hereupon they turned towards the west (i.e. towards the
temple) and said, with reference to Ezek. viii. 16: “Our fathers, who were in
this place, turned their backs to the temple of God and their faces to the east
and worshipped the sun towards the east. But we turn our eyes to God.” When it
is said in the Wisdom of Solomon, that we ought to prevent the sun with
thanksgiving to God, and to pray to God πρὸς ἀνατσλὴν φωτός, πρός has not a
local but a temporal meaning: “towards sunrise,” like Luke 24:29, πρὸς ἑσπέραν;
comp. Grimm, Exeget. Handb. zu Sap. Sal. xvi. 28. The matter too adduced by
Lucius (pp. 61, 69 sq., note 125) to explain Essenian customs from a Jewish
standpoint is not convincing. Its irrelevance is well pointed out by Lightfoot
(pp. 374-376), who conjectures that the Sampsitae are merely an offshoot of the
Essenes. Thus are we more and more driven to the view, that foreign influences
co-operated in the formation of Essenism. And this becomes undoubted, if the
account given of its Anthropology by Josephus is even in the main trustworthy.
For if it really taught the pre-existence of the soul and regarded the body as
only the soul’s prison, this is of itself a proof of the influence of foreign
philosophemes. Thus the question concerning the origin of Essenism is changed
into the question concerning the trustworthiness of Josephus. This is not indeed
utterly above suspicion, and we have already seen (above, p. 16 sq.), that he
has given a Greek tinge to the teaching of the Pharisees and clothed their
Jewish doctrine in a Greek garment. But we also saw that all that he says of
them is in substance true, and that it is only the form which is derived from
without. If then only one sentence which he says concerning the anthropology of
the Essenes is true, it is certain that their doctrine of man is dualistic, i.e.
non-Jewish. And there is the less ground for doubting this, since from this
point of view many of their peculiarities, especially their efforts after
purity, surpassing as they did even those of Phariseeism, are most simply and
naturally explained. But what foreign influences have we then to consider? No
less than four different factors have been proposed, viz. Buddhism, Parseeism,
Syrian heathenism, and Pythagoreanism. Each of these factors may in fact have
exerted an influence upon intellectual life in Palestine during the last
centuries before Christ; and for this very reason an answer to the above
question must remain an uncertain one. Buddhism seems the most far-fetched. But
when we consider, that an acquaintance with India had already been opened to the
Western nations by the victories of Alexander the Great, that afterwards
Megasthenes, in the time of Seleucus I. Nicator, i.e. about 300 B.C., furnished,
on the ground of his own observations during a prolonged sojourn in India, a
thorough description of the country and its inhabitants,[2025] and that a
regular commercial intercourse with India by way of the Red Sea probably existed
during the Graeco-Roman period,[2026] when also the striking parallel in some
instances between Buddhism and Essenism is considered, the possibility at least
of an actual connection cannot be disputed. It is true, that the still very
scanty intercourse between India and the West in pre-Christian times makes this
connection improbable.[2027] It is more obvious to think of Parseeism or
Pythagoreanism; for the points of contact with Syrian heathenism are but very
general, and affect at most only individual details. In Parseeism, on the other
hand, we find a whole series of the characteristic peculiarities of the Essenes:
the lustrations, the white garments (for the Magi), the adoration of the sun,
the repudiation of animal sacrifices proper (i.e. the presentation of the flesh
to the Deity), and especially their angelology and magic. Since too ordinary
Judaism seems to have been affected by Parseeism (see vol. i. p. 350), the
assumption of Parsee influence is a very obvious one, since it would be only
somewhat stronger in Essenism than in the latter.[2028] But other points again
are not at all Parseeistic, especially celibacy and the entire
anthropology.[2029] Hence all things considered, the hypothesis adopted
especially by Zeller, that the peculiarities of Essenism are to be explained
from Pythagorean influences, has the largest amount of probability in its
favour. For Pythagoreanism, of all the hitherto named tendencies, shows the
greater number of parallels with Essenism. It shares its aspirations for bodily
purity and sanctity, its lustrations, its simple habits of life apart from all
sensual enjoyments, its high estimation (if not exactly its requirement) of
celibacy, its white garments, repudiation of oaths, and especially its rejection
of bloody sacrifices, also the invocation of the sun and the scrupulosity with
which all that was unclean (such as human excrements) was hidden from it;[2030]
and lastly, the dualistic view of the relation of soul and body. All these
belong equally to the ideal of both the Essenes and Pythagoreans.[2031] If an
actual connection between the two is by reason of this far-reaching accordance,
to say the least, very probable, this probability is increased by the fact, that
a new light is thus cast upon even those peculiarities of Essenism, which may be
explained from a Jewish foundation. They thus become, not the result of a
spontaneous development, but of a fertilization of Judaism by new factors. These
latter exercised a power of attraction over Judaism, because they found therein
a series of points of contact for their own elective affinity. [2025] See the
extensive fragments of Megasthenes in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. ii. 397-439.
Comp. also concerning him Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1721. Nicolai, Griech.
Literaturgesch. ii. 170 sq. The work of Megasthenes seems to have been for a
long time the main source of information concerning India. Strabo however
availed himself also of other authors of the retinue of Alexander the Great as
authorities (e.g. Aristobulus, Nearchus, Oncsikritus). For other Ἰνδικά, see
Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 688b below; Nicolai, Griech. Literaturgesch. ii.
170 sq. That certain chief points were matters of general knowledge is seen from
Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, § 11. Josephus, Bell. Jud. vii. 8. 7 (ed,
Bekker, p. 160, lin. 20 sqq.). Lassen in his Indische Altertumskunde, vol. ii.
(2nd ed. 1874) pp. 626-751, gives a history of Greek acquaintance with India.
Comp. the careful discussion in Lightfoot’s St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Colossians, etc., pp. 390-396, and the two works cited by him, viz. Reinand,
Relations Politiques et Commerciales de l’empire romain avec l’Asie centrale,
Paris 1863; and Priaulx, The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the
Indian Embassies to Rome, 1873. [2026] Comp. especially the Periplus maris
Erythraei mentioned above, pp. 87 and 44, and the literature cited in the
preceding note. In the time of Augustus political embassies also came from India
to Rome (Monumentum Ancyranum, v. 50, 51, and Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti,
1883, p. 132 sq. Strabo, xv. 1. 4, p. 686, and xv. 1. 73, p. 719. Dio Cass. liv.
9. Sueton. Aug. 21. Orosius, vi. 21. 19). [2027] See, on the other hand, Zeller,
Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 323. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Colossians, etc., pp. 390-396. The attempts recently made to point out Indian
influences in other departments also are questionable, nay, more than
questionable. This applies especially to Seydel, Das Evangelium von Jesu in
seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre, Leipzig 1882 (on the other
hand, Theol. Literaturxeitung, 1882, p. 415 sqq.). The same, Die Buddha-Legende
und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien, Leipzig 1884 (on the other hand, Theol.
Litztg. 1884, p. 185 sqq.). On Pythagoras, Schroeder, Pythagoras und die Inder,
Leipzig 1884 (on the other hand, A. W. in the Lit. Centralbl. 1884, No. 45).
[2028] See Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. für wissenschafd. Theol. 1867, p. 99 sqq. The
same, Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthitms, p. 141 sqq. Lightfoot, p. 387 sqq.
[2029] See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 320 sqq. [2030] That the
adoration of the sun formed part of the Pythagorean ideal is seen especially
from the biography of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus (comp. Zeller,
Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2, p. 155, note 1). The effort too to avoid the
sight of what was unclean is genuinely Pythagorean. Comp. Zeller, Theol. Jahrb.
1856, p. 425. Mangold, Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, p. 52. [2031] See the
proofs in Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 401 sqq.; Philosophie der Griechen,
iii. 2, p. 325 sqq. Such an influence of Pythagoreanism upon a Jewish circle,
leading to the formation of this separate sect upon Jewish soil, is historically
easy of explanation. Essenism is met with at the earliest about the middle of
the second century before Christ. But Pythagoreanism, if not as a settled school
of philosophy, still as a view of life and a practice of morals, is far more
ancient. As then Greek culture must have had a powerful influence upon Palestine
since the time of Alexander the Great,—it was not repressed until the Maccabaean
rising,—it is only natural, if we find actual proof of this influence of
Hellenism in the circle of the Essenes. Thus Essenism would be a separation from
the soil of Judaism proper, which was perhaps effected in the second century
before Christ, under Greek influences, with the view of realizing an ideal akin
to Pythagoreanism, but with an adherence to its Jewish foundation.[2032] [2032]
The question whether the Therapeutae were offshoots of the Essenes or vice versa
(answered by Zeller at first in the former, but subsequently in the latter
sense) must now be left undiscussed, since the only work which gives us any
information concerning the Therapeutae, viz. Philo, De vita contemplativa (Mang.
ii 471-486), is certainly spurious, and the Therapeutae very probably merely
Christian monks. See below, § 34.1. One thing alone prevents our establishing
this result with certainty, and this is the enigmatical form of Pythagoreanism
itself. Just those peculiarities, which it has in common with Essenism, are
themselves not genuinely Greek, but very probably of Oriental origin. May not
then their coincidence be explained by the fact, that each of the two has
independently drawn from a common Oriental source? This would again lead to a
derivation of Essenism mainly from Parsee influences. The possibility of this
cannot be denied. But possibly both Parsee and Pythagorean influences were in
operation. The different currents of culture frequently cross each other on the
soil of Western Asia in so chequered and manifold a manner that it is impossible
to answer such questions with certainty. Two things however may be established
as the result of our investigation: (1) That Essenism is first and mainly a
Jewish formation; and (2) that in its non-Jewish features it has most affinity
with the Pythagorean tendency of the Greeks.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 85: � 31. JUDAISM IN THE DISPERSION. PROSELYTES
========================================================================

§ 31. JUDAISM IN THE DISPERSION. PROSELYTES THE LITERATURE Remond, Versuch einer
Geschichte der Ausbreitung des Judenthums von Cyrus bis auf den gänzlichen
Untergang des Jüdischen Staats, Leipzig 1789. Gieseler, Lehrbuch der
Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. Div. i. (4th ed. 1844) p. 53 sqq. Winer, RWB., art
“Exil” (i. 357-860) and “Zerstreuung” (ii. 727-730). Also the articles on
separate cities, as “Alexandria,” “Antiochia,” “Cyrene,” “Rom,” etc. J. G.
M(üller), art. “Alexandrinische Juden,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. i.
(1854) pp. 235-239. Reuss, art. “Hellenisten,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed, v.
701-705 (2nd ed. v. 738-741). Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe,
vol. i. (1852) pp. 89-120. Frankel, Die Diaspora zur Zeit des zweiten Tempels
(Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1853, pp. 409-429, 449-463).
Frankel, Die Juden unter den ersten römischen Kaisern (Monatsschr. 1854, pp.
401-413, 439-450). Jost, Gesch. der Israeliten, vol. ii. pp. 239-344. The same,
Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol. i. pp. 336 sqq., 344-361, 367-379.
Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, vol. iii. pp. 425-579. The same,
Handels-geschichte der Juden des Alterthums, 1879. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, vol.
iii. 3rd ed. (1878), pp. 26-54. Champagny, Rome et la Judée au temps de la chute
de Néron, vol. i. (Paris 1865) pp. 107-154. Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel,
vol. iv. p. 305 sqq., v. 108 sqq., vi. 396 sqq. Holtzmann in Weber and
Holtzmann’s Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. pp. 38-52, 258-273. Hausrath,
Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2nd ed. vol. ii. 91-145, iii. 389-392.
Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, vol. iii. (1871) pp.
504-517. The same, De Judaeorum coloniis. Regimonti Pr. 1876 (Progr.). Deutsch,
art. “Dispersion,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Westcott, art.
“Dispersion,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Weizsäcker, art.
“Zerstreuung,” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 712-716. Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome
B.C. 76 to A.D. 140, New York 1876 (comp Theol. Litztg. 1877, p. 163).
Hamburger, Real-Encyclapädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. (1883) art, “Zehn
Stämme,” “Zerstreuung,” also “Alexandria,” “Antiocbia,” “Rom,” etc.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 86: I. EXTENSION
========================================================================

I. EXTENSION The history of the Jews during the times of Christ is not confined
to the narrow limits of the Holy Land. Jewish communities of greater or less
magnitude and importance had settled in almost all the countries of the then
civilised world. These remained, on the one hand, in constant communication with
the mother country, and on the other, in active intercourse with the non-Jewish
world, and thus became of great importance both in respect of the internal
development of Judaism and its influence upon other civilised nations. The
causes of this dispersion were of very different kinds. In former times the
Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors of Israel violently deported large masses of
the nation into their eastern provinces. This occurred again, though to a less
extent, when Pompey e.g. carried off hundreds of Jewish captives to Rome. Of
greater importance however were the voluntary emigrations of Jewish settlers
during the Graeco-Roman period to the countries bordering on Palestine, and to
all the chief towns of the then civilised world for the sake chiefly of trade.
It was especially at the commencement of the Hellenistic period, that these
migrations were most numerous. The Diadochoi and their successors, for the sake
of consolidating their kingdoms, promoted to the uttermost of their power the
intermingling of the different nationalities, and consequently migrations from
one province to another. They were also frequently in need of great masses of
settlers for their newly founded towns. And in both of these interests the
rights of citizenship or other privileges were in many places granted without
further ceremony to immigrants. Attracted by these circumstances, large numbers
of Jews also were induced to settle in other lands. Adverse events at home may
also have contributed their part, and especially the exposed situation of
Palestine, which in all complications between Egyyt and Syria became the scene
of war. This induced many thousand Jews to emigrate to the neighbouring
countries of Syria and Egypt, where, especially in the capitals Antioch and
Alexandria, and in all the newly founded Hellenistic cities, valuable privileges
were bestowed upon them. They next resorted to Asia Minor, particularly the
towns of the Ionic coast, as well as to all the more important ports and
commercial cities of the Mediterranean Sea. Hence the Sibyllist was able, about
the year 140 B.C., to say of the Jewish people, that every land and every sea
was filled with them.[2033] About the same time (139-138 B.C.) the Roman Senate
despatched a circular in favour of the Jews to the kings of Egypt, Syria,
Pergamos, Cappadocia and Parthia, and to a great number of provinces, towns and
islands of the Mediterranean Sea (1Ma_15:16-24). It may hence be safely
inferred, that there was then already a greater or less number of Jews in all
these lands.[2034] Strabo, speaking of the time of Sulla, says (about 85 B.C.),
that the Jewish people had already come into every city, and that it was not
easy to find a place in the world which had not received this race, and was not
occupied by them.[2035] Josephus[2036] too and Philo[2037] express themselves
incidentally in a similar manner. The extent of the Jewish dispersion is most
amply described in the epistle of Agrippa to Caligula, given by Philo.
Jerusalem—it is here said—is the capital not only of Judaea, but of most
countries, by reason of the colonies which it has sent out on fitting occasions
into the neighbouring lands of Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, Coelesyria, and the
still more remote Pamphylia and Cilicia, into most parts of Asia as far as
Bithynia, and into the most distant corners of Pontus; also to Europe, Thessaly,
Boeotia, Macedonia, Etolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, and the most and best parts
of Peloponnesus. And not only is the continent full of Jewish settlements, but
also the more important islands,—Euboea, Cyprus, Crete,—to say nothing of the
lands beyond the Euphrates. For all, with the exception of a small portion of
Babylon and those satrapies which embrace the fertile land lying around it, have
Jewish inhabitants.[2038] The Acts of the Apostles also mention Jews and their
associates from Parthia, Media, Elam, and Mesopotamia, from Cappadocia, Pontus
and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and Cyrene, from Rome, Crete and Arabia
(Acts 2:9-11). [2033] Orac. Sibyll. 3:271: Πᾶσα δὲ γαῖα σέθεν πλήρης καὶ πᾶσα
θάλασσα. [2034] a Besides the kings of Egypt, Syria, Pergamos, Cappadocia and
Parthia, there are also named in 1Ma_15:16-24 : Sampsame (Samsun on the Black
Sea?), Sparta, Sicyon (in Peloponnesus), the islands of Delos and Samos, the
town of Gortyna in Crete, the country of Caria with the towns of Myndoe,
Halicarnassus and Cnidos, the islands of Cos and Rhodes, the country of Lycia
with the town of Phasaelis, the country of Pamphylia with the town Side, the
Phoenician town Aradus, and finally Cyprus and Cyrene. [2035] b Strabo in
Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2: εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν ἤδη παρεληλύθει, καὶ τόπον οὐκ ἔστι
ῥᾳδίως εὑρεῖν τῆς οἰκουμένης ὃς οὐ παραδέδεκται τοῦτο τὸ φῦλον, μηδʼ
ἐπικρατεῖται ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ. [2036] Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 4 (Bekker, p. 188): οὐ
γὰρ ἔστιν ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης δῆμος ὁ μὴ μοῖραν ὑμετέραν ἔχων. Bell. Jud. vii. 3.
3: τὸ γὰρ Ἰουδαίων γένος πολὺ μὲν κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην παρέσπαρται τοῖς
ἐπιχωρίοις. [2037] Philo, In Flaccum, § 7 (Mang. ii. 524): Ἰουδαίους γὰρ χώρα
μία διὰ πολυανθρωπίαν οὐ χωρεῖ. Ἧς αἰτίας ἕνεκα τἀς πλείστας καὶ εὐδαιμονεστάτας
τῶν ἐν Εὐρώπῃ καὶ Ἀσίᾳ κατά τε νήσους καὶ ἠπείρους ἐκνέμονται, μητρόπολιν μὲν
τὴν Ἱερόπολιν ἡγούμενοι, καθʼ ἣν ἵδρυται ὁ τοῦ ὑψίστου θεοῦ νεὼς ἅγιος· ἃς δʼ
ἔλαχον ἐκ πατέρων καὶ πάππων καὶ προπάππων καὶ τῶν ἔτι ἄνω προγόνων οἰκεῖν
ἕκαστοι, πατρίδας νομίζοντες, ἐν αἷς ἐγεννήθησαν καὶ ἐτράφησαν· εἰς ἐνίας δὲ καὶ
κτιζομένας εὐθὺς ἦλθον ἀποικίαν στειλάμενοι, τοῖς κτίσταις χαριζόμενοι. [2038]
Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 36, Mang. ii. 587. In Mesopotamia, Media, and
Babylonia lived the descendants of those members of the kingdom of the ten
tribes and of the kingdom of Judah who had once been carried away thither by the
Assyrians and Chaldeans.[2039] The “ten tribes” never returned at all from
captivity,[2040] and even in the times of Akiba there were disputes as to
whether they would ever do so.[2041] Nor must the return of the tribes of Judah
and Benjamin be conceived of as complete. Nay, these exiles subsequently
received fresh accessions. For the Persian king Artaxerxes Ochus, on his return
from his Egyptian campaign (about 340 B.C.), brought with him Jewish captives
also, and planted them in Hyrcania on the Caspian Sea.[2042] These Jewish
settlements may also have been increased by voluntary additions. From all these
causes the Jews in those provinces were numbered, not by thousands, but by
millions.[2043] Since they dwelt on the eastern borders of the Roman
Empire,—till Trajan, as subjects of the Parthians, and subsequently as
inhabitants of those eastern provinces which could never be securely maintained
by the Romans,[2044]—their attitude was always of political importance to the
empire. P. Petronius, legate of Syria, esteemed it dangerous in the year 40 B.C.
to excite in them a hostile disposition towards Rome.[2045] During the Vespasian
war the insurgents sought to incite their coreligionists beyond the Euphrates to
hostilities against Rome.[2046] It was a great peril for Trajan in his advance
against the Parthians to be menaced in his rear by the insurrection of the
Mesopotamian Jews (see § 21). Josephus names the strong cities of Nehardea
(Νάαρδα) and Nisibis, the former on the Euphrates, the latter in its valley, as
the chief dwelling places of the Babylonian and Mesopotamian Jews.[2047] Both
cities were in subsequent centuries chief seats of Talmudic Judaism, and are
therefore frequently mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud.[2048] [2039] Comp. on
the different deportations, Winer, Realwörterb., art. “Exil.” On the localities,
see note 14, below. [2040] Joseph. Antt. xi. 5. 2. 4 Ezra 13:39-47. Origen,
Epist. ad Africanum, § 14. [2041] Sanhedrin x. 3, fin.: “The ten tribes never
return, for it is said of them (Deuteronomy 29:27): He will cast them into
another land, as it is this day. As then this day departs and never returns, so
too are they to depart and never return. As the day becomes dark and then again
light, so will it one day be light again to the ten tribes with whom it was
dark.” [2042] Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 486: Ὦχος Ἀρταξέρξου παῖς εἰς Αἴγυπτον
στρατεύων μερικὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν εἷλεν Ἰουδαίων, ὧν τοὺς μὲν ἐν Ὑρκανίᾳ κατῴκισε
πρὸς τῇ Κασπίᾳ θαλάσσῃ, τοὺς δὲ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, οἵ καὶ μέχρι νῦν εἰσιν αὐτόθι, ὡς
πολλοὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἱστοροῦσιν. Orosius, iii. 7: Tune etiam Ochus, qui et
Artaxerxes, post transactum in Aegypto maximum diutunumque bellum plurimos
Judaeorum in transmigrationem egit atque in Hyrcania ad Caspium mare habitare
praecepit: quos ibi usque in hodiernum diem amplissimi generis sui incrementis
consistere atque exim quandoque erupturos opinio est. Kürzer in the Chronik des
Eusebius und Hieronymus ad annum Abr. 1657 (ed. Schoene, ii. 112 sq.). Syucellus
alone speaks of a settlement in Babylon; other authorities mention only the
settlement in Hyrcania on the Caspian Sea. [2043] Joseph. Antt. xi. 5. 2: Αἱ δὲ
δέκα φυλαὶ πέραν εἰσὶν Εὐφράτου ἕως δεῦρο, μυριάδες ἄπειροι καὶ ἀριθμῷ γνωσθῆναι
μὴ δυνάμεναι. Antt. xv. 2. 2: ἐν Βαβυλῶνι … ἔνθα καὶ πλῆθος ἦν Ἰουδαίων. On the
history of the Babylonian Jews, comp. especially Antt. xviii. 9. Reference is
sometimes at least made in the Mishna to the Jews of Babylonia and Media. See
Shekalim iii. 4 (the half-shekel tax of Babylonia and Media); Challa iv. 11 (the
first-born not accepted from Babylonia); Joma vi. 4 (the Babylonians plucked the
wool of the scape-goat on the day of atonement); Menachoth xi. 7 (Babylonian
priests); Baba mezia iv. 7, Shabbath vi. 6 (Median Jwessses); Baba kamma ix. 5 =
Baba mezia iv. 7 (restitution for plundered property is binding as far as
Media); Shabbath ii. 1, Nasir v. 4, Baba bathra v. 2 (Nabum the Mede). The Book
of Tobit also proves that Jews dwelt in Media (Tob_1:14; Tob_3:7, etc.). [2044]
On the political history, see Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. i.
(1881) pp. 435-438. [2045] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 33, Mang. ii. 578. [2046]
Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 6. 2 (p. 108, line 19 sq., ed. Bekker). Titus reproaches
the Jews that καὶ πρεσβεῖαι μὲν ὑμῶν πρὸς τοὺς ὑπὲρ Εὐφράτην ἐπὶ νεωτερισμῷ.
[2047] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 9.1 and 9, fin. On Nehardea (נהרדעא), see Pauly’s
Real-Enc. v. 375 sq. (s.v. Naarda). Bitter, Erdkunde, x. 146. Hamburger,
Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, ii. 852 sq. On Nisbis, Pauly’s Real-Enc. v. 659
sq. Ritter, Erdkunde, xi. 413 sqq. Nisibis was not on the Euphrates, as might
appear from Josephus, but on the Mygdonius, an affluent of the Chaboras, which
again is an affluent of the Euphrates. It formed the centre of the localities
mentioned 2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 18:11, to which the members of the kingdom of
the ten tribes were carried by the Assyrians (see Gesenius’ Thesaurus, and
Winer’s Realwörterbuch on the articles חֲלַח, חָבוֹר, נּוֹזָן, מָדַי, Halach,
Habor, Gozan, Media; and the commentaries on 2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 18:11).
Nehardea, on the other hand, lay farther southward in Babylonia proper. Thus
around Nisibis were grouped the descendants of the ten tribes, and around
Nehardea the descendants of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, increased in both
instances by subsequent additions. For Rabbinical matter on the abode of the ten
tribes, see Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. in epist. 1 ad Corinthios, addenda ad c. xiv.
(Opp. ed. Roterodam. ii. 929-932); Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 1281 sqq. (art.
“Zehn Stämme”). Comp. also 4 Ezra 13:39-47, and above, p. 170. [2048] See
Berliner Beiträge zur Geographie und Ethnographie Babyloniens im Talmud und
Midrash (Berlin 1881), pp. 47 sqq., 53 sq. נהרדעא is also already mentioned in
the Mishna, Jebamoth xvi. 7. Josephus names Syria as the country in which was
the largest percentage of Jewish inhabitants, and its capital, Antioch, was
especially distinguished in this respect.[2049] Other cities of Syria also
numbered their Jewish inhabitants by thousands; this was the case with Damascus,
where, according to the statement of Josephus, 10,000 or (according to another
passage) 18,000 Jews are said to have been assassinated at the time of the
war.[2050] Philo tells us of Asia also, as of Syria, that Jews dwelt in large
numbers in every city.[2051] Aristotle, during his sojourn in Asia Minor
(348-345 B.C.), had a meeting with an educated Jew, who had come thither, who
Ἑλληνικὸς ἦν οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ. Clearchus, a disciple of
Aristotle, gives in his book on sleep further particulars concerning this
meeting.[2052] Antiochus the Great settled 2000 Jewish families from Mesopotamia
and Babylonia in Phrygia and Lydia.[2053] And to mention nothing else, the Roman
edicts in favour of the Jews communicated by Josephus (Antt. xiv. 10, xvi. 6),
and the entire history of the Apostle Paul, show how widely the Jews had spread
over the whole of Asia Minor. The statement of Agrippa in his epistle cited
above, that Jews had settled in Bithynia and in the most distant corners of
Pontus,[2054] is abundantly confirmed by the Jewish inscriptions in the Greek
language found in the Crimea.[2055] [2049] Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3: Τὸ γὰρ Ἰουδαίων
γένος πολὺ μὲν κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην παρέσπαρται τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις, πλεῖστον
δὲ τῇ Συρίᾳ κατὰ τὴν γειτνίασιν ἀναμεμιγμένον, ἐξαιρέτως δʼ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀντιοχείας
ἡν πολὺ διὰ τὸ τῆς πόλεως μέγεθος. Comp. Hamburger, Real-Enc. s.v. Antiochien.
[2050] 10,000, Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 2. 18,000, Bell. Jud. vii. 8. 7 (p. 161, 27,
ed. Bekker). [2051] Philo, ad Legat. Cajum, § 33, Mang. ii. 582: Ιουδαῖοι καθʼ
ἑκάστην πόλιν εἰσὶ παμπληθεῖς Ἀσίας τε καὶ Συρίας. [2052] The account of
Clearchus is preserved by Josephus, contra Apionem, i. 22 (p. 200 sq., ed.
Bekker). Eusebius, Praep. evang. ix. 5, has the history from Josephus. Clemens
Alexandrinus, Strom. i. 15. 70, also briefly notices the matter. Comp. Müller,
Fragmenta Hist. Graec. ii. 323 sq. Gutschmid, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte des
alten Orients (1876), p. 77. [2053] Antt. xii. 3. 4. [2054] Philo, ed. Mang. ii.
587: ἄχρι Βιθυνίας καὶ τῶν τοῦ Πόντου μυχῶν. Comp. also Acts 18:2 (Aquila, a Jew
of Pontus). [2055] See a Jewish inscription from Pantikapaion (on the Cimmerian
Bosphorus) of the year 377 aer. Bosp. = A.D. 81, in the Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol.
ii. p. 1005 (addenda, n. 2114bb). Another from Anapa (also in the Crimea) of the
year 338 aer. Bosp. = A.D. 42 in Stephani, Pererga archaeologica (Bulletin de
l’Académie de St, Pétersburg, vol. i. 1860, col. 244 sqq.). See also Caspari,
Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. (1875) p. 269. The Hebrew
inscriptions from the Crimea, some of which Chwolsen thought might be referred
to even the first century after Christ (Chwolsen, Achtzehn hebräische
Grabschriften aus der Krim, Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.
Pétersbourg, vii.e Série, vol. ix. 1866, No. 7), are much more modern, the dates
which decide the question having been fabricated by Firkowitsch. See the proof
in Strack (A. Firkowitsch und seine Entdeckungen, ein Grabstein der hebräischen
Grabschriften der Krim, Leipzig 1876) and Harkavy (Altjüdische Denkmäler aus der
Krim, Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg, vii.e
Série, vol. xxiv. 1876, No. 1). The fact of the forgery was subsequently
acknowledged to at least a limited extent by Chwolsen himself (in his Corpus
Inscriptionum Hebraicarum, Petersburg 1882). Comp. also Kautzsch in the Theol.
Litztg. 1883, p. 319 sqq. But most important with regard to the history of
civilisation was the Jewish Dispersion in Egypt and especially in
Alexandria.[2056] Long before the time of Alexander the Great Jewish immigrants
were already found there. Psammetichus I. is said to have had Jewish mercenaries
in his army in his war against the Ethiopians, 650 B.C.[2057] In the time of
Jeremiah a large train of Jewish emigrants went into Egypt, for fear of the
Chaldees and in opposition to the will of the prophet (Jeremiah 42, 43; for the
occasion, see Jeremiah 41). They settled in various parts of Egypt, in Migdol,
Tahpanhes, Noph and Pathros (Jeremiah 44);[2058] and though many of them
embraced the religion of Egypt and many were extirpated by war, still a remnant
was left. A forcible deportation of Jewish colonists to Egypt is said to have
taken place in the time of the Persian supremacy.[2059] Their most flourishing
period however does not begin till the time of Alexander the Great. As early as
the foundation of Alexandria, Jewish settlers were attracted to it by the
bestowal upon them of the rights of citizenship,[2060] Large numbers of Jews
afterwards came to Egypt chiefly under Ptolemy I. Lagos, some as prisoners of
war and some as voluntary immigrants. They were employed by Ptolemy as
mercenaries, especially for garrisoning fortified places.[2061] In Alexandria a
special quarter apart from the rest of the city was, in the times of the
Diadochoi, assigned to the Jews, “that they might lead a purer life by mingling
less with foreigners.”[2062] This Jewish quarter lay on the harbourless coast,
in the neighbourhood of the royal palace, and therefore in the north-eastern
part of the town.[2063] This severance was not afterwards strictly maintained.
For according to Philo there were Jewish houses of prayer in all parts of the
city,[2064] and many Jews dwelt scattered through all its quarters.[2065] But
even Philo says also, that of the five districts of the town, which were named
after the first, five letters of the alphabet, two were called “the Jewish,”
because they were chiefly inhabited by Jews.[2066] The separation was however on
the whole maintained, and we shall find the Jewish quarter still in the same
place, viz. in the east of the town, in Philo’s time.[2067] According to an
incidental notice in Josephus, the Jews dwelt chiefly in the “ so-called Delta,”
i.e. in the fourth district of the town.[2068] Philo estimates the entire number
of the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt at about a million in his days.[2069] The
Jews of Alexandria and Egypt took, in conformity with their large numbers and
importance, a prominent part in all the chief conflicts between the Jewish and
the heathen world, in the great persecution under Caligula (see § 17c) and in
the insurrections in the times of Nero, Vespasian[2070] and Trajan (see §
21).[2071] The very history of these conflicts is at the same time a proof of
the continued importance of the Egyptian Jews in the Roman period also. But
besides the Jews properly so called, there were also Samaritans dwelling in
Egypt. Ptolemy I. Lagos, when he conquered Palestine, carried away with him many
captives, not only from Judaea and Jerusalem, but also “from Samaria and Mount
Gerizim,” and settled them in Egypt.[2072] In the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor
the Jews and Samaritans are said to have brought their dispute, as to whether
Jerusalem or Gerizim was the true place of worship, before the tribunal of the
king.[2073] Hadrian in his letter to Servianus says of the Samaritans in Egypt
as well as of the Jews and Christians dwelling there, that they were all of them
“astrologers, haruspices and quacks.”[2074] In a work of one Bishop Eulogius we
are told of a synod held by him against the Samaritans. If we are to understand,
that he is Eulogius of Alexandria, elsewhere spoken of, the flourishing
condition of the Samaritans in Egypt during the sixth century after Christ would
be proved.[2075] [2056] Comp. Cless, De coloniis Judaeorum in Aegyptum terrasque
cum Aegypto conjunctas post Mosen deductis, P. I., Stuttg. 1832. Hamburger,
Real-Enc. art. “Alexandrien.” See other literature in Reuse, Gesch. der heil.
Schriften Alten Testaments, § 430. [2057] Ariateae, epist. ed. M. Schmidt, in
Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. vol. i. p. 255
(Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 104), enumerates the three following chief
emigrations of Jews to Egypt, from Ptolemy I. backwards: Ἐκεῖνος γὰρ (i.e.
Ptolemy Lagos) ἐπελθὼν τὰ κατὰ κοίλην Συρίαν καὶ Φοινίκην ἅπαντα, συγχρώμενος
εὐημερίᾳ μετʼ ἀνδρείας, τοὺς μὲν μετῴκιζεν, οὓς δὲ ἠχμαλώτιζε, φόβῳ πανθʼ
ὑποχείρια ποιούμενος· ἐν ὅσῳ καὶ πρὸς δέκα μυριάδας ἐκ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων χώρας
εἰς Αἴγυπτον μετήγαγεν· ἀφʼ ὧν ὡσεὶ τρεῖς μυριάδας καθοπλίσας ἀνδρῶν ἐκλεκτῶν
εἰς τὴν χώραν κατῴκισεν ἐν τοῖς φρουρίοις· ἤδη μέν καὶ πρότερον ἱκανῶν
εἰσεληλυθότων σὺν τῷ Πέρσῃ, καὶ πρὸ τούτων ἑτέρων συμμαχιῶν ἐξαπεσταλμένων πρὸς
τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι σὺν Ψαμμητίχῳ· ἀλλʼ οὐ τοσοῦτοι τῷ πλήθει
παρεγενήθησαν, ὅσους Πτολεμαῖος ὁ τοῦ Λάγου μετήγαγε. That Psammetichus had
foreign mercenaries in his army is evidenced elsewhere also; see Cless, De
coloniis, pp. 4-7, and Pauly’s Real-Enc. vi. 1.167 sq. [2058] מִגְדֹּל and
תַּחְפַּנְחֵס (= Daphne) are situate in the neighbourhood of Pelusium, i.e. on
the north-eastern boundary of Lower Egypt. נֹף or מֹף is Memphis on the southern
extremity of the Delta. פַּתְרוֹס is Upper Egypt. See the commentaries and the
articles on this matter in Gesenius’ Thesaurus and Winer’s Realwörterb. [2059]
Aristeas speaks of such a one in two passages; see one in note 24, above; the
other, ed. Schmidt, p. 260, Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 107. Comp. also Cless,
De coloniis, pp. 11-13. [2060] Apion. ii. 4. Antt. xix. 5. 2. [2061] Hecateus in
Joseph. Apion. i. 22 (Bekker, p. 203, lin. 31 sq.): οὐκ ὀλίγαι δὲ [μυριάδες] καὶ
μετὰ τὸν Ἀλεξάνδρου θάνατον εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ Φοινίκην μετέστησαν διὰ τὴν ἐν
Συρίᾳ στάσιν. Further particulars in the passage quoted note 24 from Aristeas,
and Josephus, Antt. xii. 1. [2062] Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7: (οἱ διάδοχοι) τόπον
ἴδιον αὐτοῖς ἀφώρισαν, ὅπως καθαρωτέραν ἔχοιεν τὴν δίαιταν, ἧττον ἐπιμισγομένων
τῶν ἀλλοφύλων. Strabo in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2: χωρὶς δὲ τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων
πόλεως ἀφώριστο μέγα μέρος τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ. According to Joseph. Apion. ii. 4, it
might appear as though Alexander the Great had assigned this special quarter to
the Jews. But, according to the evidently more accurate statement in Bell. Jud.
ii. 18. 7, this was first done by the Diadochoi. Comp. J. G. Müller, Des Flavius
Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877), p. 239. [2063] Josephus, c. Apion. ii.
4, init. (cited from Apion): ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Συρίας ᾤχησαν πρὸς ἀλίμενον θάλασσαν,
γειτνιάσαντες ταῖς τῶν κυμάτων ἐκβολαῖς .… (Josephus himself also says): πρὸς
τοῖς βασιλείοις ἦσαν ἱδρυμένοι. The great harbour of Alexandria, along which lay
the greater part of the town, is bounded on the west by the island of Pharos and
the mole connecting the island with the continent, on the east by the promontory
of Lochias, which juts out from the mainland into the sea (see especially the
plan in Kiepert, Zur Topographie des alten Alexandria, Berlin 1872; also M.
Erdmanh, Zur Kunde der hellenistischen Städtegründungen, Strassburger Progr.
1883, pp. 10-23). On the promontory of Lochias and in its neighbourhood lay the
royal citadel, with the numerous buildings appertaining to it (Strabo, xvii. 1.
9, p. 794), which together made up a fifth of the town (Plinius, v. 10, 62; see
in general Panly’s Real-Enc. i. 1. 789 sq.). Hence the Jewish quarter lay on the
coast east of the promontory of Lochias. [2064] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 20,
Mang. ii. 565. [2065] Philo, In Flaccum, § 8, Mang. ii. 525. See the next note.
[2066] Philo, In Flaccum, § 8, Mang. ii. 525: Πέντε μοῖραι τῆς πόλεώς εἰσιν.
ἐπώνυμοι τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων τῆς ἐγγραμμάτου φωνῆς· τούτων δύο Ἰουδαϊκαὶ
λέγονται, διὰ τὸ πλείστους Ἰουδαίους ἐν ταύταις κατοικεῖν. Οἰκοῦσι δὲ καὶ ἐν
ταῖς ἄλλαις οὐκ ὀλίγοι σποράδες. The division of Alexandria into five districts
and their appellation after the first five letters of the alphabet is also
testified elsewhere. See Pseudo-Callisthenes, i. 32 (ed. Meusel in Fleckeisen’s
Jahrbb. für class. Philol. Supplemental, vol. v.): Θεμελιώσας δὲ τὸ πλεῖστον
μέρος τῆς πόλεως Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ χωρογραφήσας ἐπέγραψε γράμματα πέντε· α β γ δ
ε. The second of these districts is mentioned in an inscription of the time of
Antoninus Pius: Τιβέριος Ἰούλιος Ἀλέξανδρος ….. τῶν ἀγορανομηκότων ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς
εὐθηνίας τοῦ Β γράμματος (see Lumbroso in the Annali dell’ Instituto di corrsp.
archeol. 1875, p. 15; Bursian’s Jahresbericht, f. 1874-75, vol. ii. p. 305;
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 455). [2067] Josephus
expressly says, c. Apion. ii. 4, that the Jews did not subsequently relinquish
the place occupied by them (κατέσχονως μηδʼ ὕστερον ἐκπεσεῖν). [2068] Bell. Jud.
ii. 18. 8: εἰς τὸ καλούμενον Δέλτα· συνῴκιστο γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὸ Ιουδαϊκόν). [2069]
Philo, In Flaccum, § 6, Mang. ii. 523: οὐκ ἀποδέουσι μυριάδων ἑκατὸν οἱ τὴν
Ἀλεξάνδρειαν καὶ τὴν χώραν Ἰουδαῖοι κατοικοῦντες ἀπὸ τοῦ πρὸς Λιβύην καταβαθμοῦ
μέχρι τῶν ὁρίων Αἰθιοπίας. [2070] Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7-8, vii. 10. [2071] Comp.
on the Alexandrian persecutions of the Jews, the Rabbinical passages cited by
Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 99, s.v. אלכסנדריא. [2072] Joseph. Antt. xii. 1:
πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους λαβὼν ἀπό τε τῆς ὀρεινῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ τῶν περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα
τόπων καὶ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Γαριζείν, κατῴκισεν ἅπαντας εἰς
Αἴγυπτον ἀγαγών. [2073] Antt. xiii. 3. 4. Comp. xii. 1, fin. [2074] Vopisc. vita
Saturnini, c. 8 (in the Scriptores historiae Augustae): nemo illic
archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter non
mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. [2075] We know the work of this
Eulogius only from the information given in Photius, Biblioth. cod. 230, s. fin.
(ed. Bekker, p. 285). Photius esteemed the author to be Eulogius of Alexandria
(at the end of the 6th century), which however is not consistent with the fact,
that the synod is said to have been held in the seventh year of the Emperor
Marcianus (450-457). The only alternative is either to alter Marcianus into
Mauricius, who reigned from A.D. 582 to 602 (as e.g. Fabricius-Harles, Biblioth.
gr. x. 754), or to think of some other Eulogius, perhaps the bishop of
Philadelphia, in Palestine, who signed the acts of the Council of Chalcedon 451
(as e.g. Tillemont and Ceillier; see in general, Smith and Wace, Dictionary of
Christian Biography, s.v. Eulogius). In the latter case his work would be taken
no account of in the history of the Egyptian Samaritans. The Jewish Dispersion
penetrated from Egypt farther westward. It was very numerously represented in
Cyrenaica. Ptolemy I. Lagos had already sent Jewish settlers thither.[2076]
According to Strabo, the inhabitants of the city of Cyrene were in Sulla’s time
(about 85 B.C.) divided into four classes: 1. citizens, 2. agriculturists, 3.
metoikoi, 4. Jews.[2077] At that time the Jews were already playing a prominent
part in the disturbances in Cyrene, which Lucullus had to allay during his
accidental presence there.[2078] The Jews at Cyrene seem to have been at all
times quite specially disposed to insurrection. In the time of Vespasian the
after-piece of the war was played out here,[2079] and in the time of Trajan
Cyrenaica was a main seat of the great Jewish revolt (see above, § 21).[2080] We
may also safely assume, that Jewish settlements likewise existed still farther
westward. Only single traces of such are however to be discovered with any
certainty.[2081] [2076] Joseph. Apion. ii. 4. Comp. on the history of Cyrenaica,
Thrige, Res Cyrenensium, Hafniae 1828. Clinton, Fasti Helleneci, iii. 394-398.
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. (1881) pp. 457-464, and the literature
there cited. On the geography, Forbiger, Handb. der alten Geographie, ii.
825-832. [2077] Strabo in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2: τέτταρες δʼ ἦσαν ἐν τῇ πόλει
τῶν Κυρηναίων, ἥ τε τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν γεωργῶν, τρίτη δʼ ἡ τῶν μετοίκων καὶ
τετάρτη ἡ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. [2078] Strabo in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2. On the doings
of Lucullus in Cyrene, see Plutarch. Lucull. 2. Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, i.
459. His main object was to requisition ships for Sulla. But he had also
internal disturbances to compose, the condition of Cyrene, which was not
organized as a province till 74 B.C., being still very disordered. [2079]
Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 11; Vita, 76. [2080] Comp. on the history of the Jews in
Cyrene, 1Ma_15:23 (also above, p. 221); Antt. xvi. 6. 1, 5; and the inscription
of Berenike, Corp. Inter. Graec. n. 5361. Jews of Cyrene are mentioned 2Ma_2:23
(Jason of Cyrene), Matthew 27:32 = Mark 15:21 = Luke 23:26 (Simon of Cyrene);
Acts 2:10 (Cyrenians at the feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem); Acts 6:9
(synagogue of the Cyrenians in Jerusalem); Acts 11:20 (Cyrenians come from
Jerusalem to Antioch); Acts 13:1 (Lucius of Cyrene at Antioch). [2081] A Jewish
inscription Pompejo Restuto Judeo at Citra, in Leon Renier, Inscriptions de
l’Algérie (Paris 1855), n. 2072 = Corp. lnscr. Lat. vol. viii. n. 7155. A pater
sinagogae upon an inscription at Sitifis in Mauritania in Orelli-Henzen, Inscr.
Lat. vol. iii. n. 6145 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. viii. n. 8499. That there were
Jews in Carthage in Tertullian’s time appears from the commencement of his work,
adv. Judaeos. Freidländer, De Judaeorum coloniis (Königsberg Progr. 1876),
refers to a passage of Procopius (De aedif. vi. 2, ed. Dindorf, iii. 334). The
diffusion of the Jews in Greece is already evident from the history of the
Apostle Paul, who found Jewish synagogues in Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens and
Corinth (Acts 17:1; Acts 17:10; Acts 17:17; Acts 18:4; Acts 18:7). This is
confirmed by the expressions of Agrippa in the above-mentioned epistle to
Caligula.[2082] There were also Jews in almost all the islands of the Grecian
Archipelago and the Mediterranean Sea, and in some of these in large numbers, In
the epistle Euböa, Cyprus and Crete are decidedly mentioned.[2083] And if we
only know this expressly in a smaller measure of the smaller islands, the reason
lies in the scantiness of our sources of information.[2084] [2082] Comp. also
Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. iv. n. 9900 (a Jewish inscription at Athens), n. 9896
(at Patras in Achaia). [2083] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 36, Mang. ii. 587. Comp.
on Cyprus, Acts 13:4 sqq. Joseph. Antt. 10. 4, and the history of the great
insurrection under Trajan (§ 21, above); on Crete, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 12. 1;
Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 1; Vita, 76. [2084] Comp. 1Ma_15:23 (on this see above, p.
221. Delos, Samos, Cos and Rhodes are named). Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9894 (a
Jewish inscription at Algina); Joseph. Antt. xvii. 12, 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 1
(Melos); Antt. xiv. 10. 8 (Paros); Antt. xiv. 10. 8 and 14 (Delos); Antt. xiv.
7. 2 and 10. 15 (Cos). In Italy Rome was the seat of a Jewish community numbered
by thousands.[2085] The first appearance of Jews in Rome dates from the time of
the Maccabees. Judas Maccabaeus sent an embassy to the Senate to conclude an
alliance with Rome, or, to speak more correctly, to obtain an assurance of its
friendship and assistance (1Ma_8:17-32). His brother and successor Jonathan
followed his example (1Ma_12:1-4; 1Ma_12:16). Of greater importance was the
embassy, which Simon the third of the Maccabaean brothers sent to Rome in the
year 140-139 B.C. It effected an actual offensive and defensive alliance with
the Romans (1Ma_14:24; 1Ma_15:15-24). During their prolonged sojourn at Rome the
envoys or their retinue seem also to have attempted a religious propaganda. For
it is this that is alluded to in the certainly somewhat confused notice in
Valerius Maximus, i. 3. 2: Idem (viz. the praetor Hispalus) Judaeos, qui Sabazi
Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati erant, repetere domos suas
coegit).[2086] Jupiter Zabazius is indeed a Phrygian deity.[2087] Since however
Judaeos is certified by the text, his appellation in our passage undoubtedly
rests upon a confusion of the Jewish Sabaoth (Zebaoth) with Sabazius.[2088] The
event here related happened however (according to the immediately preceding
words in Valerius Maximus) during the consulate of Popilius Laenas and L.
Calpurnius Piso (B.C. 139), i.e. exactly at the time of Simon’s embassy, to
which it is most probably to be referred. It may also be inferred from it, that
no Jews then dwelt permanently in Rome. The settlement there of a great number
of Jews dates only from the time of Pompey. After his conquest of Jerusalem in
the year 63 B.C., he brought numerous Jewish prisoners of war with him to Rome.
They were then sold as slaves; but many of them were soon set at liberty, their
strict adherence to their Jewish customs being inconvenient to their masters.
Endowed with the privileges of Roman citizenship, they settled beyond the Tiber
and formed an independent Jewish community.[2089] From that time onwards the
Jewish colony in Trastevere formed no unimportant factor in Roman life. When
Cicero, in the year 59 B.C., made his oration in defence of Flaccus, we find
many Jews present among the auditors.[2090] At the death of Caesar, the great
protector of the Jews, a multitude of the latter made lamentation at his bier
during whole nights.[2091] In the time of Augustus they were already numbered by
thousands. Josephus at least tells us that 8000 Roman Jews joined the deputation
which came from Palestine to Rome in the year 4 B.C.[2092] In the time of
Tiberius repressive measures commenced. According to Josephus, the whole Jewish
population was banished from Rome A.D. 19, because a few Jews had swindled a
noble female proselyte named Fulvia of large sums of money under the pretext of
sending them to the temple at Jerusalem.[2093] Four thousand Jews capable of
bearing arms were on this account deported to Sardinia to fight against the
brigands in that island; the rest were banished from the city. Such are the
accounts of Tacitus,[2094] Suetonius,[2095] and Josephus,[2096] whose statements
essentially agree. According to the contemporary narrative of Philo, these
measures were chiefly carried out by the then powerful Sejanus.[2097] After his
overthrow, A.D. 31, Tiberius perceived that the Jews had been slandered without
cause by Sejanus, and commanded the authorities (ὑπάρχοις) in all places not to
molest the Jews, nor to prevent the practice of their customs.[2098] It may here
be assumed that a return to Rome was also allowed them; and this explains the
fact that Philo should, so early as the time of Caligula, again take for granted
the existence of the Jewish community. The reign of Claudius began with a
general Edict of Toleration in favour of the Jews.[2099] But this emperor also
subsequently found himself obliged to take measures against them. According to
the short accounts in the Acts and Suetonius, an actual expulsion of the Jews
took place under Claudius.[2100] According however to the evidently more
accurate account of Dio Cassius, Claudius only prohibited the assemblies of the
Jews, because their expulsion could not be carried out without great
tumult.[2101] This prohibition was indeed equal to a prohibition of the free
exercise of their religion, and would certainly have the result of inducing many
to leave the city. Its date cannot be accurately determined; it was probably
promulgated in the later times of Claudius.[2102] From the words of Suetonius it
might indeed be inferred, that it was occasioned by the disturbances, which
arose within Judaism in consequence of the preaching of Christ.[2103] This edict
of Claudius had also but transient consequences. Such measures were not capable
of extirpating the firmly rooted Jewish community, or of even permanently
weakening it. It was already, chiefly by means of its numerous proselytes, too
much intertwined with Roman life for its complete suppression to be successful.
The Jews, when expelled from the city, emigrated to the neighbourhood, perhaps
to Aricia,[2104] soon to return thence to their old abodes. Their history in
Rome may be summed up in the words of Dio Cassius: Often suppressed, they
nevertheless mightily increased, so that they achieved even the free exercise of
their customs.[2105] The aristocratic Roman indeed looked down upon them with
contempt. But the numerous lampoons of the satirists are just so many evidences
of the notice they attracted in Roman society.[2106] Even from the time of
Augustus direct relations of Jews to the imperial court are not lacking; nay, in
the reign of Nero the Empress Poppaea seems herself to have been inclined to
Judaism.[2107] By degrees they spread farther in the city also. The quarter in
Trastevere was no longer their only one. We find them subsequently in the Campus
Martins, and in the midst of the Roman commercial world in the Subura (see
below, No. 2). Juvenal jests at the fact, that the sacred grove of Egeria,
before the Porta Capena, was leased to Jews and swarmed with Jewish beggars
(Sat. iii. 12-16). The settlement of Jews in various quarters of the town, and
their continued prosperity down to the later imperial times, are also especially
evidenced by Jewish burying grounds, some of them the discovery of recent times.
Of these, the five following are now known:[2108] (1) A somewhat insignificant
cemetery before the Porta Portuensis, discovered by Bosio in the year 1602. This
was certainly the burial-place of the Jews in Trastevere. The knowledge of the
locality was afterwards lost, and all efforts for its re-discovery have hitherto
been unsuccessful.[2109] (2) A large cemetery, discovered in the beginning of
the sixth decade of this century, on the Via Appia in the Vigna Randanini
(somewhat farther out than the catacomb of Callistus). To it we owe our
acquaintance with a large number of Romano-Jewish inscriptions.[2110] (3) In the
year 1867 (or 1866) a Jewish cemetery, of which de Rossi gives a short account,
was discovered in the vineyard of Count Cimarra, also on the Via Appia, nearly
opposite the catacomb of Callistus.[2111] (4) A Jewish cemetery on the Via
Labicana, therefore in the neighbourhood of the Esquinal and Viminal, of perhaps
the date of the Antonines, was pointed out by Marucchi in the year 1883.[2112]
(5) There was also in Porto (at the mouth of the Tiber) a Jewish cemetery, from
which are derived many of the Jewish epitaphs with which we have for a long time
been acquainted.[2113] The antiquity of this cemetery, and of the inscriptions
contained in it, can only be approximately determined. They may date chiefly
from the second to the fourth centuries after Christ. [2085] Comp. on the Jews
in Rome, Migliore, Ad inscriptionem Flaviae Antoninae commentarius sive de
antiquis Judaeis Italicis exercitatio epigraphica (MS. of the Vatican library,
n. 9143, cited by Engeström). Auer, Die Juden in Rom unmittelbar vor und nach
Christi Geburt (Zeitschr. für die gesammte kathol. Theol. vol. iv. No. 1, 1852,
pp. 56-105). Hausrath, Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch., 2nd ed. iii. 383-392 (1st ed.
iii. 71-81). Renan, Paulus, p. 131 sqq. Engeström, Om Judarne i Rom under äldre
tider och deras katakomber, Upsala 1876. Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome, New York
1876. Schürer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserteit,
Leipzig 1879. Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. pp. 1083-1037
(art. “Rom”). Hild, Les juifs à Rome devant l’opinion et dans la littérature
(Revue des études juives, vol. viii. 1884, pp. 1-37, and continuation). Hudson,
History of the Jews in Rome, 2nd ed. London 1884 (394 pp.). The works and
articles of Levy, Garrucci and others on the inscriptions of the Jewish
catacombs in Rome (see above, § 2). [2086] There is a large hiatus in the first
book of the text of Valerius Maximus. Two extracts from his works, which have
been preserved to us, that of Julius Paris and that of Januarius Nepotianus
(both given by Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, iii. 3, 1828) help to
fill it up. (For the hiatus, see also Kempt’s edition of Valerius Maximus,
1854.) The passage with which we are concerned is given above, according to the
extract of Paria. In the extract of Nepotianus this same passage runs as
follows: Judaeos quoque, qui Romanis tradere sacra sua conati erant, idem
Hippalus urbe exterminavit; arasque privatas e publicis locis abiecit. Since
then both summarizers have the word Judaeos, it must without doubt have existed
in Valerius Maximus. It is wanting only in the printed common text derived from
a bad transcript from Paris, which I followed in the first edition of this book.
[2087] Comp. on Sabazius, Georgii in Pauly’s Real-Enc. vii. 1, 615-621.
Lenormant in the Revue archéologique, new series, vol. xxviii. 1874, pp. 800
sqq., 880 sqq., xxix, 1875, p. 43 sqq. On his worship in Rome, Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. 1878, p. 80 sq.; Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. vi. n.
429, 430. Cicero already knows of the Sabazia (De natura deorum, iii. 23. 58).
[2088] Zebaoth is indeed not a proper name. The Hebrew Jahveh Zebaoth having
however been rendered by κύριος Σαβαώθ (by the LXX. especially in Isaiah, see
Trommius’ Concordance, the form Σαβαώθ being better evidenced than Σαββαώθ),
Σαβαώθ has in fact been treated as a name of God by Jews, Christians and
heathen, see Orac. Sibyll. 1:804, 816, 2:240, 12:132 (ed. Friedlieb, x. 132).
Celsus in Origen, c. Cels. i. 24, v. 41, 45. The Gnostics in Irenaeus, i. 30. 5;
Origen, c. Cels. vi. 81, 32; Epiphanius, haer. xxvi. 10, xl. 2. Many Gnostics
(see Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, No. 1, 1876, p. 187
sqq.); Origen himself, Exhortatio ad martyrium, c. 46; Hieronyoms, epist. 25 ad
Marcellam de decem nominitus Dei (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, i. 130). Also in similar
anonymous treatises on the names of God (Hieronymi Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iii. 749
sq. Legarde, Onomastica sacra, pp. 160, 205 sq.). The Hebrew Sabbath is
certainly out of the question, as it is not possible to see how that could be
understood as the name of the Deity. [2089] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 23, Mang.
ii. 568: Πῶς οὖν ἀπεδέχετο (scil. Augustus) τὴν πέραν τοῦ Τιβέρεως ποταμοῦ
μεγάλην τῆς Ῥώμης ἀποτομὴν, ἣν οὐκ ἠγνόει κατεχομένην καὶ οἰκουμένην πρὸς
Ἰουδαίων; Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ ἦσαν οἱ πλείους ἀπελευθερωθέντες. Αἰχμάλωτοι γὰρ ἀχθέντες
εἰς Ἰταλίαν ὑπὸ τῶν κτησαμένων ἠλευθερώθησαν, οὐδὲν τῶν πατρίων παραχαράξαι
βιασθέντες. [2090] Cicero, pro Flacco, 28. [2091] Sueton. Caesar, 84: In summo
publico luctu exterarum gentium multitudo circulatim suo quaeque more lamentata
est, praecipueque Judaei, qui etiam noctibus continuis bustum frequentarunt.
[2092] Antt. xvii. 11. 1; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 1. [2093] Antt. xviii. 3. 5. [2094]
Annal. ii. 85: Actum et de sacris Aegyptiis Judaicisque pellendis factumque
patrum consultum, ut quattuor milia libertini generis ea superstitione infecta,
quis idonea aetas, in insulam Sardiniam veherentur, coercendis illic latrociniis
et, si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum; ceteri cederent Italia,
nisi certam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent. [2095] Vita Tiber. 36: Externas
caerimonias, Aegyptios Judaicosque ritus compescuit, coactis qui superstitione
ea tenebantur religiosas vestes cum instrumento omni comburere. Judaeorum
juventutem per speciem sacramenti in provincias gravioris caeli distribuit,
reliquos gentis ejusdem vel similia sectantes urbe summovit, sub poena perpetuae
servitutis nisi obtemperassent. [2096] Josephus (Antt. xviii. 3. 5) says
expressly, that 4000 Jews were chosen for military service and sent to Sardinia.
Tacitus gives the same number, but speaks of Egyptians and Jews. According to
Tacitus, the rest had been expelled from Italy; according to Josephus, only from
Rome. Suetonius agrees more with Josephus. On the chronology, comp. Volkmar, Die
Religionsverfolgung unter Kaiser Tiberius und die Chronologie des FL Josephus in
der Pilatus-Periode (Jahrbb. für prot. Theol. 1885, pp. 136-143). Volkmar
correctly concludes, that Josephus (Antt. xviii. 8. 6) means the same expulsion
of Jews as Tacitus, and that it took place (according to the narrative of
Tacitus) A.D. 19. [2097] Euseb. Chron. ad ann. Abr. 2050 (ed. Schoene, ii. 150),
from the Armenian: Seianus Tiberii procurator, qui intimus erat consiliarius
regis, universim gentem Judaeorum deperdendam exposcebat. Meminit autem huius
Philon in secunda relatione. Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 621: Σηιανὸς ἔπαρχος
Τιβερίου Καίσαρος περὶ τελείας ἀπωλείας τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων πολλὰ σὺν
ἐβούλευε τῷ Καίσαρι, ὡς Φίλων Ἰουδαῖος ἐξ Ἀλεξανδρείας διάγων ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῇ
δευτέρᾳ τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ πρεσβείας. Hieronymus, Chron. (in Euseb. Chron. ed.
Schoene, ii. 151): Seianus praefectus Tiberii qui spud eum plurimum poterat
instantissime cohortatur, ut gentem Judaeorum deleat. Filo meminit in libro
legationis secundo. The same information, according to the same work of Philo,
is also found in Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 5. 7. Comp. on this work of Philo, § 34,
below. [2098] Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 24, ed. Mang. ii. 569. [2099] Joseph.
Antt. xix. 5. 2, 3. [2100] Acts 18:2 : διὰ τὸ διατεταχέναι Κλαύδιον χωρίζεσθαι
πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥώμης. Sueton. Claud. 25: Judaeos impulsore
Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit. [2101] Dio Cass. lx. 6: τούς τε
Ἰουδαίους πλεονάσαντας αὖθις, ὥστε χαλεπῶς ἂν ἄνευ ταραχῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου σφῶν
τῆς πόλεως εἰρχθῆναι, οὐκ ἐξήλασε μέν, τῷ δὲ δὴ πατρίῳ βίῳ χρωμένους ἐκέλευσε μὴ
συναθροίζεσθαι. In Dio Cassius this notice stands at the beginning of the reign
of Claudius, while the measure related in the Acts of the Apostles probably took
place much later (see note 69). Dio Cassius however is not here giving as yet a
chronological narrative, but only describing the general characteristics of
Claudius (this to me seems certain notwithstanding the remarks to the contrary
of H. Lehmann, Studien zur Gesch. des apost. Zeitalters, pp. 2-4, with the words
λέξω δὲ καθʼ ἕκαστον ὧν ἐποΐησε, c. 3. Dio passes over not to a chronological
narrative, but to a description of the good side of Claudius). It is not
credible that an unfavourable edict against the Jews should be carried into
effect in the early days of Claudius, who was just then issuing an edict for
their toleration. The edict therefore mentioned by Dio Cassius is most probably
identical with that of Suetonius. For it would indeed be strange if one should
mention the former and the other the latter. The expulit of Suetonius must be
understood according to the analogy of Suetonius, Tiber. 36: expulit et
mathematicos, sed deprecantibus … veniam dedit. The expulsion was indeed
contemplated, but when it was perceived that it would encounter difficulties, it
was abandoned. This also explains the silence of Tacitus and Josephus. [2102]
The year might be accurately determined if this edict were identical with that
mentioned by Tacitus of the year 52. Tac. Annal. xii. 52: De mathematicis Italia
pellendis factum senatus consultum atrox et irritum. But the mathematici cannot
possibly mean the Jewish community at Rome. In the Chronicle of Eusebius and
Jerome the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius is not mentioned. Orosius alone,
vii. 6. 15 (ed. Zangemeister, 1882), gives a precise date for this edict: Anno
ejusdem nono expulsos per Claudium Urbe Judaeos Josephus refert. Since however
Josephus makes no mention at all of the matter, the statement is certainly
incorrect with respect to authority and therefore probably unreliable with
respect to matter. It is moreover probable, from the connection of the Acts of
the Apostles (observe the προσφάτως, Acts 18:2), that the edict was issued about
A.D. 50-52. Comp. in general, Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione
(1833), p. 116 sqq. Wieseler, Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters, pp. 120-128.
Winer, RWB. i. 231 sq. (art. “Claudius”). H. Lehmann, Studien zur Geschichte des
apostolischen Zeitalters (1856), pp. 1-9. Lewin, Fasti Sacri (London 1865), n.
1773, 1774. Keim, art. “Claudius,” in Schenkel’s Bilellex. [2103] On Chrestus =
Cristus, see Hug, Einl. in das N. T. (4th ed.) ii. 335. Credner, Einl. in das N.
T. p. 381. Hilgenfeld, Einl. in das N. T. p. 303 sq. Huidekoper, Judaism at
Rome, p. 229 sq. [2104] This is intimated by the scholiast on Juvenal, iv. 117:
qui ud portam Aricinam sive ad clivum mendicaret inter Judaeos, qui ad Ariciam
transierant ex Urbe missi. [2105] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 17: ἔστι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς
Ῥωμαῖοις τὸ γένος τοῦτο, κολουσθὲν μὲν πολλάκις, αὐξηθὲν δὲ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, ὥστε
καὶ ἐς παῥρʼησίαν τῆς νομίσεως ἐκνικῆσαι. [2106] On the social position of the
Jews in Rome, see the literature cited above, note 52, especially Hausrath,
Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iii. 383-392. [2107] 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).
[2108] Comp. the summary in Kraus, Roma Sotterranea (1st. ed. 1878), p. 489 sq.;
and Caspari, Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols, iii. 1875, p. 271 sq. [2109]
Garrucci, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei, p. 3. [2110] Comp. Garrucci, Cimitero
degli antichi Ebrei scoperto recentemente in Vigna Randanini, Rome 1862. The
same, Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario argomento, vol. ii. Roma 1865, pp.
150-192. On the situation of the cemetery, see the plan in De Rossi, Bullettino
di Archeologia cristiana (1st series), vol. v. 1867, p. 3, and the explanation,
p. 16. [2111] De Rossi, Bullettino, v. 16. [2112]a Marucchi in de Rossi’s
Bullettino, 1883, p. 79 sq. [2113] See de Rossi, Bullettino, iv. 1866, p. 40.
The inscriptions known down to the year 1850 are collected in Corp. Inter.
Graec. vol. iv. n. 9901 9926. Comp. the literature on the inscriptions, § 2,
above. Besides Jews properly so called, there were in Rome (as in Alexandria)
Samaritans also. A Samaritan of the name of Thallus, a freedman of the Emperor
Tiberius, once lent a large sum to Agrippa I. in Rome.[2114] The existence of a
Samaritan community in Rome, in the time of the Ostrogoth king Theodoric, is
evidenced by a letter of this king to the knight Arigernus, which is embodied in
the collection of letters of Cassiodorus.[2115] That the Samaritans were by no
means without importance in the Roman Empire in later imperial times, is shown
by the frequent reference to them in imperial legislation.[2116] [2114] Joseph.
Antt. xviii. 6. 4. [2115] Cassiodor. Variarum, iii. 45 (Opp. ed. Garetius):
Arigerno Viro Illustri Comiti Theodoricus Rex.… Defensores itaque sacrosanctae
Romanae ecclesiae conquesti sunt, beatae recordationis quondam Simplicium domum
in sacratissima Urbe positam ab Eufrasio Acolyto instrumentis factis solemniter
comparasse; quam per annorum longa curricula ecclesiam Romanam quieto jure
suggerunt possedisse et in usus alienos transtulisse securitate dominii. Nunc
autem existere Samareae superstitionis populum improba fronte duratum, qui
Synagogam ibidem fuisse iniquis conatibus mentiatur. [2116] Codex Theodosianus
(ed. Haeuel), xiii. 5. 18, xvi. 8. 16, u. 28. Novell. Justin. 129, u. 144. After
the Jewish community in Rome, that of Puteoli (Dikäarchia) is presumably the
most ancient in Italy. In this chief trading port of Italy with the East, we
find Jews so early as B.C. 4, immediately after the death of Herod the
Great.[2117] Their presence cannot be pointed out in other parts of Italy till
later imperial times; this does not however permit any negative inference as to
the date of their settlement.[2118] Much material in the way of inscriptions has
recently been furnished especially by the discovery of the catacomb of Venosa
(Venusia in Apulia, the birthplace of Horace). Its inscriptions in Greek, Latin
and Hebrew are, according to Mommsen’s judgment, of the sixth century after
Christ.[2119] We likewise meet with Jewish communities in various parts of Gaul
and Spain in later imperial times. In respect of dates, what has been said with
regard to Italy holds good here also.[2120] [2117] Joseph. Antt. xvii. 12. 1;
Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 1. There was also a Christian church here so early as A.D. 61
(Acts 28:13-14). [2118] See the information in Friedländer, Darstellungen aus
der Sittengeschichte Roms, vol. iii. (1871) pp. 511, 512. The same, De Judaeorum
coloniis (Königsberg Progr. 1876), pp. 1, 2. Renan, L’Antichrist (1873), p. 8.
For Lower Italy, also Ascoli, Iscrizioni (1880), pp. 33-38. The places in which
they are found are especially the following: Genoa (Cassiodor. Variar. ii. 27),
Milan (Cassiodor. Variar. v. 37), Brescia (inscription, Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol.
v. n. 4411), Aquileia (Roman inscription in Garrucci, Cimitero, p. 62), Bologna
(Ambrosius, Exhortatio virginitatis, c. 1), Ravenna (Anonymus Valesii, cc.
81-82, in the appendix to most editions of Ammianus Marcellinus), Capua
(inscription in Mommsen, Inscr. Regni Neap. 3657 = Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. x. n.
3905), Naples (Procop. Bell. Gotth. i. 8 and 10, ed. Dindorf, vol. ii. pp. 44
and 53), Venosa (see next note), Syracuse (inscription, Corp. Inscr. Graec. n.
9895), Palermo, Messina, Agrigentum (Letters of Gregory the Great). In Apulia
and Calabria the official posts of the different communities could not be
regularly filled up, because the Jewish inhabitants refused to undertake them
(edict of the Emperors Honorius and Arcadius of the year 398 in the Codex
Theodosianus, xii. 1. 158: Vacillare per Apuliam Calabriamque plurimos ordines
civitatum comperimus, quia Judaicae superstitionis sunt, et quadam se lege, quae
in Orientis partibus lata est, necessitate subeundorum muerum aestimant
defendendos). [2119] The catacomb was discovered as early as 1858, and described
in two memoirs (by De Angelis and Smith and by D’Aloe). The MSS. of both memoirs
however lay buried in the archives of the museum at Naples, till their contents
were recently made known (1) in Ascoli’s Iscrizioni inedite o mal note greche
latine ebraiche di antichi sepolchri giudaici del Napolitano, Torino e Roma,
1880, and (2) in Corp. Inscr. Lat. vol. ix. (1883), n. 6195-6214, comp. 647,
648. Hirschfeld had already given a short notice on the catacomb (Bullettino
dell’ Instituto di corrisp. archeol. 1867, pp. 148-152). Comp. also Theol.
Literaturztg. 1880, pp. 485-488. Grätz, Monatsschr. 1880, p. 433 sqq. Lenormant,
La catacombe juive de Venosa (Revue des études juives, vol. vi. n. 12, 1883, pp.
200-207). Besides the inscriptions in the catacomb, dated Hebrew epitaphs of
Venosa of the ninth century are also known. See Ascoli’s above-named work;
Theol. Litztg. 1880, p. 485. [2120] See the information in Friedländer’s
above-named work. With respect to Spain, we mention only the inscription Corp.
Inscr. Lat. vol. ii. n. 1982.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 87: 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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 88: � 32. THE PALESTINIAN JEWISH LITERATURE
========================================================================

§ 32. THE PALESTINIAN JEWISH LITERATURE Preliminary Observations. UNQUESTIONABLE
as it is on the one hand that zeal for the law of God and the hope of a better
future constituted the two distinctive marks of the Judaism of the period now
under consideration still it must not be forgotten on the other that those
interests sought to express themselves in a great variety of forms and that in
the sphere of the spiritual life there were yet other aims that claimed to rank
along with them though having no immediate connection with them. How far this
was the case may be seen from a glance at the Jewish literature of our period.
The aspect which that literature presents is of so diversified a character that
it is difficult to combine all the different elements into one connected whole.
And if this be true of the literature of Palestinian Judaism alone it becomes
much more so if we take into account the literature of Hellenistic Judaism as
well. In that case there will be seen to stretch before us a field of so
extensive and varied a character that it is scarcely any longer possible to make
out the internal connection between all the various products of this literature.
In this strangely varied mass two leading groups may in the first instance be
distinguished the Palestinian and the Hellenistic. We select those designations
for want of better; and to correspond with them we also divide our subject into
two leading sections. But at the same time it must be distinctly borne in mind
that the line of demarcation between those two groups is of a somewhat
fluctuating and indefinite character and that the designations applied to them
are to be taken very much cum grano salis. By the Palestinian Jewish literature
we mean that which in all essential (but only essential) respects represents the
standpoint of Pharisaic Judaism as it had developed itself in Palestine; while
by the Hellenistic Jewish literature again we mean that which either as regards
form or matter bears traces; to any noticeable extent of Hellenistic influences.
The products belonging to the first-mentioned group were for the most part
composed in Hebrew; but the fact of their having been so composed must not be
regarded as a decisive criterion and that for the simple reason that in numerous
instances it is no longer possible to make out whether it was Hebrew or Greek
that was the original language but further because in the case of several
compositions the circumstance of their being written in Greek is a thing purely
external and accidental. And hence it is that we also include in this group
several writings that possibly nay probably were composed in Greek at the very
first while reserving for the other group only those that show pretty evident
traces of Hellenistic influence either in the form or the matter. But the line
of demarcation between the two cannot be sharply defined there being in fact
some writings that have almost as much title to be included in the one group as
in the other. And just as the distinction we have adopted is not intended to
imply that those belonging to the one group were written in Hebrew and those
belonging to the other in Greek so as little do we intend it to be understood by
our use of the term “Palestinian” that all the compositions included under this
designation were written in Palestine. For there was Palestinian Judaism outside
of Palestine just as conversely there was Hellenistic Judaism within it. In the
period now under consideration literary efforts as such were essentially foreign
to “Palestinian” Judaism. One might almost venture to say that it had no
literature at all. For the few literary productions of which it could boast had
for the most part a purely practical aim and had but a very slender connection
with each other. It is precisely from these writings themselves that we can see
how true it is that zcal for the law and for the faith of the fathers eclipsed
every other interest. When any one took to writing he did so as a rule for the
purpose of in one form or another exhorting his readers to keep firm hold of
those precious blessings or of indirectly helping to increase and strengthen a
spirit of faithful devotion to the law. Literary pursuits as such and the
cultivation of literature in the interests of culture generally were things
quite unknown to genuine Judaism. Its “culture” consisted in the knowledge and
observance of the law. Looked at from this standpoint it was a somewhat
extraordinary thing to find that in the palmy days of the Hasmonaean dynasty
works of native history had been composed (the First Book of Maccabees the
Chronicles of Hyrcanus). This presupposed the existence of a patriotic
self-consciousness for which native history as such was a thing of some value.
Later on after the Hasmonaean dynasty had been overthrown we no longer meet with
any further traces of Jewish historiography such as those now referred to; and
so for his information with regard to this period Josephus had to depend on
other than Jewish sources. We already begin to notice indications of an intimate
connection with the aims of legal Judaism in those Psalms that were composed
during this period in imitation of the older models (the Maccabaean Psalms the
Psalter of Solomon). The whole of those compositions were written with a view to
religious edification and therefore—for at that time religion meant simply a
firm adherence to the law—more or less with the view of fostering and quickening
a spirit of faithful devotion to the law. In our period what is known as gnomic
wisdom exercised a direct influence in the way of promoting the spirit in
question. For notwithstanding the very diversified character of the wisdom of
life exhibited in the proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach their alpha and omega
is simply this: fear God and keep His commandments. Then in the maxims of the
scribes of the time of the Mishna and which have been collected in the Pirke
Aboth we hear from beginning to end and in every variety of tone the exhortation
to a strict observance of the law. But there was a species of literature of a
totally different character that also served precisely the same end viz. the
hortatory narrative (Judith Tobit). When in compositions of this class we have
brought before us in a somewhat imaginative fashion the doings and the fortunes
of persons who had been distinguished for their heroic faith or their exemplary
piety and who had at the same time been sustained by the divine help the object
of the story is not to entertain the reader but to inculcate the truth that the
fear of God is the highest wisdom and that a fear of God in the sense of legal
Pharisaic Judaism. But in our period a more favourite kind of literature still
than the hortatory narrative was the genuine prophetic exhortation i.e.
exhortations based upon alleged special revelations with regard to the future
destinies of the people. It was a favourite practice to put such revelations in
the mouths of the recognised authorities of the olden time with the view of
thereby giving peculiar weight to the exhortations and the consolations based
upon them. The object therefore of those pseudepigraphic prophetic compositions
(Daniel Enoch The Ascension of Moses The Apocalypse of Baruch The Apocalypse of
Ezra The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and others) was always of an
eminently practical kind viz. consolation amid the sufferings of the present and
encouragement to maintain a stedfast adherence to the law by pointing to the
certainty of future rewards and punishments. None of those literary productions
could be said to have had any direct connection with the professional labours of
the scribes. No doubt they served to promote a spirit of faithful devotion to
the law but they had no concern with the law and the Holy Scriptures as such; we
should rather regard them as free literary productions of a very diversified
character and composed for the most part in imitation of the older models. In
the period now in question the habours of the scribes labours which concerned
themselves with the text of the Holy Scriptures and with the work of forming new
adaptations of that text either on its legal or its historical and dogmatic side
were as yet chiefly of an oral kind. This holds true above all with regard to
the process of adaptation as applied to the law. It was not till toward the
close of our period in the time of R. Akiba that the results of these learned
adaptations of the law began to be committed to writing (see ).[2370] On the
other hand however there undoubtedly existed as early as our period literary
adaptations or reconstructions of sacred history framed in the spirit of
scribism. The Book of Chronicles may be taken as a case in point inasmuch as it
treats the earlier history of Israel in such a way as to make it accord with the
ideals of later Judaism (see ). But we have a classical example of the Haggadic
Midrash in the Book of Jubilees which in any case falls within the period with
which we are here dealing. It reconstructs the history of the canonical Book of
Genesis entirely after the fashion of the Rabbinical Midrash. Other literary
productions which in all probability fall no less within our period select
certain episodes or personages from sacred history around which they seek to
shed a halo of glory by means of fictitious legends (the Books of Adam the
History of Jannes and Jambres and others). It would appear however that at first
Hellenistic did more in this way than Rabbinical Judaism. For this latter the
palmy days of haggadean fiction did not begin till the Talmudic age. The object
of those modifications or embellishments of sacred history was now no longer of
so directly practical a character as it had been in the case of the majority of
the writings previously mentioned. They owed their origin in the first instance
to the universal interest that was taken in the sacred history generally to the
desire to have as exact and complete and accurate an acquaintance with it as
possible in connection with which however the tendency to embellish it also
began at once to assert itself. And yet this tendency again had now in like
manner an ulterior practical aim. In thus throwing around the sacred history as
bright a halo as possible the object was to show to what an extent Israel had
from time to time been enjoying the miraculous protection of its God but above
all how by their exemplary conduct and wonderful exploits the holy patriarchs
had proved themselves to be true men of God. [2370] Epiphanias no doubt
repeatedly mentions a Mishna of the Hasmonaeans (Haer. xxxiii. 9: δευτέρωσις …
τῶν υἱῶν Ἀσαμωναίου also Haer. xv. and similarly Haer. xlii. p. 332 ed. Petav.).
But the notice in question is of so Confused a character that it does not admit
of being used for historical purposes. There is also some degree of obscurity
about the statement in the Megillath Taanith to the effect that on the 14th of
Tammuz “the Book of the Decrees” (ספר גזירתא) had been abolished (Derenbourg
Histoire de la Palestine pp. 103 443 445; Grätz Gesch. der Juden 3rd ed. iii.
606). According to the ordinary view a Sadducean penal code is supposed to be
meant. At all events we have no undoubted evidence to show that previous to the
time of Akiba the Pharisaic legal traditions had been committed to writing. Thus
we see then that it was objects chiefly of a practical kind that the literary
efforts of Palestinian Judaism sought to serve. This was at least true of the
department of history with the consideration of which we will now enter upon our
present subject.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 89: I. HISTORIOGRAPHY
========================================================================

I. HISTORIOGRAPHY 1. The First Book of Maccabees Short notices of the Maccabaean
rising and of the brothers Judas Jonathan and Simon Maccabaeus who played so
prominent a part in it must have been committed to writing shortly after the
events themselves. For it is simply impossible that any writer living two
generations after could have been so well informed with regard to those events
as we find the author of the First Book of Maccabees to be unless he had been
able to avail himself of existing written sources.[2371] Those sources of the
First Book of Maccabees—though we know nothing further of their origin and
nature—are therefore entitled to foremost mention in any complete list of the
historical literature of our period. [2371] We have probably an allusion to
those sources in 1Ma_9:22 : καὶ τὰ περισσὰ τῶν λόγων Ἰούδα καὶ τῶν πολέμων καὶ
τῶν ἀνδραγαθιῶν ὦν ἐποίησε καὶ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ οὐ κατεγράφη πολλὰ γὰρ ἦν
σφόδρα. After οὐ κατεγράφη we may suppose either “in this book” or “in the
existing literature” to be understood. Probably the latter sense should be
preferred see Grimm Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 22 sq. The use of written
sources in the First Book of Maccabees is also admitted for example by Nöldeke
(Die alttestamentliche Literatur p. 67) and Mendelssohn (Acta societatis phil.
Lips. ed. Ritschelius vol. v. 1875 p. 99). Our First Book of Maccabees itself
gives a connected minute and graphic narrative of the events that led to the
Maccabaean rising then of the course of the rising itself particularly of the
exploits and fortunes of Judas Maccabaeus. It then proceeds to give the further
history of the patriotic enterprises of the Jews under the leadership of
Jonathan the brother of Judas and of the institution of the Hasmonaean high
priesthood and the founding of Jewish independence by the former. Then lastly we
have an account of Simon Jonathan’s brother and successor who by establishing
the combined office of priest and prince and making it hereditary in the family
of the Hasmonaeans on the one hand and by the complete emancipation of the
Jewish people from Syrian supremacy on the other completed on both its sides the
work undertaken by Jonathan. The narrative is brought down to the death of Simon
so that altogether it embraces a period of forty years (175-135 B.C.). The
standpoint of the author is that of orthodox rigidly legal Judaism. But yet it
is somewhat remarkable that the successes with which the Maccabaean enterprises
were crowned are almost nowhere attributed to any immediate supernatural
intervention on the part of God but are represented throughout as the result of
the military skill and political wisdom of the Maccabaean princes. Of course
those princes always act with an unshaken trust in the powerful protection and
help of God. It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that the author is not
animated by a religious spirit. But still his way of putting things is at the
same time rather different from that of the earlier historical works of the Old
Testament. His style is the plain narrative style being similar to that adopted
in Old Testament historiography. The author has at his disposal such a fund of
details that it is impossible to entertain any doubt as to the credibility of
his narrative as a whole. His book is one of the most valuable sources we
possess for the history of the Jewish people. Nor is its value in this respect
in any way affected by the fact that the author shows himself to be very
imperfectly informed with regard to the state of things among foreign nations.
We see in this only the simple standpoint of the observer who following his
sources confines his view exclusively to the circle of Jewish affairs. Again the
freedom with which numbers are dealt with and discourses put in the mouths of
leading personages can scarcely be regarded as telling against the author. In
matters of this sort ancient historians generally were never particularly
scrupulous. It is a singularly fortunate circumstance that the dates of all the
more important events are duly fixed in accordance with a definite era namely
the Seleucidian era of the year 312 B.C. (on the question as to whether in the
present instance this era was made to date from the usual starting-point or from
another somewhat different from it see § 3). As regards the date of composition
it is admitted on all hands that this work must have been written previous to
the Roman conquest and therefore previous to the year 63 B.C. For as yet the
Romans are known to the author merely as friends and protectors of the Jewish
people in contrast to the Syrian kings. On the other hand he is already
acquainted with a chronicle referring to the history of John Hyrcanus so that he
must have written at the soonest toward the close of that prince’s reign
probably not till after its close. According to this the work would be composed
during the first decades of the first century before Christ. It was written
originally in Hebrew (or Aramaic) as may be confidently Inferred from its
grammatical peculiarities and as is further confirmed by the testimony of Origen
and Jerome. The Hebrew (or Aramaic) title Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ handed down by Origen
still continues to be as much as ever an unsolved enigma. The work has come down
to us only in the form of a Greek translation which was probably in existence as
early as the time of Josephus. That it is still extant is due to the
circumstance of its having been incorporated with the Greek Bible and as forming
part of this latter read in the Christian Church. At the close of his account of
the Hebrew canon Origen adds (as quoted in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2): Ἔξω δὲ
τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ ἅπερ ἐπιγέγραπται Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ. Consequently he
was acquainted with the First Book of Maccabees (for unquestionably it is it
that is meant) in its Hebrew form but as not belonging to the Hebrew canon.
Jerome Prologus galeatus to the Books of Samuel (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 459 sq.):
Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi. Secundus Graecus est quod ex ipsa
quoque φράσει probari potest. An endless variety of hypotheses have been
advanced with the view of explaining the meaning of the title mentioned by
Origen (see Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iii. 745; Grimm Exeget. Handbuch
to 1 Macc. p. xvii.; Keil Commentar über die Bücher der Makkabäer p. 22; Curtiss
The Name Machabee 1876 p. 30; and the general literature mentioned below). But
nearly all of them are based upon the reading Σαρβὴθ Σαρβανεέλ so generally
adopted since Stephanus whereas according to the testimony of the manuscripts
the only reading that can claim to be recognised is Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ (so also
Josephus the Christian Hypomnest. c. xxv. in Fabricius’ Codex pseudepigr. Vet.
Test. vol. ii. p. 48 of Appendix). The acquaintance of Josephus with the First
Book of Maccabees is generally regarded as beyond a doubt; his acquaintance on
the other hand with our Greek text has been questioned. In his German
translation of 1 Maccabees (1778) Michaelis has propounded the view that
Josephus made use of the Hebrew text. His arguments however are not of a cogent
nature. The conjecture has recently been hazarded by Destinon (Die Quellen des
Flavius Josephus 1882 pp. 60-91) that Josephus (or rather as Destinon thinks the
anonymous writer whose work Josephus has merely remodelled) had an older
redaction of 1 Maccabees before him which on the one hand was in regard to many
points rather fuller than our book while on the other it wanted as yet the whole
of the last section chaps. xiv.-xvi. which is to be regarded as a subsequent
addition. But the first point cannot be sufficiently substantiated; for the
extra matters found in Josephus were either drawn from other sources or had
their origin in the historian’s own imagination. As for the other question again
whether Josephus was acq uainted with the concluding section of the book it is
one that of course deserves consideration in view of the singular brevity with
which the historian disposes of the reign of Simon. As favouring the view that
Josephus was acquainted with our Greek text see Grimm Exeget. Handbuch to 1
Macc. p. xxviii. Bloch Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus 1879 pp. 80-90. In the
Christian Church our book has been read from the very first. See Tertullian Adv.
Judaeos c. iv.: Nam et temporibus Maccabaeorum sabbatis pugnando fortiter
fecerunt etc. (comp. 1Ma_2:41 sqq.). Hippolytus in narrating the history of the
Maccabean rising in his Comment. in Daniel c. xxxi.-xxxii. (Opp. ed. Lagarde p.
163) adheres closely to our book quoting 1Ma_2:33 sqq. almost word for word.
Origen (besides the passage in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2 already mentioned)
particularly Comment. in epist. ad Rom. book viii. chap. i. (in Lommatzsch vii.
193): Sicut Mathathias de quo in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est quia
“zelatus est in lege Dei” etc. (1Ma_2:24). Observe the designation of our book
as the First Book of Maccabees precisely as in the case of Jerome in the passage
already quoted and in that of Ensebius Demonstr. evang. viii. 2. 72 ed.
Gaisford. Cyprian quotes several passages from the book in his Testimonia and
always with the formula in Machabaeis (Testimon. iii. 4 15 53). For the further
history of the book in the Christian Church see the various works and
dissertations on the history of the Old Testament canon also Jahn’s Einleitung
in die göttl. Bücher des Alten Bundes 2nd ed. Part ii. § 3 and 4 (1803) 1st and
2nd supplements and likewise my article “Apokryphen des A. T.” in Herzog’s
Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 485-489. As is well known it has been the practice in the
Protestant Church to follow Jerome in applying the designation “Apocrypha” to
such books as are not included in the Hebrew canon and it so happens that our
book is one of them. From the history of the book just given it will be seen
that the Greek text has been transmitted to us only through the manuscripts of
the Greek Bible. The Books of Maccabees being omitted in Codex Vaticanus 1209
the most important manuscripts here are the Codex Sinaiticus (quoted in
Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha as x.) and the Codex Alexandrinus (known in
Fritzsche as in Holmes and Parsons before him as No. iii.); next to these comes
a Codex Venetus (known in the critical apparatuses as No. 23). All the other
manuscripts are minusculi. For more precise information on this point see my
article “Apocrypha” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. pp. 489-491. The text of
our book in common with that of the so-called Apocrypha generally is to be found
in the majority of the editions of the Septuagint. The received text is borrowed
from the Sixtine edition (Vetus Testamentum juxla Septuaginta ex auctoritate
Sixti v. Pont. Max. editum Romae 1587). The most copious critical apparatus we
have is to be found in the Vetus Testamentum Graecum edd. Holmes et Parsons 5
vols. Oxonii 1798-1827 (the whole of the Apocrypha are given together in the
fifth volume). We have a handy portable edition in the shape of the Vetus
Testamentum Graece juxta LXX. interpretes ed. Tischendorf 2 vols. Leipz. 1850
(6th ed. 1880). Tischendorf as well as Holmes and Parsons follow the Sixtine
text. Among the separate editions of the Apocrypha we may mention the Libri Vet.
Test. Ap cryphi textum graecum recognorit Augusti Lips. 1804 and the Libri Vet.
Test. apocryphi graece accurats recognitos ed. Apel Lips. 1837. The latest and
best of such editions although even it fails as yet to satisfy every requirement
is the Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti graece recensuit et cum eommentario
critico edidit Fritzsche Lips. 1871 (Fritzsche gives a recension of his own
based upon the materials furnished by Holmes and Parsons and upon the recently
acquired Codex Sinaiticus as well as the fragments in the Codex Ephraemi). So
far as some of the books are concerned Fritzsche had not as yet collated them
with the most important of the manuscripts the Codex Vaticanus there being no
complete collation in Holmes and Parsons. It is true no doubt that this
manuscript had been already made use of for the Sixtine edition so that so far
it helped to shape the received text. But the text of the Vaticanus could not be
said to be known to any trustworthy extent till the issue of the new Roman
edition (Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus edd. Vercellone et Cozza 6
vols. Rome 1868-1881; comp. Theol. Litztg. 1882 p. 121). The edition of Mai
(Vetus et Novum Testamentum ex antiquissimo codice Vaticano 5 vols. Rome 1857)
is unreliable. Nestle has added to the latest edition of Tischendorf’s
Septuagint a collation based upon the edition of Vercellone and Cozza (also
published separately under the title Veteris Testamenti codices Vaticanus et
Sinaiticus cum textu recepto collati ab E. Nestle Lips. 1880).[2372] For more on
the editions see Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. i. 494 sq. [2372] The above
observations on the Codex Vaticanus are made merely with the view of indicating
on what side Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha generally stands in need of
revision and greater completeness. The First Book of Maccabees is precisely that
portion of the Apocrypha to which those observations do not apply for the simple
reason that it is not found in that codex. Of the early translations the
following are of interest in connection with the history of the transmission of
the text: (1) The Latin of which there are two (a) the one that was incorporated
with the Vulgate and (b) another which as far as chap. xiii. has been preserved
in a Codex Sangermanensis both being given in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum
Latinae versiones antiquae vol. ii. Remis 1743. (2) The Syriac in the Peshito
(separate edition Libri Vet. Test. apocryphi Syriace ed. Lagarde Lips. 1861). In
the great Peshito manuscript of Milan reproduced in photo-lithograph by Ceriani
(Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano ed. Ceriani 2
vols. Milan 1876-1883) we have as far as chap. xiv. a Syriac translation which
deviates from the printed received text; see Ceriani’s prolegomena; and Nestle
Theol. Literaturztg. 1884 col. 28. For more on the early translations see
Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 491-494. Also the texts in the London Polyglot vol. iv.
Exegetical Aids. (1) Special lexicon: Wahl Clavis librorum Veteris Testamenti
apocryphorum philologica Lips. 1853. (2) Modern versions: the German
translations of De Wette (Die heil. Schrift des A. und N. T.’s übersetzt 4th ed.
1858) and of Holtzmann (in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde vol. vii. Leipzig
1869) the latter with short notes. Versions in other modern languages:
Dijserinck De apocriefe boeken des ouden verbonds uit het grieksch opnieuw
vertaald en met opschriften en eenige aanteekeningen voorzien Haarlem 1874.
Reuss La Bible traduction nouvelle avec introductions et commentaires Ancien
Testament VIe partie Philosophie religieuss et morale des Hebreux Paris 1879
(containing among others Sirach Wisdom Tobit the appendices to Daniel Baruch the
Prayer of Manasseh); VIIe partie of the same work Literature politique et
polemique Paris 1879 (containing among others the Books of Maccabees Judith Bel
and the Dragon Epistle of Jeremiah). Bissell The Apocrypha of the Old Testament
with historical introductions a revised translation and notes critical and
explanatory New York 1880. On Luther’s translation see Grimm Luthers
Uebersetzung der ATl. Apokr. (Stud. u. Krit. 1883 pp. 375-400). (3)
Commentaries: J. D. Michaelis Deutsche Uebersetzung des ersten Buchs der
Maccabäer mit Anmerkungen 1778. Grimm Das erste Buch der Maccabäer erklärt
(Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T.’s 3 parts) Leipzig 1853 (by
far the most sterling work on the subject which we possess). Keil Commentar über
die Bücher der Maccabäer Leipzig 1875. For additional exegetical literature see
Grimm p. xxxiv. sq. Fürst Bibliotheca Judaica ii. 317 sq. and Herzog’s Real-Enc.
vol. i. 496. Works of critical inquiry: Frölich Annales compendiarii regum et
rerum Syriae Viennae 1744. E. F. Wernsdorf De fontibus historiae Syriae in
libris Maccabaeorum prolusio Lips. 1746. Frölich. De fontibus historiae Syriae
in libris Maccabaeorum prolusio Lipsiae edita in examen vocata Viennae 1746.
Gottl. Wernsdorf Commentatio historico-critica de fule historica librorum
Maccabaicorum Wratislav. 1747. (Khell) Auctoritas utriusque libri Maccabaici
canonico-historica adserta Viennae 1749. Rosenthal Das erste Maccabäerbuch
Leipzig 1867. Schnedermann Ueber das Judenthum der beiden ersten Maccabäerbücher
(Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben 1884 pp. 78-100). Critical
material is also to be found in the early and the more recent polemical
treatises on the value of the Apocrypha by Rainold Keerl Stier Hengstenberg
Vincenzi and others; see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. p. 489. For the circumstances
under which our book and the Apocrypha generally were written see Jahn
Einleitung in die göttl Bücher des A. B. 2nd ed. second part 3rd and 4th secs.
Wien 1803. Eichhorn Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften des A. T. Leipzig
1795. Bertholdt Historisch-kritische Einl. in die sämtl. kanon. und apokr.
Schriften des A. und N. T.’s 6 vols. Erlangen 1812-1819. Welte Specielle
Einleitung in die deutero-kanonischen Bücher des A. T.’s Freiburg 1844 (also
under the title Einl. in die heil. Schriften des A. T.’s von Herbst 2 parts 3
divisions). Scholz Einleitung in die heil. Schriften des A. und N. T.’s 3 vols.
Köln 1845-1848. Nöldeke Die Alttestamentltche Literatur in einer Reihe von
Aufsätzen dargestellt Leipzig 1868. De Wette Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleitung
in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher des A. T.’s 8th ed. bearb. von
Schrader Berlin 1869. Reusch Lehrb. der Einl. in das A. T. 4th ed. Freiburg
1870. Keil Lehrb. der hist.-krit. Einleitung in die kanon. und apokryph.
Schriften des A. T.’s 3rd ed. 1873. Kaulen Einleitung in dis heil. Schrift A.
und N. T.’s 2 divisions 1st part Besondere Einl. in das A. T. Freiburg 1881.
Kleinert Abriss der Einkitung zum A. T. in Tabellenform Berlin 1878. Reuss
Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments Brauntohweig 1881. Geiger
Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel 1857 p. 200 sqq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes
Israel iv. 602 sqq. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iv. 89 sqq. 2. The History
of John Hyrcanus We have probably a work similar to that of the First Book of
Maccabees in the History of John Hyrcanus to which reference is made at the
close of the former where it is said 1Ma_16:23-24 : καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων
Ἰωάννου καὶ τῶν πολέμων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀνδραγαθιῶν αὐτοῦ ὧν ἠνδραγάθησε καὶ τῆς
οἰκοδομῆς τῶν τειχέων ὧν ᾠκοδόμησε καὶ τῶν πράξεων αὐτοῦ ἰδοὺ ταῦτα γέγραπται
ἐπὶ βιβλίῳ ἡμερῶν ἀρχιερωσύνης αὐτοῦ ἀφʼ οὗ ἐγενήθη ἀρχιερεὺς μετὰ τὸν πατέρα
αὐτοῦ. Apart from this notice we have no further information regarding this
work. As the reign of John Hyrcanus did not possess the same interest for
subsequent generations as the epoch in which Jewish independence was established
through the achievements of the Maccabees the book would have but a limited
circulation and could not fail soon to be lost altogether. It is evident that
Josephus knew nothing of it in his time for the supposition that he made use of
it in his Antiquities[2373] is more than improbable. What few notices he has
regarding the reign of John Hyrcanus at all are either borrowed in so far as
they refer to external political history from Greek historians or in so far as
they refer to internal affairs are of a purely legendary character. No trace can
be detected of the use of any contemporary Jewish source. Considering then at
how early a period the history of Hyrcanus dropped out of sight it is
inconceivable that it should still have existed in manuscript in the sixteenth
century as following Sixtus Senensis many have assumed. [2373] So Bloch Die
Quellen des Flavius Josephus (1879) pp. 90-94. In his Bibliotheca sancta
(Venetiis 1566) Sixtus Senensis gives an account at p. 61 sq. of a Fourth Book
of Maccabees which he saw in the library of Santes Pagninus at Lyons and which
began as follows: Καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτανθῆναι τὸν Σίμωνα ἐγενήθη Ἰωάννης υἱὸς αὐτοῦ
ἀρχιερεὺς ἀντ αὐτοῦ. Judging from the enumeration of the contents as given by
Sixtes this book simply narrates the history of John-Hyrcanus and that precisely
as in Josephus (the same facts and in the same order). With regard to this he
himself observes: Historiae series et narratio eadem fere est quae apud Josephum
libro Antiquitatum decimo tertio; sed stylus hebraicis idiotismis abundans longe
dispar. Consequently he ventures to conjecture that it may have been a Greek
translation of the history of Hyrcanus mentioned at the end of the First Book of
Maccabees. Many modern writers have concurred in this conjecture and hence their
regret that the manuscript should have perished soon after when the library just
mentioned was destroyed by fire (see Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graeca iii 748.
Grimm Exeget. Handbuch note on 1Ma_16:24). But in view of the enumeration of the
contents given by Sixtus it seems to me there can hardly be a doubt that the
book was simply a reproduction of Josephus the style being changed perhaps for a
purpose. 3. Josephus’ History of the Jewish War In post-Hasmonaean times the
fondness for writing histories seems to have died away. At least we nowhere come
across any hint to the effect that the writing of anything like connected
historical narratives had been undertaken by any one.[2374] It was not till the
important events of the war extending from the year 66 to 70 B.C. that the
occasion for such histories once more presented itself. The Jewish priest Joseph
son of Matthias better known under the name of Flavius Josephus wrote the
history of this war of which he himself had personal knowledge whether as a
passive observer or as playing an active part in it. He composed the work in his
own vernacular therefore in the Aramaic tongue and intended it chiefly for the
benefit of the ἄνω βάρβαροι i.e. the Jews of Mesopotamia and Babylon. Of this
work we know nothing beyond what he himself mentions in his Greek version of the
history of the Jewish war Bell. Jud. prooem. 1 where he says: προυθέμην ἐγὼ τοῖς
κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίαν Ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ μεταβαλών ἃ τοῖς ἄνω βαρβάροις τῇ
πατρίῳ συντάξας ἀνέπεμψα πρότερον ἀφηγήσασθαι. The Greek version of this work in
common with the extant works of Josephus generally belongs to the department of
Hellenistico-Jewish literature and will therefore fall to be mentioned in the
next section. [2374] We know of but two classes of historical documents of any
kind belonging to that period: (1) Family registers the preservation and
continuation of which were matters of consequence for religious reasons (on
these registers see vol. i. pp. 210 and 212). (2) The Calendar of Fasts
Megillath Taanith i.e. a list of the days on which owing to some happy event
being commemorated there was to be no fasting (for details see § 3). But neither
class of writings although historical documents can be said to belong to the
catesory of historical literature.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 90: II. THE PSALMODIC LITERATURE
========================================================================

II. THE PSALMODIC LITERATURE 1. The Psalms of the Maccabaean Age It had been
already observed by Calvin with reference to the 44th Psalm that: Querimoniae
quas continet proprie conveniunt in miserum illud et calamitosum tempus quo
grassata est saevissima tyraunis Antiochi. Ever since the question whether
psalms belonging to the Maccabaean age are also to be found in our canon has
been mooted and more and more answered in the affirmative. It was Hitzig
Lengerke and Olshausen above all that referred a large number of the psalms to
the time of the Maccabaean struggles and to a still later period (embracing the
reign of the Hasmonaean princes down to the second century B.C.). Others have
limited the number of Maccabaean psalms to only a very few. But the fact that we
have psalms belonging to Maccabaeau times in the canon at all is being more and
more recognised. Nor is it possible to allege any plausible reason for thinking
otherwise. For the assertion that that was an age but little calculated to
develope religious fervour or poetical genius is a mere petitio principii while
as little can be said in favour of the Other assertion that at that time the
canon had been already closed. for this is just a point about which we simply
know nothing whatever unless we ought rather to say that the Book of Daniel
alone is sufficient proof to the contrary. If therefore the possibility of the
existence of psalms belonging to Maccabaean times be beyond question then it can
only be shown from the contents of the different psalms themselves how far that
possibility is also a reality. Accordingly there is a wide consensus of opinion
in favour of the view that the 44th 77th 79th and 83rd Psalms above all contain
within themselves the most powerful reasons possible for ascribing their origin
to the Maccabaean age. It was only then that it could be rightly and fairly
asserted as is done in Psalms 44 that the people had faithfully adhered to the
covenant made with Jehovah and had not deviated from it and that it was just for
this very reason therefore for their religion that they were being persecuted
(Psalms 44:18-23). It is only to such a time as that that we could well refer
the complaints that the “houses of God” (מוֹעֲדֵי־אֵל) i.e. the synagogues had
been burnt in the land and that there is no longer any prophet there (Psalms
74:8-9). There is no age except the Maccabaean to which all that could so well
apply which in Psalms 79 is said about the desecration but not the destruction
of the temple and the laying waste of Jerusalem and in Psalms 83 on the
persecution of Israel. But if these four psalms had their origin in Maccabaean
times then there are many more of a kindred nature that must be referred to the
same period. The real point at issue then can only be not “whether” there are
any such psalms at all but only “how many of them” there are. And this will
always remain a disputed point for there are but few of the psalms that bear
such evident traces of the date and circumstances of their origin as those just
mentioned. Meanwhile let it suffice to have pointed out the fact that the holy
Church of the Maccabaean time has given proof of its creative powers in the
department of sacred lyrics as well through those new psalms in which it pours
out its wail of distress before God and cries for protection and help from the
Almighty. For the literature of this question see the various introductions to
the Old Testament for example De Wette-Schrader Einleit. in die kanon. und
apotr. Bücher des A. T.’s (1869) § 334; Kleinert Abriss der Einl. zum A. T.
(1878) p. 45. The following authorities have expressed themselves in favour of
the view that there are Maccabaean psalms in our canon: Rüdinger (1580). Venema
(1762-67). E. G. Bengel Dissertatio ad introductiones in librum Psalmorum
supplementa quaedam exhibens Tübing. 1806. Hitzig Begriff der Kritik am A. T.
praktisch erörtert Heidelb. 1831. Idem Die Psalmen 2 vols. Heidelb. 1835 1836.
Idem Ueber die Zeitdauer der hebräischen Psalmenpoesie (Züricher Monatschr. 1856
pp. 436-452). Hesse De psalmis Maccabaicis Vratisl. 1837. Lengerke Die fünf
Bücher der Psalmen 2 vols. Königsberg 1847. Olshauaen Die Psalmen erklärt
Leipzig 1853 (being the fourteenth number of the Exegetical Handbook to the Old
Testament). De Jong Disquisitio de Psalmis Maccabaicis Lugd. Bat. 1857. Steiner
art. “Psalmen” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. vol. v. pp. 1-9. Reuse Gesch. der heil
Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 481. Comp. further Reuse La Bible Ancien
Testament 5th part Paris 1875. Giesebrect Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Psalmen
(Stade’s Zeitsch. für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. vol. i. 1881 pp. 276-332).
Delitzsch in the more recent editions of his commentary on the psalms also
admits the existence of several Maccabaean psalms. The following authorities
again take an opposite view: Gesenius in No. 81 of the supplements to the
Allgemeinen Literaturzeitung 1816. Hassler Comment. crit. de psalmis Maccab. 2
vols. Ulm 1827-1832. Ewald Jahrb. der bibl. Wissensch. vi. 1854 pp. 20-32 viii.
1857 p. 165 sqq. Dillmann Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1858 p. 460 sqq. Hupfeld
Die Psalmen übersetzt und ausgelegt 4 vols. Gotha 1855-1862. Ehrt Abfassungszeit
und Abschluss des Psalters zur Prüfung der Frage nach Makkabäerpsalmen
historisch-kritisch untersucht Leipzig 1869. Wanner Etude critique sur les
Psaumes 44 74 79 et 83 considéres par plusieurs théologiens comme provenant de
l’époque des Maccabées Lusanne 1876 (comp. the reviews in the Revue de théologie
et de philosophie 1877 p. 399 sq.). 2. The Psalms of Solomon In the list of
books as given in several copies of the Christian canon of the Old Testament the
ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος are also included and that in some instances under the
category of ἀντιλεγόμενα along with the Books of Maccabees the Wisdom of Solomon
Jesus the Son of Sirach Judith Tobit etc. (as in the case of the so-called
Stichometria of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii) and in others under
the category of ἀντιλεγόμενα along with Enoch the Patriarchs Apocalypses of
Moses and Ezra etc. (as in the case of anonymous list of the canon still extant
in various manuscripts). From its first-mentioned position we can see that in
the Christian Church this book was in many quarters regarded as canonical. It is
included under the category of ἀπόκρυφα simply because not being in the Hebrew
canon it was not acknowledged to be canonical by those who made that the
standard. Besides this there are still in existence several Greek manuscripts of
the Bible in which the Psalms of Solomon find a place precisely in accordance
with the lists just mentioned; and it is just possible that if the manuscripts
of the Septuagint were carefully searched there might be found to be still more
of them than are already known to us. These psalms amount to eighteen in number.
They were first printed from an Augsburg manuscript by de la Cerda (1626) and
subsequently by Fabricius (1713) while in our own time an edition collated with
a Vienna manuscript has been published by Hilgenfeld whose text is also followed
in the editions of Geiger Fritzsche and Pick. The ascribing of these psalms to
Solomon is simply due to the later transcribers. The work itself does not lay
the slightest claim to such authorship; on the contrary it betrays very distinct
traces of the date of its composition. That certainly was not as Ewald Grimm
Oehler Dillmann (at one time) Weiffenbach and Anger would have us believe the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes nor as Movers Delitzsch and Keim suppose the time of
Herod but as is now universally admitted—for example by Langen Hilgenfeld
Nöldeke Geiger Carriere Wellhausen Reuss Dillmann (now)—the period shortly after
the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey. That the psalms were composed at that time
may be regarded as absolutely certain from the various explicit indications of
this in the second eighth and seventeenth psalms. The contemporary state of
things which these psalms presuppose is somewhat as follows: A family to which
the promise of ruling over Israel had not been given seized the reins of
government by force (17:6). They did not give God the glory but of themselves
assumed the king’s crown and took possession of the throne of David (17:7 8). In
their time the whole of Israel fell into sin. The king despised the law the
judge was unfaithful to truth and the people lived in sin (17:21 22). But God
overthrew those princes by raising up against them a man from a strange land and
who was not of the race of Israel (17:8 9). From the ends of the earth God
brought one who could strike with a mighty blow who declared war against
Jerusalem and all its territory. The princes of the land in their blindness went
out to meet him with joy and said to him: “Thy approach has been longed for come
hither enter in peace.” They opened the gates to him so that he entered like a
father into the house of his sons (8:15-20). But after he had securely
established himself in the city he also seized the battlements and threw down
the walls of Jerusalem with the batteringram (8:21 2:1). Jerusalem was trodden
under foot by the heathen (2:20); nay the strange peoples ascended the altar of
God itself (2:2). All the leading men and every wise man in the council were put
to death; and the blood of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was poured out like
unclean water (8:23). The inhabitants of the land were carried away captive into
the West and its princes insulted (17:13 14 2:6 8:24). But at last the dragon
that had conquered Jerusalem (2:29) was itself put to death on the mountains of
Egypt by the sea-shore. But his body was allowed to lie unburied (2:30 31). It
can scarcely require any further commentary to prove that we are here dealing
with the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey and that it is to it alone
that the circumstances presupposed can be said to apply. The princes who had
been so arrogant as to assume the rule over Jerusalem and take possession of the
throne of David are the Hasmonaeans who ever since Aristobulus L. had taken the
title of king. The last of the princes of this house Alexander Jannaeus and
Aristobulus II. openly favoured the Sadducean party so that in the eyes of our
author with his Pharisaic leanings they appeared in the light of sinful and
lawless men. The “man of the strange land” and “of powerful blows” whom God
summons from the end of the earth is no other than Pompey. The princes who go
out to meet him are Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II. The supporters of this
latter opened the gates of the city to Pompey who then proceeded to take by
storm (ἐν κριῷ 2:1) the other portion of the town in which those belonging to
Aristobulus’s party had entrenched themselves. All the rest that follows the
contemptuous treading of the temple by the conquerors the mowing down of the
inhabitants the execution of the leading men among them[2375] the carrying away
of the captives to the West and of the princes to be mocked (εἰς ἐμπαιγμόν 17:14
i.e. for the triumphal procession in Rome) corresponds with what actually took
place. But it is above all the circumstance of the captives being carried away
to the West (17:14) that proves that the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey is alone
to be thought of. For the only other case besides this that might possibly be in
view is the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus but to this none of the other
circumstances are found to apply.[2376] But if there could be any doubt before
it utterly vanishes when finally we are told that the conqueror was killed on
the coast of Egypt on the sea-shore (ἐπὶ κυμάτων) and that his body was left
lying without being buried (2:31). For this is precisely what actually took
place in the case of Pompey (in the year 48 B.C.). Consequently the second psalm
was undoubtedly composed soon after this event while the eighth and seventeenth
as well as most of the others may be assumed to have been written between the
years 63-48. There exists no reason whatever for coming down so late as to the
time of Herod. For “the man from the strange land” who according to 17:9 rose up
against the Hasmonaean princes is as the context makes it impossible to doubt
the same personage who according to 17:14 carries away the captives to the West
and therefore not Herod as Movers Delitzsch and Keim would have us suppose but
Pompey. [2375] Ps. 8:23: ἀπώλεσεν ἄρχοντας αὐτῶν καὶ πάντα σοφὸν ἐν βουλῇ
compare with Joseph. Antt. xiv. 4. 4 (Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6): τοὺς αἰτίους τοῦ
πολέμου τῷ πελέκει διεχρήσατο. [2376] There is above all the circumstance that
nowhere in our psalms is there any mention whatever of a destruction of the city
and the temple. The spirit which the psalms breathe is entirely that of
Pharisaic Judaism. They are pervaded by an earnest moral tone and a sincere
piety. But the righteousness which they preach and the dearth of which they
deplore is all through the righteousness that consists in complying with all the
Pharisaic prescriptions the δικαιοσύνη προσταγμάτων (14:1). The fate of man
after death is represented as depending simply upon his works. It is left
entirely in his own option whether he is to decide in favour of righteousness or
unrighteousness (comp. especially 9:7). If he does the former he will rise again
to eternal life (3:16); if the latter eternal perdition will be his doom (13:9
sqq. 14:2 sqq. 15) As a contrast to the unlawful rule of the Hasmonaeans which
had been put an end to by Pompey the author cherishes the confident expectation
of that Messianic king of the house of David who is one day to lead Israel to
the promised glory (17:1 5 23-51 18:6-10. Comp. further 7:9 11). The view
previously held by Grätz that our psalms are of Christian origin seems to have
been abandoned by that writer himself[2377] and in any case does not call for
serious refutation. But neither have we any right to assume that they contain
even Christain interpolations. For the sinlessness and holiness which the author
ascribes to the Messiah expected by him (17:41 46) is not sinlessness in the
sense of Christian dogmatics but simply rigid legalism in the Pharisaic sense.
[2377] The remark here referred to (Gesch. der Juden vol. iii. 2nd ed. p. 439)
is not repeated in the 3rd ed. vol. iii. p. 621. Despite Hilgenfeld’s view to
the contrary it is almost universally allowed that the psalms were originally
composed in Hebrew. And undoubtedly not without good reason. For the diction of
the psalms is so decidedly Hebrew in its Character that it is impossible to
suppose that they were written originally in Greek. And for this reason it is no
less certain that they were not written in Alexandria but in Palestine. It may
not be amiss to mention further the correspondence to some extent a verbal one
between Psalms 11. and the fifth chapter of Baruch. If we are correct in
supposing that the psalms were written originally in Hebrew then the imitation
must be regarded as being on the part of Baruch. The place assigned to our
psalms in the Christian canon: I. Among the ἀντιλεγόμενα: (1) in the
Stichometria of Nicephorus as given in Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1847)
p. 120 Nicephori opuscula ed. de Boor (Lips. 1880) p. 134. (2) In the Synopsis
Athanasii as given in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 144. II. Among the
ἀπόκρυφα in an anonymous list of canonical books which has been printed (1) from
a certain Codex Coislinianus as given in Montfaucon’s Bibliotheca Coisliniana
Paris 1715 p. 194; (2) from a Parisian manuscript as given in Cotelier’s Patrum
apost. Opp. vol. i. 1698 p. 196; (3) from a certain Codex Baroccianus at Oxford
and as given in Hody’s De Bibliorum textibus 1705 p. 649 col. 44; (4) from a
Vatican codex as given in Pitra’s Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et
monumenta vol. i. 1864 p. 100 (on the relation of those four texts to each other
see No. V. below the chapter on the lost Apocalypses). III. In his scholia to
the decrees of the Council of Laodicea Zonoras observes in connection with the
59th canon (Beveregius Pandectae canonum Oxon. 1672 vol. i. p. 481): ἐκτὸς τῶν
ρνʹ ψαλμῶν τοῦ Δαβὶδ εὑρίσκονται καί τινες ἕτεροι λεγόμενοι τοῦ Σολομῶντος εἶναι
καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν οὓς καὶ ἰδιωτικοὺς ὠνόμασαν οἱ πατέρες καὶ μὴ λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ
ἐκκλησίᾳ διετάξαντο. Similarly Balsamon (in Beveregius i. 480). IV. In the Codex
Alexandrinus of the Greek Bible the Psalms of Solomon as is shown by the list of
contents prefixed to the codex found a place in the Appendix to the New
Testament after the Epistles of Clement (see Credner Gesch. des neutestamentl.
Kanons 1860 p. 238 sq.). In the Vienna manuscript on the other hand where the
Psalms are still extant they come in between the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus the
Son of Sirach. Up to the present time the manuscripts that have been found are
five in number: (1) The manuscript from which the editio princeps of de la Cerda
was printed; it was brought from Constantinople in the year 1615 was in the
possession of David Höschel and then found its way to the Augsburg library
(Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 973 914 sq.) but it has now disappeared. (2) A
Vienna codex (cod. gr. theol. 7) Haupt’s collation of which Hilgenfeld made use
of in his edition of the Psalms. (3) A Copenhagen manuscript an account of which
is given by Graux in the Revue Critique 1877 No. 46 pp. 291-293. (4) A Moscow
manuscript and (5) a Parisian one both of which were discovered and collated by
Gebhardt (see Theol. Literaturzeitung 1877 p. 627 sq.). The three last-mentioned
MSS. have not yet been made use of in any edition of our Psalms. Editions: (1)
De la Cerda Adversaria sacra Lyons 1626 Appendix. (2) Fabricius Codex
pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti vol. i. 1713 pp. 914-999. (3) Hilgenfeld
Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie 1868 pp. 134-168. Idem Messias
Judaeorum Lips. 1869 pp. 1-33. (4) Eduard Ephräm Geiger Der Psalter Salomo’s
herausgegeben und erklärt Augsburg 1871. (5) Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Veteris
Testamenti graece Lips. 1871 pp. 569-589. (6) Pick Presbyterian Review 1883 Oct.
pp. 775-812. A new edition was prepared by Gebhardt for the “Texte und
Untersuchungen” edited by himself and Harnack. German translations with
explanatory notes have been published by Geiger as above. Hilgenfeld Die Psalmen
Salomo’s deutsch übersetzt una anfs Neue untersucht (Zeitschr. für
wissenschaftl. Theologie 1871 pp. 383-418). Wellhausen Die Pharisäer und die
Sadducäer (1874) pp. 131-164. There is an English translation by Pick as above.
On the circumstances under which our Psalms were written: I. Ewald Geschichte
des Volkes Israel iv. 392 sq. (subsequently Ewald hit upon the idea of dating
the Psalms back to the time of Ptolemy Lagus; see the reviews of the writing of
Geiger and Carriere in the Göttinger gel. Anzeigen 1871 pp. 841-850 and 1873 pp.
237-240). Grimm Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 27. Oehler art. “Messias” in
Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ix. 426 sq. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in
Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xii. 305 sq. Weiffenbach Quae Jesu in regno coelesti
dignitas sit synopticorum sententia exponitur (Gissae 1868) p. 49 sq. Anger
Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der messianischen Idee (1873) p. 81 sq. II.
Movers in Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlex. 1st ed. i. 340. Delitzsch Commentar
über den Psalter 1st ed. ii. 381 sq. Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara i. 243.
III. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 64-70. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr.
1868 Messias Judaeorum proleg. Zeitschr. 1871. Nöldeke Die alttestamentl.
Literatur (1868) p. 141 sq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. i. pp.
157 sq. 168. Geiger in his edition of our Psalms. Fritzsche prolegom. to his
edition. Wittichen Die Idee des Reiches Gottes (1872) pp. 155-160. Carriere De
psalterio Salomonis Argentorati 1870. Well-hausen Die Pharisäer und die
Sadducäer p. 112 sqq. Stähelin Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 p. 203. Drummond
The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 133-142. Kaulen in Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlex.
2nd ed. i. 1060 sq. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 119-121. Reuss Gesch. der
heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 526. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii.
1883 p. 346. Pick The Psalter of Solomon (Presbyterian Review 1883 Oct. pp.
775-812).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 91: III. THE GNOMIC WISDOM
========================================================================

III. THE GNOMIC WISDOM 1. Jesus the Son of Sirach There is nothing that shows so
clearly the practical character of the Palestinian Jewish literature of our
period as the fact that even in the merely theoretical speculations of the time
there was always an eye to the practical aims and tasks of life. A theoretical
philosophy strictly so called was a thing entirely foreign to genuine Judaism.
Whatever it did happen to produce in the way of “philosophy” (= wisdom חָכמָה)
either had practical religious problems as its theme (Job Ecclesiastes) or was
of a directly practical nature being: directions based upon a thoughtful study
of human things for so regulating our life as to ensure our being truly happy.
The form in which those contemplations and instructions were presented was that
of the מָשָׁל the apothegm which contained a single thought expressed in concise
and comprehensive terms and in a form more or less poetical and in which there
was nothing of the nature of discussion or argument. A collection of aphorisms
of this sort had already found a place among the canonical writings of the Old
Testament in the shape of the so-called proverbs of Solomon. We have a
collection of a similar character in the book known as Jesus the Son of Sirach
and which we now proceed to consider. This book takes that older collection as
its model not only as regards the form but the matter as well though it
contributes a large number of new and original thoughts. The fundamental thought
of the author is that of wisdom. For him the highest and most perfect wisdom
resides only in God who has established and who continues to govern all things
in accordance with His marvellous knowledge and understanding. On the part of
man therefore true wisdom consists in his trusting and obeying God. The fear of
God is the beginning and end of all wisdom. Hence it is that the author living
as he did at a time when the fear of God and the observance of the law were
already regarded as one and the same thing inculcates above all the duty of
adhering faithfully to the law and keeping the commandments. But besides this he
also points out in the next place how the truly wise man is to comport himself
in the manifold relationships of practical life. And accordingly his book
contains an inexhaustible fund of rules for the regulation of one’s conduct in
joy and sorrow in prosperity and adversity in sickness and in health in struggle
and temptation in social life in intercourse with friends and enemies with high
and low rich and poor with the good and the wicked the wise and the foolish in
trade business and one’s ordinary calling above all in one’s own house and
family in connection with the training of children the treatment of men-servants
and maid-servants and the way in which a man ought to behave toward his own wife
and the fair sex generally. For all those manifold relationships the most
precise directions are furnished directions that are prompted by a spirit of
moral earnestness which only now and then degenerates into mere worldly
prudence. The counsels of the author are the mature fruit of a profound and
comprehensive study of human things and of a wide experience of life. In
entering as they do into such a multiplicity of details they at the same time
furnish us with a lively picture of the manners and customs and of the culture
generally of his time and his people. How far the thoughts expressed as well as
the form in which they are expressed were the author’s own and how far he only
collected what was already in current and popular use it is of course impossible
in any particular instance to determine. To a certain extent he may have done
both. But in any case he was not a mere collector or compiler the characteristic
personality of the author stands out far too distinctly and prominently for
that. Notwithstanding the diversified character of the apothegms they are all
the outcome of one connected view of life and the world. At the close of the
book chap. 50:27 the author calls himself Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Σιρὰχ ὁ Ἱεροσολυμίτης.
Many manuscripts insert Ἐλεάζαρ after Σιράχ; but this despite the strong
testimony in its favour must be regarded as a gloss (see Fritzache’s edition and
commentary). The name Σιράχ is equivalent to the Hebrew סִירָא “a coat of mail”
(the accent being on the final syllable as in ἀκελδαμάχ Acts 1:19). The singular
mistake of Syncellus (Chron. ed. Dindorf i. 525) who alleges that he was a high
priest can only have arised from the fact that in the chronicle of Eusebius
which Syncellus makes use of our Jesus the Son of Sirach is mentioned after the
high priest Simon the son of Onias II. though not as a high priest but only as
the author of the book now under consideration (Euseb. Chron. ad Ol. 137-38 ed.
Schoene ii. 122). Again the notion that he was an ordinary priest is also
entirely without foundation notwithstanding the fact that it has found
expression in the text of the cod. Sinaiticus 50:27. The time at which he lived
may be determined with tolerable precision. His grandson who translated the book
into Greek states in the prologue prefixed to it that he (the grandson) came to
Egypt ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως. By the
“thirty-eighth year” he of course does not mean that of his own age but the
thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes. Now seeing that of the two
Ptolemys who bore this surname the one reigned only twenty-five years it is only
the second that can be intended and whose full name was Ptolemaeus VII. Physcon
Euergetes II. This latter in the first instance shared the throne along with his
brother (from the year 170 onwards) and subsequently reigned alone (from the
year 145 onwards). But he was in the habit of reckoning the years of his reign
from the former of those dates. Consequently that thirty-eighth year in which
the grandson of Jesus the son of Sirach came to Egypt would be the year 132 B.C.
That being the case his grandfather may be supposed to have lived and to have
written his book somewhere between 190 and 170 B.C. This further accords with
the fact that in the book (50:1-26) he pays a respectful tribute to the memory
of the high priest Simon the son of Onias by whom we are to understand not Simon
I. (in the beginning of the third century see Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 4) but Simon
II. (in the beginning of the second century see Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 10). Jesus
the son of Sirach passes an encomium upon the meritorious character of this
personage who had just passed away from the world and the thought of whom was
still so fresh in his memory. The book has come down to us only in the form of
the Greek translation which according to the prologue was executed by the
author’s grandson. We further learn from this prologue what is also confirmed by
the character of the diction that the work was originally composed in Hebrew by
which we are to understand Hebrew strictly so called and not Aramaic (see
Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch p. 18). The Hebrew text was still in existence in the
time of Jerome who tells us that he had seen it see Praef. in vers. libr. Salom.
(Vallarsi ix. 1293 sq.): Fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber et alius
ψευδεπίγραφος qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur. Quorum priorem Hebraicum
reperi non Ecclesiasticum ut apud Latinos sed Parabolas praenotatum cui juncti
erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum Canticorum ut similitudinem Salomonis non solum
librorum numero sed etiam materiarum genere coaequaret. The fact that a Hebrew
text was still extant in the time of Jerome is evidence of itself that the book
was also prized within the circle of Rabbinical Judaism. Not only so but
quotations from it are repeatedly met with in Talmudic literature. But it was
prized far more highly still within the Christian Church. It is frequently
quoted as γραφή by the Greek and the Latin Fathers alike and that too in the
form in which it has come down to us in the manuscripts of the Bible. The
restricting of the Christian canon to precisely the same number of books as was
in the Hebrew Bible was in the early Church and that of the Middle Ages almost
always a pure matter of theory and was only practically recognised and acted
upon for the first time in the Protestant Church. On the quotations from בן סירא
in Talmudic literature see Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea i. 257 sqq. Zunz Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden p. 101 sqq. Delitzech Zur Geschichte der
jüdischen Poesie pp. 20 sq. 204 sq. Dukes Rebbinische Blumenlese p. 67 sqq.
Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch p. xxxvii. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte
(1880) p. 71 sqq. Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vii. 430 sq. We must
beware of confounding with those quotations the very late and apocryphal
Alphabet of Ben Sira a collection of 44 (2 × 22) sayings arranged in
alphabetical order. On this see Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea i. 260 sqq. iii. 156
sq. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. grace. iii. 726 sq. Steinschneider Catalogus
librorum Hebraeorum in bibliotheca Bodleiana (1852-1860) col. 203-205. Fürst
Biblioth. Judaica iii. 341. Modern edition Alphabetum Siracidis utrumque ed.
Steinschneider Berlin 1858. On the title of our book see in particular the
passage from Jerome quoted above. In the manuscripts it runs thus: Σοφία Ἰησοῦ
υἱοῦ Σιράχ. In the Greek Church the designation ἡ πανάρετος σοφία which
according to Euseb. Hist. eccl. iv. 22. 8 was in the first instance usually
applied to the proverbs of Solomon came to be extended to our book as well. So
for the first time Eusebius Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 422 (where the conformity on
the part of Syucellus and Jerome with the Armenian text serves to show that the
expression is peculiar to Eusebius himself). Demonstr. evang. viii. 2.71 ed.
Gaisford: Σίμων καθʼ ὃν Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιρὰχ ἐγνωρίζετο ὃ τὴν καλουμένην πανάρετον
Σοφίαν συντάξας. This designation does not occur as yet in connection with any
of the numerous quotations in Clement and Origen. In the Latin Church
Ecclesiasticus came to be adopted as the regular title of the book (Cyprian
Testimon. ii. 1 iii. 1 35 51 95 96 97 109 110 111). Comp. the Latin translation
of Origen In Numer. homil. xviii. 3 (ed. Lommatzsch x. 221): In libro qui apud
nos quidem inter Salomonis volumina haberi solet et Ecclesiasticus dici apud
Graecos vero sapientia Jesu filii Sirach appellatur. The use of the book in the
Christian Church begins with the New Testament itself. In the Epistle of Jamce
above all there are unmistakeable reminiscences of it. See in general Bleek
Stud. u. Krit. 1853 pp. 337 sq. 344-348. Werner Theol. Quartalschr. 1872 p. 265
sqq. The express quotations begin with Clement of Alexandria who quotes our book
times without number and on most occasions using either the formula ἡ γραφὴ
λέγει φησίν and such like (thirteen times: Paedag. i. 8. 62 8. 68 ii. 2. 34 5.
46 8. 69 8. 76 10. 98 10. 99 iii. 3.17 3. 23 4. 29 11. 58 11. 83) or ἡ σοφία
λέγει φησίν and such like (nine times: Paedeg. i. 8. 69 8. 72 9. 75 ii. 1. 8 2.
24 7. 54 7. 58 7. 59; Strom. v. 3. 18); or further quoting passages now and
again as the words of the παιδαγωγός (Paedag. ii. 10. 99 101. 109). He speaks of
the book as the σοφία Ἰησοῦ only twice (Strom. i. 4. 27 10. 47). On one occasion
he appears to call Solomon the author (Strom. ii. 5. 24); the quotation however
is somewhat uncertain. In one instance again an expression in our σοφία is
described as Sophoclean (Paedag. ii. 2. 24). It is very much the same with
regard to the quotations in Origen only here it is impossible in many instances
to make out the exact formulae made use of seeing that the majority of Origen’s
writings are extant only in Latin translations. Like Clement he also appears to
have quoted the book most frequently as γραφή. In the Latin text Solomon is
several times spoken of as the author (In Numer. homil. xviii. 3 = Lommatzsch x.
221; In Josuam homil. xi. 2 = Lommatzsch xi. 108; In Samuel. homil. i. 13 =
Lommatzsch xi. 311). But that this cannot be taken as representing the opinion
of Origen himself in proved by the following passage in contra Cels. vi. 7 (ed.
Lommatzsch xix. 312): παραδείξωμεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ὅτι προτρέπει καὶ ὁ
θεῖος λόγος ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ διαλεκτικήν· ὅπου μὲν Σολομῶντος λέγοντος.…ὅπου δὲ τοῦ τὸ
σύγγραμμα τὴν σοφίαν [l. τῆς σοφίας] ἡμῖν καταλιπόντος Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειρὰχ
φάσκοντος. Cyprian uniformly quotes our book as being a work of Solomon’s quite
as much as any of the rest of his writings (Testimon. ii. 1 iii. 6. 12 35 51 53
95 96 97 109 113; Ad Fortunatum chap. ix.; De opere et eleemosynis chap. v.;
Epist. iii. 2). Similarly other Latin writers. See especially the passage quoted
above from the Latin version of Origen In Numer. homil. xviii. 3 (Lommatzsch x.
221) and also Jerome who in his Comment. in Daniel. chap. ix. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi
v. 686) reproduces the passage from Euseb. Demonstr. evang. viii. 2. 71 as
follows: Simon quo regente populum Jesus filius Sirach scripsit librum qui
Graece παναρετός appellatur et plerisque Salomonis falso dicitur. On the further
history of the use of the book in this way comp. the works and dissertations
devoted to the history of the Old Testament canon also Jahn’s Einleitung in die
goal Bücher des A. B. 2nd ed. vol. ii. § 3 and 4 (1803) 1st and 2nd appendices
as well as my article in Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 485-489. The most important
manuscripts are: (1) The Vaticanus 1209 i.e. the famous Vatican manuscript of
the Bible which however if we except the eclectic use made of it in the Sixtine
edition has not as yet been made available for the criticism of the text in
connection with any edition of our book not even that of Fritzsche (comp. p.
10). (2) The Sinaiticus in Fritzsche’s edition marked No. x. (3) The
Alexandrinus in Fritzsche as in Holmes and Parsons before him marked No. iii.
(4) The fragments of the Codex Ephraemi in Fritzsche = C. (5) A Venetian codex
in Fritzsche who following Holmes and Parsons marks it No. xxiii. For further
information regarding these manuscripts see Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed.
i.489-491. On the editions see p. 10 and Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 494 sq. Separate
edition: Liber Jesu Siracidae Graece ad fidem codicum et versionum emendatus et
perpetua annotatione illustratus a C. G. Bretschneider Ratisb. 1806. For further
separate editions see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 495. Of the early translations the
following may be specially mentioned: (1) The old Latin one which Jerome did not
revise (praef. in edit. librorum Salmonis juxta Sept. interpretes [Vallarsi x.
436]: Porro in eo libro qui a plerisque Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur et in
Ecclesiastico quem esse Jesu filii Sirach nullus ignorat calamo temperavi
tantummodo canonicas scripturas vobis emendare desiderans). It found its way
into the Vulgate and hence it came to be printed in all subsequent editions of
this latter. The variations of four manuscripts (for Jesus the Son of Sirach as
well as for the Wisdom of Solomon) are given by Sabatier in his Bibliorum
sacrorum versiones antiquae vol. ii. Remis 1743. The text of the Codex Amiatinus
has been published (for those two books also) by Lagarde in his Mitthelungen
1884. (2) The two Syrian versions: (a) The Peschito or the Syrian received text
on the editions of which comp. p. 11; (b) the Syrus hexaplaris which for our
book as well as for the Wisdom of Solomon was edited for the first time from a
Milan manuscript by Cerini Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice
editus Mediol. 1874 (forming vol. vii. of the Monum. Sacra et prof.). For more
on the early versions see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 491-494. Also texts in the
London Polyglot vol. iv. For the exegetical aids generally see p. 11.
Commentaries: Bretschneider in the separate edition previously mentioned.
Fritzeche Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s erklärt und übersetzt (Exegetisches
Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 5 Thl.) Leipzig 1859. For the earlier literature see
Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 718 sqq. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii.
341 sq. Fritzsche p. xl. Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 496. Special disquisitions:
Gfrörer Philo vol. ii. (1831) pp. 18-52. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der
jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 126-150. Winer
De utriusque Siracidae aetate Erlang. 1832. Comp. also Winer’s Realwörtb. art.
“Jesus Sirach.” Zunz Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden (1832) pp. 100-105.
Ewald “Ueber das griech. Spruchbuch Jesus’ Sohnes Sirach’s” (Jahrbb. der bibl.
Wissensch. vol. iii. 1851 pp. 125-140). Bruch Weisheitslehre der Hebräer 1851
pp. 266-319. Geiger Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ Gesellsch. xii. 1858 pp.
536-543. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 340 sqq. Horowitz Das Buch Jesus
Sirach Breslau 1865. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. 252 sqq. Grätz
Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1872 pp. 49 sqq. 97 sqq.
Merguet Die Glaubens- und Sittenlehre des Buches Jesus Sirach Königsberg 1874.
Seligmann Das Buch der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Josua ben Sira) in seinem
Verhältnis zu den salomonischen Sprüchen und seiner historischen Bedeutung
Breslau 1883. The various introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz
Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see p. 12). 2. The
Pirke Aboth Nor did the gnomic wisdom become extinct in the period following
that of Jesus the son of Sirach. Jesus Christ Himself indeed frequently clothed
His teaching in this aphoristic form. But besides the work we have just been
considering there is still extant and that in Hebrew a collection of such
proverbial sayings as we have referred to above and which so far at least as its
substratum is concerned belongs to our period we mean the so-called Pirke Aboth
(פִּרקֵי אָבוֹת sayings of the fathers) known also under the abbreviated form of
Aboth. This collection was inserted among the tractates of the Mishna (among
those of the fourth division) though strictly speaking it is quite out of place
there. For while the rest of the Mishna is simply a codification of Jewish law
our tractate contains a collection of aphorisms after the manner of Jesus the
son of Sirach. The only difference is that the Pirke Aboth is not the work of a
single individual like that book but a collection of sayings by some sixty
learned doctors who are mentioned by name. The majority of these latter are also
otherwise known as distinguished doctors of the law. As a rule each doctor is
represented in the work by a couple or more of his characteristic maxims such as
he had been in the habit of inculcating upon his disciples and contemporaries as
rules of life well worthy of special consideration. Many of those maxims are of
a purely utilitarian character but the most of them are related in some way or
other to the domain of religion; and it is extremely significant as regards the
characteristic tendency of this later age that here the importance and necessity
of the study of the law are inculcated with quite a special emphasis (comp. the
specimens given at ). The authorities whose utterances were collected in this
fashion belong for the most part to the age of the Mishna i.e. to the period
extending from the year 70 to 170 A.D. Besides these a few but only a few of the
authorities belonging to earlier times are also taken notice of. The tractate
consists of five chapters. In many editions a sixth chapter is added but it is
of much later origin. Our tractate is given in every edition of the Mishua (on
this see § iii. above). In the edition of the Mishna published under Jost’s
supervision by Lewent in Berlin 1832-1834 there is an excellent German
translation printed in the Hebrew character. There is also a Latin version in
Surenhusius Mishna etc. vol. iv. 1702 pp. 409-484. Of the numerous separate
editions (some of them accompanied with translations) the following may be
specially mentioned: P Ewald Pirke Aboth oder Sprüche der Vater übersetzt und
erklärt Erlangen 1825. Cahn Pirke Aboth sprachlich und sachlich erläutert erster
Perek (all that has been published) Berlin 1875. Taylor Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers comprising Pirke Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English with
critical and illustrative notes etc. Cambridge 1877 (where the text is given
exactly in accordance with a Cambridge manuscript University Addit. 470. 1).
Strack פרקי אבות Die Sprüche der Väter ein ethischer Mischna-Traktat mit kurzer
Einleitung Anmerkungen und einem Wortregister 1882 (where additional literature
is to be found in the introduction).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 92: IV. HORTATORY NARRATIVE
========================================================================

IV. HORTATORY NARRATIVE 1. The Book of Judith The hortatory narrative was a
peculiar species of literature which was frequently cultivated during our
period. Stories of a purely fictitious character were composed which the author
no doubt intended to be regarded as founded on fact though at the same time the
object in view was not so much to impart historical information as to use these
stories as a vehicle for conveying moral and religious lessons and exhortations.
From the incidents narrated—and which are taken from the history of the Jewish
people or from the life of certain individuals—the readers are expected to learn
the truth that the fear of God is after all the highest wisdom for God always
delivers His children in some wonderful way in the end although for a little He
may bring them into circumstances of trouble and danger. The history of Judith
is a narrative of this description. The following is an outline of the story.
Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria (sic!) calls upon the peoples of Asia Minor
and among them the inhabitants of Palestine to furnish him with troops to help
him in the war he was waging against Arphaxad the king of Media. As those who
received this summons did not think proper to comply with it Nebuchadnezzar as
soon as he had vanquished Arphaxad sent his general Holofernes with a large
force against the nations of the West with the view of chastising them for their
disobedience. Holofernes executes his orders devastates the various countries
one after another and demolishes their sanctuaries in order that Nebuchadnezzar
alone might receive the worship due to God (1-3). When he got as far as the
plain of Esdrelon the Jews who had just returned from the captivity and had
newly re-established their worship (sic! in Nebuchadnezzar’s time) prepare to
offer resistance. By order of Joakim the high priest they intercept Holofernes
on his way to Jerusalem at Fort Betylua (Βετυλούα; Latin Bethulia) opposite the
plain of Esdrelon (4-6).[2378] Now when Holofernes was besieging Betylua and the
distress within the town had reached a climax a wealthy beautiful and pious
widow called Judith resolved to save her people by an act of daring (7-9).
Richly attired and having no one with her but a bondwoman she betakes herself to
the enemy’s camp and there under the pretext of wishing to show him how to get
to Jerusalem she contrives to obtain an interview with Holofernes. This latter
reposes confidence in her and is charmed with her beauty. After spending three
days in the camp she is called upon to be present at a banquet at the conclusion
of which she is left alone with Holofernes in his tent. But the general is so
intoxicated with wine that Judith now finds an opportunity for carrying out her
design. She accordingly takes Holofernes’s own sword and cuts off his head with
it. She then manages to get away from the camp without being observed while the
slave brings away the head of Holofernes in a bag. Having thus accomplished her
object she returns to Betylua where she is welcomed with grest rejoicings
(10-13). When the enemy discovered what had been done they fled in all
directions and were without difficulty mown down by the Jews. But Judith was
extolled by all Israel as their deliverer (14-16). [2378] The town of Βετυλούα
(Bethulia) is mentioned nowhere else (except by Christian pilgrims who on the
ground of our story point sometimes to one place and sometimes to another as the
spot where it stood). That the town actually existed however is hardly to be
doubted for it is scarcely likely that the author would also hare to invent an
artificial geography to suit his story. On the probable site of the place see
Robinson’s Palestine iii. pp. 337 sq. Idem Modern Biblical Researches p. 443.
Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 431. Guérin Samarie i. pp. 344-350. The
Palestine pilgrim Theodosius (ed. Gildemeister 1882) speaks in § xx. of Betulia
ubi Olofernes mortuus est as being in the extreme south of Palestine twelve
miles south of Raphia. There no doubt a place of this name must have existed
(see Wesseling Vetera Romanorum itineraria p. 719. Kühn Die städtische und
bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs ii. 367 sq. Gildemeister’s notes to
Theodosius). But this cannot have been the locality in question for our Betylua
must have been much farther north viz. in Samaria. As our book happens to have
found a place in the Christian Bible not only Catholic but also many Protestant
theologians have felt it to be their duty to defend the historical character of
the narrative (as was still done on the Protestant side above all by O. Wolff
1861). But the historical blunders are so gross and the hortatory purpose so
obvious that one cannot venture to assume even a nucleus of fact. The book is a
piece of fiction composed with the view of encouraging the people to offer a
brave resistance to the enemies of their religion and their liberties. The
standpoint of the author is already entirely that of Pharisaic legalism. It is
precisely the scrupulous care with which she observes the laws regarding
purifications and meats that is so much admired in Judith while it is plainly
enough intimated that it was just for this reason that she had had God upon her
side. But the story points to a time when danger threatened not only the people
themselves but their religion as well. For Holofernes demands that
Nebuchadnezzar should be worshipped instead of God. This is suggestive of Daniel
and the Maccabaean age. Consequently the origin of the book may with great
probability be referred to this period (so also Fritzsche for example and Ewald
Hilgenfeld 1861 Nöldeke). Seeing that the author appears to be quite as deeply
interested in political as in religious liberty probably we ought to understand
him as referring not to the earlier days of the insurrection but to a somewhat
later period. It would hardly be advisable to come so far down as the Roman age
for the political background (the high priest as supreme head of the Jewish
commonwealth the Hellenistic cities as independent towns and subject to the
suzerain only to the extent of having to furnish troops in time of war)
corresponds far more with the Greek than the Roman period. It is entirely out of
the question to refer the composition of the book to the time of Trajan (so
Hitzig Grätz and above all Volkmar who finds in it a disguised account of
Trajan’s campaigns); for the story of Judith was already known to Clement of
Rome (toward the end of the first century of our era). Jerome had the book
before him in a Chaldee text (see below). How far this agreed with or differed
from our Greek text we are not in a position to say exactly for we have no means
of knowing to what extent Jerome followed the Chaldee text when he was preparing
the Latin one. In any case judging from internal grounds it is tolerably
certain—and moreover almost universally acknowledged—that our Greek text is a
translation of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original (see Movers in the article
mentioned below and Fritzsche Handb. p. 115 sq.). In the time of Origen the book
was not in use among the (Palestinian) Jews nor was any Hebrew text of it known
to exist for in Epist. ad African. chap. xiii. he says: Ἑβραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ οὐ
χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ Ἰουδήθ: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραϊστί· ὡς ἀπʼ
αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν. It may therefore be conjectured that the Hebrew
original was lost at an early period and that the Chaldee text with which Jerome
was acquainted was a later version based upon the Greek one. For yet later
Jewish versions see Zunz Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden p. 124 sq.
Lipsius “Jüdische Quellen zur Judithsage” (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol.
1867 pp. 337-366). Use in the Christian Church: Clement of Rome chap. lv.:
Ἰουδὶθ ἡ μακαρία. Tertullian De monogam chap. xvii.: Nec Joannes aliqui Christi
spado nec Judith filia Merari nec tot alia exempla sanctorum (!). Clement of
Alexandria Strom. ii. 7. 35 iv. 19. 118 (Judith being expressly mentioned in the
latter passage). Origen Fragm. ex libro sexto Stromatum in Jerome adv. Rufin.
Book I. (Lommatzsch xvii. 69 sq.): Homo autem cui incumbit necessitas mentiendi
diligenter attendat ut sic utatur interdum meudacio quomodo condimento atque
medicamine; ut servet mensuram ejus ne excedat terminos quibus usa est Judith
contra Holophernem et vicit eum prudenti simulatione verborum. Further
quotations in Origen are to be found: Comm. in Joann. vol. ii. chap. xvi.
(Lommatzsch xi. 279). In Lib. Judicum homil. ix. 1 (Lommatzsch xi. 279); De
Oratione chap. xiii. (Lommatzsch xvii. 134); De Oratione chap. xxix. (Lommatzsch
xvii. 246). For the further history of the use see the history of the canon. The
Greek text exists in three different recensions: (1) The original text which is
that given in the majority of manuscripts and among others also in the Codex
Vaticanus (marked in the critical apparatuses as No. ii.) Alexandrinus (No.
iii.) and Sinaiticus (No. x.). (2) A revised text viz. that of Codex 58
(according to numbering of the manuscripts in Holmes and Parsons). It is on this
text also that the Latin and Syriac versions are based. (3) Another recension
though akin to the one just mentioned is to be found in Codices 19 and 108. On
the editions see p. 10. Of the early versions the following call for special
mention in the case of our book as well: (1) The Latin and that (a) the Vetus
Latinus (previous to Jerome) for which Sabatier collated five manuscripts in
which the deviations from each other are found to be so great as entirely to
corroborate what Jerome says about the multorum codicum varietas vitiosissima in
his day (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i. Remis
1748 pp. 744-790). On the relation of the texts to one another and to the Greek
text see Fritzsche’s Commentar p. 118 sqq. (b) Jerome’s translation (= Vulgata)
on the origin of which he himself says in the preface (Opp. ed. Vallarsi x. 21
sq.): Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter apocrypha (al. hagiographa) legitur …
Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias computatur. Sed quia hunc
librum Synodus Nicaena in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse
acquievi postulationi vestrae immo exactioni et sepositis occupationibus quibus
vehementer arctabar huic unam lucubratiunculam dedi magis sensum e sensu quam ex
verbo verbum transferens. Multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi:
sola ea quae intelligentia integra in verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui Latinis
expressi. According to this his own confession the work is a free rendering and
one too that was executed somewhat hurriedly. It was based upon the old Latin
version. Comp. Fritzsche’s Commentar p. 121 sq. For the criticism of the text
see Thielmann Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata insbesondere des Buches Judith
a school program Speier 1883. (2) The Syriac Version on which and its editions
see p. 11. The London Polyglot gives in addition to the Greek text only the
Latin Vulgate and the Syriac version. For the exegetical aids generally see p.
11. Commentaries: Fritzsche Die Bücher Tobi und Judith erklärt (Exegetisches
Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 2 vols.) Leipzig 1853. O. Wolff Das Buch Judith als
geschichtliche Urkunde vertheidigt und erklärt Leipzig 1861. The older
literature in Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 736-738. Fürst
Biblioth. Judaica ii 51 (under “Jehudit”). Volkmar Handb. der Einl. in die
Apokryphen i. 1 (1860) pp. 3-5. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496. Special
disquisitions: Montfaucon La vérité de l’histoire de Judith Paris 1690. Movers
“Ueber die Ursprache der deuterokanonischen Bücher des A. T.” (Zeitschr. für
Philos. und kalhol. Theol. Part 13 1835 p. 31 sqq. [on Judith exclusively]).
Schoenhaupt Etudes historiques et critiques sur le livre de Judith Strasb. 1839.
Reuss art. “Judith” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Enc. § ii. vol. xxviii. (1851)
p. 98 sqq. Nickes De libro Judithae Vratislav. 1854. Journal of Sacred
Literature and Biblical Record vol. iii. 1856 pp. 342-363 vol. xii. 1861 pp.
421-440. Volkmar “Die Composition des Buches Judith” (Theol. Jahrbb. 1857 pp.
441-498). Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1858 pp. 270-281. R. A.
Lipsius ibid. 1859 pp. 39-121. Hitzig ibid. 1860 pp. 240-250. Volkmar Handbuch
der Einleitung in die Apokryphen Part 1 Div. 1 Judith 1860. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr.
f. wissensch. Theol. 1861 pp. 335-385. K. H. A. Lipsius “Sprachliches zum Buche
Judith” (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1862 pp. 103-105). Ewald Gesch. des
Volkes Israel vol. iv. (3rd ed. 1864) p. 618 sq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iv.
(2nd ed. 1866) note 14 p. 439 sqq. R. A. Lipsius “Jüdische Quellen zur
Judithsage” (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1867 pp. 337-366). Fritzsche in
Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. 445 sqq. The introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt
Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see p.
12). 2. The Book of Tobit The Book of Tobit is a work of a similar character to
that of Judith only it does not move in the domain of political history but in
that of biography though like it it addresses its exhortations not to the people
at large but to the individual reader. Tobit the son of Tobiel of the tribe of
Naphtali who in the days of Shalmaneser king of Assyria had been taken captive
to Nineveh relates how both before and after going into captivity even under the
succeeding kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon he and his wife Anna and his son
Tobias had always lived in strict accordance with the requirements of the law.
Besides this he had been particularly in the habit of interring the bodies of
such of his countrymen as had been put to death by the Assyrians and allowed to
lie unburied. One day after performing a kind service of this sort he lay down
to sleep in the open air (in order that denied as he was by contact with a dead
body he might not communicate the defilement to his house) when some sparrow’s
dung fell upon his eyes in consequence of which he lost his sight (1-3:6). At
the same time there was living in Ecbatana in Media a pious Jwesss called Sarah
the daughter of Raguel who already had had seven husbands but all of whom had
been put to death on the marriage night by the evil spirit Asmodeus (3:7-17).
Meanwhile the aged Tobit remembered in the midst of his distress that on one
occasion he had left ten talents of silver at Rages in Media in charge of one
Gabael a member of his own tribe. Consequently when he saw that his end was
approaching he sent his son Tobias to Rages with instructions to get the money
which he was to retain as his patrimony. Tobias sets out taking with him a
fellow-traveller this latter however being in reality no other than the angel
Raphael (4-5). On his way Tobias bathes in the Tigris and while doing so he
catches a fish. At the angel’s behest he takes out the fish’s heart liver and
gall and carries them away with him. Having now reached Ecbatana they take up
their quarters at the house of Raguel. This latter recognises in Tobias one of
her own relations and gives him her daughter Sarah to be his wife. As soon as
the new-married couple had entered the bride-chamber Tobias acting on the
instructions of the angel raises a smoke by burning the heart and the liver of
the fish which had the effect of expelling the demon Asmodeus who was bent on
disposing of him too precisely as he had disposed of the former husbands of
Sarah. Thus the fourteen days of marriage festivity were allowed to pass by
without disturbance or interruption the angel having meanwhile taken the
opportunity to go to Rages to get the money from Gabael (6-9). After the
marriage celebrations were over Tobias returns to Nineveh to his parents
accompanied by Sarah his wife and there he contrives to cure his father’s
blindness by anointing his eyes with the gall of the fish (10-12). Full of
gratitude to God Tobit chants a song of praise and continues to live for nearly
a hundred years longer. Tobias also lives to the age of 127 years (13-14). The
plot of the story is well contrived there is great variety of details and the
various threads joined on at different points in the narrative are skilfully
interwoven with each other. Consequently as a literary product our book is
decidedly superior to that of Judith. But the religious standpoint is exactly
the same. Here too as in Judith the whole stress is laid upon the strict
observance of the law of which the practice of deeds of kindness also forms a
part. And in connection with this we at the same time get some instructive
glimpses of the superstition of the time. As the whole story centres in the
dispersion it would seem from this that the author wrote mainly for the Jews of
the dispersion. By holding up those patterns of excellence before the eyes of
his readers he hopes to produce such an impression upon the minds of those of
his countrymen scattered among the Gentiles as may lead them to adhere no less
faithfully to the law and to observe it in an equally strict and conscientious
manner. In consequence of the purpose of the book being as here described it is
impossible to determine whether it had it? origin in Palestine or in the
dispersion. The date of the composition of the work can only be fixed within
tolerably wide limits. Comparatively speaking it may be regarded as most certain
of all that the book was written previous to the building of the temple of
Herod. No doubt Hitzig thought (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 p. 250
sqq.) that we were bound to assume that it was written after the destruction of
the temple by Titus because among the predictions at the close of the book it is
above all foretold that the temple will be rebuilt again with great magnificence
(13:16 f. 14:4 5). But on more careful consideration we will find it probable
that the author wrote when the temple of Zerubbabel was still standing. He
places himself at the standpoint of the Assyrian age and from this he predicts
first of all the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans and then its
reconstruction where however he distinguishes between two things: (1) the
restoration of an unpretending structure till the lapse of a definite period;
and (2) the rebuilding with extraordinary magnificence and splendour that is to
take place at the expiry of this period (14:5: καὶ οἰκοδομήσουσι τὸν οἶκον οὐχ
οἷος ὁ πρότερος ἕως πληρωθῶσι καιροὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος· καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπιστρέψουσιν ἐκ
τῶν αἰχμαλωσιῶν καὶ οἰκοδομήσουσιν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐντίμως· καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν
αὐτῇ οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος οἰκοδομῇ ἐνδόξῳ καθὼς
ἐλάλησαν περὶ αὐτῆς οἱ προφῆται). The historical structure with which the author
is acquainted is therefore more unpretending than the former one the temple of
Solomon (οὐχ οἷος ὁ πρότερος). For surely he could hardly have expressed himself
as he does if he was already acquainted with the temple of Herod. If this latter
then forms the terminus ad quem for the composition of our book the safest
course would he to say that it was written in the course of the last two
centuries before Christ. For we are precluded by the whole spirit of the book
from going farther back. In preparing his Latin version of our book Jerome made
use of a Chaldee text precisely as in the case of the Book of Judith (see
below). Such a text is still extant in the shape of a manuscript that only at a
comparatively recent date found its way into the Bodleian library at Oxford from
which Neubauer took his edition (The Book of Tobit a Chaldee text etc. ed. by
Neubauer Oxford 1878). Both texts the Latin of Jerome and the Chaldee one are
marked by a singular peculiarity common to themselves and to themselves alone.
The peculiarity in question is this that while according to the Greek text and
the other versions Tobit in the first section (1:1-3:6) tells his story in the
first person and only changes to the third after Sarah makes her appearance in
the narrative Jerome and the author of the Chaldee text on the other hand make
use of the third person from beginning to end. From this it is highly probable
that Jerome had before him if not exactly our Chaldee text at all events one
very much akin to it (that our Chaldee text is only the reproduction of an older
one is probable for other reasons see below). But the peculiarity just referred
to also serves to prove at the same time that our Chaldee text is not based upon
the Greek one. For the inserting of the third person all through is clearly an
afterthought while the transition from the first to the third correctly
represents the original text. But there is no ground whatever for supposing that
our Greek text is a version based upon a Semitic original. For the two Hebrew
texts which were printed in the sixteenth century are also later products (see
below). On the other hand there are numerous peculiarities of diction (for
example the phrase καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός 7:7) which serve to confirm the view that
the Greek must have been the original text.[2379] [2379] Comp. also Fritzshe’s
Commentar p. 8. Nöldeke Monatsberichte de Bevliner Akademie 1879 p. 61. It would
appear from what Origen asserts that in his time our book was not in use among
the (Palestinian) Jews and that a Hebrew text was unheard of (Origen Epist. ad
African. chap. xiii.; for the terms of the passage see p. 35. Idem De oratione
chap. xiv. = Lommatzsch xvii. 143: τῇ δὲ τοῦ Τωβὴτ βίβλῳ ἀντιλέγουσιν οἱ ἐκ
περιτομῆς ὡς μὴ ἐνδιαθήκῳ). But that it came to be received with favour not long
after is proved by the existing Semitic manuscripts with one of which Jerome was
already acquainted. Its use in the Christian Church is already evidenced by the
apostolic Fathers. Comp. 2 Clem. xvi. 4 = Tob_12:8 (on which see Harnack’s notes
to 2 Clem.). Epist. Polycarp. x. 2 = Tob_4:10. According to Irenaeus i. 30. 11
the Ophites included Tobias among the Old Testament prophets. Clement of
Alexandria repeatedly quotes the book as γραφή (Strom. ii. 23. 139 vi. 12. 102).
Hippolytus in his commentary on the story of Susannah brings in the story of
Tobit by way of parallel (Hippolyt. ed. Lagarde p. 151). Origen in his Epist. ad
African. refers at some length to the story of Tobias and adds quite in a
general way: χρῶνται τῷ Τωβίᾳ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι. Consequently he in like manner
frequently quotes it as γραφή (Comment. in epist. ad Rom. book viii. chap. xi.
fin. = Lommatzsch vii. 272; De oratione chap. xi. = Lommatzsch xvii. 124; comp.
besides De oratione chaps. xiv. and xxxi. = Lommatzsch xvii. 143 284; contra
Cels. v. 19 = Lommatzsch xix. 196). Cyprian makes frequent use of the book
(Testimon. iii. 1 6 62; Ad Fortunatum chap. xi.; De opere et eleemosynis chaps.
v. and xx.). For more on this subject see the works on the history of the Canon;
also Jahn’s Einleit. in die göttl. Bücher des Alten Bundes 2nd ed. vol. ii. § 3
and 4 (1803) 1st and 2nd appendices. Of the Greek text there are three
recensions in existence: (1) The one found in the majority of manuscripts and
among others also in Codex Vaticanus (No. ii.) and Alexandrinus (No. iii.). To
it the Syrian version adheres as far as chap. vii. 9. (2) The text of the Codex
Sinaiticus (No. x.) which deviates very much from the ordinary text. To it again
the old Latin version adheres though not entirely yet chiefly. (3) The text of
Codices 44 106 and 107 (according to the numbering of Holmes and Parsons) which
is akin to that of the Codex Sinaiticus. However this latter appears to have
been adhered to by the manuscripts just mentioned only from vi. 9 to xiii. 8
while in all that precedes and follows they conform to the ordinary recension.
This text again is that on which from vii. 10 onwards the Syrian version is
based. Whether the ordinary text or that of the Codex Sinaiticus is the original
one it is difficult to determine for the claims of both admit of being well
supported. Fritzsche (Proleg. to his edition) and Nöldeke (Monatsberichte der
Berliner Akademie) 1879 p. 45 sqq. decide in favour of the ordinary text while
Reusch (in his separate edition; comp. also Theol. Literaturzeitung 1878 p. 333
sq.) upholds the claims of the Codex Sinaiticus. In Fritzsche’s edition of the
Apocrypha the whole three texts are printed alongside of each other. The text of
the Codex Sinaiticus has been published separately by Reusch (Libellus Tobit e
codice Sinaitico editus et recensitus Bonnae 1870). Comp. further on the
editions p. 10. Of the early versions we may mention: (1) The Latin and that (a)
the old Latin one the text of which shows very considerable variations in the
four manuscripts collated by Sabatier though it substantially agrees with that
of the Codex Sinaiticus (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae
vol. i.). Sabatier’s four manuscripts represent two recensions the one of which
is contained in three of them and the other in the remaining one (Vat. 7).[2380]
Fragments of a third recension are furnished by the quotations given in the
Speculum Augustini (on which see Reusch Das Buch Tobias 1857 p. xxvi.) edited by
Mai. The text of a certain Codex Ambrosianus has not yet been inspected. Ceriani
contemplates preparing an edition of it for the Monum. sacra et profana but so
far as I am aware it has not as yet appeared. The same may be said of a Münich
codex which Ziegler purposes editing (Neubauer The Book of Tobit p. 10 note 6).
See in general Ilgen Die Geschichte Tobt’s p. 183 sqq. Fritzsche Handb. p. 11
sq. Reusch Das Buch Tobias p. 25 sqq. Sengelmann Das Buch Tobit pp. 49-56. (b)
Jerome’s version (= Vulgata) which was executed in circumstances similar to
those under which that of Judith was prepared see Praef. in vers. libri Tob.
(Vallarsi x. 1 sq.): Exigitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum
stilum traham librum utique Tobiae quern Hebraei de catalogo divinarum
scripturarum secantes his quae apocrypha [al. hagiographa] memorant manciparunt.
Feci satis desiderio vestro.… Et quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni
Hebraico utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem
arripui et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit hoc ego accito notario
sermonibus Latinis exposui. A comparison of this version with the old Latin one
will show that Jerome based his translation upon this latter giving a somewhat
free rendering of it however much he may at the same time have kept the Chaldee
text in view. Comp. Ilgen p. cxliv. sqq. Fritzsche p. xii. sq. Reusch p. xxxii.
Sengelmann pp. 56-61. We have no further means of verification notwithstanding
the recovery of the Chaldee text for this latter is itself simply a reproduction
with greater or less accuracy of the original one. (2) The Syriac text which has
come down to us (printed for the first time in the London Polyglot vol. iv.) is
composed of the fragments of two different versions one of which (as far as vii.
9) followed the ordinary Greek text while the other (from vii. 10 onwards)
followed the text of Codices 44 106 107. See Ilgen pp. cxxxvii. sq. clxix. sqq.
Reusch p. ix. sq. Sengelmann p. 47 sq. On the editions see p. 11. The Book of
Tobit is not given in the large Peschito manuscript of Milan. [2380] The text of
Vaticanus 7 has (according to Reusch Libellus Tobit 1870 p. 4) been more
carefully edited by Bianchini Vindiciae canonicarum scripturarum Romae 1740 p.
cccl. than by Sabatier. On this text comp. also Bickell Zeitschr. für kathol.
Theol. 1878 p. 218. (3) The Chaldee text (see p. 40 above) edited by Neubauer
agrees substantially with the Greek recension of the Codex Sinaiticus on which
it was probably based. But the text as we now have it is in all likelihood only
an abridged and modified form of an older Chaldee text. See besides Neubauer’s
edition Bickell Zeitschr. für kathol. Theol. 1878 pp. 216-222 and especially
Nöldeke Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie 1879 pp. 45-69. (4) Lastly we have
further to mention two Hebrew versions which have been frequently printed since
the sixteenth century namely: (a) The so-called Hebraeus Fagii a Hebrew version
based upon the ordinary Greek text published first of all at Constantinople in
1517 and then by Fagius in 1542. On this see Ilgen p. cxxxviii. sqq. Fritzsche
p. 9 sq. Reusch p. xlvii. Sengelmann p. 63 sq. (b) The Codex Hebraeus Münsteri a
free Hebrew version which (according to Neubauer p. 12) was published first at
Constantinople in 1516 and then by Sebastian Münster in 1542. Until the
discovery of the Chaldee text it was supposed that the old Latin version was
based upon it (so Ilgen p. ccxvii. sqq.; Fritzsche p. 14; Reusch p. xlvii. eq.;
Sengelmann p. 61 sqq.). After seeing the Chaldee text we cannot but regard it as
certain that the Codex Hebraeus Münsteri is based upon it though not on that
text as it has come down to us but on an older form of it. See especially
Nöldeke as above; also Bickell as above. As in the Greek text so also in this
older form the first person was made use of in the first three chapters and this
has also been retained in the Codex Heb. Münst. Neubauer has published an
excellent edition of this codex based upon a collation of two manuscripts and
accompanied with an English translation (The Book of Tobit a Chaldee text etc.
ed. by Neubauer Oxford 1878). Both the Hebrew texts along with a Latin
translation have also found a place in the London Polyglot vol. iv. On the
earlier editions comp. Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea i. 391 sqq. ii. 413 sq. iii. 275
iv. 154. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iii. 738 sq. Steinschneider Catalogus
librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (1852-1860) cols. 200-202. Fürst
Biblioth. Judaica iii. 425. For the exegetical aids generally see p. 11 above.
Commentaries: Ilgen Die Geschichte Tobi’s nach drei verschieden Originalen dem
Griechischen dem Lateinischen des Hieronymus und einem Syrischen übersetzt und
mit Anmerkungen exegetischen und kritischen Inhalts auch einer Einleitung
versehen Jena 1800. Fritzsche Die Bücher Tobi und Judith erklärt (Exeget. Handb.
su den Apokryphen vol. ii.) Leipzig 1853. Reusch Das Buch Tobias übersetzt und
erklärt Freiburg 1857. Sengelmann Das Buch Tobit erklärt Münster 1877. For the
older literature consult Fabricius-Harles iii. 738 sq. Fürst Bibl. Jud. iii. 425
sq. Fritzsche p. 20. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496. Special disquisitions:
[Eichhorn] “Ueber das Buch Tobias” (Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur ii.
410 sqq.) Reusch. “Der Dämon Asmodäus im B. Tobias” (Theol. Quartalschr. 1856
pp. 422-445). Idem Review of Sengelmann in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1858 pp.
318-332. Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record iv. 1857 pp. 59-71 vi.
1858 pp. 373-382. Hitzig Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 pp. 250-261.
Hilgenfeld ibid. 1862 pp. 181-198. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (3rd
ed.) p. 269 sqq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iv. (2nd ed.) p. 466 sq. note 17.
Kohut “Etwas über die Moral und die Abfassungszeit d. B. Tobias” (Geiger’s
Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissenschaft u. Leben x. 1872 pp. 49-73; also in a
separate form). Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 540 sqq. Renan L’église
chrétienne (1879) pp. 554-561. Gräte Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenth. 1879 pp. 145 sqq. 385 sqq. 433 sqq. 509 sqq. Grimm Zeitschr. f.
wissenschaftl. Theol. 1881 pp. 33-56. Preiss Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol.
1885 pp. 24-51. The introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz
Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuse (see p. 12).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 93: V. PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC PROPHECIES
========================================================================

V. PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC PROPHECIES The whole of the literary products hitherto
mentioned were fashioned more or less after the models of the older and by that
time the canonical literature to which moreover they made the closest
approximation both in point of spirit and matter. We have now a new species of
literature and one that in our period was more popular and influential than any
other namely the pseudepigraphic prophecies. The old prophets in their teachings
and exhortations addressed themselves directly to the people and that first and
foremost through their oral utterances and then but only as subordinate to these
by means of written discourse as well. But now when men felt themselves impelled
at any time by their religious enthusiasm to try to influence their
contemporaries through their teaching and exhortations instead of directly
addressing them in person like the prophets of old they did so by a writing
purporting to be the work of some one or other of the great names of the past in
the hope that in this way the effect would be all the surer and all the more
powerful. We may venture to regard the predilection shown for the kind of medium
here in question as evidence of the somewhat degenerate character of the age. It
shows that there were natures of a highly religious cast who nevertheless had no
longer the courage to confront their contemporaries with the proud claim to have
their words listened to as the words of God Himself but who rather seemed to
think it necessary to conceal themselves under the guise of some one or other of
the acknowledged authorities of the olden time. And so for this reason all the
writings of a prophetic character that make their appearance in our period are
pseudepigraphic. They are given to the world bearing the name of an Enoch a
Moses a Baruch an Ezra or of the twelve patriarchs but we do not know who the
real author is of any one of them. Then the standpoint of the pseudonymous
author to whom the work is ascribed is as a rule skilfully maintained
throughout. The writings are composed in such a way as to make it appear as
though they had actually been intended for the contemporaries of the respective
personages whose names they bear. But what is addressed to those assumed
contemporaries is in reality of such a nature that it concerns rather more the
contemporaries of the real author himself. From his artificially assumed
standpoint the writer looks on into the future and predicts often with
considerable detail the future history of Israel and the world but always taking
care to see that predictions stop short at his (the real author’s) own time and
so to arrange matters as to make it appear that this was also to be the time of
judgment and of the dawn of redemption alike and all this for the purpose of
serving as a warning to sinners on the one hand and to comfort and encourage the
godly on the other. The fact that the alleged predictions are seen to have been
already fulfilled in the previous history of Israel and the world serves at the
same time to inspire confidence in the prophet so that there will now be a
readier disposition to believe him when he predicts what (from the standpoint of
the real contemporaries) still lies in the future. The contents of those
pseudepigraphic prophecies are of a very varied description. As in the older
prophetic writings so also in these two things were as a rule combined with each
other viz. instruction and exhortation. Prominence is given sometimes to the one
and sometimes to the other to the former for example in the Book of Enoch to the
latter in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. But in no case is one or
other of them found to be entirely absent. The exhortation is uniformly based
upon the previous instruction while the religious instruction thus imparted
always aims at stimulating the reader to a behaviour of a corresponding nature.
But the character of the writings varied very much according as one or other of
those elements happened to predominate in them. At one time they give one more
the impression of moral sermons (as for example the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs) at another they are more concerned with the unveiling of divine
mysteries (as in the case of the Book of Enoch). Yet however much they may thus
differ from one another they all belong so far as their essential character is
concerned to one and the same category. The revelations given in them in due
keeping with their hortatory purpose have reference first of all to the history
of the Jewish people and of mankind in general but they also concern themselves
though only in a more subordinate way with certain theological problems such as
the question regarding the connection between sin and calamity on the one hand
and righteousness and prosperity on the other. But besides this they also seek
to enlighten the reader with regard to the mysteries of nature the supernatural
and heavenly background of the operations of the natural world. On all those
matters which are more or less remotely connected with the religious life they
claim to give authentic information. The form in which those communications are
clothed is that of apocalypse. They claim throughout to be supernatural
revelations given to mankind by the mouth of those men of God in whose names the
various writings appear. The peculiarity of this later “apocalyptic” medium as
distinguished from the older genuine prophecy is this that it imparts its
revelations not in clear and plain language but in a mysterious enigmatical
form. The thing intended to be communicated is veiled under parables and symbols
the meaning of which can only be guessed at. However the extent to which this
veiling is carried is not always the same. At one time it only goes the length
of the author’s abstaining from mentioning the names of persons that are
otherwise plainly enough indicated while at another again the whole thing is
symbolical from begininng to end. Persons are represented under the symbolism of
animals events in the history of the human race under that of the operations of
nature. And if as sometimes happens the interpretation is added this latter
again is only a less obscure form of the enigma and not a solution of it. The
majority of those writings were occasioned by times of trouble and distress or
by the depressed circumstances of the people generally. It is the contradiction
that is found to exist between the ideal and the actual between the promises
which God has given to His people and the existing bondage and persecution which
they had to endure at the hands of Gentile powers—it was this contradiction I
say that impelled their authors to write those works. And where no present
trouble or persecution actually existed the motive for writing may be looked for
in the pessimistic view of things which they were cherishing at the time. The
existing state of matters the present condition of the chosen people was felt to
be a glaring contradiction to its true destiny. Such a state of things could not
last an entire revolution must of necessity take place and that ere long. Such
is the conviction to which expression is given in the whole of the writings now
in question. They therefore owe their origin on the one hand to a pessimistic
view of the present and on the other to an intense faith in the glorious future
of the people. And the object at which their authors aim is to awaken and
quicken the same faith in others as well. They insist that there must be no such
thing as doubting but rather a clinging with all stedfastness to the belief that
God will conduct His people safely through all the afflictions which He has been
sending upon them in order to test and purify them and bring them at length to
greatness and glory. This belief must meanwhile comfort and encourage the people
in the midst of their present sufferings. But inasmuch as the revelation in
question is represented as being near at hand the wicked are meant at the same
time to take warning from this and repent so long as there is an opportunity to
do so. For the coming judgment will be a right stern one bringing salvation to
the godly and perdition to the wicked. The actual effect of those enthusiastic
predictions appears to have been both powerful and lasting. Through them the
Messianic hope was quickened through them the people were confirmed in the
belief that they were called not to serve but to rule. But it is for this very
reason that this apocalyptic literature has played so important a part in
developing the political sentiments of the people. If we find that from the date
of the tax imposed by Quirinius whereby Judaea was placed directly under Roman
administration revolutionary tendencies among the people grew stronger and
stronger year by year till they led at last to the great insurrection of the
year 66 then there cannot be a doubt that this process was essentially promoted
if not exclusively caused by the apocalyptic literature. The standpoint of the
whole of those writings is essentially that of orthodox Judaism. They exhort to
a God-fearing behaviour in accordance with the regulative principles of the law
and deplore the tendency to disregard the law that was manifesting itself here
and there. But at the same time it is not the official Judaism of the Pharisaic
scribes to which expression is give here. The principal stress is laid not on
what the people have to do but on what they have to expect. In regard to the
former of these viz. conduct matters are treated more in their general aspect
without any special stress being laid exactly upon scholastic correctness in
details. We should further add that neither are these writings without numerous
individual peculiarities as is only to be expected in the case of the products
such as these are of an intense religious enthusiasm. However we cannot feel
warranted in specifying the particular circle from which any one of those
writings may be supposed to have emanated. The Essenes above all have been
thought of in this connection.[2381] But what points of contact there are are
far too slender to admit of our speaking even of one of the writings in question
as an Essenian product. The most we can say is that they are not the product of
the school but of a free religious individuality. [2381] So Hilgenfeld in his
book entitled Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) p. 253 sqq.; and to a certain
extent also Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) p. 109 sqq. 1. The Book of Daniel The
oldest and most original of the kind of writings now under consideration—and the
one that at the same time served as a model for those of a later date—is the
canonical Book of Daniel The unknown author of this apocalypse originated with
creative energy those modes of representation of which the subsequent authors of
similar works knew how to avail themselves. The book is the direct product of
the Maccabaean struggles in the very heart of which it came into existence. With
the conflict actually raging around him the author aims at encouraging and
comforting his co-religionists by assuring them of speedy deliverance. The book
is divided into two parts. The first part (1-6) contains a series of hortatory
narratives; the second (7-12) a series of prophetic visions. Chap. 1 rehearses
how young Daniel and his three companions were brought up at the court of
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. We are told how in order to avoid defiling
themselves by partaking of Gentile food the four young men refused to eat of the
meat provided for them by the king and preferred pulse and water instead.
Notwithstanding this as we further learn they seemed to thrive better than the
other young men who partook of the royal fare. The hortatory object of this
narrative is obvious at a glance. In chap. 2 Nebuchadnezzar the king dreams a
dream and calls upon the magi not only to interpret it but also to tell him what
the dream itself was. Not one however of the magi of the country is found able
to do this. Daniel alone shows himself capable of performing such a feat and for
this he is abundantly rewarded by the king and appointed to the office of chief
of all the magi of Babylon. In the course of the interpretation of the dream it
is intimated that the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar would be succeeded by yet three
other kingdoms the last of which (the Greek one) would be “split up” (into that
of the Ptolemies on the one hand and that of the Seleucidae on the other) and
crushed to pieces by the hand of God. In chap. 3 Nebuchadnezzar causes a golden
image to be set up and orders it to be worshipped. For refusing to comply with
this order Daniel’s three companions are cast into a fiery furnace but when it
is found that they were not in the least injured by the flames Nebuchadnezzar
sees his own folly and promotes the three young men to positions of high
distinction. In chap. 4 Nebuchadnezzar publishes an edict in which he confesses
how as a punishment for his impious presumption he was smitten with insanity;
and how after he had duly given God the glory he is restored once more to his
former greatness. In chap. 5 Belshazzar king of Babylon and son of
Nebuchadnezzar makes a great feast at which the vessels which his father had
taken from the temple at Jerusalem are made use of as drinking-cups. To punish
Belshazzar for this he loses both his kingdom and his life together that very
night. In chap. 6 Darius king of the Medes and the conqueror and successor of
Belshazzar in order to punish Daniel for praying to his own God in defiance of
the king’s prohibition causes him to be cast into a den of lions where however
he does not sustain the slightest injury. The result of this is that Darius
comes to see his own folly and issues a decree to the effect that Daniel’s God
is to be worshipped throughout the whole kingdom. It is no less obvious that a
hortatory purpose pervades the last four of those narratives (3-6) as well while
at the same time the contemporary historical background is also plainly
discernible. By the three kings we are in every instance to understand Antiochus
Epiphanes as being the person meant who with impious arrogance assumed such
lofty airs (4) who carried off the sacred vessels from the temple at Jerusalem
(5) who forbade the Jews to worship their own God (6) and commanded them to pay
divine honour to the gods of the Gentiles (3). We are shown how as a judgment
for his misdeeds he is given over to destruction and how on the other hand the
Jews whom he persecuted are miraculously delivered. While therefore all those
narratives are meant to stimulate to unfailing stedfastness the faithful people
whom Antiochus was persecuting we are introduced in the second part of the book
(7-12) to a series of visions in which from the standpoint of the Chaldaean
period the future development of the events of the world is foretold. The whole
of the visions agree in this that the monarchy which they foretell as being the
last is the Greek one which ultimately resolves itself into the godless rule of
Antiochus Epiphanes who though not mentioned by name is plainly enough
indicated. We have above all in the last vision (from 10 to 12) a prediction of
a highly detailed character in which are foretold the history of the kingdoms of
the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae respectively (for it is these that are meant by
the kingdom of the south and the kingdom of the north) and their manifold
relations to one another. Here the most remarkable thing is that the prediction
becomes more and more minute and detailed the nearer it approaches to the time
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Precisely the history of this monarch is here related
with the utmost minuteness without his name being once mentioned (11:21 sqq.).
It is still the suppression of the Jewish worship the desecration of the temple
and the erection of the heathen altar for sacrifice as well as the commencement
of the Maccabaean insurrection (11:32-35) that are predicted. But at this point
the predictions suddenly stop and the author now cherishes the expectation that
immediately after the struggles connected with the rising in question the
consummation will come and the kingdom of God begin to appear. Nor is it merely
in the eleventh chapter that the predictions stop at this period but in no other
part of the book does the horizon of the author ever stretch beyond it not even
in the visions of the four monarchies (2 and 7). For the fourth is not the Roman
Empire but the Greek monarchy as any one who candidly considers the matter will
readily admit (the first being the Babylonian the second that of the Medes the
third the Persian and the fourth the Greek). In presence of these facts it is
admitted by all the expositors of the present day—by all that is who are not
hampered by dogmatic pre-dilections—that our book was composed at the time of
the Maccabaean rising or to speak more precisely between 167 and 165 B.C. that
is to say before the re-consecrating of the temple for as yet this latter event
lies beyond the horizon of the author. It is only as viewed in the light of this
period that the book can be said to have either sense or meaning. From beginning
to end it is framed with the view of exercising a practical influence precisely
in such a time as this. With its various narratives and revelations it seeks on
the one hand to encourage the hosts of faithful Israelites to maintain a
stedfast adherence to the law and on the other to console them with the certain
prospect of immediate deliverance. It is even at this very moment—such is the
author’s thought—when the distress is at its height that the deliverance is also
nearest at hand. The days of the Gentile monarchies are drawing to a close. The
last and at the same time the most godless and criminal of them all is on the
point of being annihilated through the impending miraculous breaking in on the
part of God upon the current of the world’s history whereupon the sovereignty of
the world will be committed to the “saints of the Most High” the faithful
Israelites. They will inherit the kingdom and possess it for ever and ever. That
is what those who are just now so sorely oppressed and persecuted are to bear in
mind for their comfort and encouragement. The book was composed partly in Hebrew
and partly in Aramaic (Chaldee) the Aramaic portion being that extending from
2:4 to 7:28. And so from this we can see that it was just then that the Aramaic
came to be the prevailing dialect of Palestine while the Hebrew fell more and
more into desuetude. In the course of two centuries after this viz. in the time
of Jesus Christ we find that the process which at this point is thus beginning
has been already fully completed (see ). The high estimation in which from the
first this book was held by believing Israelites is best shown by the fact that
it always continued to retain its place in the canon. Even that somewhat older
work the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach was ultimately excluded from the
Hebrew canon and that although in point of form and contents it approximates
more closely to the early Hebrew literature than the Book of Daniel. Obviously
the reason of both those facts is this that the work of Jesus the son of Sirach
was published under the author’s real name whereas the Book of Daniel appeared
under the name of one of the older authorities. It is in fact the only literary
product of its time that retained a place in the canon with the exception of a
number of psalms which happened to have been previously embodied in the Psalter.
We already find evidence of acquaintance with our book in the oldest of the
Sibyls (Orac. Sibyll. 3:396-400 only a few decades later than Daniel); further
in 1Ma_2:59-60 and Bar_1:15-18. The exegetical and critical literature of the
Book of Daniel is enumerated in De Wette-Schrader’s Einleitung in die kanon. und
apokr. Bücher des A. T. (1869) p. 485 sq. Kleinert Abriss der Einleitung zum A.
T. (1878) pp. 59-61. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) §
464. Graf art. “Daniel” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 564. Perhaps we may be
allowed in passing to offer here a small contribution toward the exposition of
chap. 9:24-27. In that passage the author endeavours to explain the seventy
years of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:11-12) by taking them to mean seventy weeks of
years (70×7) And this number again he proceeds to break up into 7+62+1. Then as
the context makes it well-nigh impossible to doubt he reckons the first seven
weeks of years (therefore 49 years) at the period that would elapse between the
destruction of Jerusalem and the accession of Cyrus which pretty nearly
coincides with the actual number of years embraced in that period (588-537
B.C.). The subsequent sixty-two weeks of years he reckons and that with rather
more nicety than before as being the period extending from the time of Cyrus to
his (the author’s) own day: till “an anointed one shall be cutoff” by which we
have probably to understand the murder of the high priest Onias III. in the year
171. But the number of years between 587 and 171 is only 366 whereas 62 weeks of
years would be equal to 434. Consequently the author has miscalculated to the
extent of 70 years. Some have supposed that this is impossible and have
therefore tried in various ways to evade the only interpretation of which the
context will permit. But that such an error as this is actually possible is
proved most conclusively by the circumstance that Josephus for example likewise
falls into an error of a similar kind as may be seen from the three following
passages: (1) Bell. Jud. vi. 4. 8 where he gives 639 as the number of years that
elapsed between the second year of Cyrus’s reign till the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus (70 A.D.). In that case the second year of Cyrus’s reign
would have to be the year 569 B.C. (2) Antt. xx. 10 where he makes out that
there was a period of 414 years between the return from the captivity (in the
first year of Cyrus’s reign) and the time of Antiochua V. Eupator (164-162). (3)
Antt. xiii. 11. 1 where he calculates that 481 years elapsed between the return
from the captivity (in the first year of the reign of Cyrus) and the time of
Aristobulus (105-104). Consequently according to (1) the accession of Cyrus must
have taken place in the year 570 B.C.. according to (2) somewhere about 578 B.C.
and according to (3) in 586 B.C. whereas in point of fact it took place in 537
B.C. Josephus therefore has miscalculated to the extent of from forty to fifty
years too many. A somewhat nearer approach to the numbers of Daniel is made by
the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius who reckons that 573 years elapsed between the
carrying away of the ten tribes into captivity and the time of Ptolemy IV. (222
B.C.) and so precisely like Daniel putting it at some seventy years too many
(see the passage as given in Clement of Alexand. Strom. i. 21. 141; for more
about Demetrius see § 33 below). Therefore in estimating the length of the
period in question at some seventy years too much Daniel is obviously following
some current view on the matter. Just at the time now under consideration there
was as yet an absence of the necessary means for determining the correct
chronology. In Daniel’s case however the error is all the less to be wondered at
that his estimating the length of the period referred to at sixty-two year weeks
was simply a consequence of his interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy. 2. The
Book of Enoch Enoch (in common with Elijah) occupies this singular position
among the Old Testament men of God that when removed from the earth he was
carried directly to heaven. A man of this stamp could not but appear peculiarly
well fitted to serve as a medium through which to communicate to the world
revelations regarding the divine mysteries seeing that he had even been deemed
worthy of immediate intercourse with God. Accordingly at a somewhat early period
probably as far back as the second century before Christ an apocalyptic writing
appeared purporting to have been composed by Enoch which work was subsequently
issued in an enlarged and revised form. This Book of Enoch was already known to
the author of the Book of “Jubilees” and of the “Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs” and was afterwards a great favourite in the Christian Church. As is
well known it is quoted in the Epistle of Jude (14 15) while many of the Fathers
use it without hesitation as the genuine production of Enoch and as containing
authentic divine revelations although it has never been officially recognised by
the Church as canonical. We still find the Byzantine chronicler George Syncellus
(about 800 A.D.) quoting two long passages from it (Syncell. Chron. ed. Dindorf
i. 20-23 and 42-47). But after that the book disappeared and was looked upon as
lost till in the course of last century the discovery was made that an Ethiopic
version of it was still extant in the Abyssinian Church. In the year 1773 Bruce
the English traveller brought three manuscripts of it to Europe. But it was not
till the year 1821 that the whole work was given to the world through the
English translation of Laurence. A German translation was issued by Hoffmann
which from chap. 1 to 55 (1833) was based upon the English version of Laurence
and from chap. 56 to the end (1838) on the Ethiopic version collated with a new
manuscript. The Ethiopic text was published first by Laurence in 1838 and
subsequently by Dillmann in 1851 after having collated it with five manuscripts.
Dillmann likewise issued (1853) a new German translation in which there were
material emendations and on which all disquisitions connected with this book
have been based ever since. It seemed as though there were reason to hope that
more light would be thrown upon this book when a small fragment of it in Greek
(extending from ver. 42 to ver. 49 of chap. 89) taken from a Codex Vaticanus
(cod. gr. 1809) written in tachygraphic characters was published in facsimile by
Mai (Patrum Nova Biblioth. vol. ii.) and deciphered by Gildmeister (Zeitschr.
der DMG. 1855 pp. 621-624). For from what was stated by Mai one was led to
suppose that there was still far more in the codex than had yet been published.
But alas! a fresh examination by Gebhardt revealed the fact that the deciphered
fragment was all of the Book of Enoch that it contained (Merx’ Archiv vol. ii.
p. 243). But in order to be able to form something like a clear idea of the
origin and character of this remarkable book it will be necessary to present to
the reader a brief outline of its contents. Chap. 1:1: Title. Enoch’s
benediction on the elect and the righteous. Chaps. 1-4: Introduction. Enoch
rehearses the fact that he saw a vision in heaven which was shown him by the
angels who communicated to him the history of all the future generations of men
telling him that the wicked would be sentenced to everlasting damnation while
the righteous would obtain eternal life. Chaps. 6-9 contain an account of the
fall of the angels based upon the sixth chapter of Genesis though in a much more
elaborate form. God ordains the kind of punishment to which the fallen angels
are to be condemned and appoints the mode in which the earth is to be purged of
their evil-doing and wickedness. The angels are entrusted with the task of
executing both those behests. in chaps. 12-16 Enoch who mingles among the angels
in heaven is commissioned by these latter to betake himself to the earth for the
purpose of announcing to the fallen angels the impending judgment (here Enoch
resumes the use of the first person). When he has fulfilled his commission the
fallen angels prevail upon him to intercede with God in their behalf. But God
refuses to entertain the intercession of Enoch who in a new and imposing vision
receives a fresh commission to go and announce once more their approaching
destroction. In 17-36 Enoch relates (in the first person) how he was carried
over mountains water and rivers and shown everywhere the secret divine origin of
all the objects and operations of nature. He also tells how he was shown the
ends of the earth and the place to which the evil angels were banished; and the
abode of departed spirits of the just as well as the unjust; and the tree of
life which is in store for the elect righteous; and the place of punishment for
the condemned; and the tree of knowledge of which Adam and Eve had eaten. Chaps.
37 to 71 record “the second vision of wisdom which Enoch the son of Jared saw”
consisting of three allegories. Chaps. 38 to 44 contain the first allegory.
Enoch sees in a vision the dwellings of the righteous and the resting-places of
the saints. He also sees the myriads upon myriads who stand before the majesty
of the Lord of spirits and the four archangels Michael Raphael Gabriel and
Phanuel. He is further permitted to look upon the mysteries of heaven to see the
places where the winds are kept and the receptacles for the sun and moon and
lastly to behold the lightning and the stars of heaven all of which have their
own special names and which names they respectively answer to. Chaps. 44 to 57
contain the second allegory. Enoch is favoured with information regarding the
“Chosen One” the “Son of man” i.e. regarding the Messiah His nature and mission
how He is to judge the world and establish His kingdom. Chaps. 58 to 69 contain
the third allegory treating of the blessedness of the righteous and the elect;
of the mysteries of the thunder and lightning; of the day on which the Chosen
One the Son of man is to sit in judgment upon the world. Here several portions
are inserted which interrupt the continuity and plainly show that they are
interpolations by another hand. Chaps. 70-71 contain the conclusion of the
allegories. In chaps. 72-82 we have “the book concerning the revolutions of the
lights of heaven” or the astronomical book. Here Enoch favours us with all sorts
of astronomical information which he himself had obtained from the angel Uriel.
Chaps. 83 to 90 contain two visions. (a) In 83 to 84 Enoch sees in a dreadful
vision the destruction (by the flood) which is awaiting the sinful world and
prays God not to annihilate the whole human family (b) In 85 to 90 we have the
vision of the cattle sheep wild beasts and shepherds; under the symbolism of
which the whole history of Israel is predicted down to the commencement of the
Messianic era. As this historical vision is the only part of the book which
enables us with anything like approximate certainty to determine the date of its
composition we will devote more special attention to its contents at a
subsequent stage. In chap. xci. we have Enoch’s exhortation to his children to
lead a righteous life (by way of conclusion to what goes before). Chap. 92 forms
the introduction to the next section. In 93 and 94:12-17 Enoch enlightens us
“out of the books” regarding the world-weeks. In the first week Enoch lives in
the second Noah in the third Abraham in the fourth Moses in the fifth the temple
is built at the end of the sixth it is destroyed again in the seventh an
apostate generation arises and at the end of those weeks the righteous are
instructed in the mysteries of heaven; in the eighth righteousness receives a
sword and sinners are given into the hands of the righteous and a house is built
for the great King; in the ninth the judgment is revealed; in the tenth and in
the seventh part of it the final judgment will take place. Chaps. 94 to 105
contain woes upon the wicked and the ungodly the announcement of their certain
destruction and an exhortation to cherish joyful expectations addressed to the
righteous (very diffuse and full of mere repetitions). In chaps. 106 and 107 we
have a narrative of the birth of Noah and what took place at it The wonderful
appearance of this personage gives Enoch occasion to predict the flood. Chap.
108 contains “a further writing by Enoch” in which he tells hows he had got
certain information from an angel regarding the fire of hell to which the souls
of the wicked and the blaspheming are to be consigned as well as regarding the
blessings that are in store for the humble and the righteous. As may be seen
from this outline of its contents this book purports to be a series of
revelations with which Enoch was favoured in the course of his peregrinations
through heaven and earth and of his sojourn among the heavenly spirits. These
revelations he committed to writing for the benefit of mankind and transmitted
them to posterity. The contents are of an extremely varied character. They
embrace the laws of nature no less than the organization and history of the
kingdom of God. To impart information regarding the whole of those matters is
the purpose and object of this mysterious book. The work furnishes but few data
that can be turned to account in the way of enabling us to make out the
circumstances under which it was composed. Consequently the views that have been
expressed relative to this are of a widely divergent order. Still a certain
consensus of opinion has grown up with regard to at least a few leading points.
In the first place we may say that the view of J. Chr. K. von Hofmann Weisse and
Philippi to the effect that the entire book is the work of a Christian author
(Hofmann holding that the interpolations are but of a trifling character) is
confined pretty much to those writers themselves.[2382] In the case of the whole
three of them the entertaining of such a view is essentially due to dogmatic
reasons while in the case of Hofmann and Philippi in particular it is to be
attributed to a desire to get rid of the fact that our book is quoted in the
Epistle of Jude (for they would have us believe that conversely it was that
passage in the Book of Jude that first suggested the writing of the book now
under consideration). But speaking generally it may be affirmed that there is
scarcely any modern scholar who holds that the whole work was composed by one
and the same author. Even Dillmann who in his translation and exposition still
continued to assume a substantial unity of authorship (the interpolations being
only trifling although tolerably numerous) has—in spite of Wittichen’s almost
entire concurrence in it—long ago abandoned this view. He is now at one with
almost all the critics in holding that the book consists of several pieces and
all of them entirely different from one another. On this assumption it is almost
universally admitted that the so-called “allegories” chaps. 37-71 are above all
to be ascribed to a separate author (so for example Krieger Lücke 2nd ed. Ewald
Dillmann latterly Köstlin Hilgenfeld Langen Sieffert Reuss Volkmar). Likewise in
the case of the other leading sections of the book (1-36 and 72-108)
interpolations more or less numerous are almost universally acknowledged to
exist although there is considerable diversity of opinion as to where in each
instance they begin and end. Again there is comparatively speaking a high degree
of unanimity with regard to the date of the composition of each of those leading
sections above all of the one containing the visions (83-90). Volkmar alone has
found his predilection for the time of Barcocheba too much for him in this
instance as well preferring as he does to regard the portions in question as
having been written by one of Akiba’s disciples. All the others are agreed in
holding that they belong to the second century B.C. either limiting the date to
the earlier years of the Maccabaean period (so Krieger Lücke 2nd ed. Langen) or
finding it further on viz. in the days of John Hyrcanus (so Ewald Dillmann
Köstlin Sieffert Reuss likewise Wittichen) or even so late as the time of
Alexander Jannaeus (so Hilgenfeld). But it is with respect to that section which
as regards its contents is the most important of any viz. the allegories chaps.
36-71 that opinion fluctuates most of all. Here Hilgenfeld and Volkmar agree
with Hofmann Weisse and Philippi thus far that in common with these latter they
ascribe the section in question to a Christian author (Hilgenfeld to a Gnostic
writer). All other critics refer it to some pre-Christian period Langen to the
earlier days of the Maccabaean age in common with the rest of the book Ewald to
somewhere about 144 B.C. Köstlin Sieffert and Dillmann (Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd
ed. xii. 351 sq.) to some date previous to 64 B.C. Krieger and Lücke to the
early part of Herod’s reign while Reuss refrains from suggesting any date at
all. [2382] Lücke who at one time (1st ed.) was also disposed to favour this
view decidedly abandoned it afterwards. Such unanimity as has thus far been
secured may serve at the same time to give us an idea how far we can here hope
to obtain results of a trustworthy character. If there is one thing more certain
than another it is this that the book is not all the production of one and the
same author. Not only is the section containing the allegories chaps. 37-71
undoubtedly a perfectly independent portion of the book but all the rest of the
work is composed of very heterogeneous elements and obviously interspersed with
a great number of longer or shorter interpolations. Confining ourselves to the
leading portions of the work the following groups may be distinguished:— 1. The
original writing i.e. the leading portion consisting of 1-36 72-90 but with the
restriction just referred to. The only clue we get to the date of its
composition is that furnished by the historical vision in chaps. 85-90. Here we
have a representation of the entire history of the theocracy from Adam down to
the author’s own day and that under the symbolism of cattle and sheep. In a
vision presented to him in a dream Enoch saw how a white ox (Adam) once sprung
out of the earth; and then a white cow (Eve); and along with this latter yet
other cattle a black ox (Cain) and a red one (Abel). The black ox gored the red
one which thereupon vanished from the earth. But the black ox begat many other
black cattle. Thereupon the cow just referred to (Eve) gave birth to a white ox
(Seth) from which sprung a great many other white cattle. But stars (angels)
fell from heaven and after having had intercourse with the cows of the black
cattle (the daughters of Cain) they begat elephants camels and asses (the
giants). And so in this way the history is proceeded with the theocratic line
being always represented by the white cattle. From Jacob onwards white sheep are
substituted for the white cattle. The symbolic character of the representation
is patent all through while it presents hardly any difficulty in the way of
interpretation till we come to the point where the sheep are attacked by wild
animals i.e. till the hostile powers of Assyria and Babylon come upon the stage.
For in 89:55 it is narrated how the Lord of the sheep delivered them into the
hand of the lions and tigers and wolves and jackals and into the hand of the
foxes and all manner of wild beasts; and how the wild beasts began to tear the
sheep to pieces. And the Lord forsook their house (Jerusalem) and their tower
(the temple) 89:56 i.e. He withdrew His gracious presence from them (for there
is no question of the destruction of these till a much later stage). And He
appointed seventy shepherds to feed the sheep and charged them to allow as many
to be torn to pieces by the wild beasts as He would order them but not more
(89:59 60). And he summoned “another” and commanded him to write down the number
of sheep destroyed by the shepherds (89:61-64). And the shepherds fed them “each
his time” and delivered the sheep into the hand of the lions and tigers. And
these latter burnt down that tower (the temple) and destroyed that house
(Jerusalem 89:65 66). And the shepherds delivered to the wild beasts far more
sheep than they had been ordered to do (89:68-71). And when the shepherds had
fed the flock twelve hours three of those sheep came back and began to rebuild
the house (Jerusalem) and the tower (the temple) chap. 89:72 73. But the sheep
were so blinded as to mingle with the beasts of the field; and the shepherds did
not rescue them from the hand of the beasts (89:74 75). But when
five-and-thirty[2383] shepherds had fed them all the fowls of the air the eagles
the hawks the kites and the ravens came and began to prey upon those sheep and
to peck out their eyes and to devour their flesh (90:1 2). And again when
three-and-twenty shepherds had tended the flock and eight-and-fifty times in all
were completed (90:5) then little lambs were born of the white sheep and they
began to cry to the sheep; but these pay no heed to them (90:6 7). And the
ravens swooped down upon the lambs and seized one of them and tore and devoured
the sheep till horns grew upon the lambs and above all a large horn shot out to
which all the young ones betake themselves (90:8-10). And the eagles and the
hawks and the kites still continue to tear the sheep to pieces. And the ravens
sought to break to pieces the horn of that young sheep and struggled with it;
and it strove with them. And the Lord came to the help of that young one; and
all the beasts flee and fall before him (90:11-15). Here the narrative breaks
off. For what follows seems for the author to lie in the future. It is only
further remarked that the twelve last shepherds had destroyed more than those
who had preceded them (90:17). [2383] Dillmann reads thirty-six which is not
supported by manuscript authority. The manuscripts read thirty-seven. But from
what follows there can hardly be a doubt that thirty-five is the correct
reading. In their endeavours to interpret this narrative so clear and
perspicuous in all the leading points the expositors seem almost to have vied
with each other in trying who would misunderstand it most. Strangely enough all
the earlier expositors down to Lücke inclusive have taken the first thirty-seven
shepherds to mean the native kings of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah ! It is
true no doubt that in the present day all are agreed that the seventy shepherds
are intended to represent the period during which Israel was subjected to the
away of the Gentile powers. But it is a strange misapprehension into which
almost all the expositors have been betrayed when they suppose that the seventy
shepherds are intended to represent a corresponding number of Gentile rulers.
The whole narrative leaves no room whatever to doubt that the shepherds are
rather to be understood as angels who are entrusted with the duty of seeing that
only as many of the sheep are torn to pieces as God intends and no more. So far
as I am aware up till the publication of the first edition of the present work
Von Hofmann was the only writer who recognised this (Schriftbeweis i.
422).[2384] It is as it is impossible to doubt the wild beasts and the birds of
prey that represent the Gentile rulers. Consequently the shepherds must have
some other meaning altogether. But they certainly cannot be taken as
representing human beings for throughout the entire vision these latter are
without exception represented under the symbolism of animals whereas the angels
appear even in chap. 87 under that of men. And that the shepherds are as matter
of fact intended to represent angels is still further confirmed by what follows:
(1) Before they commence to tend the flock they all appear before God at one and
the same time and from Him receive their commission to feed the flock one after
the other (89:59). How could this apply to Gentile rulers? Or are we to think of
them as in a pre-existent state? (2) At the judgment they are classed along with
the fallen angels (90:20 sqq.). (3) The angel that is summoned to write down the
number of sheep that are destroyed is in 89:61 briefly spoken of as “another”
which would surely justify us in assuming that the shepherds mentioned
immediately before belong to precisely the same category as this “other.” (4)
Nor can the shepherds be identified with the Gentile rulers for this further
reason that according to 89:75 they are also entrusted with the duty of
protecting the sheep from the wild beasts. Consequently they are evidently an
impartial power placed over the sheep and the wild beasts alike or they are
meant to be so at least.[2385] The thought in the author’s mind then is this
that from the moment that in accordance with the divine purpose Israel was
assailed and subjugated by the Gentile powers God appointed angels whose duty it
was to see that these powers executed upon Israel the judgment with which He
intended them to be visited; and not only so but also to see that they did not
oppress and persecute Israel unduly. But the watchers neglect their duty; they
allow the wild beasts to destroy a greater number than they ought to have done
and as is predicted toward the conclusion they are for this to be cast into
hell-fire along with the fallen angels. [2384] Since then this view has been
endorsed by Kesselring (Lit. Centralbl. 1874 p. 133) Drummond (The Jewish
Messiah p. 40 sqq.) and Wieseler (Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch.
1882 p. 186). [2385] Even in the later Jewish Haggadah we meet with the idea
that seventy angels were set over the Gentile world that is to say one over each
of the seventy Gentile nations. See Targum of Jonathan on Deuteronomy 32:8.
Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer chap. xxiv. Wagenseil’s note on Sota vii. 5 (in
Surenhusius’s Mishna iii. 263 sq.). Schegg Evangelium nach Lukas übers. und
erklärt ii. 69. Also the expositors generally on Luke 10:1. It would lead to too
great a digression were we to do more in the way of refuting the
misapprehensions here in question. We must content ourselves with briefly
stating what—following Dillmann and Ewald above all—we conceive to be the
correct interpretation. The numbers in the text serve to show that the author
divides the time of the duration of the Gentile supremacy into four periods
arranged thus: 12 + 23 + 23 + 12 which are simply intended to denote in a
general way two shorter periods (at the beginning) and two longer ones (in the
middle). For every calculation pretending to chronological exactness must be
radically erroneous whether with Hilgenfeld we take year-weeks or with Volkmar
take decades as our basis. Nor can there be any doubt as to where the different
periods are intended to begin and end. The first begins with the time when the
Gentile powers (consequently that of Assyria in the first instance) began to
turn against Israel and extends to the time of the return of the exiles in the
reign of Cyrus the only difficulty here being as to who are meant by the three
returning sheep (89:72). Probably the author here alludes to Zerubbabel Ezra and
Nehemiah the less prominent colleague of Zerubbabel viz. Joshua being left out
of account. The second period extends from Cyrus to Alexander the Great. For the
substitution of the birds of prey for the wild beasts (90:2) plainly marks the
transition from the Persians to the Greeks. The third extends from Alexander the
Great to Antiochus Epiphanes. Nothing but stubborn prejudice can prevent any one
from seeing that by the symbolism of the lambs (90:6) the Maccabees are to be
understood. Lastly the fourth period extends from the commencement of the
Maccabaean age on to the author’s own day. That everything considered this
latter coincides with the time of the Hasmonaean princes it is impossible to
doubt. And it is very likely that by the great horn which is mentioned last it
is John Hyrcanus that is referred to. Only we feel bound to agree with Gebhardt
who owing to the uncertain character of the Ethiopic text warns us against being
too detailed in our interpretation. But (seeing that from the beginning of the
Maccabaean age onwards the times of twelve shepherds had elapsed) this may be
regarded as certain that the author wrote some time in the last third of the
second century B.C. If we compare the 12 + 23 + 23 + 12 times that are put down
to represent the four periods with the actual duration of those periods we will
find that for the eye of the author looking backwards the length of the time is
foreshortened. He represents the third period (333-175 B.C.) as being of
precisely the same length as the second whereas in point of fact this latter was
considerably longer (537-333 B.C.). And for his eye the first period dwindles
down still more. All this is exactly what we might expect in the case of one who
is looking back upon the events of the past. If we were to be allowed to assume
that the author of the historical vision is in the main the author of chaps.
1-36 72-105 as well then the date of the composition of the whole of those
sections would thereby be determined at the same time. 2. The allegories chaps.
37-71 (with the exception of the Noachian portions). Even on a hasty perusal one
cannot fail to notice that the allegories form one distinct whole and that they
are different from the remaining portions of the book. In fact there cannot be
the slightest doubt but that they are the production of a different author. The
use of the names of God the angelology the eschatology and the doctrine of the
Messiah differ essentially from those of the rest of the book (comp. especially
Köstlin pp. 265-268). And as little can there be any room to doubt that they are
of a later date than the original work. For the favourite notion of Ewald that
they rank first in point of time has been sufficiently refuted by Köstlin (pp.
269-273). Among the peculiarities of the allegories we notice this in particular
that a decided prominence is given in them to the Messianic hope and the person
of the Messiah whereas in the other parts of the book those are matters that are
touched on once or twice at the most. This again is connected with a further
peculiarity to which Köstlin in particular has directed attention namely that
here instead of its being the wicked and the ungodly in general who appear in
contrast to the pious as is the case in the rest of the book it is rather the
Gentile rulers the kings and the powerful ones of the earth (chaps. 38:4 5 46:7
8 48:8-10 53:5 54:2 55:4 62:1 3 6 9-11 63:1-12). This circumstance serves to
explain why it is that precisely in these allegories such decided prominence is
given to the Messianic hope. But when it may now be asked were they composed?
The only passage which furnishes any clue to the date is chap. 56 where it is
predicted that in the closing period the Parthians and Medes would come from the
east and invade the Holy Land but that they would encounter obstacles at the
holy city when they would turn upon and destroy each other (56:5-7). When
Köstlin would have us infer from this passage that the writing here in question
must have been composed previous to the year 64 B.C. as otherwise we should have
expected that the Romans would have been mentioned as Well we may reply that
such an expectation is absolutely groundless and unwarrantable. It would be much
nearer the truth to conclude with Lücke that this passage presupposes what had
already taken place viz. the Parthian invasion of Palestine (40-38 B.C.) the
recollection of which would have some influence in shaping the author’s
eschatological hopes so that according to this the allegories would be composed
at the very soonest in the time of Herod. On the other hand the prediction to
the effect that the Parthian power would collapse outside the walls of Jerusalem
presupposes that the city was still standing as otherwise it would surely have
been necessary first of all to predict its restoration. But the main question
now is this are the allegories of pre- or of post-Christian origin? An answer to
this question is all the more desirable that it is precisely in these that we
find so many points of contact with the Christology and eschatology of the
Gospels. But unfortunately it is extremely difficult to arrive at any positive
decision. However this much at least ought to be admitted that the view of the
Messiah presented in the part of the book at present under consideration is
perfectly explicable on Jewish grounds and that to account for such view it is
not necessary to assume that it was due to Christian influences. Nothing of a
specifically Christian character is to be met with in any part of this section.
But supposing the reverse to have been the case it is to say the least of it
quite incredible that a Jew would have been likely to have borrowed it and so
there would be nothing for it but to pronounce at once in favour of a Christian
origin. And this is what has actually been done by all those who cannot see
their way to admit the pre-Christian origin of the writing (Hofmann Weisse
Hilgenfeld Volkmar Philippi). But no sooner is such a view seriously entertained
than the difficulties begin to accumulate. An anonymous Christian author would
scarcely have been so reserved as to avoid making any allusion to the historical
personality of Jesus. Surely if the writer had any object in view at all it
would be to win converts to the faith. But how could he hope to accomplish this
object if he always spoke merely of the coming of the Messiah in glory merely of
“the Chosen One” as the Judge of the world without making the slightest
reference to the fact that in the first place He would have to appear in His
estate of humiliation? Surely any one who candidly weighs the arguments on the
one side and on the other must feel constrained to admit that the pre-Christian
origin is decidedly more probable than the Christian one. Further the objection
based upon the circumstance that according to Matthew 16:13-16 John 12:34 the
expression “Son of man” was not as yet a current designation for the Messiah in
the time of Christ whereas it is of frequent occurrence in this sense in the
allegories is without force. For we are by no means at liberty to infer from
those passages that the expression “Son of man” was not at that time currently
in use as a Messianic title. In the case of the passage in John this inference
is based simply upon false exegesis (see on the other hand Meyer for example).
The passage in Matthew again is disposed of by the circumstance that in its
original form as preserved in Mark 8:27 = Luke 9:18 the expression “Son of man”
does not occur at all. 3. The Noachian portions. The investigations of Dillmann
Ewald and Köstlin have already sufficiently proved that the passages 54:7-55:2
60:65-69:25 break the sequence and were only inserted among the allegories at a
later period. And if further proof were needed we have it in the fact that in
chap. 68:1 “The Book of the Allegories of Enoch” is expressly quoted. Those
portions have been called Noachian partly because they treat of Noah and his
time and partly because they purport to have been written by him. Probably
chaps. 106 107 should also be included among them. Chap. 108 is an independent
addition inserted at a later period. It is utterly impossible to say at what
dates those various interpolations were made. The whole Book of Enoch which was
gradually put together in the way we have just stated undoubtedly owes its
origin to Palestine (comp. Dillmann Einleitung p. 51). But as our present
Ethiopic version is taken from the Greek it becomes a question whether this
latter was the original or whether it was in turn a translation from the Hebrew
or Aramaic. Certainly the numerous Hebrew names of the angels point to this
latter as probable to say nothing of the fact that in the Hasmonaean age Greek
was hardly ever used for literary purposes. Consequently it has been almost
universally assumed that the original was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic.[2386]
The only exceptions are Volkmar (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1860 p. 131) and Philippi
(p. 126) who feel compelled to adopt the view that Greek was the language of the
original. [2386] For the view that the original was in Hebrew see in particular
Hallévi Journal Asiatique 1867 April-May pp. 352-395. For the Enoch-legend
generally comp. (next to Genesis 5:18-24) Jesus the Son of Sirach Sir_44:16;
Sir_49:14; Hebrews 11:5; Irenaeus v. 5. 1; Tertullian De anima chap. 1.;
Hippolyt. De Christo et Antichristo chaps. xliii.-xlvii.; Evang. Nicodemi (=
Acta Pilati) chap. xxv.; Historia Josephi (apoer.) chaps. xxx.-xxxii. Thilo
Codex apocr. Nov. Test. p. 756 sqq. Rud. Hofmann Das Leben Jesu nach den
Apokryphen p. 459 sqq. Winer Realwörtb. art. “Henoch.” Hamburger Real-Encycl.
für Bibel und Talmud Part ii. art. “Henochsage.” The Bible dictionaries
generally. The expositors on Revelation xi. For a great number of earlier
dissertations consult Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 222 sq. To an
acquaintance with our book is perhaps to be traced so early a notice as that of
a Jewish or Samaritan Hellenist (probably not Eupolemus but some person unknown
see § xxxiii.) which has been transmitted to us by Alexander Polyhistor and
after him by Eusebius to the effect that Enoch was the inventor of astrology
(Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17. 8 ed. Gaisford: τοῦτον εὑρηκέναι πρῶτον τὴν
ἀστρολογίαν). In the Book of Jubilees not only is our book largely drawn upon
but expressly mentioned (see Ewald’s Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. ii. 240 sq.
iii. 18 sq. 90 sq. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen p. 403 sqq.). In the following
nine passages in the Test. XII. Patr. express reference is made to Enoch’s
prophetical writings: Simeon 5; Levi 10:14 16; Judah 18; Zebulon 3; Daniel 5;
Naphtali 4; Benjamin 9. Further the mention of the ἐγρήγορες (watchers = angels)
in Reuben 5 Naphtali 3 may also be said to point to Enoch. Christian
testimonies: Epist. of Jude 1:14 : ἐπροφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ
Ἐνὼχ λέγων κ.τ.λ. Epist. of Barnabas iv.: τὸ τέλειον σκάνδαλον ἤγγικεν περὶ οὐ
γέγραπται ὡς Ἐνὼχ λέγει. Ibid. xvi.: λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή (then follows a quotation
from the Book of Enoch). Irenaeus iv. 16. 2: Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione
placens Deo cum esset homo Dei legatione ad angelos fungebatur et tranelatus est
et conservator usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei. Tertullian De cultu
feminarum i. 3: Scio scripturam Enoch quae hunc ordinem angelis dedit non recipi
a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Judaicum admittitur. Opinor non putaverunt
illam ante cataclysmum editam post eum casum orbis omnium rerum abolitorein
salvam esse potuisse.… Tertullian then goes on to point out how this vas still
quite possible after which he proceeds as follows: Sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura
etiam de domino praedicarit a nobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est quod
pertineat ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam aedificationi habilem divinitus
inspirari. A Judaeis potest jam videri propterea rejecta sicut et cetera fere
quae Christum sonant.… Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium
possidet. Comp. besides the whole of the introduction to chap. ii. the subject
of which is taken from Enoch. Idem De cultu feminarum ii. 10: (iidem angeli)
damnati a deo sunt ut Enoch refert. Idem De idololatr. iv.: Antecesserat Enoch
praedicens etc. Idem De idololatr. xv.: Haec igitur ab initio praevidens
spiritus sanctus (!) etiam ostia in superstitionem ventura praececinit per
antiquissimum propheten Enoch. Clemens Alex. Eclogae prophet. chap. ii. (Dindorf
iii. 456): “Εὐλογημένος εἶ ὁ βλέπων ἀβύσσους καθήμενος ἐπὶ Χερουβίμ” ὁ Δανιὴλ
λέγει ὁμοδοξῶν τῷ Ἐνὼχ τῷ εἰρηκότι “καὶ εἶδον τὰς ὕλας πάσας.” Idem Eclogae
prophet. chap. liii. (Dindorf iii. 474): ἤδη δὲ καὶ Ἐνώχ φησιν τοὺς παραβάντας
ἀγγέλους διδάξαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀστρονομίαν καὶ μαντικὴν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας.
Celsus in Origen Contra Cels. v. 52 endeavours to show that Christians would
contradict themselves were they to maintain that Christ was the only ἄγγελος
sent down into the world by God. As evidence of this he quotes the following
words: ἐλθεῖν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλους λέγουσι πολλάκις καὶ ὁμοῦ γε ἑξήκοντα ἢ
ἑβδομήκοντα· οὓς δὴ γενέσθαι κακοὺς καὶ κολάζεσθαι δεσμοῖς ὑποβληθέντας ἐν γῇ·
ὅθεν καὶ τὰς θερμὰς πηγὰς εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνων δάκρυα κ.τ.λ. In commenting on this
passage Origen (Contra Cels. v. 54 55) remarks that it is taken from the Book of
Euoch. He thinks however that Celsus did not read it there himself but heard it
from somebody or other for he does not mention the author’s name. Origen Contra
Cels. v. 54: ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ πάνυ φέρεται ὡς θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ
Ἐνὼχ βιβλία (observe the plural). Idem De principiis i. 3. 3: Sed et in Enoch
libro his similia describuntur. Idem De principiis iv. 35: Sed et in libro suo
Enoch ita ait: “Ambulavi usque ad imperfectum” … scriptum namque est in eodem
libello dicente Enoch: “Universas materias perspexi.” Idem In Numer. homil.
xxviii. 2 (de la Rue ii. 384 = Lommatzsch x. 366): De quibus quidem nominibus
plurima in libellis qui appellantur Enoch secreta continentur et arcana: sed
quia libelli isti non videntur apud Hebraeos in suctoritate haberi interim nunc
ea quae ibi nominantur ad exemplum vocare differamus. Idem In Joannem vol. vi.
chap. xxv. (de la Rue iv. 142 = Lommatzsch i. 241): ὡς ἐν τῷ Ἐνὼχ γέγραπται εἴ
τω φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλίον. Anatolius in Eusebius Hist. eccl.
vii. 32. 19: Τοῦ δὲ τὸν πρῶτον παρʼ Ἑβραίοις μῆνα περὶ ἰσημερίαν εἶναι
παραστατικὰ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ Ἐνωχ μαθήματα. Jerome De viris illustr. chap. iv.:
Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem catholicis est epistolam reliquit. Et
quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonia a plerisque
rejicitur etc. Idem Comment. in Epist. ad Titum i. 12 (Vallarsi vii. 1. 708):
Qui autem putant totum librum debere sequi eum qui libri parte usus sit videntur
mihi et apocryphum Enochi de quo apostolus Judas in epistola sua testimonium
posuit inter ecclesiae scripturas recipere. In the so-called stichometry of
Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii the Book of Enoch is classed with the
Apocrypha (Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145). So also in the
anonymous list of the canonical books which has been edited by Montfaucon
Cotelier Hody and Pitra respectively (see v. 7 below). Constit. apostol. vi. 16:
καὶ ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς δέ τινες συνέγραψαν βιβλία ἀπόκρυφα Μωσέως καὶ Ἐνὼχ καὶ
Ἀδὰμ Ἠσαΐου τε καὶ Δαβὶδ καὶ Ἡλία καὶ τῶν τριῶν πατριαρχῶν φθοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς
ἀληθείας ἐχθρά. For yet other testimonia patrum consult Fabricius Codex
pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 160-223 ii 55-61. Philippi Das Buch Henoch p. 102 sqq.
Also the two large fragments from Syncellus in Dillmann Das Buch Henoch pp.
82-86. Editions of the Ethiopic text: Laurence Libri Enoch versio Aethiopica
Oxoniae 1838. Dillmann Liber Henoch Aethiopice ad quinque codicum fidem editus
cum variis lectionibus Lipsiae 1851. Versions: (1) English ones: Laurence The
Book of Enoch an apocryphal production supposed to have been lost for ages but
discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia now first translated
from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library Oxford 1821. Schodde The Book of
Enoch translated with Introduction and Notes Andover 1882. (2) German ones:
Hoffmann (Andreas Gottlieb) Das Buch Henoch in vollständiger Uebersetzung mit
fortlaufendem Commentar ausführlicher Einleitung und erläuternden Excursen 2
vols. Jena 1833-1838. Dillmann Das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt Leipzig
1853. Critical inquiries: Laurence in his English translation. Hoffmann (Andr.
Gottl.) art. “Henoch” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encycl. § 2 vol. v. (1829) pp.
399-409. Idem in his German translation. Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils (also
under the title Gesch. des Urchristenthums vol. i-ii 1838) i. 93-109. Wieseler
Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel 1839 p. 162 sqq.
Krieger (Lützelberger) Beiträge zur Kritik und Exegese Nürnberg 1845. Lücke
Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 89-144; comp.
1171-1173. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) “Ueber die Entstehungszeit des Buch Henoch”
(Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. vol. vi. 1852 pp. 87-91). Idem
Schriftbeweis (2nd ed.) i. 420-423. Idem Die heil. Schrift N. T.’s
zusammenhängend untersucht vii. 2 p. 205 sqq. Dillmann in his German
translation. Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xii. 308-310. Idem Zeitschr.
DMG. 1861 pp. 126-131. Idem in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. (1871) pp. 10-13. Idem
in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. (1883) pp. 350-352. Ewald “Abhandlung über
des äthiopischen Buches Henókh Entstehung Sinn und Zusammensetzung”
(Abhandlungender königl. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Göttingen vol. vi.
1853-1855 Historico-philosoph. section pp. 107-178. Also separate reprint). Idem
Gesch. des Volkes Israel 3rd ed. iv. 451 sqq. Weisse Die Evangelienfrage (1856)
pp. 214-224. Köstlin “Ueber die Entstehung des Buchs Henoch” (Theol. Jahrbücher
1856 pp. 240-279 370-386). Hilgenfeld Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) pp.
91-184. Idem Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. vol. iii. 1860 pp. 319-334; iv.
1861 pp. 212-222; v. 1862 pp. 216-221; xv. 1872 pp. 584-587. Volkmar “Beiträge
zur Erklärung des Buches Henoch nach dem äthiopischen Text” (Zeitschr. der DMG.
vol. xiv. 1860 pp. 87-134 296). Idem in Der Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. vol.
iv. 1861 pp. 111-136 422 sqq.; v. 1862 p. 46 sqq. Idem Eine Neutestamentliche
Entdeckung und deren Bestreitung oder die Geschichte-Vision des Buches Henoch im
Zusammenhang Zürich 1862. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben for
year 1864-65 pp. 196-204. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 35-64.
Sieffert Nonnulla ad apocryphi libri Henochi originem et compositionem nec non
ad opiniones de regno Messiano eo prolatas pertinentia Regimonti Pr. 1867 (the
same work under the title De apocryphi libri Henochi origine et argumenta
Regimonti Pr. s. a.). Hallévi “Recherches sur la langue de la redaction
primitive du livre d’Enoch” (Journal asiatique 1867 April-May pp. 352-395).
Philippi Das Bach Henoch sein Zeitalter und sein Verhältniss zum Judasbriefe
Stuttg. 1868. Wittichen Die Idee des Menschen (1868) pp. 63-71. Idem Die Idee
des Reiches Gottes (1872) pp. 118-133 145-148 149 sq. Gebhardt “Die 70 Hirten
des Buches Henoch und ihre Deutungen mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die
Barkochba-Hypothese” (Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. vol.
ii. part 2 1872 pp. 163-246). Tideman “De apocalypse van Henoch en het
Essenisme” (Theol. Tijdschrift 1875 pp. 261-296). Drummond The Jewish Messiah
(1877) pp. 17-73. Lipsius art. “Enoch.” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of
Christian Biography vol. ii. (1880) pp. 124-128. Reuss Gesch. der heil.
Schriften A. T.’s § 498-500. Wieseler “Zur Abfassungszeit des Buchs Henoch”
(Zeitschr. der DMG. 1882 pp. 185-193). 3. The Assumptio Mosis It had long been
known from a passage in Origen (De princip. iii. 2. 1) that the legend referred
to in the Epistle of Jude (ver. 9) regarding a dispute between the archangel
Michael and Satan about the body of Moses was taken from an apocryphal book
entitled the Ascensio Mosis. Some little information regarding this Ἀνάληψις
Μωυσέως had also been gleaned from quotations found in the Fathers and
subsequent writers (see below). But it was not till somewhat recently that a
large portion of this work in an old Latin version was discovered in the
Ambrosian Library at Milan by Ceriani and published by him (1861) in the first
part of his Monumenta. It is true the fragment bears no title but its identity
with the old Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως is evident from the following quotation (Acta
Synodi Nicaenae ii. 18 in Fabricius i. 845): Μέλλων ὁ προφήτης Μωυσῆς ἐξιέναι
τοῦ βίου ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ Ἀναλήψεως Μωυσέως προσκαλεσάμενος Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν
Ναυὴ καὶ διαλεγόμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔφη· Καὶ προεθεάσατό με ὁ θεὸς πρὸ καταβολῆς
κόσμου εἶναί με τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ μεσίτην These same words also occur in
Ceriani’s fragment i. 14: Itaque excogitavit et invenit me qui ab initio orbis
terrarum praeparatus sum ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. Since its publication
by Ceriani this writing has been edited by Hilgenfeld (clementis Romani Epist.
1866 2nd ed. 1876) Volkmar (Latin and German 1867) Schmidt and Merx (Merx’
Archiv 1868) and Fritzsche (Libri apocr. 1871). A rendering back into the Greek
from which the Latin version had been taken was executed by Hilgenfeld
(Zeifsckr. 1868 and Messias Judaeorum 1869). The following is an outline of the
contents of the writing (and here we adopt Hilgenfeld’s division of the chapters
which is also adhered to by Schmidt-Merx and Fritzsche and departed from by
Volkmar alone):— Chap. 1:1-9. The introduction in which we are given to
understand that what follows was an address which Moses gave to Joshua when he
appointed him to be his successor at Ammon beyond Jordan. In 1:10-17 Moses
discloses to Joshua the fact that the course of his life has come to an end and
that he is on the point of departing to his fathers. By way of legacy he hands
over to Joshua certain books of prophecies which he is requested to preserve in
a place appointed by God for the purpose. In chap. 2 Moses reveals to Joshua in
brief outline the future history of Israel from the entrance into Palestine down
to the destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In chap. 3 it is stated
that a king (Nebuchadnezzar) will come from the east and destroy the city and
the temple with fire and carry away the inhabitants into his own domains. The
captives will then remember that all this had been already foretold by Moses.
Chap. 4. In answer to the prayers of a man who is over them (Daniel) God will
again take pity upon them and raise up a king (Cyrus) who will allow them to
return to their native land. A few fragments of the tribes will return and will
rebuild the holy place and will remain stedfast in their allegiance to the Lord
only sad and sighing because they cannot sacrifice to the God of their
fathers.[2387] Chap. 5. And judgment will overtake their kings (their Gentile
rulers). But they themselves (the Jews) will be divided in regard to the
truth.[2388] And the altar will be defiled by men who are not (true) priests but
slaves born of slaves. And their scribes (magistri [et] doctores eorum) will be
partial and will pervert justice. And their land will be full of
unrighteousness. Chap. 6. Then kings will arise among them and priests of the
Most High God will be appointed who will nevertheless commit wickedness even in
the very holy of holies itself (plainly alluding to the Hasmonaeans). And these
will be succeeded by an insolent monarch not belonging to the family of the
priests an arrogant and ungodly man. And he will deal with those who have
preceded him as they deserve. He will cut off their proud ones with the sword
and bury their bodies in secret places so that nobody will know where they have
been laid.[2389] He will put to death old and young alike and will not spare.
Then there will be great dread of him among them throughout the land and he will
sit in judgment upon them as did the Egyptians for four-and-thirty years (all
which obviously points to Herod the Great). And he will beget sons who will
reign though for shorter periods as his successors. Cohorts of soldiers will
come into their land and a powerful monarch of the West (Quintilius Varus) who
will conquer them and take them captive and destroy a part of their temple with
fire while some of them he will crucify around their city.[2390] Chap. 7. After
this will come the end of the times. Their course will have run after the expiry
of yet four hours … (then follow several lines in the manuscript that are hardly
legible). And there will reign among them wicked and ungodly men who say that
they are righteous. They are deceitful men who will live only to please
themselves dissemblers in all their concerns and at every hour of the day lovers
of feasts mere gluttons … (here again follows a hiatus). They devour the
possessions of the poor and declare that they do this out of pity. Their hands
and their minds indulge in impurity and their mouth utters high-sounding things;
and further they say “touch me not lest thou defile me.” … Chap. 8. Vengeance
and wrath will come upon them such as has never been among them from the
beginning till the time when he will raise up to them the king of kings
(Antiochus Epiphanes) who will crucify those who profess circumcision and will
cause them to get their children uncircumcised again and to carry about the
impure idols in public and to contemn the word. Chap. 9. Then in obedience to
the command of that king there will appear a man of the tribe of Levi whose name
will be taxo who will have seven sons to whom he will say: Behold my sons
vengeance has once more come upon the people a cruel vengeance without one touch
of pity. For what nation of the ungodly has ever had to endure anything equal to
what has befallen us? Now listen my sons and let us do this: Let us fast three
days and on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field and die there
rather than transgress the commandments of our Lord the God of our
fathers.[2391] Chap. 10. And then will His kingdom appear throughout His whole
creation. Then will the devil have an end and sorrow will disappear along with
him. For the Heavenly One will rise up from His throne. And the earth will
tremble the sun will withhold its light and the horns of the moon will be
broken. For God the Most High will appear and He will punish the Gentiles. Then
wilt thou be happy O Israel and God will exalt thee. And now Joshua (and here
Moses turns again to address his successor) keep these words and this book. As
for me I am going to the resting-place of my fathers. Chap. 11 then goes on to
relate how after this address was ended Joshua turned to Moses and lamented over
the prospect of his departure and regretted that in consequence of his own
weakness and incompetency he would not be equal to the great task that had been
imposed upon him. Thereupon chap. 12 proceeds to tell how Moses exhorted Joshua
not to under-estimate his ability and not to despair of the future of his people
seeing that however much they might be punished for their sins they could never
be utterly destroyed. [2387] The author seems to think that the sacrificial
worship of the second temple could not be regarded as true worship owing to
their being under Gentile supremacy and because the conducting of the worship
was in the hands of priests friendly to the Greeks. [2388] Hilgenfeld has
correctly held that the words “Et ipsi dividentur ad reritatem” are to be
regarded as beginning a new sentence. Schmidt and Merx have given a happy
reproduction of the Greek text in the words Καὶ αὐτοὶ διαμερισθήσονται πρὸς τὴν
ἀλήθειαν (comp. Luke 11:17). [2389] Comp. Joseph. Antt. xv. 10.4: πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ
φανερῶς καὶ λεληθότως εἱς τὸ φρούριον ἀναγόμενοι τὴν Ὑρκανίαν ἐκεῖ διεφθείροντο.
[2390] According to Fritzsche’s amended form of it the passage runs thus Et
producet natos (qui su)ccedentes sibi [= ei] breviora tempora dominarent [cod.
donarent]. In partes eorum cohortes [cod. mortis] venient et occidentis rex
potens qui expugnabit eos et ducet captives et partem aedis ipsorum igni
incendet aliquos crucifiget circa coloniam eorum. Comp. with regard to the
burning of the temple Joseph. Antt. xvii. 10. 2; and for the crucifixions Antt.
xvii. 10. 10. What is in view therefore is the war of Varus in the year 4 B.C.
[2391] It is usually assumed that chaps. viii.-ix. have direct reference to the
closing period. But this appears to be only indirectly the case. For the author
represents Moses as prophesying that in the closing period there will be a state
of matters the like of which will never have been before except once viz. in the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is the description of this period of persecution
under Antiochus that is also pursued in chap. ix. in which we accordingly meet
with a legend similar to that in 2 Maccabees 7. The object of the hiding in the
cave is not merely to escape persecution but also to find a place where the law
can be observed without hindrance; comp. in particular 2Ma_6:11 and the
Rabbinical legends regarding Simon ben Jochai (Grätz Gesch. der Juden iv. 470
sqq.); also in general Lucius Der Essenismus p. 128. There has been an
unnecessary amount of puzzling of the brains over the enigmatical term taxo. It
is undoubtedly to be looked upon as a corruption of the text. But one is at a
loss to conceive how Hilgenfeld could ever suppose that under it there lay a
reference to the Messiah. That would surely be a strange Messiah who could find
nothing better to do than creep into a hole and there await the approach of
death. Yet according to Philippi this latter is to be understood as referring to
Christ and His disciples (pp. 177-180). Here the manuscript ends. But all that
has gone before leads us to expect what the fragments tend to confirm that in
the subsequent portion of the book it had gone on to give an account of how
Moses was taken away from the earth the scene from which the whole work obtained
the title of the Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως. It is also in this concluding part of the
work that the dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan about the body of
Moses must have occurred which dispute as is well known is also mentioned in
verse 9 of the Epistle of Jude. Opinion is very much divided regarding the date
of the composition of this book. Ewald Wieseler Drummond and Dillmann refer it
to the first decade after the death of Herod; Hilgenfeld calculates that it may
have been written in the course of the year 44-45 A.D.; Schmidt and Merx say
some time between 54 and 64 A.D.; Fritzsche and Lucius trace it to the sixth
decade of the first century A.D.; Langen thinks it must have been shortly after
the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (chap. 8 being erroneously interpreted as
referring to this event); Hausrath prefers the reign of Domitian; Philippi the
second century of our era (the latter fixing on this date solely with the object
of his being able to ascribe the authorship to a Christian and of reversing the
relation in which our book and ver. 9 of the Epistle of Jude stand to each
other; see in particular pp. 177 182); while Volkmar (in accordance with his
well-known predilection for the time of Barcocheba) thinks the date would be
some time in the course of the year 137-138 A.D. Almost the whole of the critics
just mentioned base their calculation upon the well-nigh illegible fragments of
numbers in chap. 7. But surely one may fairly question the propriety of trying
to found anything whatever upon lines so mutilated as those are; and if we had
no other data but these to help us to fix the date in question we would have
nothing for it but to abandon the attempt altogether. Still I cannot help
thinking that there are two such data at our disposal. (1) Toward the end of
chap. 6 it is plainly stated that the sons of Herod are to reign for a shorter
period (breviora tempora) than their father. Now it is well known that Philip
and Antipas reigned longer than their father; and one cannot help seeing the
embarrassment to which those words have led in the case of all those critics who
refer the composition of our book to a latish date. They are capable of being
explained solely on the assumption that the work was written toward the
commencement of the reign of the last-mentioned princes. (2) It is as good as
universally admitted that the concluding sentences of chap. 6 refer to the war
of Varus in the year 4 B.C.[2392] When therefore chap. 7 goes on to say: Ex quo
facto finientur tempora surely there can hardly be room for any other inference
than this that the author wrote subsequent to the war of Varus. In that case the
enigmatical numbers that follow in this same chapter cannot be supposed to be a
continuation of the narrative but are to be regarded as a calculation added by
way of supplement after the narrative has been brought down to the date at which
the author was writing. Only considering how mutilated those numbers are every
attempt to explain them must prove a failure. Consequently the view of Ewald
Wieseler Drummond and Dillmann with regard to the date of the composition of our
book is substantially correct. [2392] So Hilgenfeld Volkmar Schmidt-Merx
Wieseler Dillmann and others also Langen Theol. Literaturbl. 1871 No. 3 Sp. 90
(where he retracts his previous absolutely untenable reference of the passage to
Pompey; see Judenth. in Paläst. p. 109). Some light is thrown upon the author’s
party leanings partly by chap. 7 and partly by chap. 10. The homines
pestilentiosi against whom he inveighs in chap. 7 are by no means the Herodian
princes (so Hilgenfeld) nor the Sadducees (so Volkmar p. 105; Geiger p. 45 sq.;
Lucins p. 116 sqq.). nor the Sadducees and Pharisees (so Wieseler p. 642 sq. who
refers vv. 3 4 to the former and vv. 6-10 to the latter); bat the Pharisees and
the Pharisees alone to whom every word is unmistakably applicable (so Ewald
Gesch. v. 81; Schmidt-Merx p. 121; Philippi p. 176). Our author then was
inimical to the Pharisees though at the same time he was neither an Essene for
as such he would not have jeered as he does in chap. 7 at the Pharisaical
purifications (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 10) nor a Sadducee for according to
chap. 10 he looks forward with the most fervent longings for the advent of the
kingdom of God and that too a kingdom accompanied with outward pomp and
circumstance. Wieseler is perhaps nearest the truth in seeking him among the
Zealots who notwithstanding their kinship to the Pharisees had still an intense
dislike to them because they looked upon them as being too dogmatic and formal
as regards the law and too undecided with respect to their politics. That the
book was written in Palestine may to say the least of it be accepted as the most
obvious and natural supposition. Hilgenfeld and Hausrath have suggested Rome
without however alleging any ground for doing so. On the assumption that it was
composed in Palestine it becomes further probable that it was written originally
in Hebrew or Aramaic. But we are not in a position positively to assert this.
Only this much is certain that our old Latin version was taken from the Greek.
Of the legend regarding the death of Moses extensive and varied use has been
made in Jewish literature. Besides our book there fall to be mentioned: Philo
(Vita Mosis) Josephus (Antt. iv. fin.) Midrash Tanchuma debarum (translated into
German by Wünsche 1882) and a Midrash which treats specially of the departure of
Moses (פטירת משה Petirath Moshe). This latter has been frequently published in
two recensions among others by Gilb. Gaulminus Paris 1629 with a Latin
translation; then this Latin translation was published by itself by John Alb.
Fabricius Hamburg 1714 and by Gfrörer Prophetae veteres pseudepigraphi Stuttg.
1840 (see Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea ii. 1278 sq. 1395. Zunz Die
gottesdienstliches Vorträge der Juden p. 146. Steinschneider Catal. librorum
Hebraeorum in Biblioth. Bodl. p. 630 sq.). For one of these two recensions see
also Jellinek Beth ha-Midrash vol. i. 1853. Also a third which Jellinek regards
as the oldest in his Beth ha-Midrash vol. vi. 1877. Comp. in general on these
legends: Bernard’s edition of Josephus note on Antt. iv. fin. Fabricius Cod.
pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 839 sqq. Beer Leben Moses nach Auffassung der
jüdischen Sage Leipzig 1863. Benedetti Vita e morte di Mosé leggende ebr.
tradotte illustrate e comparate Pisa 1879 (on which see Magazin für die
Wissensch. des Judenth. 1881 pp. 57-60). Leop. v. Ranke Weltgeschichte vol. iii.
2nd part (1883) pp. 12-33. Care must be taken not to confound our Assumptio
Mosis with the Christian Apocalypse of Mosis in Greek which has been edited by
Tischendorf (Apocalypses apocryphae Lips. 1866); similarly from a Milanese
manuscript by Ceriani Monumenta sacra et profana v. 1. This work belongs to the
class of Adamic books for it records the history of the life and death of Adam
as it had been revealed to Moses. On this comp. Tischendorf Stud. u. Krit. 1851
p. 432 sqq. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques (1869) ii. pp. 110-120. Rönsch Das Buch der
Jubiläen p. 470 sqq. According to Euthalius and others Galatians 6:15 (οὔτε
περιτομή τι ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις) found a place in an
Apocryphum Mosis where of course it could only have been borrowed from the
Epistle to the Galatians (Euthalius in Zaccagni’s Collectanea monumentorum
veterum 1698 p. 561 = Gallandi Biblioth. patr. x. 260. Similarly Syncellus ed.
Dindorf i. 48 and an anonymous list of the quotations in the New Testament given
in Montfaucon Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. 195 = Diarium Italicum p. 212 and in
Cotelier Patr. apost. note on Const apost. vi. 16). Now seeing that Euthalius
also makes use of precisely the same formula of reference (Μωυσέως ἀποκρύφου) as
in the case of verse 9 of the Epistle of Jude (Zaccagni p. 485) we may perhaps
venture to assume that he had before him a Christian version of the Assumptio
Mosis in which Galatians 6:15 had been inserted. Syncellus and the author of the
anonymous list just referred to have clearly drawn upon Euthalius. Gnostic Books
of Moses are mentioned as being in use among the Sethites by Epiphan. Haer.
xxxix. 5. For Apocrypha Mosis generally see Const. apost. vi. 16. Fabricius Cod.
pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 825-849 ii. 111-130. Lücke Einleitung in die
Offenbarung Johannis pp. 232-235. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s
Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 352 sqq. (Nos. 4 18 26 29 35). Use of the Assumptio Mosis
in the Christian Church: Epistle of Jude ver. 9. Clement of Alexandria Adumbrat.
in epist. Judae (in Zahn’s Supplementum Clementinum 1884 p. 84): Hic confirmat
assumptionem Moysi. Other legends in Clement of Alexandria regarding the death
and ascension of Moses have in all probability been borrowed no less from our
writing (Strom. i. 23. 153 vi. 15. 132. Comp. Zahn p. 96 sq.). Origen De
principiis iii. 2. 1: Et primo quidem in Genesi serpens Evam seduxisse
describitur de quo in Adscensione Mosis cujus libelli meminit in epistola sua
apostolus Judas Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Mosis ait a
diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam exstitisse praevaricationis Adae et Evae.
Idem In Josuam homil. ii. 1 (ed. Lommatzsch xi. 22): Denique et in libello
quodam licet in canone non habeatur mysterii tamen hujus figura describitur.
Refertur enim quia duo Moses videbantur: unus vivus in spiritu alius mortuus in
corpore. Didymus Alex. In epist. Judae enarratio (in Gallandi Biblioth. patr.
vi. 307) finds in Jude ver. 9 evidence in favour of the view that even the devil
is not evil by nature or substantialiter and alleges that the adversarii hujus
contemplationis praescribunt praesenti epistolae et Moyseos assumptioni propter
eum locum ubi significatur verbum Archangeli de corpore Moyseos ad diabolum
factum. Acta Synodi Nicaen. ii. 20 (in Fabricius i. 844): Ἐν βιβλίῳ δὲ Ἀναλήψεως
Μωυσέως Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος διαλεγόμενος τῷ διαβόλῳ λέγει κ.τ.λ. For another
passage from these same Acts see p. 74 above. Evodii epist. ad Augustin.
(Augustin. epist. cclix. in Fabricius i. 845 sq.): Quanquam et in apocryphis et
in secretis ipsius Moysi quae scriptura caret auctoritate tunc cum ascenderet in
montem ut moreretur vi corporis efficitur ut aliud esset quod terrae mandaretur
aliud quod angelo comitanti sociaretur. Sed non satis urget me apocryphorum
praeferre sententiam illis superioribus rebus definitis. For additional passages
and chiefly from Greek scholia see Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol.
1869 pp. 216-220. Hilgenfeld Clementis Romani epist. 2nd ed. pp. 127-129. In the
lists of the apocryphal books we find a Διαθήκη Μωυσέως and an Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως
(the one immediately after the other in the stichometry of Nicephorus and in the
“Synopsis Athanasii” as given in Credner’s Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121
145; as also in the anonymous list edited by Pitra and others see v. 7 below).
Now seeing that the writing that has come down to us is in point of fact a
“Testament (will) of Moses” though as we have already seen it is quoted in the
Acts of the Council of Nicaea under the title Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως it may be assumed
that both these designations were the titles of two separate divisions of one
and the same work the first of which has been preserved whereas the quotations
in the Fathers almost all belong to the second. Editions of the Latin text:
Ceriani Monumenta sacra et prof. vol. i. fasc. i. (Milan 1861) pp. 55-64.
Hilgenfeld Clementis Romani epistulae (likewise under the title Novum Testam.
extra canonem receptum fasc. i.) 1st ed. 1866 pp. 93-115 2nd ed. 1876 pp.
107-135. Volkmar Mose Prophetie und Himmelfahrt eine Quelle für das Neue
Testament zum erstenmale deutsch herausgegeben im Zusammenhang der Apokrypha und
der Christologie überhaupt Leipzig 1867. Schmidt (Moriz) and Merx “Die Assumptio
Mosis mit Einleitung und erklärenden Anmerkungen herausgegeben” (Merx’ Archiv
für wissenschaftl. Enforschung des A. T.’s vol. i. Part ii. 1868 pp. 111-152).
Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (Lips. 1871) pp. 700-730; comp.
Prolegom. pp. 32-36. A rendering back into the Greek was attempted by Hilgenfeld
for which see Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1868 pp. 273-309 356 and his
Messias Judaeorum 1869 pp. 435-468; comp. Prolegom. pp. 70-76. For contributions
toward the criticism and exposition of our book see besides the editions just
mentioned Ewald Göttinger gelehrte Anz. 1862 St. 1. Idem Gesch. des Volkes
Israel vol. v. (3rd ed. 1867) pp. 73-82. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina
(1866) pp. 102-111. Idem in Reusch’s Theolog. Literaturbl. 1871 No. 3.
Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1867 pp. 217-223. Ibid. Haupt p. 448.
Rönsch Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. vol. xi. 1868 pp. 76-108 466-468; xii. 1869 pp.
213-228; xiv. 1871 pp. 89-92; xvii. 1874 pp. 542-562; xxviii. 1885 pp. 102-104.
Philippi Das Buch Henoch (1868) pp. 166-191. Colani “L’Assomption de Moïse”
(Revue de Théologie 1868 2nd part). Carriere Note sur le Taxo de l’Assomption de
Moïse (ibid. 1868 2nd part). Wieseler “Die jüngst aufgefundene Aufnahme Moses
nach Ursprung und Inhalt untersucht” (Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1868 pp.
622-648). Idem “Θασσί und Taxo” (Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch.
1882 p. 193 sq.). Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1868 pp.
41-47. Heidenheim “Beiträge zum bessern Verständniss der Ascensio Mosis”
(Vierteljahrschr. für deutsch. und Englisch-theol. Forschung und Kritik vol. iv.
(Part I. 1869). Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. pp. 76-80 (1st
ed. iii. 278-282). Stähelin Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 pp. 216-218.
Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 74-84. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp.
111-119 127 sq. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 572. Dillmann art.
“Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 352 sq. Deane “The
Assumption of Moses” (Monthly Interpreter March 1885 pp. 321-348). 4. The
Apocalypse of Baruch The large Peshito manuscript of Milan (Cod. Ambros. B. 21
inf.) also contains a Revelation of Baruch regarding which we have no further
information of a trustworthy kind. Only a small fraction of it viz. the epistle
addressed to the nine and a half tribes in the captivity inserted at the close
(chaps. 78-86) has been otherwise transmitted to us and already printed in the
Paris and London Polyglots. But beyond this there is hardly any other trace of
it to be met with (see below). The book was first introduced to public notice
through a Latin version prepared and edited by Ceriani (1866). This scholar
subsequently published the Syrian text itself (in ordinary type in 1871 and in a
photo-lithographed facsimile in 1883). Fritzsche after making a few emendations
upon it embodied Ceriani’s Latin version in his edition of the Apocrypha (1871).
The book purports to be a writing composed by Baruch in which he recounts (using
the first person throughout) what happened to him immediately before and after
the destruction of Jerusalem and what revelations were made to him. The contents
are substantially as follows:—First section chaps. 1-5: In the five and
twentieth year of the reign of Jeconiah [a complete confounding of dates by
which the author means to indicate the time of the destruction of Jerusalem] God
intimates to Baruch the impending ruin of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah.
Chaps. 6-8: On the following day the Chaldean army appears before the walls of
the city. However it is not the Chaldeans but four angels that destroy it. No
sooner is this done than the Chaldeans enter the city and carry away its
inhabitants into captivity. Chaps. 9-12: While Jeremiah accompanies these latter
Baruch. in obedience to the command of God remains behind among the ruins.
Second section chaps. 13-15: After he had fasted seven days God informs him that
one day judgment would overtake the Gentiles as well and that in his own time;
and He calms his apprehensions generally about the prosperity of the ungodly and
the calamities of the righteous. Chaps. 16-20: Baruch brings forward yet further
grounds of perplexity but God discourages his doing so and ultimately orders him
to prepare by another seven days’ fasting for receiving a revelation of the
order of the times. Third section 21-26: After fasting and praying to God he is
first of all censured by God for his doubts and pusillanimity and then in answer
to his question as to when the judgment of the ungodly would take place and how
long it would last God communicates to him the following (chaps. 27-28): The
time of the tribulation will be divided into twelve parts and each part will
bring with it its own special disaster. But the measure of that time will be two
parts weeks of seven weeks (duae partes hebdomades septem hebdomadarum). Chaps.
28-30: To the further question of Baruch whether the tribulation would be
confined to only one part of the earth or extend to the whole of it God answers
that it will of course affect the whole earth. But after that the Messiah will
appear and times of joy and glory begin to dawn. Chaps. 31-34: After receiving
those revelations Baruch summons a meeting of the elders of the people in the
valley of Kidron when he announces to them that: post modicum tempus concutietur
aedificatio Sion ut aedificetur iterum. Verum non permanebit ipsa illa
aedificatio sed iterum post tempus eradicabitur et permanebit desolata usque ad
tempus. Et postea oportet renovari in gloria et coronabitur in perpetuum. Fourth
section chaps. 35-38: Hereupon Baruch as he sits lamenting upon the ruins of the
Holy of holies falls asleep and in a dream is favoured with a new revelation. He
sees a large forest surrounded by mountains and rocks. Over against it grew a
vine and from under the vine flowed a spring which developed into large streams
that made channels for themselves underneath the forest and the mountains till
these latter fell in and were swept away. Only a single cedar was left but at
last it too was uprooted. Thereupon the vine and the spring came and ordered the
cedar to betake itself to where the rest of the forest had already gone. And the
cedar was burnt up but the vine continued to grow and everything around it
flourished. Chaps. 38-40: In answer to Baruch’s request God interprets the dream
to him as follows: Behold the kingdom that destroys Zion will itself be
overthrown and subjugated by another that will succeed it. And this in its turn
will be overthrown and a third will arise. And then this also will be swept away
and a fourth will arise more terrible than all that have preceded it. And when
the time for its overthrow has come then Mine Anointed will appear who is like a
spring and a vine and He will annihilate the armies of that kingdom. And that
cedar means the last remaining general (dux prince?) in it who will be condemned
and put to death by Mine Anointed. And the reign of Mine Anointed will endure
for ever. Chaps. 41-43: Baruch receives a commission to exhort the people and at
the same time to prepare himself by renewed fasting for fresh revelations.
Chaps. 44-46: Baruch exhorts the elders of the people. Fifth section chaps.
47-48:24: He fasts seven days and prays to God. Chap. 48:25-50: The new
revelations have reference in the first instance to the tribulations of the last
time generally. Chaps. 49-52: When upon this Baruch expresses a desire to learn
something more about the nature of the new resurrection bodies of the righteous
his wish is complied with; not only so but he is enlightened with regard to the
future blessedness of the righteous and the misery of the ungodly generally.
Sixth section chap. 53: In a new vision Baruch sees a huge cloud rising from the
sea and covering the whole earth and discharging first black water and then
clear then black again and then clear and so on twelve times in succession. At
last there came black waters and after them bright lightning which latter
brought healing to the whole earth and ultimately there came twelve streams and
subjected themselves to this lightning. Chaps. 54-55: In answer to his prayer
Baruch receives through the angel Ramiel the following interpretation of the
vision: Chaps. 56-57: The huge cloud means the present world. The first the dark
water means the sin of Adam whereby he brought death and ruin into the world.
The second the clear water means Abraham and his descendants who although not in
possession of the written law nevertheless complied with its requirements. The
third the dark water represents the subsequent generations of sinful humanity
particularly the Egyptians. The fourth the clear water means the appearing of
Moses Aaron Joshua and Caleb and the giving of the law and God’s revelations to
Moses. The fifth the dark water represents the works of the Amorites and the
magicians in which Israel also participated. The sixth the clear water
represents the time of David and Solomon. The seventh the dark water means the
revolt of Jeroboam and the sins of his successors and the overthrow of the
kingdom of the ten tribes. The eighth the clear water means the integrity of
Hezekiah and his deliverance from Sennacherib. The ninth the dark water means
the universal ungodliness in the days of Manasseh and the announcing of the
destruction of Jerusalem. The tenth the clear water denotes the reign of the
good king Josiah. The eleventh the dark water represents the present tribulation
(i.e. in Baruch’s own time) the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian
captivity. Chap. 68: But the twelfth the clear water means that the people of
Israel will again experience times of joy that Jerusalem will be rebuilt that
the offering of sacrifices will be resumed and that the priests will return to
their duties. Chaps. 69-71: But the last dark water which is yet to come and
which proves worse than all that went before means this: that tribulation and
confusion will come upon the whole earth. A few will rule over the many the poor
will become rich and the rich will become poor knaves will be exalted above
heroes wise men will keep silence and fools will speak. And in obedience to
God’s command the nations which He has prepared for the purpose will come and
war with such of the leaders as are still left (cum ducibus qui reliqui fuerint
tunc). And it will come to pass that he who escapes from the war will perish by
the earthquake and he who escapes from the earthquake will perish by fire and he
who escapes the fire will perish with hunger. And he who escapes the whole of
those evils will be given into the hands of Mine Anointed. Chaps. 72-74: But
this dreadful dark water will at length be followed by yet more clear water.
This means that the time of Mine Anointed will come and that He will judge the
nations and sit for ever upon the throne of His kingdom. And all tribulation
will come to an end and peace and joy will reign upon the earth. Chaps. 75-76:
Baruch thanks God for the revelation with which he had been favoured and then
God directs him to wait for forty days and then go to the top of a certain
mountain where all the different regions of the earth would pass before his
view. After this he is to be removed from the world. Seventh section chap. 77:
Baruch delivers a hortatory address to the people and at the request of the
latter he on the 21st day of the eighth month also composes two hortatory
addresses to be sent to their brethren in the captivity one to the nine and a
half tribes and the other to the remaining two and a half. Chaps. 78-86: The
import of the first of the two addresses is as follows: Baruch in the first
place reminds his readers that the judgment of God which has overtaken them is a
just judgment he then tells them of the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar and the carrying away of the inhabitants into captivity and
intimates to them the judgment of God that is awaiting their oppressors and then
their own ultimate deliverance. In conclusion he founds upon this an exhortation
to continue steadfast in their devotion to God and His law. Chap. 87: He sends
this epistle to the nine and a half tribes in captivity through the medium of an
eagle. At this point the book as we now possess it breaks off. But originally it
must have contained somewhat more for from 77:19 there is reason to infer that
the epistle addressed to the nine and a half tribes was followed by a similar
one addressed to the other two and a half tribes. And from chap. 76 it is to be
presumed that the book would proceed to tell how Baruch was shown all the
countries of the world from the top of a mountain and was thereafter taken away
from the earth. As regards the date of the composition of our apocalypse this
much at least may be affirmed with certainty that it was not written till after
the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. For in chap. 32:2-4 Baruch announces to
the assembled people that (after its first destruction by Nebuchadnezzar)
Jerusalem is to be rebuilt again. But that this building will not continue to
stand but that it will in like manner be destroyed again. And then the city will
lie waste for a long period until the glorious time when it will be rebuilt and
crowned for ever. But with the exception of this passage there is not another
that throws any light upon the date of the composition of our book. For nothing
bearing upon this is to be gathered from the obscure passage in which we are
informed that the time of tribulation is to last “two parts weeks of seven
weeks” (28:2: duae partes hebdomades septem hebdomadarum) for the meaning of
these words is as uncertain as it is obscure. Consequently the calculations
which Ewald Hilgenfeld Wieseler and Dillmann above all have tried to found upon
this passage have no certain basis on which to rest. Possibly one would be much
more likely to find some clue to the date in question in the affinity which this
work bears to the Fourth Book of Ezra. For the points of contact between both
those books in regard to thought and expression alike are (as Langen has pointed
out pp. 6-8) so numerous that we must of necessity assume either that they were
written by one and the same author or that the one borrowed from the other. It
is now almost universally believed that it may be proved with a greater or less
degree of certainty that our book has drawn upon the Fourth Book of Ezra (so
Ewald Langen Hilgenfeld Hausrath Stähelin Renan Drummond Dillmann). It appears
to me however that as yet no decisive arguments have been advanced in support of
this view. In the case of Langen who was the first to go thoroughly into this
question and who has done much to influence subsequent opinion on the matter his
main argument was that the Book of Baruch corrected as he supposed the somewhat
crude notions of Ezra respecting the doctrine of original sin. In order that the
reader may be in a more favourable position for estimating the value of this
argument we will here subjoin in parallel columns what each of the two books
says on this point:— EZRA: |BARUCH: | 3:7: Et huic (Adamo) mandasti diligere
viam tuam et praeteriviteam; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in
nationibus ejus. 3:21-22: Cor enim mailgnum bajulans primus Adam transgressus et
victus est; sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt. Et facta est permanens infirmitas.
4:30: Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio et
quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc et generat usque dum verfiat area! 7:48:
O tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enim tu peccasti non est factus solius tuus casus sed
et nostrum qui ex te advenimus. |17:3: (Adam) mortem attulit et abscidit annos
eorum qui ab eo geniti fuerunt. 23:4: Quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors
contra eos qui gignerentur etc. 48:42: O quid fecisti Adam omnibus qui a te
geniti sunt! 54:15 19: Si enim Adam prior peccavit et attulit mortem super omnes
immaturam; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt unusquisque ex eis praeparavit
animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis elegit sibi gloriam
futuram … Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animae suae tantum; nos vero. unusquisque
fuit animae suae Adam. | Now Langen supposes that the last of the passages
quoted from Baruch (54:19: Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animae suae tantum; nos
vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam) is above all intended to modify the
somewhat harsh view of Ezra. But one can easily see that the utterances of
Baruch on other occasions are quite as blunt as those of Ezra. And on the other
hand there are passages to be met with in Ezra in which the author emphasizes
quite as strongly as Baruch 54:19 though in different terms the thought that
every man is to blame for his own ruin. To take only a single example compare
Bar 8:55-61. Here then we have not even an actual difference of view far less a
correction of the one writer on the part of the other. Further such other
reasons as have been advanced in favour of the priority of Ezra and the
dependent character of Baruch are merely considerations of an extremely general
kind which may be met with considerations equally well calculated to prove quite
the reverse. Some are inclined to think that in the case of the author of the
Fourth Book of Ezra “there is more of a despairing frame of mind that his
striving after light and his desire to have his apprehensions quieted are deeper
more urgent and of a more overmastering character that because the impressions
produced by the dreadful events are rather fresher in his mind his narrative is
also for this very reason and in spite of its verbosity the more impressive of
the two and so on” (so Dillmann). My own opinion is that it is quite the
converse of this and that it would be nearer the truth to say that it is
precisely in the case of Baruch that this problem is uppermost viz. How is the
calamity of Israel and the impunity of its oppressors possible and conceivable?
while in the case of Ezra though this problem concerns him too still there is a
question that almost lies yet nearer his heart viz. Why is it that so many
perish and so few are saved? The subordination of the former of these questions
to the other which is a purely theological one appears to me rather to indicate
that Ezra is of a later date than Baruch. Not only so but it is decidedly of a
more finished character and is distinguished by greater maturity of thought and
a greater degree of lucidity than the last-mentioned book. But this is a point
in regard to which it is scarcely possible to arrive at a definite conclusion.
And hence we are equally unable to say whether our book was written shortly
after the destruction of Jerusalem (so Hilgenfeld Fritzsche Drummond) or during
the reign of Domitian (so Ewald) or in the time of Trajan (so Langen Wieseler
Renan Dillmann). Undoubtedly the most probable supposition of all is that it was
composed not long after the destruction of the holy city when the question “How
could God permit such a disaster?” was still a burning one. It is older at all
events than the time of Papias whose chimerical fancies about the millennial
kingdom (Irenaeus v. 33. 3) are borrowed from our Apocalypse (xxix. 5).[2393]
The existing Syrian text has been taken from the Greek (see Langen p. 8 sq.;
Kneucker p. 192 sq.; Dillmann p. 358). [2393] In his edition of Irenaeus (ii.
417) Harvey attempts to show that the text of Papias presupposes a Syrian
original on which it is based for he thinks that a certain anomaly occurring in
his text may be most easily accounted for by the hypothesis of such an original.
If this were correct it would be of considerable interest as regards the matter
now in hand. The anomaly in question admits however of being otherwise
explained. See Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition of the Epistle of Barnabas (2nd
ed. 1878) p. 87. With the exception of the passage in Papias just mentioned no
certain trace of the use of our book in the Christian Church is anywhere to be
met with. There is every reason to believe that it had been pushed into the
background by the kindred Ezra-apocalypse. Still the fact of its finding a place
in the Peshito manuscript of Milan serves to show that it was still in use at a
later period at least in the Syrian Church. In the lists of the apocrypha given
in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the “Synopsis Athanasii” (in Credner Zur
Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145) there are added at the close: Βαροὺχ Ἀββακοὺμ
Ἐζεκιὴλ καὶ Δανιὴλ ψευδεπίγραφα. But it is extremely uncertain whether by the
first-mentioned book it is our apocalypse that is meant for besides the Baruch
of the Greek Bible and which in the lists just referred to is included among the
canonical books there were also other apocryphal writings bearing this name. (1)
There are considerable fragments of a gnostic Book of Baruch given in the
Philosophumena v. 26-27 (comp. v. 24). (2) A Christian Book of Baruch. which is
akin to our apocalypse and has borrowed largely from it has been published in
Ethiopic by Dillmann under the title “Reliqua verborum Baruchi” (in Dillmann’s
Chrestomathia aethiopica Lips. 1866) as it had been previously in Greek in a
Greek Menaeus (Venetiis 1609) and recently again by Ceriani under the title
“Paralipomena Jeremiae” (Monumenta sacra et profana vol. v. 1 Mediol. 1868) and
finally in a German version by Prätorius (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1872
pp. 230-247) and by König (Stud. u. Krit. 1877 pp. 318-338). On this book comp.
also Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 183. Fritzsche Libri apocr. prolegom.
p. 82. Sachsse Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1874 p. 268 sq. Kneucker Das Buch
Baruch p. 196 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 358 sq. (3) In the
Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani lately published by Harnack
there occurs the following passage from a Book of Baruch (Gebhardt and Harnack
Texte und Untersuchungen vol. i. part 3 1883 p. 25): Prope finem libri sui de
nativitate ejus [scil. Christi] et de habitu vestis et de passione ejus et de
resurrectione ejus prophetavit dicens: Hic unctus meus electus meus vulvae
incontaminatae jaculatus natus et passus dicitur. Judging from the Christology
implied in this passage the Baruch here in question can only have been composed
at the soonest in the fourth century of our era (see Harnack p. 46). Further in
Cyprian’s Testim. iii. 29 we find that in one manuscript there has been inserted
a quotation from some Book of Baruch or other which quotation however we have no
means of verifying. (4) Tichonrawow contemplates editing an Apocalypse of Baruch
in the old Slavonic version (see Theol. Literaturztg. 1877 p. 658). Whether it
has as yet appeared and what its relation to other Books of Baruch with which we
are already acquainted I am unable to say. The epistle to the nine and a half
tribes in the captivity which forms the conclusion of our apocalypse has been
already printed in the Paris Polyglot vol. ix. in the London Polyglot vol. iv.
in Lagarde’s edition of the Syrian version of the apocrypha (Libri Vet. Test.
apocryphi syriace ed. de Lagarde Lips. 1861) also in Latin in Fabricius Codex
pseudepigr. Vet. Test. ii. 145-155. Also in an English and French version; see
Fritzsche’s Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen i. 175 sq. and Libri Apocr. p.
xxxi. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch p. 190 sq. Ceriani’s Latin version of our
apocalypse appeared in the Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 2 (Mediol.
1866) pp. 73-98. For this see also Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece
(Lips. 1871) pp. 654-699. The Syrian text was edited by Ceriani in the Monumenta
sacra et profana vol. v. fasc. 2 (Mediol. 1871) pp. 113-180. This latter was
also included in the photo-lithographed fac-simile of the whole manuscript
published under the title Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice
Ambrosiano sec. fere VI. photolithographice edita curante et adnotante Antonio
Maria Ceriani 2 vols. in 4 parts Milan 1876-1883 (the Apocalypse of Baruch being
in the last part). Comp. Theol. Literaturzeitung 1876 p. 329; 1878 p. 228; 1881
col. 4; 1884 col. 27. Critical inquiries: Langen De apocalypsi Baruch anno
superiori primum edita commentatio Friburgi in Brisgovia 1867 (xxiv. p. 4).
Ewald Göttinger gel. Anzeigen 1867 p. 1706 sqq. Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel
vii. 83-87. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1869 pp. 437-440. Idem
Messias Judaeorum p. lxiii. sq. Wieseler Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1870 p. 288 (in
his article on the Fourth Book of Ezra). Fritzsche Libri apocr. Prolegom. pp.
30-32. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. 88 sq. (1st ed. iii. 290).
Stähelin Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 p. 211 sqq. Renan “L’Apocalypse de
Baruch” (Journal des Savants April 1877 pp. 222-231). Idem Les évangiles 1877
pp. 517-530. Drummond The Jewish Messiah 1877 pp. 117-132. Kneucker Das Buch
Baruch 1879 pp. 190-198. Kaulen in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlex. 2nd ed. i.
1058 sq. (art. “Apokryphen-Literatur”). Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed.
xii. 356-358 (art. “Pseudepigraphen”). Deane “The Apocalypse of Baruch” i.
(Monthly Interpreter April 1885 pp. 451-461). 5. The Fourth Book of Ezra Of all
the Jewish apocalypses none has been so widely circulated in the early Church
and in the Church of the Middle Ages as the so-called Fourth Book of Ezra. By
Greek and Latin Fathers it is used as a genuine prophetical work (see below).
The fact of there being Syrian Ethiopic Arabic and Armenian versions of the book
is evidence of the extent to which it was circulated in the East. Then the
circumstance that a Latin version has come down to us in a large number of Bible
manscripts is calculated to show the favour with which in like manner it was
still regarded by the Church of Rome in the Middle Ages. It was for this reason
no doubt that it was also added as an appendix to the authorized Roman Vulgate.
Not only so it even found its way into German versions of the Protestant Bible
(see more below). The whole of the five versions which we possess are taken some
of them directly others indirectly from a Greek text (now no longer extant)
which moreover is to be regarded as the original one. The text of the Latin
Vulgate consists of sixteen chapters. But as is generally admitted the two first
and the two last of these which do not appear in the Oriental versions are later
additions by a Christian hand. Accordingly in its original form the book would
only embrace the portion between chaps. 3 and 14 inclusive. The contents of the
original work are divided into seven visions with which as he himself informs us
Ezra had been favoured. First vision (3:1-5:20): In the thirtieth year after the
destruction of the city (Jerusalem) Ezra is in Babylon and in his prayer to God
he complains of the calamities of Israel on the one hand and of the prosperity
of the Gentile nations on the other (3:1-36). The angel Uriel comes and in the
first place reproves him for his complaints (4:1-21) and then proceeds to remind
him that wickedness has its appointed time (4:22-32) just as the dead have an
appointed time during which they require to stay in the nether world (4:33-43).
But the most of the distress is already past and its end will be announced by
means of definite signs (4:44-5:13). Ezra is so exhausted by the revelation that
has been imparted to him that he requires to be strengthened by the angel. By
fasting for seven days he prepares himself for a new revelation (5:14-20).
Second vision (5:21-6:34): Ezra renews his complaints and is once more rebuked
by the angel (5:21-40). This latter points out to him that in the history of
mankind one thing must come after another and that the beginning and the end
cannot come at one and the same time. Ezra is reminded however that he may
nevertheless see that the end is already approaching. It will be brought about
by God Himself the Creator of the world (5:41-6:6). The signs of the end are
more fully enumerated than in the previous vision (6:7-29). Uriel here takes
leave of Ezra with the promise of further revelations (6:30-34). Third vision
(6:35-9:25): Ezra complains again and is again rebuked by the angel (6:35-7:25).
Upon this he is favoured with the following revelation:—Whenever the signs
(enumerated in the preceding visions) begin to appear then those delivered from
the calamities in question will see wonderful things: For my Son the Anointed
One will appear with His retinue and He will diffuse joy among those that are
spared and that for four hundred years. And at the expiry of those years my Son
the Anointed One will die He and all who have the breath of life. For the space
of seven days corresponding to the seven creative days there will not be a
single human being upon the earth. Then the dead will rise; and the Most High
will come and sit upon the judgment-seat and proceed with the judgment
(7:26-35).[2394] And the place of torment will be revealed and over against it
the place of rest. And the length of the day of judgment will be a year-week
(6:1-17 = Bensly vv. 36-44). Only a few men will be saved. The majority will be
consigned to perdition (6:18-48 = Bensly vv. 45-74). Moreover the ungodly do not
enter at death into habitations of rest but when they die are at once consigned
to sevenfold torment of which this also forms a part that they find it no longer
possible to repent and that they foresee their future condemnation. But the
righteous on the other hand enter into rest and experience sevenfold joy of
which among other things this forms a part that they foresee their ultimate
blessedness (6:49-76 = Bensly 75-101). But on the day of judgment each receives
what he has deserved; and no one by interceding for him can alter the fate of
another (6:77-83 = Bensly 102-105).[2395] Ezra’s objection that surely the
Scriptures speak of the righteous having often interceded in behalf of the
ungodly is dismissed with the remark on the part of the angel that what might
avail for this world will not do so for eternity as well (7:36-45). When Ezra is
deploring that the whole ruin of the human race has been brought about by Adam
the angel refers him to the impiety of men through which they have become the
authors of their own ruin (7:46-69). Then follow further explanations having
reference to the circumstance that of the many that are created so very few are
saved (8:1-62). Finally the signs of the last time are unfolded to Ezra anew
(8:63-9:13) and his anxiety at the thought of so many being lost is once more
set at rest (9:14-25). Fourth vision (9:26-10:60): While Ezra is again indulging
his complaints he sees a woman on his right hand weeping and who in answer to
his questions tells him that after thirty years of barrenness she gave birth to
a son brought him up with great difficulty and then procured a wife for him but
that just as he was entering the bride-chamber he fell and was killed
(9:26-10:4). Ezra chides her for bewailing the mere loss of a son when she ought
rather to be weeping over the destruction of Jerusalem and the ruin of so many
men (10:5-24). Then all at once her face is lifted up she utters a cry the earth
quakes and instead of the woman there appears a strongly built city. At this
sight Ezra is so perplexed that he cries to the angel Uriel who at once appears
and gives him the following explanation of what he had just seen: The woman is
Zion. The thirty years of barrenness are the 3000 years during which no
sacrifices had as yet been offered on Zion. The birth of the son represents the
building of the temple by Solomon and the instituting of sacrificial worship on
Zion. The death of the son refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the newly
built city was shown to Ezra in the vision with the view of comforting him and
of saving him from despair (10:25-60). Fifth vision (11:1-12:51): In a dream
Ezra sees an eagle rise out of the sea having twelve wings and three heads. And
out of the wings grew eight subordinate wings which became small and feeble
winglets. But the heads were resting and the centre one was larger than the
others. And the eagle flew and ruled over the land. And from within its body
there issued a voice which ordered the wings to rule one after another. And the
twelve wings ruled one after the other (the second more than twice as long as
any of the others 11:17) and then vanished and similarly two of the winglets so
that at last only the three heads and the six winglets were left. Two of those
winglets separated themselves from the rest and placed themselves under the head
on the right-hand side. The other four wanted to rule but two of them soon
vanished and the two were consumed by the heads. And the middle head ruled over
the whole earth and then vanished. And the two other heads also ruled. But the
one on the right-hand side devoured the one on the left (11:1-35). Then Ezra
sees a lion and hears how with a human voice it describes the eagle just
referred to as being the fourth of those animals to which God has in succession
committed the empire of the world. And the lion announces to the eagle its
impending destruction (11:36-46). Thereupon the only remaining head also
vanished. And the two winglets which had joined themselves to it began to
rule.[2396] But their rule was of a feeble character. And the whole body of the
eagle was consumed with fire (12:1-3). The meaning of the vision which Ezra
rehearses is as follows. The eagle represents the last of Daniel’s kingdoms. The
twelve wings are twelve kings who are to rule over it one after another. The
second will begin to reign and will reign longer than the others. The voice
which issues from the body of the eagle means that in the course of the duration
of that kingdom (inter tempus regni illius as we ought to read with the Syriac
and the other Oriental versions) evil disorders will arise; and it will be
involved in great trouble only it will not fall but regain its power. But the
eight subordinate wings represent eight kings whose respective times will be of
short duration. Two of these will perish when the intermediate time approaches
(appropinquante tempore medio i.e. that interregnum to which reference had just
been made). Four of them will be reserved for the time when the end is
approaching and two for the time of the end itself. But the meaning of the three
heads is as follows. At the time of the end the Most High will raise up three
kings[2397] who will rule over the earth. And they will cause impiety to reach a
climax and will bring about the end. The one (= the middle head) will die in his
bed but in the midst of torment. Of the remaining two one will be cut off by the
sword of the other while the latter will himself fall by the sword at the time
of the end. Finally the two subordinate wings which joined the head on the right
represent the two remaining kings of the closing period whose reign will be
feeble and full of disorder (12:4-30). But the lion which announces to the eagle
its impending destruction represents the Messiah whom the Most High has reserved
for the end. He will arraign them (the kings?) while yet alive before His
tribunal and convict them of their wickedness and then destroy them. But the
people of God He will cause to rejoice (during 400 years as was foretold in the
third vision) till the day of judgment comes (12:31-34). After receiving those
revelations Ezra is commissioned to write what he had seen in a book and
preserve it in a secret place (12:35-51).—Sixth vision (13:1-58): Once more he
sees in a dream a man rising up out of the sea. And an innumerable company of
men gathered themselves together for the purpose of warring against that man.
And when they marched out against him he emitted a fiery breath and flames from
his mouth so that they were all burnt up. Thereupon other men advanced toward
him some of them joyfully others in sadness and some again in fetters (13:1-13).
In answer to Ezra’s request this vision is explained to him as follows. The man
who rises out of the sea is he by whom God will redeem His whole creation. He
will annihilate his enemies not with the spear or implements of war but by means
of the law which is like unto fire. But the peaceful crowd that advances towards
him is the ten tribes returning from the captivity (13:14-58).—Seventh vision
(14:1-50): Ezra is commissioned by God to instruct the people and set his house
in order and withdraw from mortal things for he is about to be taken from the
earth. Moreover he is to take to himself five men who during a period of forty
days are to write down what they are told to write. And Ezra did so. And the men
wrote what they did not understand. Thereupon Ezra was carried away and conveyed
to the place appointed for such as he (14:1-50). [2394] What follows (6:1-83) is
not found in the majority of the manuscripts of the Latin version and can only
have been borrowed at some former period from the Oriental manuscripts and
inserted here. Fritzsche gives the fragment according to the Syriac version
though retaining the numbering of the chapters and verses usually followed in
the Ethiopic one. Since 1875 and 1877 we have been made acquainted with the
Latin text through two manuscripts (see below). I give above both the numbering
of the verses adopted by Fritzsche and that followed by Bensly in his edition of
the Latin text. [2395] At this point the Latin Vulgate text comes in again.
[2396] Here the correct text is that presented by the Oriental versions. See
Hilgenfeld and Fritzeche (in answer to Volkmar who adheres to the corrupt LA. of
the Latin version). [2397] So the Oriental versions. The Latin has tria regna.
For anything at all decisive with regard to the date of the composition of this
remarkable book we are chiefly indebted to the interpretation of the vision of
the eagle. For the data furnished by the other passages that have been brought
to bear upon this point are of too uncertain a character to be of much service.
For example in chap. 6:9 it is stated that the present world is to end with the
rule of Edom while the world to come is to begin with the supremacy of Israel
(finis enim hujus saeculi Esau et principium sequentis Jacob). But it is open to
question whether by Edom it is the Herodians (so Hilgenfeld Volkmar) or whether
it is the Romans (so Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. ix. p. 430 2nd
ed. vol. ix. p. 660; Ewald Excursus p. 198; Langen p. 125 sq.) that are meant.
The latter is no doubt the correct view of the matter.[2398] But even if the
former were to be preferred very little after all would be gained considering
the long period embraced by the Herodian dynasty (down till the year 100 of our
era). Then as for the calculation of the world-periods as given in chap. 14:11
12 (Duodecim enim partibus divisum est saeculum et transierunt ejue decimam et
dimidium decirnae partis superant autem ejus duae post medium decimae partis).
The mere fact of the reading fluctuating so much here (in the Syriac and
Armenian versions the passage does not occur at all) should of itself have been
enough to deter any one from attempting any calculation whatever of these
world-periods. It will be seen then that apart from the general purport of the
book it is the vision of the eagle alone that can be said to furnish a clue to
the date of its composition. In the interpretation of this vision the following
points which naturally present themselves on a general survey of the contents
are to be kept steadily in view: the twelve principal wings the eight
subordinate ones and the three heads represent twenty-three sovereigns or rulers
who reign one after the other and that in the following order. First we have the
twelve principal wings and two of the subordinate ones. Then comes a time of
disorder. At the expiry of this period four subordinate wings have their turn
and after them the three heads. During the reign of the third head the Messiah
appears upon which follows the overthrow of the third head and the short feeble
reign of the two remaining subordinate wings. We thus see that from the author’s
standpoint both the overthrow of the third head and the reign of the last two
subordinate wings were still in the future; from which it follows that he must
have written during the reign of the third head and that the reign of the two
last subordinate wings is not matter of history but exists only in the author’s
imagination. Further the following points are to be specially noted: (1) The
second principal wing reigns more than twice as long as any of the rest (11:17).
(2) Many of the wings particularly of the subordinate wings come upon the scene
without actually getting the length of reigning and therefore represent mere
pretenders and usurpers. (3) All the rulers belong to one and the same kingdom
and are or at least aim at being the rulers of the whole of that kingdom. (4)
The first dies a natural death (12:26) the second is murdered by the third
(11:35 12:28). Now with the help of this exegetical result let us test the
various interpretations that have been attempted and which we may divide into
three leading groups according as the eagle has been supposed to refer either
(1) to Rome under the monarchy and the republic or (2) to the Greek rule or (3)
to Rome under the emperors. [2398] In Rabbinical literature Edom is quite a
common designation for Rome; see Buxtorf’s Lexicon Chaldaicum col. 29 sqq. Otho
Lex Rabb. under “Roma.” Levy Neuhebr. Wörterb. i. 29. Grünbaum Zeitschr. der DMG
xxxi. pp. 305-309. Weber System der altsynag. paläst. Theol. p. 348 and
elsewhere. This designation occurs so early as in the Sifre (see Weber p. 60)
Comp. further Jerome’s Comment. ad Jesaj. xxi. 11 12 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi iv.
217): Quidam Hebraeorum pro Duma Romam legunt volentes prophetiam contra regnum
Romanum dirigi frivola persuasione qua semper in Idumaeae nomine Romance
existimant demonstrari. 1. Laurence van der Vlis and Lücke (2nd ed.) understand
the vision of the eagle as referring to the history of Rome from the time of
Komulus till that of Caesar. Those three writers are all agreed in this that the
three heads represent Sulla Pompey and Caesar and that our book was composed in
the time of Caesar (Lücke) or shortly after his assassination (van der Vlis) or
a little later still (Laurence). No doubt the interpretation 12+8 wings is beset
with considerable difficulty but this is supposed to be got over by falling back
upon those persons who at a later period aspired to the throne and upon the
party leaders in the time of the civil wars. But even if this were not a
somewhat doubtful proceeding there are still two considerations that could not
fail to prove fatal to this view: first the fact that for a Jewish apocalyptic
writer the whole period previous to the time of Pompey would have simply no
interest whatever; and then this other fact that if Rome is to be thought of at
all the reference can only be to a time when she was mistress of the world. For
the whole of the wings and heads are intended to represent rulers who exercised
or at all events aspired to exercise away over the entire world. 2. Hilgenfeld
supposes the vision to have reference to the Greek rule. It is true that
previously (Apokalyptik pp. 217-221) he took the 12+8 wings to mean the
Ptolemies. The twelve wings and the first two of the subordinate wings he made
out to be the following:—(1) Alexander the Great (2) Ptolemy I. Lagi (3-8)
Ptolemy II. to Ptolemy VII. (9) Cleopatra I. (10-14) Ptolemy VIII. Lathyrus to
Ptolemy XII. Auletes. The other six subordinate wings Were supposed to refer to
the offshoots from the Ptolemaic dynasty down to Cleopatra the younger († 30
B.C.). Then some time after (Zeitschr. 1860 pp. 335-358) he substituted the
Seleucidae for the Ptolemies and reckoned the kings from Alexander the Great on
to the descendants of Seleucus. But still he always adhered strictly to the view
that the three heads were to be taken as referring to Caesar Antony and Octavian
and that the book must have been composed immediately after Antony’s death in
the year 30 B.C. (Zeitschr. 1867 p. 285: “exactly 30 years before Christ”).
Although this interpretation enables us more easily to find room for the twenty
kings than the foregoing one still it can hardly be said to be a bit more
tenable. One great objection to it above all is this that while it supposes the
twenty wings to refer to Greek rulers it regards the three heads on the other
hand as referring to Roman rulers whereas the text obviously requires us to
regard the whole as rulers of one and the same kingdom. But Hilgenfeld’s
interpretation is incompatible above all with the statement that the second wing
was to rule twice as long as any of the others (11:17). For this will suit
neither the case of Ptolemy I. nor that of Seleucus I. Nicator. Hilgenfeld too
has fully realized the awkwardness of this passage and while at one time he was
disposed to look upon it as an interpolation he has more recently had recourse
to the expedient of supposing that in the statement in question the author had
in view only the first six wings namely those on the right side on which
assumption he finds that the notice exactly suits the case of Seleucus I.
(Zeitschr. 1867 p. 286 sq. 1870 p. 310 sq.). But the text does not in the least
degree sanction such a limitation as this (nemo post te tenebit tempus tuum sed
nee dimidium ejus). There is a further contradiction of the text in the
referring of the first head to Caesar who as is well known was assassinated
whereas according to chap. 12:26 the ruler in question was to die super lectum.
But let us say generally that every interpretation is to be regarded as
untenable which proceeds on the assumption that the book was written earlier
than the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. One of the principal objects of the
book is just this to comfort the people on the occasion of the destruction in
question. Ezra over and over again prays to have an explanation of the mystery
of Jerusalem’s lying low in the dust while the Gentile nations exult in triumph.
It is with regard to this that through the medium of a divine revelation he
obtains instruction and comfort. Now to write a work of this nature could hardly
be supposed to have any meaning or object whatsoever except at a time when
Jerusalem was actually lying in ruins. No doubt it is the first destruction of
the city (by Nebuchadnezzar) that is in view. But as it is of course impossible
that the book can have been written in the decades immediately following this
event (if for nothing but chap. 11:39 12:11 where Daniel is presupposed) the
only course open to us is to come down to a date subsequent to the destruction
by Titus and to assume that the author intended that first destruction by
Nebuchadnezzar to be regarded as so to speak a type of the second and that the
consolations purporting to have been communicated to Ezra were in reality meant
for that generation in whose minds the recollection of the destruction of the
year 70 was still fresh; although for the pseudo-Ezra this event was perhaps
more a thing of the past than it was for the pseudo-Baruch. Then a distinct
allusion to the destruction of the city by the Romans may also be found in the
words which the lion addresses to the eagle (11:42): Destruxisti habitationes
eorum qui fructificabant et humiliasti muros eorum qui te non nocuerunt.
Consequently there cannot be a doubt that— 3. Corrodi Lücke (1st ed.) Gfrörer
Dillmann Volkmar Ewald Langen Wieseler Keil Hausrath Renan Drummond Reuss
Gutschmid Le Hir are correct in holding that the eagle is to be understood as
representing imperial Rome. They are all at one in this that the line of rulers
should begin with Caesar and that by the second wing the duration of whose reign
was more than twice as long as that of any of the others (11:17) it is Augustus
that is meant. This point may in fact be regarded as settled. For the placing of
Cæsar as the first in the line of Roman emperors is also to be met with
elsewhere (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2 6. 10; Orac. Sibyll. 5:10-15. Comp. Volkmar
p. 344). Moreover the length of time during which Augustus reigned is estimated
as a rule at 56 years counting from his first consulate in the year 711 A.U.C. =
43 B.C. (see Volkmar p. 344; Gutschmid Zeitschr. 1860 p. 37). According to this
calculation the actual duration of the reign of Augustus is found to have been
more than twice longer than that of all the other Roman emperors belonging to
the first three centuries. But there is one point in regard to which there is an
essential difference between Gutschmid and Le Hir on the one hand and all the
other writers mentioned above on the other. For while Corrodi (i. 208) and the
others understand the three heads as referring to the three Flavian emperors
(Vespasian Titus and Domitian) and accordingly regard the book as having been
written during the last decades of the first century of our era Gutschmid
interprets as follows:—He takes the twelve principal wings to represent: (1)
Caesar (2) Augustus (3) Tiberius (4) Caligula (5) Claudius (6) Nero (7)
Vespasian (8) Domitian (9) Trajan (10) Hadrian (11) Antoninus Pius (12) Marcus
Aurelius. The first two of the subordinate wings he supposes to refer to Titus
and Nerva and the four immediately following them to: (1) Commodus (2) Pertinax
(3) Didius Julianus and (4) Pescennius Niger. The three heads again he takes to
represent Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.) with his two sons Caracalla and Geta.
Geta was murdered by Caracalla but this latter also fell by the sword (217
A.D.). The last two of the subordinate wings he supposes to be intended for
Macrinus and his son Diadumenianus who were assassinated in the year 218 A.D. He
thinks therefore that the vision of the eagle must have been written immediately
before in the month of June 218 (Zeitschr. 1860 p. 48). Moreover Gutschmid
regards the vision of the eagle as a later interpolation while he thinks—and
here he is more in accord with Hilgenfeld—that the main body of the book must
have been written in the year 31 B.C. Le Hir in his interpretation of the vision
now in question coincides with Gutschmid in almost every particular (Etudes
Bibliques i. pp. 184-192). The only point in which they differ is this that Le
Hir founding upon the list of emperors given by Clement of Alexandria counts the
reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus as simply one thus including the latter
among those represented by the principal wings while to make up for this he
inserts Clodius Albinus after Pescennius Niger among those represented by the
subordinate wings. Nor does he think that the entire book was written in the
year 218 A.D. but is of opinion that there was in the first instance a Jewish
original and subsequently a Christian revision and modification of this latter.
He holds that the former which is already made use of in the Epistle of Barnabas
was written in the last quarter of the first century of our era while the
Christian revision in which the vision of the eagle was inserted would be
composed in the year 218 A.D. (Etudes Bibliques i. p. 207 sq.). The tempting
thing about this interpretation is that it enables us actually to specify all
the rulers represented by the 12 + 8 wings which if we suppose the Flavian
period to be in view it is impossible to do. But for all that it is
unquestionably erroneous. It is precluded above all by the circumstance that the
book is already quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Consequently it must have been
in existence toward the close of the second century. No doubt Gutschmid and Le
Hir are disposed to fall back upon the hypothesis of interpolation or of
revision and modification. But the book itself furnishes neither occasion nor
justification for such a hypothesis. The vision of the eagle fits in admirably
and could scarcely be omitted without completely mutilating the work. The
hypothesis of interpolation is therefore gratuitous in the extreme to say
nothing of the fact that it is incompatible with many points of detail. For
example Galba Otho and Vitellius are completely left out of account. Commodus is
classed by Gutschmid with those who are represented by the subordinate wings
while Le Hir counts his reign and that of Marcus Aurelius as constituting simply
one reign all which is extremely forced. But the most awkward thing of all is
that the two subordinate wings Titus and Nerva did not reign as the text however
requires us to suppose (12:21) appropinquante tempore medio i.e. shortly before
the interregnum before the period of disorder but in the heart of the peaceful
rule of the principal wings.[2399] [2399] In answer to Gutschmid see also
Volkmar p. 389 sq. Consequently if we are to adopt the ordinary interpretation
we will have to stop at the Flavian period. There can be no mistaking the fact
that all that is said with regard to the three heads will apply admirably to the
three Flavian emperors Vespasian Titus and Domitian. Those who had brought about
the destruction of the holy city really constituted for the Jew the acme of
power and ungodliness. Vespasian died as we are told 12:26 super lectum et tamen
cum tormentis (comp. Sueton. Vesp. xxiv. Dio Cass. lxvi. 17). It is true Titus
was not murdered by Domitian as is presupposed in chaps. 11:35 12:28. Yet it was
currently believed that this was the case and certainly Domitian’s demeanour at
the time of his brother’s death gave ample occasion for such a belief (Sueton.
Domitian II. Dio Cass. lxvi. 26; Orac. Sibyll. 12:120-123. Aurelius Victor
Caesar x. and xi. states explicitly that Titus had been poisoned by Domitian).
This likewise corresponds with the actual fact that several of the subordinate
wings i.e. of the usurpers had been disposed of with the help of the other two
heads. But after all the finding of a place for the whole 12 + 8 wings is not a
matter of insuperable difficulty. The twelve principal wings may be regarded as
representing say the following rulers:—(1) Caesar (2) Augustus (3) Tiberius (4)
Caligula (5) Claudius (6) Nero (7) Galba (8) Otho (9) Vitellius to whom may be
added the three usurpers: (10) Vindex (11) Nymphidius (12) Piso. But what is to
be made of the eight subordinate wings? To dispose of them Volkmar and Ewald
have had recourse to expedients of the most singular kind. Volkmar who is
followed by Renan makes out the number of rulers to be not 12 + 8 but by taking
the wings as pairs only 6 + 4. The six rulers he takes to be the Julian emperors
from Caesar to Nero; the four again he takes to be: Galba Otho Vitellius and
Nerva. So Volkmar and Renan and that although we are plainly told in chap. 12:14
that: Regnabunt autem in ea reges duodecim unus post unum; and in ver. 20 of the
same chapter find the words: exsurgent enim in ipso octo reges. Ewald again goes
the length of thinking that not only the eight subordinate wings but also the
three heads are to be regarded as included among the twelve principal wings and
consequently that the three groups of rulers are to be identified and that we
should reckon only twelve rulers altogether (counting from Caesar to Domitian).
The most obvious exegetical principles should have been sufficient to prevent
any such attempts at explanation as we have here. Nor can Langen be said to have
altogether eschewed this arbitrary style of criticism when he inclines as he
does to take the numbers merely as round numbers and to regard the twelve
principal wings as intended to represent the six Julian emperors. For the text
undoubtedly requires us to assume that there were 12 + 8 rulers or at all events
pretenders. No less untenable is the view of Gfrörer (i. 90 sq.) who refers the
eight subordinate wings partly to Herod and some of his descendants partly to
Jewish (!!) agitators as John of Gischala and Simon Bar-Giora; or that of
Wieseler who thinks that the whole eight subordinate wings are meant to
represent the Herodian dynasty alone. In point of fact however the only
distinction between the subordinate and the principal wings is this that in the
case of the former the reign is short and feeble (12:20) or they fail ever to
get the length of reigning at all (11:25-27). As for the rest they are quite as
much as the principal wings rulers of the entire empire or at all events aspire
to be so. Consequently it is impossible to suppose that it is vassal princes
that are represented by those subordinate wings; rather must we hold with
Corrodi (Gesch. des Chiliasmus i. 207) that it is “governors rival candidates
for the throne and rebels” or with Dillmann (Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol.
xii. p. 312) that it is “Roman generals and pretenders” that are in view. Of
course we have had to avail ourselves of the better known among the usurpers in
order to complete the number twelve. But it would appear that the author reckons
along with them all those Roman generals who during the period of disorder
(68-70) had at any time put forward claims to the throne. And of these surely it
would not be difficult to make out six. For it is only a question of six seeing
that as has been already noticed the last two of the subordinate wings do not
represent actual historical personages. If the view which represents the three
heads as referring to the Flavian emperors be correct it should not be difficult
to determine the date of the composition of our book. We have already seen that
the author wrote during the reign of the third head inasmuch as he is already
acquainted with the manner in which the second was put to death while on the
other hand he is looking forward to the overthrow of the third after the Messiah
has made His appearance. Consequently the composition of the book is not with
Corrodi and Ewald to be referred to so early a date as the time of Titus nor
again with Volkmar Langen Hausrath and Renan to one so late as the time of Nerva
but with Gfrörer Dillmann Wieseler and Reuss to the reign of Domitian (81-96
A.D.). The designation Fourth Book of Ezra under which our work is known is
current only in the Latin Church and is to be traced to the fact that the
canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah were reckoned as First and Second Ezra
respectively while the Ezra of the Greek Bible was regarded as Third Ezra (so
Jerome Praef. in version. libr. Ezrae Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1524: Nec quemquam
moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti
somniis delectetur). This mode of designating those different books has also
been retained in the official Roman Vulgate where Third and Fourth Ezra are
inserted at the end of the New Testament. In the manuscript of Amiens from which
Bensly edited the Latin fragment the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah taken
together are regarded as First Ezra the so-called Third Ezra is counted as
Second Ezra while Fourth Ezra is divided into three books chaps. i.-ii. being
counted as Third Ezra chaps. iii.-xiv. as Fourth Ezra and chaps. xv. xvi. as
Fifth Ezra (Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 6). Similarly though with greater
complication still in the Codex Sangermanensis and the manuscripts derived from
it (Bensly p. 85 sq.). The earliest designation seems to have been Ἔσδρας ὁ
προφήτης (Clemens Alex. Strom. iii. 16. 100) or Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις for it is
doubtless our Fourth Book of Ezra that is meant by the apocryphal work bearing
that name which occurs in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon
Cotelier Hody and Pitra (see p. 126). For more on the different titles see
Volkmar Das vierte Buch Esra p. 3. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum pp. xviii.-xxi.
Use and high repute of the book in the Christian Church.—It is probable that it
is this work that is referred to in the following passage in the Epistle of
Barnabas chap. xii.: Ὁμοίως πάλιν περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ όρίζει ἐν ἄλλῳ προφήτῃ
λέγοντι· Καὶ πότε ταῦτα συντελεσθήσεται; λέγει κύριος· Ὅταν ξύλον κλιθῇ καὶ
ἀναστῇ καὶ ὅταν ἐκ ξύλου αἷμα στάξῃ. Comp. Fourth Ezra 4:33: Quomodo et quando
haec? … 5:5: Si de ligno sanguis stillabit. It is true that here the first half
of the quotation is wanting but for all that Le Moyne and Fabricius (Cod.
pseudepigr. ii. 184) were undoubtedly correct in tracing it to Fourth Ezra.
Comp. further Cotelier Hilgenfeld and Harnack in their editions of the Epistle
of Barnabas; Hilgenfeld Die apostol. Väter p. 47. It is also extremely probable
that we are indebted to Fourth Ezra for the legend to the effect that when the
Holy Scriptures had perished on the occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar Ezra completely restored them again by means of a miracle. So
Irenaeus iii. 21. 2. Tertullian De cultu femin. i. 3. Clemens Alex. Strom. i.
22. 149. Comp. 4 Ezra 14:18-22 and 4 Ezra 14:37-47. Fabricius Codex pseudepigr.
i. 1156-1160. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p. 107. Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc.
2nd ed. vol. vii. 414 sq. (art. “Kanon des A. T.’s”). The first express
quotation occurs in Clemens Alex. Strom. iii. 16. 100: Διὰ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἐγένετο ἡ
μήτρα τῆς μητρός μου τάφος ἵνα μὴ ἰδω τὸν μόχθον τοῦ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν κόπον τοῦ
γένους Ἰσραήλ; Ἔσδρας ὁ προφήτης λέγει. Comp. 4 Ezra 5:35. Our book is
repeatedly used and quoted as prophetical above all by Ambrose. See the passages
in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. ii. pp. 183 185 sqq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum
p. xxii. sq. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques i. 142. Bensly The Missing Fragment pp.
74-76. It is also quoted as propheta Esdras in the so-called Opus imperfectum in
Matthaeum printed among Chrysostom’s works (ed. Montfaucon vol. vi.) Homil.
xxxiv. s. fin. Jerome who maintains a critical attitude toward the Apocrypha
generally is the only one who expresses himself unfavourably. See the passage
quoted above from the Praef. in version. libr. Ezrae and especially Adv.
Vigilantium chap. vi. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 393): Tu vigilans dormis et
dormiens scribis et proponis mihi librum apocryphum. qui sub nomine Esdrae a te
et similibus tui legitur ubi scriptum est quod post mortem nullus pro aliis
audeat deprecari quem ego librum numquam legi. Quid enim necesse est in manus
sumere quod ecclesia non recepit. But although our book continued to be excluded
from the canon it nevertheless enjoyed a wide circulation especially in the
Middle Ages. Bensly has proved by actual verification that it finds a place in
more than sixty Latin manuscripts of the Bible (Bensly The Missing Fragment pp.
42 82 sqq.) and this without taking into account scarcely any of the Italian
libraries. As we have already mentioned it appears in the official Vulgate as an
appendix. It also finds a place in not a few German editions of the Bible
Lutheran and Reformed as well as Catholic (for the evidence in regard to this
see Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus arabice 1877 p. 42). On the history of the
use comp. further Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. ii. 174-192. Idem Cod. apocryph.
Nov. Test. i. 936-938. Volkmar Das vierte Buch Ezra p. 273 sq. Hilgenfeld
Messias Judaeorum pp. xviii.-xxiv. lxix. sq. Care must be taken not to confound
the Fourth Book of Ezra with the Christian work entitled the Apocalypse of Ezra
which Tischendorf has edited (Apocalypses apocryphae Lips. 1866 pp. 24-33). On
this comp. Tischendorf Stud. u. Krit. 1851 p. 423 sqq. Idem Prolegom. to his
edition pp. 12-14. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques (Paris 1869) ii. 120-122. By the
Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις which occurs in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon
Pitra and others it is possibly the Fourth Book of Ezra that is meant (see p.
126). On the Ezra-Apocrypha comp. also Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1162. On
the later additions to the Fourth Book of Ezra (chaps. i.-ii. and xv. xvi.)
which in the manuscripts appear as yet as separate Books of Ezra and which came
for the first time to be blended with the main work in the printed text see
Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. 356 and Bensly The Missing
Fragment pp. 35-40. The texts of the Fourth Book of Ezra that have come down to
us are the following:— (1.) The old Latin version which is the most literal and
therefore the most important of all. The vulgar text as it had long been printed
was extremely inaccurate. In the edition of Fabricius (Codex pseudepigraphus
Vet. Test. vol. ii. 1723 pp. 173-307) the Arabic version which was given to the
public through Ockley’s English translation in 1711 was collated throughout with
the Latin text. Sabatier was the first to lay the foundation for the critical
restoration of the text by his publication of the variants of the important
Codex Sangermanensis (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae
vol. iii. 1743 pp. 1038 1069-1084). Numerous emendations based upon the Codex
Sangermanensis and the Ethiopic version published by Laurence in 1820 were
proposed by Van der Vlis (Disputatio critica de Ezrae libro apocrypho vulgo
quarto dicto Amstelod. 1839). The first critical edition was published by
Volkmar (Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apocryphen second part: Das vierte Buch
Ezra Tüb. 1863). In this edition Sabatier’s collation of the Cod. Sangermanensis
and a Zürich manuscript collated by Volkmar himself were made use of. These
manuscripts however were not collated with sufficient care as the subsequent
editions of Hilgenfeld (Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869) and Fritzsche (Libri
apocryphi Vet. Test. graece Lips. 1871) have shown. Both these writers give the
Latin text according to three different manuscripts: (a) the Cod. Sangermanensis
saec. ix. collated anew for Hilgenfeld’s edition by Zotenberg; (b) the Cod.
Turicensis saec. xiii. also collated anew for Hilgenfeld’s edition by Fritzsche;
(c) a Cod. Dresdensis saec. xv. collated by Hilgenfeld. In the whole of those
editions a considerable fragment is wanting between chaps. vii. 35 and vii. 36
which could only be supplied from the Oriental versions. This fragment was first
discovered so far as the Latin text is concerned by Bensly in a manuscript at
Amiens (formerly at Corbie near Amiens) in the year 1875 (Bensly The Missing
Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra discovered and
edited with an Introduction and Notes Cambridge 1875. Comp. Theol. Literaturztg.
1876 p. 43 sq.). After this it was also published by Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. für
wissensch. Theol. 1876 pp. 421-435). Two years after this again the same
fragment was edited from a Madrid manuscript (formerly in Alcalá de Henares) by
Wood and from among the remains of John Palmer the Orientalist († 1840) who had
transcribed it as early as the year 1826 (Journal of Philology vol. vii. 1877
pp. 264-278). Besides the manuscripts hitherto mentioned Bensly (pp. 42 82 sqq.)
has verified some sixty others of the Latin text.[2400] Those of them in which
there is the large hiatus in chap. vii. and this holds true of probably the
whole of them at all events of the Turicensis and the Dresdensis as also of the
printed vulgar text are of no value for the hiatus in the Cod. Sangermanensis
was due to the cutting out of a leaf so that all the manuscripts and texts in
which precisely the same hiatus occurs must have followed that codex (as from a
letter addressed to Bensly Gildemeister appears to have already noted in the
year 1865). Consequently in the case of any future edition consideration will be
due in the first instance only to: (a) the Cod. Sangermanensis (now in Paris)
dating from the year 822 A.D. (Bensly p. 5); (b) the Amiens manuscript also
belonging to the ninth century and independent of the Cod. Sanger.; and (c) the
Madrid manuscript. At the same time we may observe that the Latin manuscripts of
the Bible in the majority of the Italian libraries have not yet been examined in
connection with our book. [2400] On two Parisian and two Berlin manuscripts see
Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus Arabice 1877 p. 44 fin. (2.) Next to the Latin
the best and most trustworthy version is the Syriac which has been transmitted
to us in the large Peshito manuscript of Milan (Cod. Ambros. B. 21 Inf.). It was
published for the first time by Ceriani first of all in a Latin version (Ceriani
Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 2 Mediol. 1866 pp. 99-124) then in the
Syriac text itself (Ceriani Mon. sac. et prof. vol. v. fasc. 1 Mediol. 1868 pp.
4-111). This latter is also given in the photo-lithographed facsimile of the
whole manuscript (Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex cod. Ambr.
photolithographice ed. Ceriani 2 vols. in 4 parts Milan 1876-1883; comp. vol.
iii. p. 92). Hilgenfeld has embodied Ceriani’s Latin version in his Messias
Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). (3.) The Ethiopic version which is also of importance
for the reconstruction of the original text. It had been previously published by
Laurence accompanied with a Latin and English version but only from a single
manuscript and not quite free from errors (Laurence Primi Ezrae libri qui apud
Vulgatam appellatur quartus versio Aethiopica nunc primo in medium prolata et
Latine Angliceque reddita Oxoniae et Londoni 1820). Numerous corrections have
been made by van der Vlis (Disputatio critica de Ezrae libro apocrypho vulgo
quarto dicto Amst. 1839). A collection of the variants in the other manuscripts
has been furnished by Dillmann in the appendix to Ewald’s dissertation in the
Abhandlungen der Göttinger Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862-1863. Then in
the last place Prätorius availing himself of Dillmann’s collection of variants
and also collating with a Berlin manuscript has made various emendations in the
Latin version which Hilgenfeld has embodied in his Messias Judaeorum (Lips.
1869). A critical edition is still a desideratum. Among the Ethiopic manuscripts
of the so-called Magdala collection which some years ago were forwarded to the
British Museum at the close of the war between the English and King John of
Abyssinia there happen to be no fewer than eight of our book (see Wright’s
catalogue in the Zeitschr. der DMG. 1870 p. 599 sqq. Nos. 5 10 11 13 23 24 25
27. Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 2 note 3). (4.) The two Arabic versions are
of but secondary importance owing to the great freedom in which their authors
often indulge. (a) One of them which is in a manuscript in the Bodleian Library
at Oxford was in the first instance published only in an English version by
Ockley (in Whitson’s Primitive Christianity revived vol. iv. London 1711). Ewald
was the first to publish the Arabic text (Transactions of the Göttingen
Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862-1863). Emendations upon Ockley’s version
and Ewald’s text were furnished by Steiner (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1868
pp. 426-433) with whose assistance Hilgenfeld also composed a Latin rendering
for his Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). The Arabic version here in question is
also found in a Codex Vaticanus which though merely a transcript of the one in
the Bodleian library is nevertheless of some value in so far as it was copied
before the leaf which is at present wanting in the Bodleian codex went amissing
(Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 77 sq. Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus p. 3;
this latter supplies at pp. 6-8 the text of this fragment which is omitted in
Ewald’s edition). (b) An extract from another Arabic version is likewise found
in a Bodleian codex from which it has been edited by Ewald (as above). A German
version of this extract was furnished by Steiner (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.
1868 pp. 396-425). On the extract itself comp. further Ewald Transactions of the
Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. 1863 pp. 163-180. The complete text of this
version was published by Gildemeister in Arabic and Latin from a Codex Vaticanus
(Esdrae liber quartus arabice e codice Vaticano nunc primum edidit Bonnae 1877).
(5.) The Armenian version which is still freer than the Arabic one and is of but
little service for the restoration of the original text. It was published as
early as the year 1805 in the edition of the Armenian Bible issued under the
superintendence of the Mechitarists but Ceriani was the first to rescue it from
oblivion while Ewald again furnished specimens of it in a German rendering
(Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch der Wissensch. 1865 pp. 504-516). A
Latin version prepared by Petermann and based upon a collation of four
manuscripts is given in Hilgenfeld’s Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). In the
older editions of the Armenian Bible (the first dating as far back as 1666)
there is an Armenian version of our book which was prepared by the first editor
Uscanus himself and taken from the Vulgate (see Scholtz Einl. in die heiligen
Schriften vol. i. 1845 p. 501. Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus arabice p. 43.
This may be made use of for the purpose of correcting Bensly p. 2 note 2).
German versions of our book have been published by Volkmar (Das vierte Buch Esra
1863) and Ewald (Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol.
xi. 1862 1863) while Hilgenfeld attempted a rendering back into the Greek
(Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869). Critical inquiries. For the earlier literature
see Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. ii. 174 sqq. Lücke Einl. p. 187 sqq. Volkmar Das
vierte Buch Esra (1863) pp. 273-275 374 sqq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p.
liv. sqq. Corrodi (also spelt Corodi) Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus vol.
i. (1781) pp. 179-230. Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils (also under the title
Geschichte des Urchristenthums vols. i. ii.) 1838 i. 69-93. Lücke Versuch einer
vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp.
144-212. Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1854 pp. 982-990 (review of Lücke’s Einl.). Noack
Der Ursprung des Christenthums vol. i. (1857) pp. 341-363. Hilgenfeld Die
jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) pp. 185-242. Idem Die Propheten Esra und Daniel
1863. Idem Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theologie vol. i. 1858 pp. 250-270; iii.
1860 pp. 335-358; vi. 1863 pp. 229-292 457 sq.; x. 1867 pp. 87-91 263-295; xiii.
1870 pp. 308-319; xix. 1876 pp. 421-435. Gutschmid “Die Apokalypse des Esra und
ihre späteren Bearbeitungen” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1860 pp. 1-81).
Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. xii. 1860 pp. 310-312; 2nd ed. vol.
xii. 1883 pp. 353-356 (art. “Pseudepigraphen”). Volkmar Handbuch der Einleitung
in die Apokryphen second part: Das vierte Buch Esra Tüb. 1863. At a previous
date by the same author Das vierte Buch Esra und apokalyptische Geheimnisse
überhaupt Zürich 1858. “Einige Bemerkungen über Apokalyptik” (Zeitschr. für
wissensch. Theol. 1861 pp. 83-92). Ewald “Das vierte Esrabuch nach seinem
Zeitalter seinen arabischen Uebersetzungen und einer neuen Wiederherstellung”
(Transactions of the Royal Gesellsch. der Wissensch. of Göttingen vol. xi.
1862-1863 histor.-philol. section pp. 133-230. Also as a separate reprint). Idem
Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. vii. 3rd ed. 1868 pp. 69-83. Ceriani “Sul Das
vierte Ezrabuch del Dottor Enrico Ewald” (Estratto dalle Memorie del R.
Instituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere) Millano 1865. Langen Das Judenthum in
Palästina 1866 pp. 112-139. Le Hir “Du IV.e livre d’Esdras” (Etudes Bibliques 2
vols. Paris 1869 i. 139-250). Wieseler “Das vierte Buch Esra nach Inhalt und
Alter untersucht” (Stud. u. Krit. 1870 pp. 263-304). Keil Lehrb. der
histor.-krit. Einleitung in die kanon. und apokr. Schriften des A. T. 3rd ed.
1873 pp. 758-764. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. 80-88 (1st ed.
iii. 282-289). Renan “L’apocalypse de l’an 97” (Revue des deux Mondes 1875 March
pp. 127-144). Idem Les évangiles 1877 pp. 348-373. Drummond The Jewish Messiah
1877 pp. 84-117. Reuss Gesch. der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments (1881)
sec. 597. 6. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs In the pseudepigraphic
prophecies which we have hitherto been considering revelations and
predictions—and therefore the apocalyptic element—chiefly predominated. But just
as these revelations themselves had practical objects as their ultimate aim such
objects as the strengthening and comforting of the faithful so alongside of them
there was also another class of works in which the exhortations and
encouragements were more directly expressed. We have a pseudepigraphic prophecy
of this description in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs which is chiefly
composed of such direct exhortations. This somewhat extensive work has come down
to us in its entirety in the Greek text which was published for the first time
by Grabe (1698) although from the beginning of the sixteenth century a good many
printed copies of a Latin version prepared in the thirteenth by Robert
Grossetest Bishop of Lincoln had been in circulation. The book as we now have it
contains a great many direct allusions to the incarnation of God in Christ for
which reason almost all modern critics look upon it as the production of a
Christian author. But it is extremely doubtful whether this is a correct view of
the matter and whether we ought not rather to assume that the work in its
original form is of Jewish authorship and that the passages that are of a
Christian character were interpolated at some later date. As is indicated by the
title itself the book consists of the spiritual “testaments” which the twelve
sons of Jacob left behind them for their descendants. In each of those
testaments three different elements may be distinguished. (1) The patriarch in
each instance rehearses in the first place the history of his own life in the
course of which he either charges himself with sins he has committed (as is done
by the majority of them) or on the other hand boasts of his virtues. The
biographical notices follow the lines of the Biblical narrative although after
the fashion of the Haggadean Midrash they are enriched with a large number of
fresh details. (2) The patriarch then proceeds to address to his descendants a
number of appropriate exhortations based upon the preceding autobiographical
sketch urging them to beware of the sin that had been the cause of such deep
distress to their ancestor and in the event of his being able to boast of
something redounding to his credit recommending them to imitate his virtuous
behaviour. The subject on which the exhortations turn is as a rule one that
happens to have a very intimate connection with the biographical notices the
patriarch’s descendants being warned precisely against that sin or it may be to
imitate that virtue which had been exemplified in his own life. (3) But besides
this we also find toward the end of each of the testaments (with the exception
perhaps of that of Gad where this point is only briefly hinted at) certain
predictions regarding the future of the particular tribe in question the
patriarch for example predicting that his descendants would one day apostatize
from God or what sometimes appears to amount to the same thing sever their
connection with the tribes of Levi and Judah and thereby involve themselves in
misery and especially the evils of captivity and dispersion. This prediction is
frequently accompanied with an exhortation to adhere to the tribes of Levi and
Judah. On the other hand these predictions are interspersed with a large number
of very direct references to redemption through Christ. The circles of thought
in these “testaments” are of a very heterogeneous character. On the one hand
they contain a great deal that it seems impossible to explain except on the
assumption that they were composed by a Jewish author. The history of the
patriarchs is amplified precisely in the style of the Haggadean Midrash. The
author assumes that salvation is in store only for the children of Shem while
those of Ham are doomed to destruction (Simeon 6). He manifests a lively
interest in the Jewish tribes as such; he deplores their apostasy and
dispersion; he exhorts them to cleave to the tribes of Levi and Judah as being
those which God has specially called to be the leaders of the others;[2401] he
cherishes the hope of their ultimate conversion and deliverance. It is true no
doubt that in his positive injunctions he nowhere inculcates the observance of
the ceremonial law such injunctions being more of a moral character throughout
nearly the entire book and consisting for example of warnings against the sins
of envy avarice anger lying incontinency exhortations to the love of one’s
neighbour compassion integrity and such like. But at the same time he does not
fail to speak of the priestly sacrificial worship and that even with many
details introduced into it not met with in the Old Testament itself as being an
institution of divine appointment.[2402] On the other hand again we also meet
with numerous passages which can only have been written by a Christian passages
which teach the Christian doctrine of the universal character of salvation as
well as that of redemption through the incarnation of God nay in one instance
there is a distinct reference to the Apostle Paul (Benjamin 11). The Christology
upon which those passages proceed is of a decidedly patripassian
character.[2403] [2401] Reuben 6: Τῷ γὰρ Λευὶ ἔδωκε Κύριος τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τῷ
Ἰούδᾳ. Judah 21: Καὶ νῦν τέκνα ἀγαπήσατε τὸν Λευί ἵνα διαμείνητε· καὶ μὴ
ἐπαίρεσθε ἐπʼ αὐτόν ἵνα μὴ ἐξολοθρευθῆτε. Ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἔδωκε Κύριος τὴν βασιλείαν
κἀκείνῳ τὴν ἱερατείαν καὶ ὑπέταξε τὴν βασιλείαν τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ. Issachar 5 fin.:
Καὶ ὁ Λευὶ καὶ ὁ Ἰούδας ἐδοξάσθη παρὰ Κυρίου ἐν υἱοῖς Ἰακώβ. Καὶ γὰρ Κύριος
ἐκλήρωσεν ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ τῷ μὲν ἔδωκε τὴν ἱερατείαν τῷ δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν. Daniel 5
: Οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἀποστήσεσθε τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ προσωχθιεῖτε τὸν
Λευὶ καὶ πρὸς Ἰούδαν ἀντιτάξεσθε. Naphtali 5 (in a parable): Καὶ ὁ Λευὶ ἐκράτησε
τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ὁ Ἰούδας φθάσας ἐπίασε τὴν σελήνην. Ibid. 8: Καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν
ἐντείλασθε τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν ἵνα ἑνοῦνται τῷ Λευὶ καὶ τῷ Ἰούδᾳ. [2402] Levi 9.
Note for example the prescription: Καὶ πρὸ τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὰ ἅγια λούου· καὶ
ἐν τῷ θύειν νιπτου (with which comp. vol. i. p. 278); further the prescription
in the same passage to the effect that no wood was to be used for the altar of
burnt-offering but that of trees which were always in leaf (comp. Book of
Jubilees chap. 21 in Ewald’s Jahrpp. iii. 19). [2403] Simeon 6: Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς
μέγας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ φαινόμενος ἐπὶ γῆς ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Ibid.: Θεὸς σῶμα λαβὼν καὶ
συνεσθίων ἀνθρώποις ἔσωσεν ἀνθρώπους. Issachar 7: ἔχοντες μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν τὸν Θεὸν
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ συμπορευόμενον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας. Zebulon 9 fin.:
ὄψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου. Daniel 5 fin.: Κύριος ἔσται ἐμμέσῳ αὐτῆς τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις συναναστρεφόμενος. Naphtali 8: ὀφθήσεται Θεὸς κατοικῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Asher 7: ἕως οὗ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπισκέψηται τὴν γῆν καὶ αὐτὸς ἑλθὼν ὡς
ἄνθρωπος μετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐσθίων καὶ πινων. Benjamin 10: παραγενόμενον Θεὸν ἐν
σαρκὶ ἐλευθερωτὴν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. Grabe who was the first to edit the Greek text
already endeavoured to account for those incongruities by the hypothesis that
the book was written by a Jew but had been subsequently interpolated by a
Christian. All modern critics however (since Nitzsch) have entirely dismissed
this hypothesis and the only point on which there is a difference of opinion
amongst them is as to whether the author occupied the standpoint of a Jewish or
a Gentile Christian. The former is the prevailing view; the latter was
propounded by Ritschl in the first edition of his Entstehung der altkatholischen
Kirche was subsequently adopted by Vorstman and Hilgenfeld but was ultimately
abandoned again by Ritschl himself. At the same time there was no doubt a
feeling on the part of many that it would be impossible to solve the difficulty
without having recourse to the interpolation hypothesis. Kayser above all tried
to demonstrate the existence of a tolerably large number of such interpolations.
But even in his case the matter is dealt with only incidentally to enable him to
maintain the view as to the Jewish-Christian character of the writing. It was
reserved for Schnapp to enter in a systematic manner into the question as to
whether the whole work had not been reconstructed from beginning to end. He
endeavoured to show that to the book in its original form belonged only the
parts mentioned under Nos. 1 and 2 above i.e. merely the biographical narratives
and their accompanying exhortations. But he seeks to prove that all those
portions in which the future fortunes of the tribes are predicted with some
other things of a kindred nature (visions in particular) are to be regarded as
later interpolations though he distinguishes at the same time between Jewish and
Christian interpolations. He thinks that the bulk of these interpolations would
be made by a Jewish hand but that into these again numerous references to the
redemption through Christ had been afterwards inserted by a Christian hand. He
considers therefore that the original work itself must also have been of Jewish
origin. It appears to me that the latter part of this hypothesis in so far that
is as the Christian revision is concerned has at all events hit the mark. It
would be vain to attempt to reduce the heterogeneous utterances in our
Testaments to a common Jewish-Christian standpoint all of them that bear a
specifically Christian stamp being without exception of a Gentile-Christian and
universalist character. The salvation is destined εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. The
Christology is the patripassian Christology that so largely prevailed in many
quarters in the Christian Church during the second and third centuries. There is
nothing here that can be said to indicate a “Jewish-Christian” standpoint. Again
it is impossible to reconcile with the Christian passages in question that
series of utterances characterized above which can only have emanated from a
Jewish author. How is it ever to be supposed that a Christian ay or even a
Jewish-Christian author should think of characterizing the tribes of Levi and
Judah as those to whom God had committed the guidance of Israel. Then what could
we conceive such an author to mean by exhorting the rest of the tribes to join
themselves to the two just mentioned and to submit themselves to their
authority? Why it was precisely the tribes of Levi and Judah i.e. the official
Judaism of Palestine that distinguished themselves above all the others in the
way of rejecting the gospel. We can hardly imagine therefore that even a
Jewish-Christian author would be likely to represent them as occupying the
leading position above referred to. Nor does he so represent them as one who is
merely taking a theoretical survey of history and as though he meant to censure
the defection from the tribes of Levi and Judah merely as a thing of the past.
But he also urges a loyal adherence to those tribes as a present duty. Nor can
we here suppose that Levi is intended to represent the Christian clergy. For
what in that case would Judah be supposed to represent?[2404] Then there is the
further circumstance that many of the Christian passages obviously disturb the
connection and thus proclaim themselves to be interpolations at the very outset.
What is more the much canvassed passage regarding Paul in the Testament of
Benjamin (11) is wanting in the case of two independent testimonies among the
manuscripts and versions as at present known to us namely in the Roman
manuscript and the Armenian version.[2405] From all this it may be regarded as
tolerably certain that all the Christian passages are to be ascribed to some
interpolator who with a Jewish original before him introduced modifications here
and there to adapt it to the purposes and needs of the Christian Church. This
assumption will also enable us to explain how it comes to be stated in our
Testaments that Christ was a descendant of the tribes of Levi and Judah
alike.[2406] How it would ever occur to a Christian author himself to emphasize
this point so much even supposing Mary to have belonged to the tribe of Levi it
is difficult to see for in the primitive Christian tradition it was only upon
the descent from Judah that stress was laid. But the matter becomes perfectly
intelligible when we assume that the author had a text before him in which Levi
and Judah were held up as the chosen and model tribes. For finding this in his
text he proceeds to justify it from his Christian standpoint by representing
Christ as descended from the tribe of Levi in His capacity as priest and from
that of Judah in His capacity as king it being left an open question whether he
assumes the Levitical descent of Mary or has in view only some spiritual
connection on the part of Christ with both those tribes in virtue of His twofold
office of priest and king.[2407] It is further worthy of note that deviating
from his Jewish original the Christian interpolator as a rule puts the tribe of
Judah first. How long or short those Christian interpolations may have been it
is not always possible to determine with any degree of certainty. It is probable
however that they were on a larger scale than Schnapp is inclined to suppose.
[2404]a That the various utterances regarding the tribes of Levi and Judah are
of a strictly Jewish character may be further seen from others of a precisely
similar nature in the Book of Jubilees chap. 31 (Ewald’s Jahrbücher iii. 39
sq.). [2405] See Sinker Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum Appendix (1879) pp. 27 and
59; and Harnack’s notice in Theol. Literaturztg. 1879 p. 515. The Roman
manuscript has the original text in still another passage (perhaps in more?)
where the others show that passage to have undergone a Christian revision.
Simeon 7 according to the Roman MS. runs thus: Καὶ νῦν τεκνία μου ἐπακούσατε τοῦ
Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα as without doubt it was originally written whereas the
Cambridge MS. reads: Καὶ νῦν τεκνία μου ὑπακούετε Λευὶ καὶ ἐν Ἰούδᾳ
λυτρωθήσεσθε. [2406] Simeon 7: Ἀναστήσει γὰρ Κύριος ἐκ τοῦ Λευὶ ὡς ἀρχιερέα καὶ
ἐκ τοῦ Ἰούδα ὡς βασιλέα Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον. Levi 2: διὰ σοῦ καὶ Ἰούδα ὀφθήνεται
Κύριος ἐν ἀνθρώποις. Daniel 5.: Καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν ἐκ τῆς φυλη̈ς Ἰούδα καὶ Λευὶ
τὸ σωτήριον Κυρίου. Gad 8: ὅπως τιμήσωσιν Ἰούδαν καὶ τὸν Λευί· ὅτι ἐξ αὐτῶν
ἀνατελεῖ Κύριος σωτῆρα τῷ Ἰσραήλ. Joseph 19: τιμᾶτε τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τὸν Λευί· ὅτι
ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτι σὠζων πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. [2407] This
latter view is favoured by Simeon 7; at the same time it is possible that on the
strength of Luke 1:36 (Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου) the author has assumed the
Levitical descent of Mary as many of the Fathers have also done (on which see
Spitta Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides 1877 p. 44 sqq.). But in any
case it is certain that previous to the author of the Testaments no writer
within the Church had ever directly maintained or in any way emphasized the
Levitical descent of Jesus. For Hilgenfeld and following him Spitta have
contrived to elicit something of this from the words of Clemens Romanus chap.
xxxii. only by an exegesis of a very singular kind. It is rather more difficult
to answer this other question namely whether this Jewish original itself was not
the production of several authors. The grounds on which Schnapp bases his
attempt to distinguish and eliminate the prophetic portions of the book are not
quite so cogent in the case of Christian passages. At the same time there is no
denying that in most instances those predictions start up in the book with a
remarkable suddenness. The Testaments seem to have been intended in the first
instance to serve as a kind of moral sermon. They concern themselves as a rule
with some special sin or other of which the patriarch had been guilty and
against which he warns his descendants. When we find then that all of a sudden
and in quite a general way there comes in some prediction about the falling away
of the tribes and that without any further notice being taken of the special sin
that had been previously treated of it becomes evident at once that the
connection is thereby interrupted and disturbed all the more that the terms with
which the Testaments conclude are such as imply that they had been preceded by
exhortations and exhortations alone. Comp. above all Simeon 5-7; Levi 14-19‌a;
Judah 21-25; Daniel 5. In any case we can have no difficulty in detecting in the
Testaments a good many interpolations of considerable length even apart from
those passages that are of a specifically Christian kind; take for example the
two visions in the Testament of Levi 2-5 and 8 which only interrupt the
connection. Then in the biographical portion of the Testament of Joseph we find
two perfectly parallel narratives coming the one immediately after the other
(chaps. 1-10‌a and 10‌b-18) of which only one can be supposed to be the original
one. Again in the course of what is said with regard to the tribe of Levi we
come across this glaring contradiction that while on the one hand it is
recommended to the other tribes as their leader it is represented on the other
as having itself fallen away nay as having been instrumental in seducing the
rest into apostasy (Levi 14; Daniel 5). Both those classes of statements cannot
possibly have emanated from one and the same person. We may therefore say that
in any case the Testaments have undergone repeated revision and remodification.
But this much however may be held as certain that the great bulk of the book is
of Jewish origin. The foremost place in it is assigned to these moral sermons
which remind us partly of Jesus the Son of Sirach and partly of Philo and which
must have emanated from some author to whom moral conduct was a matter of deeper
interest than the ceremonial law. Along with these we have prophetic passages
composed by the same or some other author in which the falling away from Levi
and Judah is represented as being the cause of all evil while the members of the
nation scattered throughout the whole world are recommended to enter into close
relationship with these tribes therefore with the leading circles of Palestine.
On the date of the composition of our book it is impossible to express anything
like a definite opinion. As it is probable that the Christian revision was
already known to Irenaeus the Jewish original cannot have been composed later
than the first century of our era though on the other hand we can scarcely
venture to refer it to an earlier date seeing that the author probably made use
of the Book of Jubilees (see below). In several passages the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple is presupposed (Levi 15; Daniel 5 fin.). But it is
extremely doubtful whether these are to be regarded as belonging to the work in
its original shape. Possibly they were subsequently inserted by some Christian
hand. On the references in our book to earlier writings see Sinker Testamenta
XII. Patriarcharum (1869) pp. 34-48; Dillmann in Ewald’s Jahrb. der bibl.
Wissensch. iii. 91-94; Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen (1874) pp. 325 sqq. 415 sqq.
References to the predictions of Enoch are of very frequent occurrence (Simeon
5; Levi 10 14 16; Judah 18; Zebulon 3; Daniel 5; Naphtali 4; Benjamin 9). These
passages all belong to the prophetic sections though in the majority of
instances they are not actual quotations but free allusions to alleged
predictions of Enoch with the view of explaining how the patriarchs obtained
their information with regard to the future. Surely from this it is perfectly
obvious that the author must have already been acquainted with one or more of
the various books bearing the name of Enoch. In the biographical portions
therefore in those sections which undoubtedly belong to the original work there
are numerous coincidences with the Book of Jubilees. But neither are these
absent from those portions which according to Schnapp are supposed to belong to
the author of the Jewish revision. See in general Dillmann and Rönsch as above.
In patristic literature the notion of the descent of Christ from the tribes of
Levi and Judah is met with as early as the time of Irenaeus which notion is
probably to be traced to our book; see Irenaeus Fragm. xvii. (ed. Harvey ii.
487): Ἐξ ὦν ὁ Χριστὸς προετυπώθη καὶ ἐκεγνώσθη καὶ ἐγεννήθη· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ Ἰωσὴφ
προετυπώθη· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὡς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεὺς
ἐγεννήθη· διὰ δὲ τοῦ Συμεὼν ἐν τῷ ναῷ ἐπεγνώσθη κ.τ.λ. The passages in
Tertullian Adv. Marcion. v. 1 Scorpiace xiii. which since Grabe’s time
(Spicileg. i. 132) have usually been traced to the Testament of Benjamin 11 are
simply based on Genesis 49:27; similarly Hippolyt. ed. Lagarde p. 140 fragm. 50.
It is not unlikely that the passage about Paul in Benjamin 11 would be inserted
in the text of the Testament at a very late period and that on the strength of
the patristic interpretation of Genesis 49:27; comp. p. 119. The Testaments are
expressly quoted by Origen In Josuam homil. xv. 6 (ed. de la Rue ii. 435;
Lommatzsch xi. 143): Sed et in aliquo quodam libello qui appellatur testamentum
duodecim patriarcharum quamvis non habeatur in canone talem tamen quendam sensum
invenimus quod per singulos peccantes singuli satanae intelligi debeant (comp.
Reuben 3). It is doubtful whether Procopius Gazaeus may be supposed to have our
book in view in his Comment. in Gen. xxxviii. (see the passage in Sinker’s Test.
XII. Patr. p. 4). In the Stichometry of Nicephorus the Πατριάρχαι are included
among the ἀπόκρυφα along with Enoch the Assumptio Mosis and such like (Credner
Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 121); similarly in the Synopsis Athanasii (Credner p.
145) and in the anonymous list of canonical books edited by Montfaucon Pitra and
others (on which see p. 126 below). In the Constitut. apostol. vi. 16 mention is
made of an apocryphal work entitled οἱ τρεῖς πατριάρχαι which must be different
from the book now in question unless there has been some mistake with regard to
the number. Four manuscripts of the Greek text are extant: (1) A Cambridge one
belonging to the tenth century; (2) an Oxford one belonging to the fourteenth
(on both of which see Sinker’s Test. XII. Patr. pp. vi-xi.); (3) a manuscript in
the Vatican Library belonging to the thirteenth century; and (4) one in the
cloister of St. John in Patmos belonging to the sixteenth (on both of which
again see Sinker Appendix 1879 pp. 1-7). In addition to these we should also
mention as independent testimonies (1) the as yet unprinted Armenian version
eight manuscripts of which have been verified by Sinker and the oldest of which
dates from the year 1220 A.D. (Sinker Appendix pp. 23-27 and p. vii. sq.); and
(2) the Old Slavonic version which was published by Tichonrawow in his
Pamjatniki otretschennoi russkoi literatury (2 vols. Petersburg 1863) but which
has not yet been submitted to critical investigation. As yet no trace has been
discovered of any early Latin version. But coming down to the thirteenth century
we find the Latin version of Robert Grossetest Bishop of Lincoln and which as
Sinker has shown is based upon the Cambridge manuscript (see Grabe’s Spicileg.
i. 144; Sinker Appendix p. 8). This version has come down to us through numerous
manuscripts (Sinker’s Test. pp. xi.-xv. Appendix p. 9) and since the beginning
of the sixteenth century it has not only been frequently printed (at first
without place or date being given though probably about 1510-1520 see Sinker
Appendix p. 10; on the later impressions consult Sinker Test. p. xvi. sq.) but
likewise translated into almost every modern language—English French German
Dutch Danish Icelandic Bohemian while these translations again were also
frequently printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Sinker Appendix
pp. 11-23). The first edition of the Greek text was prepared by Grabe who based
it upon the Cambridge manuscript collating it at the same time with the Oxford
one. This edition also contained Grossetest’s Latin version for which two
manuscripts belonging to the Bodleian Library were made use of (Grabe
Spicilegium Patrum vol. i. Oxon. 1698 2nd ed. 1714; on the use of the
manuscripts see p. 336 sq.). Grabe’s text has been reproduced by Fabricius
(Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. vol. i. Hamburg 1713) Gallandi (Bibliotheca
veterum patrum vol. i. Venetiis 1788) and Migne (Patrolog. graec. vol. ii.). A
careful edition of the Cambridge manuscript accompanied with the variants of the
Oxford one has been printed by Sinker (Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum ad fidem
codicis Cantabrigiensis edita accedunt lectiones cod. Oxoniensis Cambridge
1869). Some time after this same scholar published in an Appendix a collation of
the Vatican and the Patmos manuscripts (Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum: Appendix
containing a collation of the Roman and Patmos MSS. and bibliographical notes
Cambridge 1879). Special disquisitions: Grabe in his edition (Spicileg. i.
129-144 and 335-374). Corrodi Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus ii. 101-110.
K. J. Nitzsch. Commentatio critica de Testamentis XII. Patriarcharum libro V. T.
pseudepigrapho Wittenberg 1810. Wieseler Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des
Propheten Daniel (1839) p. 226 sqq. Lücke Einl. in die Offenbarung Johannis (2nd
ed. 1852) pp. 334-337. Dorner Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person
Christi i. 254-264. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments § 257.
Ritschl Die Entstehung der alt-kathol. Kirche (2nd ed. 1857) pp. 172-177. Kayser
“Die Test. der XII. Patr.” in the Beiträge zu den theologischen Wissenschaften
edited by Reuss and Cunitz 3 vols. (1851) pp. 107-140. Vorstman Disquisitio de
Testamentorum Patriarcharum XII. origine et pretio Rotterd. 1857. Hilgenfeld
Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1858 p. 395 sqq.; 1871 p. 302 sqq. Van
Hengel “De Testamenten der twaalf Patriarchen op nieuw ter sprake gebragt”
(Godgeleerde Bijdragen 1860). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 363-369.
Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 140-157. Sinker in his edition.
Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1869 pp. 116-135; 1871 pp.
123-125. Friedr. Nitzsch Grundriss der christl. Dogmengeschichte vol. i. 1870
pp. 109-111. Renan L’église chrétienne (1879) pp. 268-271. An article in The
Presbyterian Review for January 1880 (mentioned by Bissell The Apocrypha p.
671). Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. p.
361 sq. Schnapp Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen untersucht Halle 1884 (and
notice of this work in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung 1885 p. 203). 7. The Lost
Pseudepigraphic Prophecies Besides the pseudepigraphic prophecies that have come
down to us many others of a similar description were in circulation in the early
Church as we learn partly from the lists of the canon and partly from quotations
found in the Fathers. In the case of most of them it is of course no longer
possible to determine with any certainty whether they were of Jewish or of
Christian origin. But considering that in the earliest days of the Christian
Church this was a species of literary activity that flourished chiefly among the
heretical sects and that it was not till a somewhat later period that it began
to be cultivated in Catholic circles as well it may be assumed with some degree
of probability that those Old Testament pseudepigraphic writings which are
mentioned in terms of high respect by the earliest of the Fathers down say to
Origen inclusive are to be regarded generally as being of Jewish and not of
Christian origin. With the criterion thus obtained we may combine still another.
We happen to have several lists of the canon in which the Old Testament
Apocrypha are enumerated with great completeness. Now among the writings thus
enumerated occur those which have come down to us (Enoch the Twelve Patriarchs
the Assumptio Mosis the Psalms of Solomon) and which are undoubtedly of Jewish
origin. This then must surely be regarded as sufficiently justifying the
conjecture that the others would also be of similar origin. The lists in
question are the following:— 1. The so-called Stichometry of Nicephorus i.e. a
list of the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments along
with the number of verses in each book and which list is given as an appendix to
the Chronographia compendiaria of Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus (about 800
A.D.) though it is without doubt of a considerably earlier origin (printed in
the appendix to Dindorf’s edition of George Syncellus further in a critically
amended text given by Credner in two programmes for the University of Giessen
1832-1838 and also reproduced in Credner’s Zur Geschichte des Kanons 1847 pp.
117-122 but best of all in de Boor’s Nicephori opuscula Lips. 1880). Here the
list of the Old Testament ἀπόκρυφα runs thus (ed. de Boor p. 134 sq.):— αʹ Ἐνὼχ
στίχων ͵δωʹ (4800). βʹ Πατριάρχαι στίχων ͵ερʹ (5100). γʹ Προσευχὴ Ἰωσὴφ στίχων
͵αρʹ (1100). δʹ Διαθήκη Μωϋσέως στίχων ͵αρʹ (1100). εʹ Ἀνάληψις Μωϋσέως στίχων
͵αυʹ (1400). ςʹ Ἀβραὰμ στίχων τʹ (300). ζʹ Ἐλὰδ (sic) καὶ Μωδὰδ στίχων υʹ (400).
ηʹ Ἡλία προφήτου στίχων τιςʹ (316). θʹ Σοφονίου προφήτου στίχων χʹ (600). ιʹ
Ζαχαρίου πατρὸς Ἰωάννου στίχων φʹ (500). ιαʹ Βαρούχ Ἀμβακούμ Ἰεζεκιὴλ καὶ Δανιὴλ
ψευδεπίγραφα. 2. The so-called Synopsis Athanasii which simply reproduces from
the Stichometry of Nicephorus the section containing the Apocrypha without
giving however the number of the verses (Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons p.
145). 3. Akin to this latter is an anonymous list which was published: (a) from
a Codex Coislinianus belonging to the tenth century by Montfaucon Bibliotheca
Coisliniana Paris 1715 p. 194; (b) from a Cod. Paris. Regius by Cotelier Patrum
Apost. Opp. vol. i. 1698 p. 196; (c) from a Cod. Baroccianus by Hody De
Bibliorum textibus 1705 p. 649 col. 44 (those three manuscripts are based upon
each other in the order just given and as may be seen from a more careful
comparing of them with the text); and lastly (d) from a Codex Vaticanus by Pitra
Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta vol. i. Romae 1864 p. 100.
As appears from the numbering there is an omission in the three first-mentioned
manuscripts (No. 8 being left out). According to Pitra the complete list of the
ἀπόκρυφα is as follows:— αʹ Ἀδάμ. βʹ Ἐνώχ. γʹ Λάμεχ. δʹ Πατριάρχαι. εʹ Ἰωσὴφ
προσευχή. ςʹ Ἐλδὰμ καὶ Μοδάμ (al. Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάδ). ζʹ Διαθήκη Μωσέως. ηʹ Ἡ
ἀνάληψις Μωσέως. θʹ Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος. ιʹ Ἡλίου ἀποκάλυψις. ιαʹ Ἡσαίου ὅρασις.
ιβʹ Σοφονίου ἀποκάλυψις. ιγʹ Ζαχαρίου ἀποκάλυψις. ιδʹ Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις. ιέ
Ἰακώβου ἱστορία. ιςʹ Πέτρου ἀποκάλυψις and so on (these being followed by other
New Testament Apocrypha). This list is in the main identical with that of the
Stichometry of Nicephorus. With a single exception (No. 6 Ἀβραάμ) the whole of
the first ten numbers of the Stichometry are reproduced in it. But besides this
these nine numbers have this in common with each other that they are probably
all of them prophetic pseudepigraphs i.e. writings purporting to have been
composed by the various men of God whose names they bear or at all events
containing a record of revelations with which those men are alleged to have been
favoured a circumstance which probably accounts for their comparatively wide
circulation throughout the Church. The last of the nine here in question shows
by its title Ζαχαρίου πατρὸς Ἰωάννου that it belongs to the Christian Apocrypha.
With regard to the others four of them have already been considered by us
(Enoch. the Patriarchs the Testament and the Ascension of Moses; on the two
latter see p. 81) while the remaining four (Joseph’s Prayer Eldad and Modad
Elias Zephaniah) are all quoted with deference either by Origen or by some still
older Fathers and may therefore be regarded with a certain degree of probability
as Jewish products. Consequently they fall to be more fully considered by us
here. 1. Joseph’s Prayer (Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ). For the information we possess
regarding this production we are indebted above all to repeated quotations from
it found in Origen. This Father speaks of it as “a writing not to be despised”
(οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον γραφήν) and expressly states that it was in use among the
Jews (παρʼ Ἑβραίοις). In the passages quoted it is Jacob who figures all through
describing himself as the first-born of all living beings nay as the head of all
the angels themselves. He informs us that when he was coming from Mesopotamia he
met Uriel who wrestled with him and claimed to be the foremost of the angels.
But he says that he corrected him and told him that he Uriel was only the eighth
in rank after himself. In another passage Jacob states that he had had an
opportunity of inspecting the heavenly records and that there he read the future
destinies of men. Origen In Joann. vol. ii. chap. xxv. (Opp. ed. de la Rue iv.
84; Lommatzsch i. 147): Εἰ δέ τις προσίεται καὶ τῶν παρʼ Ἑβραίοις φερομένων
ἀποκρύφων τὴν ἐπιγραφομένην Ἰωσὴφ προσευχὴν ἄντικρυς τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα καὶ σαφῶς
εἰρημένον ἐκεῖθεν λήψεται … Φησὶ γοῦν ὁ Ἰακώβ· “Ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Ἰακὼβ
καὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἄγγελος θεοῦ εἰμι ἐγὼ καὶ πνεῦμα ἀρχικόν· καὶ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ
προεκτίσθησαν πρὸ παντὸς ἔργου· ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰακὼβ ὁ κληθεὶς ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων Ἰακὼβ τὸ δὲ
ὄνομά μου Ἰσραὴλ ὁ κληθεὶς ὑπὸ θεοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἀνὴρ όρῶν θεὸν ὅτι ἐγὼ πρωτόγονος
παντὸς ζώου ζωουμένου ὑπὀ θεοῦ.” Καὶ ἐπιφέρει· “Ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτε ἠρχόμην ἀπὸ
Μεσοποταμίας τῆς Συρίας ἐξῆλθεν Οὐριὴλ ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι κατέβην
ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ κατεσκήνωσα ἐν ἀνθρώποις· καὶ ὅτι ἐκλήθην ὀνόματι Ἰακώβ ἐζήλωσε
καὶ ἐμαχέσατό μοι καὶ ἐπάλαιε πρὸς μὲ λέγων· προτερήσειν ἐπάνω τοῦ ὀνόματός μου
τὸ ὄνομα αὑτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρὸ [l. πρὸ τοῦ] παντὸς ἀγγέλου. Καὶ εἶπα αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα
αὐτοῦ καὶ πόσος ἐστὶν ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ· οὐχὶ σὺ Οὐριὴλ ὄγδοος ἐμοῦ κἀγὼ Ἰσραὴλ
ἀρχάγγελος δυνάμεως κυρίου καὶ ἀρχιχιλίαρχός εἰμι ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ; οὐχὶ ἐγὼ Ἰσραὴλ
ὁ ἐν προσώπῳ θεοῦ λειτουργὸς πρῶτος καὶ ἐπεκαλεσάμην ἐν ὀνόματι ἀσβέστῳ τὸν θεόν
μου.” Origen ibid. (Lommatzsch i. 148): Ἐπὶ πλεῖον δὲ παρεξέβημεν παραλαβόντες
τὸν περὶ Ἰακὼβ λόγον καὶ μαρτυράμενοι ἡμῖν οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον γραφήν. Origen
Fragm. comment. in Genes.[2408] vol. iii. chap. ix. toward the end (ed. de la
Rue ii. 15; Lommatzsch viii. 30 sq. = Euseb. Praep. evang. vi. 11. 64 ed.
Gaisford): Διόπερ ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ δύναται οὕτω νοεῖσθαι τὸ λεγόμενον
ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰακώβ· “Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅσα συμβήσεται ὑμῖν καὶ
τοῖς υἱοῖς ὑμῶν." Comp. also ibid. chap. xii. toward the end of the chapter (ed.
de la Rue ii. 19; Lommatzsch viii. 38) where the contents of the somewhat
lengthened fragment first quoted are given in an abridged form. [2408] The large
fragment from the third book of the Commentary on Genesis is to be found in the
Philocalia chap. xxiii. (Origenis Opp. ed. Lommatzsch vol. xxv.) and the most of
it also in Eusebius Praep. evang. vi. 11. Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test.
i. 761-771. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii.
362. 2. The book entitled Eldad and Modad. This was a writing that was
circulated under the name of two Israelites called אֶלדָּד and מֵידָד (Sept.
Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάδ) who according to Numbers 11:26-29 uttered certain predictions
in the camp during the march through the wilderness. Besides being mentioned in
the lists of the Apocrypha this book is also quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas
and that as a genuine prophetical work. According to the Targum of Jonathan on
Numbers 11:26-29 the predictions of the two personages here in question had
reference chiefly to Magog’s final attack upon the congregation of Israel. But
whether this may be regarded as indicating what the theme of our book is likely
to have been is extremely doubtful. Hermas Pastor Vis. ii. 3: Ἐγγὺς κύριος τοῖς
ἐπιστρεφομένοις ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάτ τοῖς προφητεύσασιν ἐν τῇ
ἐρήμῳ τῷ λαῷ. The Targum of Jonathan on the Pentateuch is given in the fourth
volume of the London Polyglot along with a Latin translation. Comp. also Beer
“Eldad und Medad im Pseudojonathan” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenth. 1857 pp. 346-350). Weber System der altsynagogalen palästinischen
Theologie 1880 p. 370. Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 801-804.
Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 363. Cotelier
Hilgenfeld and Harnack in their editions of the Shepherd of Hermas notes on
Vision ii. 3. 3. The Apocalypse of Elijah. The prophet Elijah has this in common
with Enoch. that like him he was taken up to heaven without dying. Consequently
in the legends of the saints he is often associated with Enoch (for the
literature of this see Enoch. p. 70) and like this latter could not fail to be
regarded as a peculiarly suitable medium through which to communicate heavenly
revelations. A writing bearing his name is mentioned in the Constitut. apostol.
vi. 16 and in the patristic quotations simply as an Apocryphum. According to the
more exact titles as given in the lists of the Apocrypha (Ἡλία προφήτου in
Nicephorus Ἡλίου ἀποκάλυψις in the anonymous list) and in Jerome (see below)
this book was a somewhat short apocalyptic work consisting according to the
Stichometry of Nicephorus of 316 verses. It is often mentioned by Origen and
subsequent ecclesiastical writers as being the source of a quotation made by
Paul and which cannot be traced to any part of the Old Testament (1 Corinthians
2:9 : καθὼς γέγραπται· ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν
ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη κ.τ.λ.). No doubt Jerome strongly protests against the notion
that Paul is here quoting an apocryphal work. But the thing is not at all
incredible for do we not find that the Book of Enoch has also been undoubtedly
quoted by the author of the Epistle of Jude? If that be so then this
circumstance serves at the same time to prove the early existence and Jewish
origin of the Apocalypse of Elijah. This same passage that is quoted in First
Corinthians is likewise quoted by Clemens Romanus chap. xxxiv. fin. Now as
non-canonical quotations occur elsewhere in Clement it is just possible that he
in like manner has made use of the Apocalypse of Elijah. At the same time it is
more likely that he has borrowed the quotation from the First Epistle to the
Corinthians. According to Epiphanius the passage Ephesians 5:14 (ἔγειρε ὁ
καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός) was also taken
from our Apocryphum. But seeing that Origen makes no mention of this in his
collations of passages of this sort that statement is of a very questionable
character and probably rests upon some confusion or other. According to
Euthalius Ephesians 5:14 was taken from an apocryphal work that bore the name of
Jeremiah. Origen Comment. ad Matth. xxvii. 9 (de la Rue iii. 916; Lommatzsch v.
29): Et apostolus scripturas quasdam secretorum profert sicut dicit alicubi:
“quod oculus non vidit nec auris audivit” (1 Corinthians 2:9); in nullo enim
regulari libro hoc positum invenitur nisi in secretis Eliae prophetae. Comp.
further Comment. ad Matt. xxiii. 37 (de la Rue iii. 848; Lommatzsch iv. 237
sqq.) where in connection with the saying of Christ that Jerusalem killed the
prophets Origen observes that the Old Testament records only a single instance
of a prophet being put to death in Jerusalem and then proceeds to add: Propterea
videndum ne forte oporteat ex libris secretioribus qui apud Judaeos feruntur
ostendere verbum Christi et non solum Christi sed etiam discipulorum ejus (for
example such further statements as Hebrews 11:37) … Fertur ergo in scripturis
non manifestis serratum esse Jesaiam et Zachariam occisum et Ezechielem.
Arbitror autem circuisse in melotis [ἐν μηλωταῖς Hebrews 11:37] in pellibis
caprinis Eliam qui in solitudine et in montibus vagabatur. And so among the
other passages that go to prove that apocryphal books are sometimes referred to
in the New Testament we should also include 1 Corinthians 2:9. Lastly Origen
goes on to observe: Oportet ergo caute considerare ut nec omnia secreta quae
feruntur in nomine sanctorum suscipiamus propter Judaeos qui forte ad
destructionem veritatis scripturarum nostrarum quaedam finxerunt confirmantes
dogmata falsa nec omnia abjiciamus quae pertinent ad demonstrationem
scripturarum nostrarum. The whole connection here plainly shows that it is
exclusively Jewish Apocrypha that Origen has in view. Euthalius in his learned
statistical work on the Epistles of Paul (458 A.D.) likewise traces 1
Corinthians 2:9 to the Apocalypse of Elijah (Zaccagni Collectanea monumentorum
veterum Romae 1698 p. 556 = Gallandi Biblioth. patrum x. 258). In this he is
followed by Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and an anonymous list of quotations in
Paul’s Epistles which is given (a) by Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum p. 212 sq.
and Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. 195) from a Codex Basilianus and (b) by
Cotelier (in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers note on Constitut. apost. vi.
16) from two Parisian manuscripts. Jerome Epist. 57 ad Pammachium chap. ix.
(Opp. ed. Vallarsi i. 314): Pergamus ad apostolum Paulum. Scribit ad Corinthios:
Si enim cognovissent Dominum gloriae etc. (1 Corinthians 2:8-9).… Solent in hoc
loco apocryphorum quidam deliramenta sectari et dicere quod de apocalypsi Eliae
testimonium sumtum sit etc. (Jerome then traces the quotation to Isaiah 44:3).
Idem Comment. in Jesaijam lxiv. 3 [al. lxiv. 4] (Vallarsi iv. 761): Parapbrasim
hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit apostolus Paulus de
authenticis libris in epistola quam scribit ad Corinthios (1 Corinthians 2:9)
non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere omnino contemnit sed sensuum exprimens
veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum. Unde apocryphorum
deliramenta conticeant quae ex occasione hujus testimonii ingeruntur ecclesiis
Christi.… Ascensio enim Isaiae et Apocalypsis Eliae hoc habent testimonium.
Clemens Rom. chap. xxxiv. fin.: λέγει γάρ· Ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ
ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν
(in St. Paul: τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν). Comp. the note on this in Gebhardt and
Harnack’s edition. The passage is also frequently quoted elsewhere in patristic
literature and was a special favourite with the Gnostics; see Hilgenfeld Die
apostol. Väter p. 102; Ritschl Die Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche p. 267 sq.
Epiphanius Haer. xlii. p. 372 ed. Petav. (Dindorf ii. 388): “Διὸ λέγει ἔγειρε ὁ
καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός” (Ephesians 5:14).
Πόθεν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ τὸ “διὸ καὶ λέγει” ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς δῆλον διαθήκη; τοῦτο
δὲ ἐμφέρεται παρὰ τῷ Ἠλίᾳ. Hippolytus De Christo et Antichr. chap. lxv. quotes
the same passage (Ephesians 5:14) with the formula ὁ προφήτης λέγει and with a
slight deviation in regard to the terms (ἐξεγέρθητι instead of ἀνάστα). It also
occurs with the same deviation and with the formula ἡ γραφὴ λέγει in an
utterance of the Naasenes quoted by Hippolytus (Philosophum. v. 7 p. 146 ed.
Duncker). But both those quotations are undoubtedly to be traced simply to the
Epistle to the Ephesians (Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extra canonem receptum 2nd ed.
iv. 74 thinks though without any distinct ground for doing so that they may have
been taken from the Apocalypse of Peter). According to Euthalius Ephesians 5:14
formed part of an Apocryphum that bore the name of Jeremiah (Zaccagni
Collectanea monumentorum veterum p. 561 = Gallandi Biblioth. patr. x. 260).
Similarly Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and the above-mentioned anonymous list of
Paul’s quotations from the Scriptures which simply reproduces Euthalius. We may
safely venture to assume that this Apocryphum bearing the name of Jeremiah was
itself of Christian origin. The work by the Hellenist Eupolemus περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου
προφητείας (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30) has nothing to do with our Apocryphum.
On this see sec. 33. Isr. Levi endeavours to make out the probable existence of
a Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah on the strength of two Talmudic passages
(Sanhedrin 97b; Joma 19b) where certain utterances of Elijah regarding questions
of Messianic dogma happen to be quoted (Revue des études juives vol. i. 1880 p.
108 sqq.). On a passage of this sort from post-Talmudic times see Jellinek
Bet-ha-Midrash vol. iii. Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1070-1086.
Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes 2nd ed. p. 235 sq. Bleek Stud.
u. Krit. 1853 p. 330 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 359. The
commentaries on 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Ephesians 5:14. 4. The Apocalypse of
Zephaniah. Apart from the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the anonymous list of
the Apocrypha (see p. 126) all we know of this writing is from a quotation in
Clement of Alexandria. Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 11. 77: Ἆρʼ οὐχ ὅμοια ταῦτα τοῖς
ὑπὸ Σοφονία λεχθεῖσι τοῦ προφήτου; “καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με πνεῦμα καὶ ἀνήνεγκέν με εἰς
οὐρανὸν πέμπτον καὶ ἐθεώρουν ἀγγέλους καλουμένους κυρίους καὶ τὸ διάδημα αὐτῶν
ἐπικείμενον ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἦν ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ὁ θρόνος ἑπταπλασίων φωτὸς
ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος οἰκοῦντας ἐν ναοῖς σωτηρίας καὶ ὑμνοῦντας θεὸν ἄρρητον
ὕψιστον.” Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1140 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s
Real-Enc. xii. 360. The Apocalypses we have just been considering are far from
exhausting the number of them that were in circulation in the early Church. At
the end of the Stichometry of Nicephorus mention is made of ψευδεπίγραφα of
Baruch Habakkuk Ezekiel and Daniel. As we have already stated Euthalius was
acquainted with an Apocryphum bearing the name of Jeremiah. Jerome mentions a
Hebrew Apocryphum bearing this prophet’s name in which Matthew 27:9
occurred.[2409] But as regards all these and many others besides it is extremely
doubtful for various reasons and chiefly from their appearing somewhat late in
the Christian Church whether they are of Jewish origin. It is obvious that the
four last-mentioned pseudepigraphs are to be regarded as an addition at some
subsequent period to the original Stichometry of Nicephorus. [2409] Jerome ad
Matth. xxvii. 9 (Vallarsi vii. 1 228): Legi nuper in quodam Hebraiço volumine
quod Nazaraenae sectae mihi Hebraeus obtulit Jeremiae apocryphum in quo haec ad
verbum scripta reperi.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 94: VI. THE SACRED LEGENDS
========================================================================

VI. THE SACRED LEGENDS The authors of the pseudepigraphic prophecies had chiefly
in view the practical aim of imparting greater weight to the lessons and
exhortations which they desired to address to their contemporaries by ascribing
them to the sacred authorities whose names they bear. Not only however did they
represent the holy men of God themselves as speaking to posterity but it was not
uncommon at the same time to enrich the accounts we have regarding those
personages with new material partly for the purpose of giving to the present
generation a clearer view of the sacred narrative generally by the addition of
copious details and partly by surrounding these saints of the olden time with a
halo of glory to hold them up more and more unreservedly as shining models for
Israel to imitate (comp. in general et seq.). Now there were two ways in which
the things here in question viz. the amplifying and embellishing of the sacred
story and adapting it to purposes of edification could be effected either by a
continual modifying of the text of the Biblical narrative or by singling out
certain personages in it and making them the heroes of fictitious legends. At
first it was the former of these courses that was chiefly followed though
afterwards the latter came more and more to be adopted as well. A classical
example of each of those two modes of enriching the sacred story has come down
to us from a comparatively early period from somewhere about the time of Christ.
The so-called Book of Jubilees is an instance of the way in which the text was
modified while in the Martyrdom of Isaiah we have a specimen of the fictitious
legend. Other writings of this description are either known to us merely from
quotations or have come down to us only in the shape of Christian versions of
them. But a large amount of material of this sort is also to be found in
writings the principal objects of which are different from those mentioned
above. Legendary amplifications of the sacred narrative are also to be met with
in almost all of the pseudepigraphic prophecies. This as appears from what has
been already said is true above all of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
into which the biographical element enters so largely. And so for this reason it
has also very many points of contact with the first of the two principal works
which we will now proceed to consider. 1. The Book of Jubilees Didymus
Alexandrinus Epiphanius and Jerome quote an apocryphal book under the title τὰ
Ἰωβηλαῖα or ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις from which they borrow various details connected
with the history of the patriarchs. Then copious extracts from this same work
are given by the Byzantine chroniclers Syncellus Cedrenus Zonoras Glycas from
the beginning of the ninth down to the twelfth century. But at this latter point
the book disappears and for a long time it was looked upon as lost till it
turned up again in the present century in the Abyssinian Church where it was
found in an Ethiopic version. It was published for the first time by Dillmann in
a German translation (Ewald’s Jahrbücher ii.-iii. 1850-1851) and afterwards in
the Ethiopic text (1859). Besides this Ethiopic version a large fragment of the
work is likewise extant in an old Latin version which in like manner was not
discovered till modern times the author of the discovery being Ceriani who found
it in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and afterwards published it
among the Monumenta sacra et profana (vol. i. fasc. 1 1861). This Latin fragment
was also subsequently edited by Rönsch accompanied with a Latin rendering by
Dillmann of the corresponding portion in the Ethiopic version as well as a
commentary and several excursuses full of valuable matter (1874). The contents
of the book are substantially the same as those of our canonical Genesis for
which reason it is also generally styled “the smaller Genesis” not because it is
of smaller dimensions (on the contrary it is larger than the other) but because
it is inferior in point of authority to the canonical book. It stands to this
latter very much in the same relation as a Haggadean commentary to the text of
the Bible. At the same time it is as far as possible from being an actual
exposition of the text which in fact the Haggadean Midrash never pretends to be
but simply a free reproduction of the early Biblical history from the creation
of the world down to the institution of the Passover (Exodus 12) and that from
the standpoint and in the spirit of later Judaism. The whole is made to assume
the form of a revelation imparted to Moses on Mount Sinai by an “angel of the
presence.” The object of the author in selecting this form was to secure at once
for the new matters which he has to communicate the same authority as was
already accorded to the text of the Bible. In his reproduction he has paid
special attention to the matter of chronology the due fixing of this being
without doubt one of the leading objects for which his book was written. He
takes as the basis of reckoning the jubilee-period of 49 years which again
resolves itself into seven year-weeks of seven years each and then in fixing the
date of any event he determines the exact month of the exact year of the exact
year-week of the exact jubilee-period in which it occurred. From this it is not
difficult to see why the whole book was called τὰ Ἰωβηλαῖα “the Jubilees.” As
the author was interested in chronology generally so he lays a peculiar stress
upon the observance of the annual festivals and endeavours to prove with regard
to each of the leading feasts that it had been instituted in the very earliest
times; so for example with regard to Pentecost or the feast of Weeks (Ewald’s
Jahrbb. ii. 245 iii. 8) the feast of Tabernacles (Ibid. iii. 11) the great Day
of Atonement (iii. 46) and the feast of the Passover (iii. 68 sq.). This also
serves to explain why it is that he happens to finish with the institution of
the Passover (Exodus 12). As the author seeks to reproduce the history of
primitive times in the spirit of his own day he deals with the Biblical text in
a very free fashion. Many things that did not happen to interest him or that he
considered objectionable were either omitted or altered while others were still
further amplified by the addition of numerous particulars of one kind or
another. He is always by way of showing exactly where the founders of the
primitive families or races got their wives from; he explains how far Genesis
2:17 had been literally fulfilled (comp. Justin Dial. c. Tryph. chap. lxxxi.)
with whose help Noah brought the animals into the ark how the Hamitic family of
the Canaanites and the Japhetic one of the Medes found their way within the
sphere of the Semitic family why Rebecca had such a decided preference for
Jacob[2410] and so on. He is acquainted with the names of the wives of the whole
of the patriarchs from Adam down to the twelve sons of Jacob he knows the name
of the particular peak of Mount Ararat on which Noah’s ark rested and many other
things of a similar kind.[2411] All those embellishments and amplifications are
entirely in the spirit of later Judaism. A peculiarly characteristic feature is
the circumstance that the patriarchs are represented as paragons of moral
excellence to even a greater extent than in the Biblical narrative itself and as
being already in the habit of observing the whole of the Mosaic ritual of
offering sacrifices and firstlings and of celebrating the annual festivals the
new moons and the Sabbaths. It is further characteristic that everywhere the
hierarchia coelestis is represented as forming the background of this world’s
history. The angels good and evil alike are regularly interfering with the
course of human affairs and inciting men to good and evil actions. We learn that
the angels observed the law in heaven long before it was promulgated upon earth.
For from the very beginning that law stood inscribed upon the heavenly tablets
and it was only by degrees that it was copied from these and communicated to
men. It appears moreover that the whole of the divine teachings had not been
openly published to the people of Israel many of them having been communicated
to the patriarchs only in secret books which were transmitted by them to later
generations. [2410] Dillmann in Ewald’s Jahrbb. vol. iii. p. 78 sq. [2411] Ibid.
p. 80. Notwithstanding its many salient features of a characteristic nature it
is still difficult to say amid what circles the book had its origin. Jellinek
regards it as an Essenian work of an anti-Pharisaic tendency. But although a
good many things in it such as its highly developed angelology its secret books
its doctrine of the continued existence of the soul without any resurrection of
the body (iii. 24) seem to favour the hypothesis of an Essenian origin yet there
are others that but the more decisively preclude such a hypothesis. It says
nothing about those washings and purifications that formed so important a
feature of Essenism. It is true the author strongly reprobates the eating of
blood still he by no means expresses his disapproval of animal sacrifices as was
so emphatically done by the Essenes. Still less are we to think of a Samaritan
origin as Beer is disposed to do for this hypothesis again is precluded by the
fact that the author speaks of the garden of Eden the mount of the east Mount
Sinai and Mount Zion as being “the four places of God upon earth” (ii. 241 251)
and thus excludes Gerizim from the number. Again Frankel’s view that the book
was written by a Hellenistic Jew belonging to Egypt is no less untenable. For as
will be seen immediately the language in which it was originally composed was
not Greek but Hebrew. There cannot be a doubt that the greater number of the
peculiarities by which this book is characterized are such as it has in common
with the prevailing Pharisaism of the time. And one might refer it to this
without further ado were it not that several difficulties stand in the way such
as its opposition to the mode of reckoning adopted in the Pharisaic calendar
(ii. 246) and its doctrine of a continued existence of the soul apart from any
resurrection (ii. 24). But it would be absolutely erroneous again if in
consequence of these facts and because of the decided prominence given to the
tribe of Levi (iii. 39 sq.) we were to suppose that a Sadducee was the author of
our work for its elaborate angelology and its doctrine of immortality are of
themselves sufficient to render such a supposition impossible. The truth of the
matter would rather seem to be this that the author while of course representing
in all essential respects the standpoint of the dominant Pharisaism of his time
gives expression to his own personal views only in connection with one or two
particulars here and there (so also for example Dillmann Rönsch Drummond). That
the book had its origin in Palestine is already evidenced by the fact that it
was written originally in Hebrew For although the Ethiopic and the Latin
versions have been taken from the Greek this does not alter the fact that the
original was composed in Hebrew as is evident from explicit statements to this
effect made by Jerome. The date of the composition of our work may be determined
if not within very narrow limits yet with an approximate degree of certainty.
For we find on the one hand that our author undoubtedly makes use of nay that he
actually quotes the Book of Enoch. Then it is extremely probable on the other
that the author of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs had our book before
him when he wrote. In addition to this there is the further circumstance that we
nowhere find any reference whatever to the destruction of Jerusalem; on the
contrary it is assumed throughout to be still standing as the central place of
worship (comp. above all iii. 42 69). From all this we may venture with
tolerable probability to refer the composition of our work to the first century
of our era. On the various titles of the book see Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen
pp. 461-482. Besides those mentioned above we also find in Syncellus and
Cedrenus the title ἀποκάλυψις Μωυσέως (Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 5 and 49;
Cedrenus ed. Bekker i. 9). The Ethiopic and Latin versions are both based upon a
Greek text on the former of which see Dillmann in Ewald’s Jahrbb. iii. 88 sq.
and on the latter Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissenchaftl. Theol. 1871 pp. 86-89. Idem
Das Buch der Jubiläen pp. 439-444. But according to Jerome we must assume that
the original text was in Hebrew. It may be conjectured that the Greek version
would be prepared only at a comparatively late date say in the third century
A.D. which would serve to explain how it happened that the book did not come
into use in the Christian Church till the fourth century A.D. It is obvious that
in our work a liberal use is made of the Book of Enoch nay in one passage
(Ewald’s Jahrbb. ii. 240) it is said of Enoch that: “He wrote in a book the
signs of heaven in the order of their months in order that the children of men
might know the seasons of the years according to the order of the various
months.… He saw in his dream the past and the future what was going to happen to
the sons of the children of men in their generations one after another down to
the day of judgment. All this he saw and knew and wrote it down as a testimony
and left it on the earth as a testimony for all the sons of the children of men
and for their generations.” This and all that is said elsewhere regarding Enoch
agrees entirely with the contents of our Book of Enoch. See in general Dillmann
in Ewald’s Jahrbb. iii. 90 sq. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen pp. 403-412. On the
allusions to our book in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs see p. 122. The
quotations found in the Fathers and the Byzantine writers are collected by
Fabricius in his Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 849-864 ii. 120 sq. Rönsch
Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1871 p. 69 sq. Idem Das Buch der Jubiläen pp.
250-382. Didymus Alex. In epist. canonicas enarrationes ad 1 John iii. 12
(Gallandi Biblioth. patr. vi. 300): Nam et in libro qui leprogenesis [l.
leptogenesis] appellatur ita legitur quia Cain lapide aut ligno percusserit Abel
(to which quotation Langen has drawn attention in the Bonner Theol. Literaturbl.
1874 p. 270). Epiphanius Haer. xxxix. 6: Ὡς δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰωβηλαίοις εὑρίσκεται τῇ
καὶ λεπτῇ Γενέσει καλουμένῃ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γυναικῶν τοῦ τε Καΐν καὶ τοῦ Σὴθ
ἡ βίβλος περιέχει κ.τ.λ. Jerome Epist. 78 ad Fabiolam Mansio 18 (Vallarsi i.
488) speaking of the name of a place called Ressa (רִסָּה Numbers 33:21)
observes: Hoc verbum quantum memoria suggerit nusquam alibi in scripturis
sanctis apud Hebraeos invenisse me novi absque libro apocrypho qui a Graecis
λεπτή id est parva Genesis appellatur; ibi in aedificatione turris pro stadio
ponitur in quo exercentur pugiles et athletae et cursorum velocitas comprobatur.
Ibid. Mansio 24 (Vallarsi i. 485) speaking again of the name of a place called
Thare (תֶּרַח Numbers 33:27) observes: Hoc eodem vocabulo et iisdem literis
scriptum invenio patrem Abraham qui in supradicto apocrypho Geneseos volumine
abactis corvis qui hominum frumenta vastabant abactoris vel depulsoris sortitus
est nomen. In the Decretum Gelasii we find included among the Apocrypha a work
entitled Liber de filiabus Adae Leptogenesis (see Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons
p. 218. Rönsch. pp. 270 sq. 477 sq.). It may be conjectured that here we have an
erroneous combination of two titles belonging to two separate works. However we
can see from this as well as from the circumstance of their being a Latin
version of it that the book was also known in the West. On the indications of
its having been made use of by occidental writers see Rönsch pp. 322-382 passim.
Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 5: ὡς ἐν λεπτῇ φέρεται Γενέσει ἣν καὶ Μωϋσέως εἶναί
φασί τινες ἀποκάλυψιν. i. 7: ἐκ τῆς λεπτῆς Γενέσεως. i. 13: ἐκ τῶν λεπτῶν
Γενέσεως. i. 49: ἐν τῇ Μωϋσέως λεγομένῃ ἀποκαλύψει. i. 183: ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσίς
φησιν. i. 185: ὡς ἐν λεπτῇ κεῖται Γενέσει. i. 192: ὥς φησιν ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις. i.
203: ἐν λεπτῇ Γενέσει φέρεται. Cedrenus ed. Bekker i. 6: καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς λεπτῆς
Γενέσεως. i. 9: ὡς ἐν λεπτῇ φέρεται Γενέσει ἣν καὶ Μωσέως εἶναί φασί τινες
ἀποκάλυψιν. i. 16: ὡς ἡ λεπτὴ Μωσέως Γένεσίς φησιν. i. 48: ὡς ἐπὶ τῇ λεπτῇ
κεῖται Γενέσει. i. 53: ἐν τῇ λεπτῇ Γενέσει κεῖται. i. 85: ἐν τῇ λεπτῇ Γενέσει
κεῖται. Zonoras ed. Pinder (given in common with the two foregoing in the Boun
edition of the Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae) vol. i. p. 18: ἐν τῇ
λεπτῇ Γενέσει. Glycas ed. Bekker (also given in the Bonn collection) p. 198: ἡ
λεγομένη λεπτὴ Γένεσις. P. 206: ἡ δὲ λεπτὴ Γένεσις λέγει. P. 392: ἡ δὲ λεγομένη
λεπτὴ Γένεσις οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅθεν συγγραφεῖσα καὶ ὅπως φησίν. The literature of our
book is enumerated and considered at some length by Rönsch in Das Buch der
Jubiläen pp. 422-439. Texts: Kufâlê sive Liber Jubilaeorum aethiopice ad duorum
libror. manuscr. fidem primum ed. Dillmann Kiel 1859. Dillmann Das Buch der
Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis aus dem Aethiopischen übersetzt (Ewald’s
Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. vol. ii. 1850 pp. 230-256; vol. iii. 1851 pp.
1-96). Ceriani Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 1 (1861) pp. 15-54.
Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis unter Beifügungen des
revidirten Textes der in der Ambrosiana aufgefundenen lateinischen Fragmente
etc. etc. erläutert untersucht und herausgegeben Leipzig 1874. Special
disquisitions: Treuenfels Die kleine Genesis (Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients
1846 Nos. 1-6; comp. vol. for 1851 No. 15) which was written before the Ethiopic
text was discovered. Jellinek Ueber das Buch der Jubiläen und das Noach-Buch
Leipzig 1855 (reprinted from part 3 of the Bet ha-Midrasch). Beer Das Buch der
Jubiläen und sein Verhältniss zu den Midraschim Leipzig 1856. Idem Noch ein Wort
über das Buch der Jubiläen Leipzig 1857. Frankel Monatsschr. für Gesch. und
Wissensch. des Judenthums 1856 pp. 311-316 380-400. Dillmann Zeitschr. der
deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. xi. 1857 pp. 161-163. Krüger “Die Chronologie
im Buch der Jubiläen” (Zeitschr. der DMG. vol. xii. 1858 pp. 279-299). Langen
Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 84-102. Rubin Das Buch der Jubiläen oder
die kleine Genesis in’s Hebräische übersetzt mit einer Einleitung und mit Noten
versehen Wien Beck’s Univ.-Buchhandlung 1870. Ginsburg art. “Jubilees Book of”
in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissensch.
Theol. 1871 pp. 60-98. Idem Das Buch der Jubiläen Leipzig 1874. Hilgenfeld
Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1874 pp. 435-441. Drummond The Jewish Messiah
(1877) pp. 143-147. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A.T.’s § 571. Dillmann
Beiträge aus dem Buch der Jubiläen zur Kritik des Pentateuch-Textes
(Transactions of the Berlin Academy 1883 pp. 323-340). Idem in Herzog’s
Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 364 sq. 2. The Martyrdom of Isaiah An apocryphal work
containing an account of the martyrdom of Isaiah is repeatedly mentioned by
Origen. He simply calls it an ἀπόκρυφον tells us nothing of its contents beyond
the statement that Isaiah had been sawn asunder and plainly describes it as a
Jewish production. Again in the Constitutiones apostol. reference is made merely
in a general way to an Apocryphum Ἡσαΐου. On the other hand in the list of the
canon edited by Montfaucon Pitra and others there is a more precise mention of a
Ἡσαΐου ὅρασις (see p. 127). Epiphanius knows of an ἀναβατικὸν Ἡσαΐου which was
in use among the Archontics and the Hieracites. Jerome speaks of an Ascensio
Isaiae. It is extremely probable that these references are not all to one and
the same work that on the contrary Origen had in view a purely Jewish production
while the others referred to a Christian version of it or to some Christian work
quite independent of it. For there exists a Christian Apocryphum on Isaiah which
at all events is made up of a variety of elements though the oldest of them may
be pretty clearly seen to be a Jewish history of the martyrdom of Isaiah. This
Apocryphum like so many others has come down to us in its entirety only in an
Ethiopic version and was published for the first time by Laurence (1819). The
second half of it is likewise extant in an old Latin version which was printed
at Venice in 1522 but had long disappeared until it was brought to light again
by Gieseler (1832). This whole material accompanied with valuable disquisitions
and elucidations has been embodied in Dillmann’s edition (Ascensio Isaiae Lips.
1877). Lastly Gebhardt published (1878) a Greek text which however does not
profess to be the original book but an adaptation of it in the shape of a
Christian legend of the saints. The contents of the whole work as given in the
Ethiopic text are as follows: First part: the martyrdom (chaps. 1-5). Isaiah
intimates to Hezekiah the future impiety of his son Manasseh (chap. 1). After
Hezekiah’s death Manasseh as had been foretold abandons himself entirely to the
service of Satan in consequence of which Isaiah and those of his way of thinking
retire into solitude (chap. 2). Thereupon a certain person called Balkirah
complains to King Manasseh that Isaiah had been uttering prophecies against the
king and the people (chap. 3:1-12). As for Balkirah he had been incited to this
hostility to Isaiah by Satan (Berial) who was angry at the former because he had
predicted the coming redemption by Christ. Here the writer takes occasion to
recount the whole history of Jesus and His Church as it had been foretold by
Isaiah and that from Christ’s incarnation down to the Neronic persecution (chap.
4:2) and the last judgment (3:13-4 fin.). In deference to the clamours for the
punishment of the prophet Manasseh orders him to be sawn asunder a martyr death
which he bears with singular firmness (chap. 5). Second part: the vision (chaps.
6-11). In the twentieth year of Hezekiah’s reign Isaiah sees the following
vision which he communicates to King Hezekiah and to Josab his own (the
prophet’s) son (chap. 6). An angel conducts the prophet first of all through the
firmament and throughout the whole six lower heavens and shows him all that was
to be seen in each of them (chaps. 7 and 8). At last they reach the seventh
heaven where Isaiah sees all the righteous that have died from Adam downwards
and then he sees God the Lord Himself (chap. 9). After having heard God the
Father giving to his Son Jesus Christ His commission to descend into the world
Isaiah comes back again to the firmament accompanied by the angel (chap. 10).
Here there is revealed to him the future birth of Jesus Christ and the history
of His life upon earth down to His crucifixion and resurrection whereupon the
angel returns to the seventh heaven while Isaiah goes back to his earthly body
(chap. 11). This outline of the contents of our book will suffice to show that
here we have to do with two elements of a totally distinct and dissimilar
nature. There is no connection whatever between the vision and the martyrdom.
Not only so the vision is with singular awkwardness made to follow the martyrdom
which in the order of time it should of course have preceded. Nor does the
martyrdom again form one connected whole. Above all is the whole passage
3:13-5:1 which interrupts and disturbs the connection obviously to be regarded
as a later interpolation as is also the kindred passage in the second part
11:2-22. And lastly the introduction again has only an apparent connection with
what follows. On closer examination we find reason to suspect that in all
probability that introduction was inserted at some subsequent period. On the
strength of these facts Dillmann has propounded the following hypotheses
regarding the origin of our book. In the first place we are to distinguish two
elements that are independent of each other. (1) The account of the martyrdom of
Isaiah chaps. 2:1-3:12 and 5:2-14 which is of Jewish origin; and (2) the vision
of Isaiah chaps. 6-11 (exclusive of 11:2-22) which is of Christian origin. Then
we are to regard these two elements (3) as having been amalgamated by a
Christian who at the same time composed and inserted the introduction (chap. 1).
Lastly when the work had assumed this shape another Christian would afterwards
insert the two sections (chaps. 3:13-5:1 and 11:2-22). These conjectures may at
least be regarded as extremely probable. They are borne out not only by the
internal indications already referred to but by external testimony as well. In
the free version of the whole book edited by Gebhardt no trace is to be met with
of sections 3:13-5:1 and 11:2-22. Besides this latter section (11:2-22) does not
occur in the Latin version which as has been previously observed embraces only
chaps. 6-11. It is evident therefore that the sections in question must be later
interpolations. But the circumstance that the vision and the vision alone is all
that has come down to us in the Latin version goes to confirm the assumption
that this vision of itself originally formed an independent whole. By the ὅρασις
the ἀναβατικόν ascensio Isaiae mentioned by the Fathers we have therefore to
understand merely that visionary journey of Isaiah through the seven heavens
which had been composed by some Christian or another. In the case of Origen
however it is the Jewish account of the martyrdom of Isaiah (chaps. 2:1-3:12 and
5:2-14) that is in view. This latter is simply a legendary story composed for
the purpose of glorifying the prophet. It contains nothing of an apocalyptic
character and consequently does not belong to the category of prophetic
pseudepigraphs but to that of legendary works. The story of the sawing asunder
of Isaiah is mentioned by writers of so early a date as Justin Martyr Dial. c.
Tryph. chap. cxx.; Tertullian De patientia chap. xiv.; Scorpiace chap. viii.
(comp. ). It is probably this too that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
has in view in chap. xi. 37. In so far as it is probable that the reference here
is to our book so far have we at the same time a clue to the date of the
composition of that Epistle. Origen Epist. ad Africanum chap. ix. (de la Rue i.
19 sq.; Lommatzsch xvii. 51). With the view of proving that the Jewish
authorities had suppressed everything that represented them in an unfavourable
light some specimens of which have nevertheless come down to us in apocryphal
writings (ὧν τινα σώζεται ἐν ἀποκρύφοις) Origen proceeds as follows: Καὶ τσύτου
παράδειγμα δώσομεν τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἡσαΐαν ἱστορούμενα καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους
ἐπιστολῆς μαρτυρούμενα ἐν οὐδενὶ τῶν φανερῶν βιβλίων γεγραμμένα (here follows
the quotation Hebrews 11:37).… Σαφὲς δʼ ὅτι αἱ παραδόσεις λέγουσι πεπρίσθαι
Ἡσαΐαν τὸν προφήτην· καὶ ἔν τινι ἀποκρύφῳ τοῦτο φέρεται· ὅπερ τάχα ἐπίτηδες ὑπὸ
Ἰουδαίων ῥεραδιούργηται λέξεις τινὰς τὰς μὴ πρεπούσας παρεμβεβληκτόων τῇ γραφῇ
ἵνʼ ἡ ὅλη ἀπιστηθῇ. Origen Ad Matth. xiii. 57 (de la Rue iii. 465; Lommatzsch
iii. 49): Καὶ Ησαΐας δὲ πεπρίσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ ἱστόρηται· εἰ δέ τις οὐ προσίεται
τὴν ἱστορίαν διὰ τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποκρύφῳ Ἡσαΐα αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι πιστευσάτω τοῖς ἐν τῇ
πρὸς Ἑβραίους οὕτω γεγραμμένοις (Hebrews 11:37). Origen Ad Matth. xxiii. 37 (de
la Rue iii. 848; Lommatzsch iv. 237 sq.): Propterea videndum ne forte oporteat
ex libris secretioribus qui apud Judaeos feruntur ostendere verbum Christi et
non solum Christi sed etiam discipulorum ejus.… Fertur ergo in scripturis non
manifestis serratum esse Jesaiam etc. Origen In Jesaiam homil. i. 5 (de la Rue
108; Lommatzsch xiii. 245 sq.): Ajunt [Judaei] ideo Isaiam esse sectum a populo
quasi legem praevaricantem et extra scripturas annuntiantem. Scriptura enim
dicit: “nemo videbit faciem meam et vivet.” Iste vero ait: “vidi Dominum
Sabaoth.” Moses ajunt non vidit et tu vidisti? Et propter hoc eum secuerunt et
condemnaverunt eum ut impium. And this is precisely as the affair is represented
in our book chap. iii. 8 sqq. Epiphanius Haer. xl. 2 (speaking of the
Archontics): λαμβάνουσι δὲ λάβας ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀναβατικοῦ Ἡσαΐα ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν
ἀποκρύφων. Idem Haer. lxvii. 3: βούλεται δὲ [scil. Hierakas] τὴν τελείαν αὐτοῦ
σύστασιν ποιεῖσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀναβατικοῦ Ἡσαΐου δῆθεν ὡς ἐν τῷ ἀναβατικῷ λεγομένῳ
ἔλεγεν ἐκεῖσε (here follows a quotation which substantially coincides with a
passage in chap. ix. of our book). Jerome Comm. in Isaiam chap. lxiv. 3 [al.
lxiv. 4] (Vallarsi iv. 761): Ascensio enim Isaiae et apocalypsis Eliae hoc
habent testimonium namely the passage 1 Corinthians 2:9. With regard to the
Apocalypsis Eliae see p. 129. The passage actually occurs in the Latin text of
the Ascensio Isaiae. It is wanting however in the Ethiopic and so is obviously
an interpolation. Jerome Comm. in Isaiam chap. lvii. fin. (Vallarsi iv. 666):
Judaei … arbitrantur … Isaiam de sua prophetare morte quod serrandus sit a
Manasse serra lignea quae apud eos certissima traditio est. On the patristic
quotations comp. also Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1086-1100. The
Ethiopic text was published by Laurence accompanied with a Latin and English
version (Ascensio Isaiae vatis opusculum pseudepigraphum cum versione Latina
Anglicanaque publici juris factum Oxoniae 1819). Mai (Scriptorum veterum nova
collectio vol. iii. 2 1828 p. 238 sq.) published two fragments of an old Latin
version viz. chaps. ii. 14-iii. 13 and vii. 1-19 without being aware that they
formed part of our Apocryphum. After Niebuhr had discovered the source from
which they came they were fully discussed by Nitzsch (Stud. u. Krit. 1830 p. 209
sqq.). The old Latin version of the Visio (chaps. vi.-xi. of the Ethiopic text)
which had been printed at Venice in 1522 and had then disappeared for a long
time was found again and reprinted by Gieseler in a Göttingen program (Vetus
translatio latina visionis Jesaiae etc. Götting. 1832). The Latin version of
Laurence accompanied with the old Latin texts was also reprinted by Gfrörer
Prophetae veteres pseudepigraphi Stuttg. 1840. A German version of those texts
was published by Jolowicz (Die Himmelfahrt und Vision des Propheten Jesaja aus
dem Aethopischen [or as it should rather have been? aus Laurence lateinischer
Uebersetzung] und Lateinischen in’s Deutsche übersetzt Leipzig 1854). A critical
edition of the Ethiopic text along with an amended translation and containing
also the old Latin versions was issued by Dillmann (Ascensio Isaiae Aethiopice
et Latine cum prolegomenis adnotationibus criticis et exegeticis additis
versionum Latinarum reliquiis edita Lips. 1877). Gebhardt published a Greek text
in which we have a free version of the whole book framed in the style of the
later Christian legends of the saints (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theologie
1878 pp. 330-353). Special disquisitions: Gesenius Commentar über den Jesaja
vol. i. 1821 p. 45 sqq. Nitzsch Stud. u. Krit. 1830 pp. 209-246. Gieseler
Göttinger Progr. 1832 (see above). Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils 1838 i. p.
65 sqq. A. G. Hoffmann art. “Jesajas” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Encycl. sec.
ii. vol. xv. (1838) pp. 387-390. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des
Johannes 2nd ed. 1852 pp. 274-302. Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1854 pp. 994-998. Reuss
Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments sec. 274. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes
Israel vii. 369-373. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 157-167.
Dillmann in his edition (1877). Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. 359
sq. Renan L’église chrétienne 1879) p. 528 sq. 3. The Lost Legendary Works In a
manner similar to that which we have just seen exemplified in the case of Isaiah
pretty nearly the whole of the prominent personages belonging to the hallowed
days of old were laid hold of by the legendary spirit for the purpose of
throwing around them a halo of glory. The plain narratives of Holy Scripture
were far too simple and unadorned to satisfy the tastes and the needs of later
times. A desire was manifested to know more about those men above all to know
something regarding them of a more piquant and edifying character than was
furnished by the canonical records. Accordingly we find that it is the lives of
the three great heroes Adam the progenitor of the human race Abraham the father
of Israel and Moses the great lawgiver that have been most elaborately
embellished by fictitious legends. And there are many other men of God besides
whose lives have been subjected to a similar treatment (comp. in general et
seq.). Then Christians have laid hold of the existing Jewish legends and
elaborated them with equal nay if possible with greater zeal. Consequently as in
the case of the Apocalypses so also here we often find it impossible to
distinguish with any certainty between what is Jewish and what is Christian. The
foundations of the legends themselves are in most cases undoubtedly Jewish. But
it is not improbable that the earliest writings of this class are also to be
ascribed to Jewish authors. This holds true above all of the three great
founders of new epochs Adam Abraham and Moses to whom therefore we will here
confine ourselves. 1. Books of Adam. A variety of tolerably voluminous Christian
works on the life of Adam have come down to us an Ethiopic one a Syriac one
another in Syriac and Arabic one in Greek and another in Latin. Although the
whole of these are unquestionably of Christian origin and although there is not
one of them that can be regarded as based upon a Jewish original still it is
probable that they have drawn upon Jewish material. A Jewish Book of Adam is
mentioned in the Talmud. The Constitutiones apostol. vi. 16 mention an
apocryphal Ἀδάμ along with the Apocrypha bearing the names of Moses Enoch and
Isaiah. Again in the list of the Apocrypha published by Montfaucon Pitra and
others Ἀδάμ finds a place among the rest of the Jewish Apocrypha (see p. 126).
Indeed at an early period there already existed Gnostic ἀποκαλύψεις τοῦ Ἀδάμ
(Epiphanius Haer. xxvi. 8). In the Decretum Gelasii there occurs a Liber qui
appellatur Poenitentia Adae (Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 219). Editions of
the Christian books of Adam: (1) Dillmann published a German translation of an
Ethiopic Book of Adam (Ewald’s Jabrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. vol. v. 1853 pp.
1-144). The Ethiopic text was published by Trumpp (Transactions of the Akademie
der Wissensch. of Münich philosopho-philol. department vol. xv. 1879-1881) and
an English version by Malan (Book of Adam and Eve also called the Conflict of
Adam and Eve with Satan translated from the Ethiopic London 1882). (2) Akin to
the above and if we are to believe Dillmann possessing a greater claim to
originality is a Syriac work entitled “the treasure hole” (i.e. the hole in
which the treasures of Paradise were kept) which as yet is known only through a
German version published by Bezold (Die Schatzhöhle aus dem syr. Texte dreier
unedirter Handschriften in’s Deutsche übersetzt Leipzig 1883). (3) Another
Syriac and Arabic work entitled “The Testament of Adam” has been published by
Renan in the Syriac text accompanied with a French translation (Journal
asiatique fifth series vol. ii. 1853 pp. 427-71). (4) Tischendorf published a
Greek Book of Adam under the title Apocalypsis Mosis (Apocalypses apocryphae
Lips. 1866) and which was also published by Ceriani (Monum. sacra et prof. v.
1). On this comp. p. 81. (5) Nearly allied to this Greek work in fact to some
extent identical with it is the Latin Vita Adae et Evae published by Wilh. Meyer
(Transactions of the Münich Academy philos.-philol. department vol. xiv. 1878).
Comp. in general Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1-94 ii. 1-43. Zunz
Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden 1832 p. 128 sq. (the Rabbinical
quotations here). Dukes in Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients 1849 coll. 76-78.
Comp. also ibid. 1850 pp. 705 sqq. 732 sqq. Lücke Einl. in die Offenbarung des
Johannes 2nd ed. p. 232. Hort art. “Adam Books of” in Smith and Wace’s
Dictionary of Christian Biography vol. i. 1877 pp. 34-39. Renan L’église
chrétienne (1879) p. 529 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 366 sq.
2. Abraham. A short apocryphal book of Ἀβραάμ (consisting of 300 verses) occurs
in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the Synopsis Athanasii (see p. 125). And as
in these lists it is found in the very heart of the Jewish Apocrypha it is of
course a different book from that of the ἀποκάλυψις Ἀβραάμ which was in use
among the Sethites (Epiphanius Haer. xxxix. 5). On the other hand it is no doubt
the former of these that Origen has in view in the case of those statements
regarding Abraham which he borrows from a certain apocryphal work. Origen In
Lucam homil. xxxv. init. (de la Rue iii. 973; Lommatzsch v. 217): Legimus si
tamen cui placet hujuscemodi scripturam recipere justitiae et iniquitatis
angelos super Abrahami salute et interitu disceptantes dum utraeque turmae suo
eum volunt coetui vendicare. Comp. also Lücke Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. p. 232;
and for the Abrahamic legend generally see ; and Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i.
pp. 341-428 ii. p. 81 sq. B. Beer Leben Abrahams nach Auffassung der jüdischen
Sage Leipzig 1859. 3. Moses and his time. The apocryphal literature regarding
Moses himself has been already considered at p. 80. But among the books
referring both to himself and his time there is still another work to be
mentioned the theme of which was a single episode in the lawgiver’s life we mean
the Book of Jannes and Jambres the two Egyptian magicians who according to
Exodus 7:8 sqq. wrought miracles before Pharaoh equal to those of Moses and
Aaron but were nevertheless beaten in the end. The names are not mentioned in
the Old Testament but they occur at a comparatively early date in the legends
and they were known not only in Jewish but in Gentile and Christian circles as
well as the names of the two famous Egyptian magicians in question. The
orthography fluctuates exceedingly. In the Greek texts the prevailing spelling
is Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς as in the Targum of Jonathan it is יניס וימבריס. In the
Talmud on the other hand we find יוחני וממרא (Jochane and Mamre) while in the
Latin texts the names are almost uniformly spelt Jannes (or Jamnes) et Mambres.
What the original spelling was it is difficult to determine. In any case the
names appear to be of Semitic origin (see Steiner in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii.
189; Riehm’s Wörterb. p. 665 sq.; Orelli in Herzog’s Real-Enc. vi. 478 sq.). The
book written about the magicians in question is mentioned by Origen and in the
Decretum Gelasii. As the name of Jannes was known even to so early a writer as
Pliny and as it is probable that those anonymous personages owed their name and
individuality first of all to the apocryphal book itself we may perhaps venture
to refer the date of the composition of this work to pre-Christian times. For
the Rabbinical passages referring to Jannes and Jambres see Buxtorf’s Lex.
Chald. col. 945-947. Schoettgen Horae hebr. note on 2 Timothy 3:8. Wetstein Nov.
Test. note on same passage. Levy Chald. Wörterb. i. 337. Idem Neuhebr. Wörterb.
ii. 226. The form יוחני וממרא is found in Menachoth lxxxv.a; יניס וימבריס in the
Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 1:15; Exodus 7:11; Numbers 22:22; and also יונוס
ויומברוס (Jonos and Jombros) in the Tanachuma and Sohar. Of heathen writers
Pliny and Apuleius are acquainted with Jannes while the neo-Platonist Numenius
knows both Jannes and Jambres. (1) Pliny Hist. Nat. xxx. 1. 11: Est et alia
magices factio a Mose et Janne et Lotape ac Judaeis pendens sed multis milibus
annorum post Zoroastren. (2) Apuleius Apolog. (or De magia) chap. xc. ed.
Hildebrand: Ego ille sim Carinondas vel Damigeron vel is Moses vel Jannes vel
Apollonius vel ipse Dardanus vel quicumque alius post Zoroastren et Hostanen
inter magos celebratus est. (3) Numenius in Eusebius Praep. evang. ix. 8: Τὰ δʼ
ἑξῆς Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς Αἰγύπτιοι ἱερογραμματεῖς ἄνδρες οὐδένος ἥττους μαγεῦσαι
κριθέντες εἶναι ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίων ἐξελαυνομένων ἐξ Αἰγύπτου. Μουσαίῳ γοῦν τῷ Ἰουδαίων
ἐξηγησαμένῳ ἀνδρὶ γενομένῳ θεῷ εὔξασθαι δυνατωτάτῳ οί παραστῆναι ἀξιωθέντες ὑπὸ
τοῦ πλήθους τοῦ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων οὗτοι ἦσαν τῶν τε συμφορῶν ἃς ὁ Μουσαῖος ἐπῆγε τῇ
Αἰγύπτῳ τὰς νεανικωτάτας αὐτῶν ἐπιλύεσθαι ὤφθησαν δυνατοί. In view of this
passage Origen Contra Celsum iv. 51 says with regard to Numenius that: Ἐκτίθεται
καὶ τὴν περὶ Μωϋσέως καὶ Ἰαννοῦ καὶ Ἰαμβροῦ ἱστορίαν. Owing to the circumstance
that the term Μουσαῖος which is here used for Moses is precisely the same as
that employed by the Hellenist Artapan Freudenthal (Alexander Polyhistor. 1875
p. 173) is disposed to think that the story is borrowed from Artapan and that he
is the author of the legend. But this argument however cannot be regarded as
conclusive. Then the names of the magicians which in all probability are Semitic
seem rather to point to a Palestinian origin. Then passing within the pale of
Christianity the passage that first claims attention is 2 Timothy 3:8 : ὃν
τρόπον δὲ Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς ἀντέστησαν Μωϋσεῖ. Further among Greek authors we
may mention Evang. Nicodemi (= Acta Pilati) chap. v.; Constitut. apostol. viii.
1 and subsequent Fathers; but above all the hagiologist Palladius who relates in
his Historia Lausiaca (written about 420 A.D. see Fabricius-Hartes Bibl. graec.
x. 98 sqq.) that Macarius visited the κηποτάφιον which Jannes and Jambres had
erected for themselves and that he had an interview with the demons that had
their abode there (see the passage in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. ii. 106-111).
Latin writers: The Latin text of the Evang. Nicodemi (= Gesta Pilati) chap. v.;
Abdiae hist. apostol. vi. 15 (in Fabricius Cod. apocr. Nov. Test. i. 622).
Cyprian De unitate ecclesiae chap. xvi. The Latin translator of Origen in the
passages to be quoted below. The Decretum Gelasii (in Credner Zur Gesch. des
Kanon’s p. 220) and subsequent Fathers. The Latin writers as well as the Western
authorities for the text of 2 Timothy 3:8 (Cod. FG and the text of the Itala)
read Jannes (or Jamnes) et Mambres almost uniformly. See the various readings in
connection with 2 Timothy 3:8 in the critical editions of the New Testament;
also Thilo Cod. apocr. Nov. Test. p. 553 and the earlier literature given there.
As the Talmud adopts the spelling ממרא Westcott and Hort are warranted in
observing as they do in the note on 2 Timothy 3:8 in their edition of the New
Testament that “the Western text probably derived Μαμβρῆς from a Palestinian
source.” The Book of Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres) is mentioned: (1) By Origen
Ad Matth. xxvii. 9 (de la Rue iii. 916; Lommatzsch v. 29): Quod ait “sicut
Jannes et Mambres restiterunt Mosi” non invenitur in publicis scripturis sed in
libro secreto qui suprascribitur: Jannes et Mambres liber. (2) Again Origen Ad
Matth. xxiii. 37 (de la Rue iii. 848; Lommatzsch iv. 239) quotes 2 Timothy 3:8 :
“sicut Jannes et Mambres restiterunt Mosi sic et isti resistunt veritati” as
evidence that apocryphal writings are sometimes referred to in the New
Testament. Nec enim scimus in libris canonizatis historiam de Janne et Mambre
resistentibus Mosi. (3) It is also mentioned in the Decretum Gelasii (in Credner
Zur Gesch. des Kanon’s p. 220): Liber qui appellatur Poenitentia Jamnis et
Mambre apocryphus. Comp. in general: Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i.
813-825 ii. 105-111. Suicer Thesaurus under Ἰαννῆς. Wolf Curae philol. in Nov.
Test. note on 2 Timothy 3:8; and the commentaries generally on this passage. J.
G. Michaelis De Janne et Jambre famosis Aegyptiorum magis Hal. 1747 The lexicons
to the New Testament and the Bible Dictionaries of Winer Schenkel and Riehm.
Rud. Hofmann Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen (1851) p. 352 sq. Orelli in
Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vi. 478 sq. Dillmann ibid. xii. 365. Holtzmann Die
Pastoralbriefe (1880) p. 140 sq. Heath in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly
Statement 1881 pp. 311-317. Whatever other works based on Biblical legends were
in use in the early Church are either entirely unknown to us (such for example
as the Book of Λάμεχ quoted in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon
and Pitra see p. 126) or they may without hesitation be regarded as Christian
productions as for instance the history of Noria the wife of Noah (Epiph. Haer.
xxvi. 1) or the ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 16) or the history of
Asenath the wife of Joseph (according to Genesis 41:45) which are still extant
in various texts. What the Jewish substratum may have been in those instances it
is impossible to make out with any degree of certainty although there can
scarcely be a doubt that Jewish Books of Noah for example were once to be met
with. For further information regarding this whole literature consult Fabricius
Cod. pseudepigr. and Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 95: VII. BOOKS OF MAGIC AND MAGICAL SPELLS
========================================================================

VII. BOOKS OF MAGIC AND MAGICAL SPELLS By way of appendix to the above we may
here mention further a class of literary productions which lie on the extreme
confines of Jewish literature and which serve to show that the superstition that
had sprung from the soil of the heathen nature-religions also continued to
flourish with no little vigour among the people of Israel: we refer to the books
of magic and magic spells. In the ancient world these represented the popular
arts of healing. As even in our own day Christians are often met with who prefer
the quack doctor to the skilled physician so in the ancient world at least in
that part of it that was under the influence of the East there was often a
tendency to have recourse to the magician and the exorcist rather than to the
regular doctor in every sort of ailment. It is interesting in this connection to
hear for example what Celsus says about the Egyptians (in Origen Contra Cels.
viii. 58): “That some (higher) being or other controls things of even the most
trifling nature may be learnt from what is alleged by the Egyptians who tell us
that thirty-six (or as others affirm a good many more) demons or divinities of
the air have allotted among themselves the human body which is supposed to be
divided into a corresponding number of parts and that each has taken one of
these parts under his own peculiar charge. And they know the names of the demons
in their native tongue such as Chnumen and Chachumen and Knat and Sikat and Biu
and Eru and Erebui and Ramanor and Reinanoor or whatever else they may be
called. By invoking these they cure the ailments of the different members of the
body.” What Celsus here alleges with respect to the Egyptians is confirmed
mutatis mutandis by hundreds of testimonies in regard to the rest of the ancient
world as well. Magic and exorcism and that above all for curative purposes were
uncommonly popular and prevalent throughout the entire Roman Empire. Nor did the
Jewish people form an exception. We know from the Old and New Testaments as well
as from Josephus how extensively the various forms of magic prevailed also among
them. In later times Solomon was regarded as being above all the author of this
art (on the strength of 1 Kings 5:12-13). Josephus informs us that this monarch
composed and bequeathed to posterity certain incantations by means of which
demons could be restrained and so effectually expelled that they would never
re-enter the man again. By way of showing the efficacy of those incantations he
tells a very amusing story about a Jew of the name of Eleazar who on one
occasion and in presence of Vespasian and his sons and several Roman officers
drew out a demon through the demoniac’s nose by holding a magic ring under this
organ and repeating at the same time the incantations of Solomon forbade him
ever to enter again. At length to prove that the demon was actually expelled he
ordered this latter to overturn a vessel of water that was near at hand which
order was at once complied with (Joseph. Antt. viii. 2. 5). From the way in
which Josephus speaks of the Solomonic incantations we feel constrained to
assume that they must have been embodied in special books. Origen distinctly
alleges as much. Those books survived although only after having undergone a
variety of adaptations till far on into the Middle Ages. We still hear of one of
the name of Aaron being at the court of Manuel Comnenus and who was in
possession of a βίβλον Σολομώντειον by means of which whole legions of demons
could be exorcised. This literature also found its way into Christian circles.
The Decretum Gelasii knows of a Contradictio Salomonis while a Christian
Testamentum Salomonis is still extant. And it is through popular Christian works
of this sort that the knowledge of the efficacy of Solomon’s magic spells has
come down to more modern times and found its way into Goethe’s Faust (the
exorcising of the poodle: “Für solche halbe Hüllenbrut 1st Salomonis Schlüssel
gut”). Official Judaism did not of course quite approve of those books of magic
although the Babylonian Talmud itself is full of superstition. According to a
tradition which is found both in the Mishna and in certain Byzantine writers
(Suidas Glycas) we learn that the pious king Hezekiah ordered the suppression of
Solomon’s “Book of Cures” because the people trusted it so much that they
neglected to pray to God. On the subject of magic in the ancient world generally
an abundant store of material is to be found in Georgii’s art. “Magia” in
Pauly’s Real-Encyc. der class. Alterthumswissensch. iv. 1377-1418. On the same
among the Jews see the article “Zauberei” in the Bible dictionaries of Winer
Schenkel and Riehm. On this subject in Talmudic Judaism again see Brecher Das
Transcendentale Magie und magische Heilarten im Talmud Wien 1850. Joel Der
Aberglaube und die Stellung des Judenthums zu demselben 1st part Breslau 1881.
On Solomon see Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1032-1063. The Crypta
ubi Salomon daemones torquebat were still seen at Jerusalem by the pilgrim of
Bordeaux in the fourth century A.D. (Tobler Palaestinae descriptiones 1869 p.
3). Joseph. Antt. viii. 2. 5: Ἐπῳδάς τε συνταξάμενος αἶς παρηγορεῖται τὰ
νοσήματα τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων κατέλιπεν οἷς ἐνδούμενα τὰ δαιμόνια ὡς μηκέτʼ
ἐπανελθεῖν ἐκδιώκουσι κ.τ.λ. (here follows the story about Eleazar referred to
above). Origen Ad. Matth. xxvi. 63 (de la Rue iii. 910; Lommatzsch. v. 7):
Quaeret aliquis si convenit vel daemones adjurare; et qui respicit ad multos qui
talia facere ausi sunt dicet non sine ratione fieri hoc. Qui autem adspicit
Jesum imperantem daemonibus sed etiam potestatem dantem discipulis suis super
omnia daemonia et ut infirmitates sanarent dicet quoniam non est secundum
potestatem datam a Salvatore adjurare daemonia; Judaicum est enim. Hoc etsi
aliquando a nostris tale aliquid fiat simile fit ei quod a Salomone scriptis
adjurationibus solent daemones adjurari. Sed ipsi qui utuntur adjurationibus
illis aliquoties nec idoneis constitutis libris utuntur; quibusdam autem et de
Hebraeo acceptis adjurant daemonia. On the βίβλον Σολομώντειον of Aaron in the
time of Manuel Comnenus see the passage from Nicetas Choniates quoted in
Fabricus Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1037 sq. Decretum Gelasii (in Credner Zur Gesch.
des Kanons p. 224) § 61: Scriptura quae appellatur Contradictio Salomonis apocr.
Ibid. § 62: Philacteria omnia quae non angelorum ut illi confingunt sed daemonum
magis conscripta sunt nominibus apocr. The Christian Testamentum Salomonis was
published by Fleck Wissenschaftl. Reise durch Deutschland Italien etc. vol. ii.
3 (1837) pp. 111-140. Also in Fürst’s Orient vols. v. and vii. A German
translation was contributed by Bornemann (Zeitschr. für die histor. Theol. 1844
iii. pp. 9-56). Comp. also Bornemann Conjectanea in Salomonis Testamentum
(Biblische Studien von Geistlichen des Königr. Sachsen second year 1843 pp.
45-60 for fourth year 1846 pp. 28-69). With regard to the date of its
composition comp. the passage from Leontius as given in Fabricius Cod.
pseudepigr. i. 1063 sq. In how strange a manner Jewieh-Christian and heathen
elements were all mixed up with each other may be seen for example from two
Greek manuscripts containing magical treatises which were published by Parthey
(Transactions of the Berlin Academy 1865). Mishna Pesachim iv. 9: “Hezekiah
concealed the book of cures (גנז ספר רפואות) and the learned approved of this.”
Comp. the commentary of Maimonides on this in Surenhusius’s Mishna ii. 150 where
it is expressly stated that the tradition had in view Solomon’s Book of Cures.
Suidas (Lex. under Ἐζεκίας): Ἦν Σολομῶνι βίβλος ἰαμάτων πάθους παντός
ἐγκεκολαμμένη τῇ τοῦ ναοῦ φλιᾷ. Ταύτην ἐξεκόλαψεν Ἐζεκίας οὐ προσέχοντος τοῦ
λαοῦ τῷ θεῷ διὰ τὸ τὰς θεραπείας τῶν παθῶν ἐνθένδε τοὺς πάσχοντας αὐτοὺς
κομίζεσθαι περιορῶντας αἰτεῖν τὸν θεόν. Glycas in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i.
1042 sq.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 96: � 33. THE GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE
========================================================================

§ 33. THE GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE Preliminary Remarks. STILL more varied than
the Palestinian-Jewish is the Graeco-Jewish literature. Scriptural and Rabbinic
Judaism on the one hand Greek philosophers poets and historians on the other
form the factors through whose co-operation a literature of the most motley and
varied character sprang up upon the soil of the Jewish Dispersion; a literature
many-sided with respect not only to its forms but also to the standpoints taken
up by its authors and the objects they pursued. Hellenistic Judaism and its
literature partake of the general intellectual and literary character of the
period viz. of that Alexandrino-Roman epoch of Greek literature during which the
latter left the soil of Greek nationality and became a universal
literature.[2412] For the nations of the Mediterranean region did not merely
assimilate Greek culture but also contributed on their part to the literary
productivity of the age. In all lands authors made their appearance whose Greek
education prepared them to participate in every kind of literary effort and
whose co-operation imparted to Greek literature a cosmopolitan character;
cosmopolitan in the twofold respect of origin and effect. The tide of the mental
acquisitions of the East now flowed in increasingly upon Greek literature.
Religion and philosophy received thence fresh impulses poets and historians
fresh material. And on the other hand the effect aimed at was also cosmopolitan
for they who now took pen in hand wrote not only for the little nation of the
Greeks but for the educated classes throughout the world. [2412] On its
characteristics comp. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdalexandr.
Religionsphilosophie i. 1-15. Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Literatur
vol. i. (4th edit. 1876) pp. 498-577. Volkmann art “Alexandriner” in Pauly’s
Real-Enc. i. 1 (2nd edit.) pp. 743-753 (where other literature is also given).
Nicolai Griech. Literaturgeschickte vol. ii. (1876) p. 80 sq. In this literary
productivity Hellenized Jews also took a part. And what has just been said
applies to them above all others viz. that they introduced a new element into
Greek literature. The religious knowledge of Israel which had hitherto been the
possession of only a small circle now brought its influence to bear in the
department of Greek literature. The religious faith of Israel its history and
its great and sacred past were depicted in the forms and with the means
furnished by the literary culture of the Greeks and thus made accessible to the
whole world. Such Jews wrote not only for their compatriots and co-religionists
but for the purpose of making known to all mankind the illustrious history of
Israel and its pre-eminent religious enlightenment. The connection between their
own national culture and that of the Greeks was of course in the case of the
Jews as well as of other Orientals no merely external one. Judaism and Hellenism
now really entered upon a process of mutual internal amalgamation.[2413] Judaism
which in its unyielding Pharisaic phase appears so rigidly exclusive proved
itself uncommonly pliable and accommodating upon the soil of Hellenism and
allowed a far-reaching influence to the ascendant Greek spirit. The Hellenistic
Jews were as unwilling as others to let themselves be deprived of that common
possession of the entire educated world the great poets philosophers and
historians of Greece. They too derived from the living spring of the Greek
classics that human culture which seemed to the ancient world the supreme good.
Under its influence however Judaism imperceptibly underwent a change. It
stripped itself of its particularistic character. It discovered that there were
true and Divine thoughts in the literature of the heathen world and appropriated
them it embraced all men as brethren and desired to lead all who were still
walking in darkness to the knowledge of the truth. [2413] On Hellenistic Judaism
in general comp. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung i. 15 sqq. Lutterbeck Die
neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe i. 99-120. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael
iii. 425-579. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 303 sqq. Siegfried Philo etc.
pp. 1-27. The same “Der jüdische Hellenismus” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol.
1875 pp. 465-489). But while the Jews were thus like other Orientals becoming
Greeks it was at the same time seen that Judaism was something very different
from the heathen religions. Its internal power of resistance was incomparably
greater than theirs. While the other Oriental religions were merged in the
general religious medley of the times Judaism maintained itself essentially
inviolate. It adhered strictly and firmly to the unity of the Godhead and the
repudiation of all images in worship and maintained the belief that God’s
dealings with mankind tend to a blissful end. Judaism by thus firmly adhering in
presence of the pressure exercised by Hellenism to that which formed its essence
proved the pre-eminence of its religious strength. The consciousness of this
pre-eminence impresses its character upon the Graeco-Jewish literature. It
pursues for the most part the practical aim of not only strengthening its
co-religionists and making them acquainted with their great past but also of
convincing its non-Jewish readers of the folly of heathenism and of persuading
them of the greatness of Israel’s history and of the futility of all attacks
upon that nation. Great part of it is therefore in the most comprehensive sense
apologetic. In the predominance of the practical aim it is akin to the
Palestinian. For as the latter has chiefly in view the strengthening and
reviving of fidelity to the law the Graeco-Jewish literature at least for the
most part pursues the object of inspiring the non-Jewish world with respect for
the people and the religion of Israel nay if possible of bringing them to
embrace the latter. The chief seat of Hellenistic Judaism and consequently of
Graeco-Jewish literature was Alexandria the capital of the Ptolemies which
through their exertions had been raised to the first rank as a place of
scholarship in the Hellenistic period. The means of culture afforded by the age
were here at disposal in a profusion not to be found elsewhere; while at the
same time Jews were nowhere else found living together in so great numbers out
of Palestine. Hence there was an inward necessity that Hellenic Judaism should
here reach its utmost prosperity and its literature be here chiefly cultivated.
But it would be a mistake to suppose that such pursuits were cultivated only in
Alexandria. They were indeed by no means specifically “Alexandrine” but the
common possession of Hellenistic that is extra-Palestinian Judaism in general.
Nay even in Palestine they found advocates although the Maccabean movement
opposed a strong barrier to the encroachments of this tendency.[2414] [2414]
Camp. on Hellenistic Judaism in Palestine especially Freudenthal Alexander
Polyhistor (1875) pp. 127-129. The diversity both in literary form and
theological standpoint of the works now to be discussed is chiefly dependent on
their greater adherence now to scriptural types now to Greek models. Between the
two extremes here mentioned however are found a great variety of productions
which it is difficult to subject to definite classification. The following
groups may perhaps be most fitly distinguished.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 97: I. TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
========================================================================

I. TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 1. The Septuagint The foundation of all
Judaeo-Hellenistic culture is the ancient anonymous Greek translation of the
Scriptures known by the name of the Septuagint (οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα septuaginta
interpretes) and preserved entire by the tradition of the Christian Church;
Hellenistic Judaism is as inconceivable without it as the evangelical Church of
Germany without Luther’s translation of the Bible.[2415] [2415] The name
“Septuagint” referred in the first place to the translation of the Peritateuch
but was afterwards transferred to the other books also. The single name must not
mislead us to the notion; that we have here to deal with a single work not only
the work of different authors but the work also of different times being
subsequently comprised under this name. The oldest part is the translation of
the Pentateuch of the origin of which the so-called Epistle of Aristeas gives a
detailed narrative. King Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (283-247 B.C.) was induced by
his librarian Demetrius Phalereus to have the laws of the Jews also translated
into Greek for his library. At his request the Jewish high priest Eleasar sent
him seventy-two able men six out of each tribe by whose labours the whole was
finished in seventy-two days (for particulars see No. VII). The historical
nature of this account embellished as it is by a multitude of graphic details is
now generally given up. The only question is whether the foundation of the
fictitious embellishment may not perhaps be some historical tradition the
essence of which was that the translation of the Jewish law into Greek was
projected by Ptolemy Philadelphus at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus.[2416]
This would in itself be very possible. For the learned and literary zeal of the
Ptolemies and especially of Ptolemy Philadelphus would certainly make it
conceivable that he should wish to incorporate the law of the Jews also in his
library. In favour of this view may also be cited the circumstance that the
Jewish philosopher Aristobulus in the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor relates
just what we have designated as the possible essence of the tradition without
betraying any acquaintance with the fictitious embellishments of the Epistle of
Aristeas which seems to show that he was following some tradition quite
independent of the said Epistle.[2417] It is however suspicious that according
to a very trustworthy account Demetrius Phalereus did not live at the court of
Ptolemy at all but had already been banished by him from Alexandria immediately
after the death of Ptolemy Lagos.[2418] Thus the supposed essence of the
tradition also falls and there remains merely a bare possibility that the
Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch owes its origin to the literary efforts
of Ptolemy Philadephus. It is also as possible that it was called forth by the
exigencies of the Jews themselves. For Jews who had at heart the maintenance of
an acquaintance with the law even among the Dispersion observing that the
knowledge of the sacred language was more and more decreasing and that the Jews
of the Dispersion were appropriating Greek as their mother tongue might feel
themselves induced to translate the law into Greek for the purpose of preserving
the knowledge of it among Greek Jews also. This translation having been in the
first place undertaken as a private labour gradually obtained official validity
also. But obscure as is the origin of the translation it may be safely admitted
on internal grounds that its locality was Alexandria and its date the third
century before Christ for the Hellenist Demetrius who wrote in the time of
Ptolemy IV. (222-205) certainly made use of it (see below No. III.). [2416] So
e.g. Wellhausen in his revision of Bleek’s Einleitung in das Alts Testament (4th
ed. 1878) p. 571 sqq. [2417] The passage from Aristobulus is given in Euseb.
Praep. evang. xiii. 12 1-2 (ed. Gaisford). Aristobulus is here speaking of the
fact that Plato was already acquainted with the Jewish legislation. To show the
possibility of this be asserts that its virtual contents had been translated
into Greek before Demetrius Phalereus. Then he continues: Ἡ δʼ ὅλη ἑρμηνεία τῶν
διὰ τοῦ νόμου πάντων ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ
προγόνου προσενεγκαμένου μείζονα φιλοτιμίαν Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως
πραγματευσαμένου τὰ περὶ τούτων. [2418] The authority for this is Hermippus
Callimachus who lived under Ptolemy III. and IV. See the passage from Diogenes
Laert. v. 78 in Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 47 and in the same work p. 48
the discussions on the credibility of the information. The preceding remarks
apply only to the translation of the Pentateuch to which alone the Aristeas
legend refers. But after the sacred Thorah had once been made accessible to
Hellenistic Jews the need of possessing the rest of the Scriptures in the Greek
tongue was gradually experienced. Hence translations first of the prophets and
afterwards of the Hagiographa followed. These too chiefly originated in Egypt.
Some of the Hagiographa such as the Book of Daniel and some of the psalms not
having been composed till the era of the Maccabees the Greek translations of
these more recent Hagiographa cannot have been made earlier than about the
middle of the second century before Christ. It seems however that in fact the
translations into Greek of the. bulk of the Hagiographa together with the
prophets were at about this time already in existence. Sirach the grandson of
Jesus who came to Egypt in the year 132 excuses the defects of his translation
by the fact that what is said in Hebrew does not retain the same meaning when
translated into another language which is he says the case not only in his work
but also in the Law and the Prophets and the other Scriptures (Wisdom Prolog.:
οὐ γὰρ ἰσοδυναμεῖ αὐτὰ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑβραϊστὶ λεγόμενα καὶ ὅταν μεταχθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν
γλῶσσαν· οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ
τῶν βιβλίων οὐ μικρὰν ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λεγόμενα). Hence he evidently
was already acquainted with a translation of the Prophets and the “other
Scriptures.” The Septuagint translation of Chronicles was certainly known to
Eupolemus who wrote about the middle of the second century before Christ (see
below paragraph 3 and Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor p. 119); that of the Book
of Job to the historian Aristeas whose date it must be admitted is not exactly
known but who being quoted by Alexander Polyhistor must have lived at latest in
the first half of the first century before Christ (see below No. III. and
Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor p. 139).[2419] [2419] Grätz insists on utterly
insufficient grounds on transposing the translation of Job to the first century
after Christ (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums 1877 pp.
83-91). After what has been said no further proof of all these translations
being of Jewish origin is needed. The character of the translation differs
widely in the different books being now tolerably free now helplessly verbal but
chiefly the latter. As yet a precise investigation has been made only of
individual books. A special difficulty in such investigation lies in the fact
that it is often necessary to reconstruct the Hebrew text which must have been
in the hands of the translators. In one point however all these works are alike
viz. in the barbarous Greek produced under the influence of the Hebrew
originals. Quite a new language swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek
could not understand it is here created. Not to mention the imitation of Hebrew
constructions many Greek words which correspond to one meaning of a Hebrew word
are without further ceremony made equivalent to the whole extent of the meanings
comprised in the Hebrew word and thus significations are forced upon words which
they do not at all possess in Greek (e.g. the words δόξα εἰρήνη and many
others). How far colloquial intercourse with Hellenized Jews may have
anticipated the labours of the translators cannot be determined. It is probable
that an alternative action here took place. Much which the translators ventured
upon was already found by them in colloquial language. But then the reaction
upon the development of Judaic Greek exercised by a translation which came into
general use would at the least be quite as great. For the translations in
question were not only combined into a whole but were also universally accepted
by the Jews of the Dispersion as their text of Scripture. The oldest Hellenists
Demetrius and Eupolemus in their compilations of Scripture history rely solely
upon the Septuagint; Philo throughout assumes it Josephus does so for the most
part. With Philo the text of the Septuagint is so far a sacred text that he
argues from its casual details nay not only did this translation universally
penetrate into private use but it was also used as Holy Scripture in the
synagogue service (see ). It was then transferred from the hands of the Jews to
the Christian Church and regarded by it as the authentic text of Scripture. But
the very circumstance of the Christian Church taking possession of this
translation and deriving thence its polemical weapons in its conflict with the
Jews gradually co-operated in bringing the Septuagint into discredit with them
and in giving rise to new Jewish translations especially that of Aquila which in
the time of Origen stood in higher respect with the Jews than did the
Septuagint. The text of the Septuagint has come down to us solely by the
tradition of the Christian Church. In its history the learned labours of Origen
which finally—and not without his own fault—led to a base corruption of the text
are epoch-making Origen on account of the uncertainty of the Septuagint text and
its great deviations from the Hebrew prepared a large edition of the Bible in
which were written in six adjacent columns: (1) The Hebrew text in Hebrew
characters; (2) the Hebrew text in Greek characters; (3) the translation of
Aquila; (4) that of Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; (6) the translation of
Theodotion and indeed in this order (see Hieronymus Comment. in Tit. iii. 9
[Opp. ed. Vallarsi vii. 1. 734]; Epiphan. de mensuris et ponderibus § 19 and the
other evidences in Field Origenis hexaplorum guae supersunt prolegom. p. 50).
This was to lay a sure foundation for learned Scripture exegesis and especially
for learned controversy against the Jews who often reproached Christians with
their ignorance of the genuine text of Scripture (see on the motive and object
of his undertaking Origen Comment. in Matth. vol. xv. c. xiv.; epist. ad
African. § 5). The work affording a sixfold Scripture text was called the
Hexapla. Origen also prepared another edition without the two Hebrew columns
which was called the Tetrapla (Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 16). On the other hand it
was also called Octapla because in certain books of the Old Testament two
anonymous Greek translations were added to the above-named six texts (Epiphain.
de mensuris et ponderibus § 19; Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 16. Comp. on the whole
work the Prolegomena in Field Origenis Hexaplorum guae supersunt 2 vols. Oxonii
1875 and the Introductions to the Old Test of e.g. De Wette-Schrader § 56;
Bleek-Wellhausen § 282). The fatal circumstance was that Origen was not content
with placing the text of the Septuagint in juxtaposition with the others but to
facilitate its use noted is the Septuagint text itself the deviations from tke
Hebrew by (a) furnishing such words sentences or paragraphs as were missing in
the Hebrew with an obelus (the sign of erasure) and (b) by interpolating with
the addition of an asterisk from other translations and mostly from Theodotion
those found in the Hebrew and missing in the Septuagint (see his own remarks in
his Comment. in Matth vol. xv. c. xiv. [Lommatzsch iii. 357]: καί τινα αὲν
ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ έβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν· τινὰ δὲ
μετʼ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν. Hieronymus Praef. in vers. Paralipom. [ed.
Vallarsi ix. 1407 sq.]: sed quod majoris audaciae est in editione Septuaginta
Theodotionis editionem miscuit asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant et
virgulis quae ex superfluo videbantur apposita). He often proceeded also in a
similar manner with inaccurate translations of the LXX. “by adding with an
asterisk behind the obelized reading of the LXX. the parallel passages
corresponding with the Hebrew from another version” (Bleek-Wellhausen p. 586).
This text then especially copied from the Hexapla and often showing very
careless dealing with the critical marks being disseminated since Eusebius (see
Field Proleg. p. 99) a mass of such “hexaplarian” readings was introduced into
the traditional text of the Septuagint; the common text (κοινὴ ἔκδοσις) being
corrected by this hexaplarian one. The exclusion of hexaplarian additions is
therefore the chief task of Septuagint criticism; and this is still
approximately attainable for most of the books of the Old Testament the critical
notes of Origen being still extant partly in certain Greek manuscripts partly in
the Syriac translation of the hexaplarian Septuagint text (see Bleek-Wellhausen
Einl. in das A. T. pp. 593 588 sqq.). The inserted matter has been very
completely collected in Field Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum
interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta 2 vols. Oxonii 1875.
By the separation however from the hexaplarian text of the Septuagint of the
passages marked with an asterisk the original text is by no means obtained. The
MSS. already varied very much in the time of Origen (see Comment. in Matth. vol.
xv. c. xiv. ed. Lommatzsch iii. 357). Origen first compiled from them a text for
himself and then quietly altered according to the Hebrew many particulars in it
which could not be made known by obelus or asterisk (Field p. 60 sqq.). Hence
such a proceeding will only obtain the Recension of Origen. Others besides
Origen have occupied themselves with learned labours upon the text of the
Septuagint. We know especially of two other recensions those of Hesychius and
Lucianus; the former of these was disseminated in Egypt the latter from Antioch
to Constantinople (Hieronymus praef. in vers. Paralipom. ed Vallarsi ix. 1405
sq.: Alexandria et Egypta in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem.
Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae
inter has provinciae Palestinos codices legunt quos ab Origine elaboratos
Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria
varietate compugnat). Hesychius is perhaps identical with the Egyptian bishop of
this name who suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Maximinus 312 (Euseb.
Hist. eccl. viii. 13. 7). No particulars are known concerning the nature of his
recension. Lucianus was the noted presbyter of Antioch who also suffered
martyrdom in the persecution of Maximinus 312 (Euseb. Hist. eccl. viii. 13.2 ix.
6.3). His recension was an emendation of the Septuagint according to the Hebrew
with the help of other Greek translations (Suidas Lex. s.v.: Λουκιανὸς ὁ μάρτυς·
αὐτὸς ἁπάσας [scil. τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους] ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος αὐτὰς
ἐπανενεώσατο γλώττης ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἠκριβωκὼς ἐς τὰ μάλιστα ἦν). Comp. Field
Proleg. cap. ix. Harnack in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. viii. 767 sqq. on
“Hesychius and Lucianus.” Also the Introductions to the Old Testament e.g. De
Wette-Schrader § 57; Bleek-Wellhausen § 283. According to the recent
investigations of Field and Lagarde (see Theol. Litztg. 1876 p. 605) the
recension of Lucianus is still preserved in several MSS. Lagarde has edited the
text according to these (one volume has as yet appeared Librorum Veteris
Testamenti canonicorum pars 1 graece edita Götting. 1883). The labours however
of Hesychius and Lucianus have but contributed to further confusion in the text
of the Septuagint. For the text of the κοινή is now not only mixed up with the
Hexapla text but also with those of Hesychius and Lucianus and the former having
been even in the text of Origen very uncertain there is no longer any prospect
of a certain recovery of the original text of the Septuagint. It is true that
being still acquainted with the chief recensions we are in a position safely to
pronounce judgment as to which of the MSS. is comparatively freest from the
peculiarities of these recensions and therefore represents with the greatest
comparative purity the original text. The old Latin texts also furnish important
assistance. Among those Greek manuscripts which contain the whole Old Testament
or at least a great part of it the Vaticanus (1209) is acknowledged to hold the
first rank with respect to the purity of the text. Its text has been ostensibly
published by Mai (Vetus et Novum Testamentum ex antiquissimo codice Vaticano 5
vols. Rome 1857). His edition is however very untrustworthy. More accurate is
the new Roman édition de luxe in facsimile type (Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus
codex Vaticanus edd. Vercellone and Cozza 6 vols. Rom 1868-1881 price of each
vol. £6; comp. also Theol. Litztg. 1882 p. 121). Next to the Vaticanus must be
mentioned the Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in the year 1859 of which
about half of the Old Testament has been preserved. Edition de luxe Bibliorum
Codex Sinaticus Petropolitanus ed. Tischendorf 4 vols. Petersburg 1862.
Tischendorf had previously discovered a smaller portion of this manuscript and
published it under the title of Frederico-Augustanus (Codex Frederico-Augustanus
ed. Tischendorf Lips. 1846).—The Alexandrinus which is already much infected by
hexaplarian readings ranks third among these great Bible manuscripts. It forms
the foundation of Grabe’s edition of the Septuagint. The Vetus Testamentum
Graecum e Codice MS. Alexandrino cura Henrici Herveii Baber 3 vols. London
1812-1826 gives the text of the MS. itself. Recently an edition has been
prepared in photo-lithographic facsimile of which the portion comprising the New
Testament has been first issued (Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus New
Testament and Clementine Epistles published by order of the Trustees London
1879; comp. Theol. Litztg. 1880 p. 230).—The Old Testament appeared in 3 vols.
1881 sqq. Comp. also on the manuscripts the Prolegomena of the editions
especially Holmes-Parsons and Tischendorf. The publications of Tischendorf
(Monumenta sacra inedita) and Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana) contain much
material. Bibliographical information concerning the numerous editions of the
Septuagint will be found in Le Long Bibliotheca sacra ed. Masch. vol. ii. 2 1781
pp. 262-304 Fabricius Bibliotheca graeca ed. Harles iii. 673 sqq. Rosenmüller
Handbuch für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese vol. ii. 1798 pp.
279-322. Winer Handbuch der Theol. Literatur i. 47 sq. Frankel Vorstudien zu der
Septuaginta 1841 pp. 242-252. Tischendorf Prolegomena to his edition. De
Wette-Schrader Einleitung in das A. T. § 58. All the editions fall back upon the
following four chief editions: (1) The Complutensian Polyglot 6 vols. in
Complutensi universitate 1514-1517. (2) The Aldina Sacrae Scripturae Veteris
Novaeque omnia Venice 1518. (3) The Roman or Sixtine edition Vetus Testamentum
juxta Septuaginta ex auctoritate Sixti V. Pont. Max. editum Rome 1587. The text
of this edition is relatively the best among the printed texts conforming as it
does frequently though by no means entirely to the Vaticanus 1209. Since the
majority of the more recent editions reproduce this Sixtine text the printed
common text is a relatively good one. (4) Grabe’s edition Septuaginta
Interpretum vols. i.-iv. ed. Grabe Oxonii 1707-1720. It chiefly follows the
Codex Alexandrinus. Of recent editions the most important is Vetus Testamentum
Graecum edd. Holmes and Parsons 5 vols. Oxonii 1798-1827. The text is reproduced
from the Sixtine edition but accompanied by an unusually copious collection of
manuscript various readings. Though what is offered is not quite trustworthy and
rather confuses than instructs by its copiousness still this edition has the
merit of having for the first time brought forward the material furnished by the
MSS. in general (comp. Bleek and Wellhausen Einl. in das A. T. p. 592 sq.). The
manual edition of Tischendorf Vetus Testamontum Graece juxta LXX. interpretes 2
vols. Lips. 1850 2nd ed. 1880 also gives the Sixtine text with only unimportant
corrections. Nestle has added to the sixth edition a collatios of the Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus as well as of the Alexandrinus already collated by Tischendorf
(Veteris Testamenti Graeci codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum textu recepto
collati ab E. Nestle Lips. 1880). The literature on the Septuagint is almost
unbounded (comp. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. iii. 658 sqq. Rosenmüller Handb.
für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese ii. 395 sqq. De Wette-Schrader
Einl. in das A. T. § 51 sqq. Fritzsche in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2 vols. i. 280
sqq.). The chief work of earlier date is: Hody De bibliorum textibus
originalibus versionibus Graecis et Latina vulgata Oxon. 1705. Of recent times
may be mentioned: (1) On single books Thierseh De Pentateuchi versione
Alexandrina Erlang. 1841. Hollenberg Der Charakter der alexandrinischen
Uebersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth Moers 1876
(Gymnasialprogr.). Wichelhaus De Jeremiae versione Alexandrina Halis 1847.
Vollers Das Dodekapropheten der Alexandriner 1st half Berlin 1880. The same in
Stade’s Zeitschr. für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. vol. iii. 1883 pp. 219-272
vol. iv. 1884 pp. 1-20. Lagarde Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der
Proverbien Leipzig 1863. Bickell De indole ac ratione versionis Alex. in
interpretando libro Jobi Marb. 1863. (2) On the whole: Frankel Vorstudien zu der
Septuaginta Leipzig 1841. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 465 sqq.
534-556. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 322 sqq. Gfrörer Philo ii. 8-18.
Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religions-Philosophie ii. 1-72.
Fritzsche art. “Alexandrinische Uebersetzung des A. T.” in Herzog’s Real-Enc.
2nd ed. i. 280-290. The Introductions to the Old Testament of Eichhorn Bertholdt
Hävernick Keil and others especially De Wette Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einl. in
die kanon und apokr. Bücher des A. T. viii. edited by Schrader (1869) § 51-58.
Bleek Einleitung in das Alte Testament 4th ed. superintended by Wellhausen
(1878) pp. 571-598. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) §
436-439. 2. Aquila and Theodotion The Septuagint translation was indisputably
regarded as the sacred text of the Scriptures by Hellenistic Jews down to the
beginning of the second century after Christ. The period of its ascendancy is at
the same time that of the prime of Hellenistic Judaism. Subsequently to the
second century the latter entered upon a slow but continuous course of
retrogression which—to leave out of consideration the limits prescribed to the
encroachments of Judaism by political legislation—was mainly brought about by
the co-operation of two factors viz. the increased power of Rabbinic Judaism and
the victorious advance of Christianity. A significant symptom in this movement
was the new Greek translations of the Bible the object of which was to place in
the hand of Greek-speaking Jews a text in conformity with the authorized Hebrew
one. It is true that on the one hand the undertaking of such translations was a
proof of the still existing strength and importance of Hellenistic Judaism. On
the other hand however they show that Hebrew authority had now attained
acceptance and acknowledgment in a far stricter sense than formerly in the
region of Hellenistic Judaism. The Jews of the Dispersion were renouncing their
own culture and placing themselves under the guardianship of the Rabbins. These
translations are at the same time a monument in the history of the struggle
between Judaism and Christianity. They were to place in the hands of the Jews a
polemical weapon in their contest with Christian theologians who were making the
most of the very uncertain Septuagint text in their own cause (comp. especially
Justin Dial. c. Tryph. c. 68 s. fin. 71 and elsewhere). Of the three Greek
translations of the Bible which Origen placed in his Hexapla of the Septuagint
(Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion see above p. 164) only Aquila and Theodotion
will here engage our notice; for Symmachus was according to Euseb. Hist. eccl.
vi. 17 an Ebionite and therefore a Christian. Of Theodotion too it is not
certain whether he was a Jew. Aquila on the contrary is unanimously designated
as such and indeed as a proselyte. According to Irenaeus who is the first to
mention Aquila he was a Jewish proselyte of Pontus. The statement with respect
to his native land is by reason of its striking parallel with Acts 18:2 somewhat
suspicious though Epiphanius more precisely names Sinope in Pontus as his home.
On the other hand it seems certain—notwithstanding his thorough Knowledge of
Hebrew—that Aquila was a proselyts. For he is designated as such (עקילס הַגֵּר)
not only by all the Fathers but also in the Jerusalem Talmud and in Rabbinic
literature in general. Of the fables related of him by Epiphanius—that he was a
relation (πενθερίδης) of the Emperor Hadrian that he at first turned Christian
then was excluded from the Christian Church on account of his inclination to
astrology and became a Jew—thus much is credible that he lived in the time of
Hadrian. Rabbinical tradition also places him in the time of R. Elieser R.
Joshua and R. Akiba and thus in the first decades of the second century after
Christ. The aim of his translation was to imitate the Hebrew text as exactly as
possible so that he not only ventured upon the bold formation of a multitude of
new words for the purpose of obtaining Greek terms which should exactly
correspond with Hebrew ones but he slavishly rendered Hebrew particles by Greek
particles even when their meaning did not allow it (for proof of this see Field
and others). A noted example ridiculed by Jerome is that in the very first
sentence of Genesis he rendered the sign of the accusative אֵת by σύν (σὺν τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν). This attention to the most trifling detail may perhaps
be referred to the influence of Akiba whose pupil Aquila is said to have been.
Jerome often mentions a prima and secunda editio of Aquila. And the numerous
passages in which two different translations are referred to Aquila (collected
in Field) confirm the existence of two different editions of the work. On
account of its close accordance with the Hebrew text the work was at its first
appearance favoured by R. Elieser and R. Joshua the eminent Rabbinical
authorities and was as testified by Origen and also indirectly confirmed by
Justinian’s 146th Novella soon much preferred to the LXX. by Hellenistic Jews.
About a dozen passages are quoted from it in Rabbinic literature. The work as a
whole perished with Rabbinic Judaism. For what remains of it we are indebted to
its admission into Origen’s Hexapla. Numerous notices of Aquila’s translation
are preserved from the latter work some by quotations in Eusebius Jerome and
other Fathers who still made use of the original Hexapla in the library of
Pamphilus at Caesarea (Hieron. comment. in Tit. iii. 9 ed. Vallarsi vii. 1. 734)
some in marginal notes in the MSS. of the Hexaplarian Septuagint text. Irenaeus
iii. 21. 1 (in Greek in Eusebius H. E. v. 8. 10): ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασι τῶν νῦν
τολμώντων μεθερμηνεύειν τὴν γραφήν· “ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται
υἱόν” ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι
προσήλυτοι. Eusebius Demonstr. evang. vii. 1. 32 ed. Gaisford (p. 316 ed.
Paris): προσήλυτος δὲ ὁ Ἀκύλας ἦν οὐ φύσει Ἰουδαῖος. Epiphanius De mensuris et
ponderibus § 14 15. Hieronymus Epist. 57 ad Pammachium c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi
i. 316): Aquila autem proselytus et contentiosus interpres qui non solum verba
sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est jure projicitur a nobis.
Quis enim pro frumento et vino et oleo possit vel legere vel intelligere χεῦμα
ὀπωρισμόν σιλπνότητα quod nos possumus dicere fusionem pomationem et
splendentiam. Aut quia Hebraei non solum habent ἄρθρα sed et πρόαρθρα ille
κακοζήλως et syllabas interpretatur et literas dicitque σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν
τὴν γῆν quod Graeca et Latina lingua omnino non recipit. Jerome generally gives
a very favourable opinion of the accuracy and trustworthiness of Aquila. See
Epist. 32 ad Marcellam (Vallarsi i. 152) Comm. in Jesaj. xlix. 5 6 (Vallarsi iv.
564) Comm. in Hoseam ii. 16 17 (Vallarsi vi. 656). See the passages of Jerome in
which he mentions the prima and secunda editio of Aquila in Field Origenis
Hexaplae quae supersunt proleg. p. xxv. sq. Talmud jer. Megilla i. 11 fol. 71c:
תירגם עקילס הגר התורה לפני ר׳ אליעזר ולנפי ר׳ יהושע וקילסו אותו ואמרו לו
יָפיָפִיתָ מבני אדם “Aquila the proselyte translated the Thorah in the time of
R. Elieser and R. Joshua; and they praised him and said to him ‘Thou art the
fairest among the children of men’ ”(Psalms 45:3 with an allusion to the
translation of the Thorah into the Japhetic). Jer. Kiddushin i. 1 fol. 59a:
תירגם עקילס הגר לפני ר׳ עקיבה “Aquila the proselyte translated in the time of
Akiba” etc. Hieronymus Comment. in Jes. viii. 11 sqq. (Vallarsi iv. 122 sq.):
Akibas quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant. (Comp. .) A collection of
Rabbinical passages in which the translation of Aquila is quoted is already
given by Asariah de Rossi Meor Enajim c. 45; comp. also Wolf Biblioth. Hebraea
i. 958-960 iii. 890-894; Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden p. 82
sq.; and most exhaustively by Anger De Akila pp. 12-25. The name of Aquila is in
Rabbinical literature often distorted into אונקלוס (Onkelos); so also e.g. in
all the passages of the Tosefta see Zuckermandel’s edition Index s.v. אונקלס.
Origenes epist. ad African. c. 2: Ἀκύλας … φιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένος παρὰ
Ἰουδαίοις ἡρμηνευκέναι τὴν γραφήν· ᾧ μάλιστα εἰώθασιν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν Ἑβραίων
διάλεκτον χρῆσθαι ὡς πάντων μᾶλλον ἐπιτετευγμένῳ. It is mentioned in Justinian’s
Novella 146 that it was disputed among the Jews themselves whether the
Scriptures were to be read in Hebrew or Greek in the synagogue service.
Justinian directs that the latter shall not be hindered and as a Christian
emperor recommends in the first place the use of the Septuagint but permits also
the use of Aquila’s translation (which was thus manifestly preferred by the
Jews). The fragments are very completely collected in Field Origenis Hexaplorum
quae supersunt 2 vols. Oxonii 1875. The chief work formerly was Montfaucon
Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt 2 vols. Paris 1713. Freudenthal regards the
Septuagint translation of Ecclesiastes as the work of Aquila see Alexander
Polyhistor p. 65 note. The Literature: Hody De bibliorum textibus (1705) pp.
573-578. Montfaucon Hexapl. Orig. praelim. pp. 46-51. Fabricius Biolioth. graec.
ed. Harles iii. 690-692. Anger De Onkelo Chaldaico quem ferunt Pentateuchi
paraphraste et quid ei rationis intercedat cum Akila Graeco Veteris Testamenti
interprete Part I.: De Akila Lips. 1845. Field Proleg. pp. xvi.-xxvii. Arnold
art. “Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ii. 187 sq. Ewald Gesch.
des Volkes Israel vii. 386-390. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 62-64.
Grätz Gesch. der Juden iv. 2nd ed. p. 437 sqq. Lagarde Clementina (1865) p. 12
sqq. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte (1880) p. 43 sqq. Die Einleitungen
in’s Alte Testament von Eichhorn (4th ed.) i. 521-531; Bertholdt ii. 534-537;
Herbst i. 155-157; Keil (3rd ed.) p. 557 sq.; De Wette-Schrader § 55;
Bleek-Wellhausen § 281. It might appear questionable whether Theodotion who as
well as Symmachus is as a rule called an Ebionite by Jerome should be named here
at all. But Jerome elsewhere calls him a Jew and in a passage in which he
expresses himself most precisely states the former as only the opinion of some.
The other opinion viz. that Theodotion was a Jew and indeed a Jewish proselyte
is evidenced by Irenaeus and also by Epiphanius whose fictions (that Theodotion
was at first a Marcionite and then went over to Judaism) are not deserving of
credit. According to Irenaeus Theodotion was a native of Ephesus. Epiphanius
makes him a Marcionite and a native of Pontus. With regard to his date
Epiphanius who places him under Commodus (A.D. 180-192) is generally credited.
But the statements of Epiphanius are here untrustworthy. Nor must the
circumstance that Origen places Theodotion in the last place in his Hexapla
mislead us to the notion of his being the most recent of these translators of
Scripture.[2420] He is at all events a predecessor of Irenaeus and very probably
not more recent than Aquila for the use of his translation in the Shepherd of
Hermas has lately been raised to almost a certainty. The work of Theodotion
pursues in general the same object as that of Aquila viz. that of furnishing a
translation which should render the Hebrew text more accurately than is done by
the LXX. Theodotion however bases his work upon the LXX. correcting the latter
according to the Hebrew so that it can only be called a thorough revision of
this translation with which it is however in very close accordance. One
peculiarity of his work is that he transcribes Hebrew words into Greek without
translating them even more frequently than Aquila and Symmachus (Field gives a
list of all the known cases Proleg. p. 40 sq.). We have no evidence of the use
of this translation among the Jews. His translation of Daniel having been
received by the Christian Church and having therefore supplanted the original
Septuagint translation of Daniel in the Septuagint manuscripts has come down to
us complete (the latter is preserved in only one MS. a codex Chisianus).[2421]
For the rest numerous fragments of Theodotion have been preserved in the same
manner as those of Aquila. [2420] The order in the Hexapla is arranged simply
from the view-point of matter. Origen gives first the Hebrew text then Aquila
and Symmachus as most closely conforming to the Hebrew text then the LXX. and
after this Theodotion because his work was properly but a revision of the LXX.
[2421] In Theodotion’s version of Daniel the apocryphal additions are also
retained. From this Jerome translated them (see Opp. ed. Vallarsi. ix 1376.
1399). Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. liv. (Vallarsi ii. 893): Aquilae scilicet
Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionei et Symmachi ejusdem dogmatis. Idem
Comment. in Habak. iii. 11-13 (Vallarsi vi. 656): Theodotio autem vere quasi
pauper et Ebionita sed et Symmachus ejusdem dogmatis. pauperem sensum secuti
Judaice transtulerunt.… Isti Semichristiani Judaice transtulerunt et Judaeus
Aquila interpretatus est ut Christianus. Idem praef. in vers. Iob (Vallarsi ix.
1100): Judaeus Aquila Symmachus et Theodotio judaizantes haeretici. Elsewhere
however Jerome calls Theodotion simply a Jew see Epist. 112 ad Augustin. c. 19
(Vallarsi i. 752): hominis Judaei atque blasphemi. Jerome expresses himself most
precisely in the praef. comment. in Daniel (Vallarsi v. 619 sq.): Illud quoque
lectorem admoneo Danielem non juxta LXX. interpretes sed juxta Theodotionem
ecclesias legere qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit licet eum
quidam dicant Ebionitam qui altero genere Judaeus est. Irenaeus iii. 21. 1 (=
Euseb. H. E. v. 8. 10); see the passage above p. 171. Epiphanius De mensuris et
ponderibus § 17 18. As for the chronology the circumstance which is chiefly
decisive is that Theodotion was certainly the predecessor of Irenaeus. For the
latter not only expressly mentions him but also makes use of his translation of
Daniel (see Zahn art. “Irenaeus” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vii. 131). The
relation of Justin Martyr to Theodotion is doubtful. The text of the long
portion which he quotes from Daniel Dial. c. Tryph. c. xxxi. agrees indeed in
many minutiae with Theodotion in opposition to the Septuagint of the cod.
Chisianus and yet the use of the former cannot be inferred because the agreement
with the latter preponderates. See Credner Beiträge zur Einl. in die biblischen
Schriften vol. ii. (1838) pp. 253-274. In the Shepherd of Hermas Vis. iv. 2. 4
however use is freely made of Daniel 6:23 and that in a form which strikingly
agrees with Theodotion in opposition to the LXX. (see Hort in John Hopkins’
University Circular December 1884 and Harnack Theol. Litztg. 1885 p. 146). Hence
it can scarcely be doubted that he preceded Hermas. But perhaps he was also a
predecessor of Aquila for after the acceptance of Aquila’s translation by the
Hellenistic Jews forming as it does the first halting-place on the way to the
formation of a Greek translation of the Bible in strict conformity with the
Hebrew his would have been tolerably superfluous. This assumption will also
explain his disappearance from Jewish tradition. It is also worthy of remark
that Irenaeus names him before Aquila. Finally it may also be mentioned that in
the Revelation of St. John sentences and expressions from Daniel are used in a
form which accords more with Theodotion than the Septuagint (9:20 10:5 13:7
20:4. Comp. Salmon Introduction to the Study of the Books of the Old Testament
1885 pp. 654-668; and in accordance with it Harnack Theol. Litztg. 1885 p. 267).
It must however be confessed that the accordances are not of a kind to allow us
to infer with certainty an acquaintance with Theodotion’s work on the part of
the writer of the Apocalypse. On the relation of Theodotion to the Septuagint
Jerome says in his Comment. in Ecclesiastes ii. (Vallarsi iii. 396): Septuaginta
vero et Theodotio sicut in pluribus locis ita et in hoc quoque concordant (i.e.
in opposition to Aquila and Symmachus). The acceptance of Theodotion’s version
of Daniel by the Christian Church in place of the Septuagint is repeatedly
testified by Jerome see Contra Rufin. ii. 33 (Vallarsi ii. 527); praef. comment.
in Daniel (Vallarsi v. 619 sq.); praef. in version. Daniel (Vallarsi ix. 1361
sq.). The Literature: Hody De bibliorum textibus (1705) pp. 579-585. Montfaucon
Hexapl. Orig. praelim. pp. 56 57. Fabricius Bibliotheca graec. ed. Harles iii.
692-695. Field Orig. Hexapl. proleg. pp. xxxviii-xlii. Arnold art.
“Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ii. 188. Fürst in the
Literaturbl. des Orients 1848 p. 793. Credner as above. Zahn as above.
Supernatural Religion (complete edition 1879) ii. 210 sq. The Introductions to
the Old Testament of Eichhorn Bertholdt Herbst Keil De Wette-Schrader
Bleek-Well-hausen and others. The older literature in Fürst Biblioth. Judaica
iii. 420-422.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 98: II. REVISION AND COMPLETION OF SCRIPTURE LITERATURE
========================================================================

II. REVISION AND COMPLETION OF SCRIPTURE LITERATURE The work of Aquila and its
favourable reception on the part of the Hellenistic Jews prove that from about
the second century after Christ Hellenistic Judaism also kept strictly to the
text and canon of the Palestinians. This is confirmed by the expressions of
Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus. He here speaks of such component
parts of the canon as are missing in the Hebrew especially of the additions to
Daniel and Esther and the Books of Tobit and Judith as if they had never
belonged to the Jewish canon. He regards them as the exclusive possession of
Christians and says plainly that they are rejected by the Jews without making
any distinction between Greek and Hebrew Jews (Epist. ad African. c. 2 3 and
13). Hence the canon of the Palestinians was at that time absolutely valid among
the Jews of the Dispersion also. This was not the case in earlier times. The
Jews of the Dispersion indeed always possessed on the whole the same Scriptures
as those of Palestine. But in Palestine the canon attained a settled form about
the second century before Christ. Later works even when they appeared under the
name of sacred authorities and found approbation were no longer incorporated
therein. Among the Hellenistic Jews on the contrary the boundaries still
fluctuated for some centuries. A whole multitude of works originating in the
last two centuries before or even in the first after Christ were united by them
to the collection of the Holy Scriptures and among them some also which being
originally written in Hebrew and originating in Palestine did not become the
property of Hellenistic Judaism till they had been translated into Greek. We
have certainly no direct evidence of this fact. But the fact that the Christian
canon of the Old Testament was from the beginning of wider and more vacillating
extent than the Hebrew can only be explained by the circumstance that the
Christian Church received the canon in just this form from the hands of
Hellenistic Judaism. Hence the latter at the time of the founding of the
Christian Church had in its collection of Holy Scriptures those books which are
in the Protestant Church designated according to the precedent of Jerome as
“apocryphal” because they are absent from the Hebrew canon. One thing however
must not be forgotten that on the whole no settled boundary existed. It is in
accordance with this long maintained freedom in dealing with the canon that the
Hellenistic Jews allowed themselves a liberty of procedure with single works
longer than the Palestinians did. In the same manner as Palestinian Judaism had
formerly acted with respect to its literature did Hellenistic Judaism during our
period also freely handle and enrich by additions works already canonical in
Palestine. This treatment had as a rule the same motives and objects as the
legendary embellishment of more ancient sacred history. The only difference was
that in the case of books already canonical the legend was placed beside the
Scripture text while in that of books not as yet received into the canon it was
interpolated in the text itself. The majority of those books which though
admitted by the Hellenistic Jews into the collection of the Holy Scriptures
originally made no claim to be esteemed as such has therefore been treated of by
us elsewhere. We here group together only (1) the revisions and completions of
such books as had in their more ancient forms become canonical in Palestine
(Ezra Esther Daniel the Prayer of Manasseh [an addition to 2 Chronicles 33]) and
(2) certain books which from the first aspired to be regarded as Scripture and
which entered as such into the Hellenistic collection of the Scriptures (Baruch
the Epistle of Jeremiah). 1. The Greek Ezra Besides the Greek translation of the
Hebrew canonical Book of Ezra there is also a free Greek revision differing from
the canonical Ezra partly by transpositions partly by interpolations. The exact
relation between the two will appear from the following survey of the
composition of the Greek Ezra:— Chap. 1 = 2 Chronicles 35-36 : Restoration of
the temple worship under Josiah (639-609) and history of the successors of
Josiah down to the destruction of the temple (588). Chap. 2:1-14 = Ezra 1 :
Cyrus in the first year of his reign (537) permits the return of the exiles and
delivers up the sacred vessels. Chap. 2:15-25 = Ezra 4:7-24 : In consequence of
a complaint against the Jews Artaxerxes forbids (465-425) the continuance of the
rebuilding of (the temple and) the walls of Jerusalem. Chap. 3-5:66:
independent: Zerubbabel obtains the favour of Darius (521-485) and receives from
him permission for the return of the exiles. Chap. 5:7-70 = Ezra 2:1 to Ezra 4:5
: A list of those who returned with Zerubbabel the operations of Zerubbabel and
the interruption of the building of the temple in the time of Cyrus (536-529)
till the second year of Darius (520). Chap. 6-7 = Ezra 5-6 : Resumption and
completion of the rebuilding of the temple in the sixth year of Darius (516).
Chap. 8-9:36 = Ezra 7-10 : Return of Ezra with a train of exiles in the seventh
year of Artaxerxes (458); commencement of Ezra’s operations. Chap. 9:37-55 =
Nehemiah 7:73 to Nehemiah 8:13 : Public reading of the law by Ezra According to
this survey the reviser of the canonical Ezra took in hand the following
changes: 1. The portion chap. Ezra 4:7-24 of the canonical Ezra is removed to an
earlier place. 2. The portion chaps. Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 5:6 of the Greek Ezra is
interpolated from an unknown source. 3. The book opens with 2 Chronicles 35:1 to
2 Chronicles 36:4. Nehemiah 7:73 to Nehemiah 8:13 is added at the close. By the
two first-named operations the confusion partly begotten by the canonical Ezra
is considerably increased. For in this latter the portion chap. Ezra 4:6-23
stands out of place. It belongs to a much later period and treats not of the
interruption of the rebuilding of the temple but of an interruption in the
building of the walls. The editor of the Greek Ezra has indeed rescued this
passage from the connection in which it is incorrectly placed but only to
transpose it to a position if possible still more erroneous taking at the same
time the liberty of adding to it by way of completion the interruption of the
building of the temple. Not however contented with this he has also interpolated
the paragraph chaps. Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 5:6 which transposes us to the times of
Darius while subsequently (Ezra 5:7-17) the times of Cyrus are again spoken of.
Thus then the history goes directly backwards; first we have (Ezra 2:15-25)
Artaxerxes then (Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 5:6) Darius and lastly (Ezra 5:7-17) Cyrus.
And in the last-named portion we are told in the most unembarrassed manner that
Zerubbabel returned with the exiles in the time of Cyrus (comp. Ezra 5:8, 67-70)
while previously it was expressly stated that Zerubbabel received permission for
their return from the special favour of Darius. With respect to the documents
which were in the hands of our compiler only two things remain to be noticed: 1.
That he did not translate the canonical Ezra from the Hebrew (so Fritzsche and
most others) but compiled from the Septuagint (so rightly Keil Einl. 3rd ed. p.
704 sq.). 2. That he certainly discovered beforehand the portion chaps. 3-5:6
since it stands in direct opposition to the rest of the narrative. It seems to
be a Greek original and not a translation from the Hebrew. The object of the
whole compilation has been on the whole correctly expressed by Bertholdt (Einl.
iii. 1011): “He intended to compile from older works a history of the temple
from the last epoch of the legal worship to its rebuilding and the restoration
of the prescribed ritual therein.” Evidently however he meant to give also still
more concerning Nehemiah for the abrupt conclusion could not possibly have been
intentional. With respect to the date of the book all that can be said is that
it was already used by Josephus (Antt. xi. 1-5). Josephus in his account of the
restoration of the theocracy (Antt. xi. 1-5) entirely conforms to the course of
this Greek Ezra. For he brings what is contained in chaps. 2:15-25 and 3-5:6 of
this book into the same position and the same order i.e. interpolates it between
the first and second chapters of the canonical Ezra (Antt. xi. 2-3). In so doing
however he does not proceed without historical criticism for he simply changes
Artaxerxes who in the Greek Ezra is inserted in a quite impossible place into
Cambyses so as to restore the correct order: Cyrus Cambyses Darius. He removes
the further historical stumbling-block of the Greek Ezra of Cyrus reappearing
after Darius by doing away with Cyrus in this place and making the return of the
exiles first take place under Darius. This indeed restores the correct order of
the Persian kings but a narrative is thus concocted which differs still more
widely from actual history than that of the Greek Ezra itself. Apparently this
book was generally and from the first used in the Christian Church also. Clemens
Alex. Strom. i. 21. 124: Ἐνταῦθα Ζοροβάβελ σοφίᾳ νικήσας τοὺς ἀνταγωνιστὰς
τυγχάνει παρὰ Δαρείου ὠνησάμενος ἀνανέωσιν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ μετὰ Ἔσδρα εἰς τὴν
πατρῴαν γῆν ἀναζεύγνυσι (can only refer to chaps. iii. iv. of the Greek Ezra).
Origenes Comment. in Johann. vol. vi. c. 1 (Lommatzsch i. 174): Καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
Ἔσδρα χρόνους ὅτε νικᾷ ἡ ἀλήθεια τὸν οἶνον καὶ τὸν ἐχθρὸν βασιλέα καὶ τὰς
γυναῖκας ἀνοικοδομεῖται ὁ ναὸς τῷ θεῷ (comp. Esra graec. iv. 33 sqq.). Idem in
Josuam homil. ix. 10 (Lommatzsch xi. 100): et nos dicamus sicut in Esdra
scriptum est quia “a te domine est victoria et ego servus tuus benedictus es
deus veritatis” (Esra graec. iv. 59-60). Cyprian epist. lxxiv. 9: Et apud
Hesdram veritas vicit sicut scriptum est: “Veritas manet et invalescit in
aeternum et vivit et obtinet in saecula saeculorum” etc. (Esra graec. iv.
38-40). For numerous passages from later Fathers see Pohlmann Tüb. Theol.
Quartalschrift 1859 p. 263 sqq. In the authorized editions of the Vulgate the
book is placed in the Appendix to the Bible after the New Testament. The book is
sometimes entitled the first Book of Ezra (so the Greek MSS.: Ἔσδρας αʹ)
sometimes the third Book of Ezra the canonical Books of Ezra and Nehemiah being
reckoned the first and second (so Jerome [praef. in version. libr. Esrae ed.
Vallarsi ix. 1524: nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec
apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur] and especially the authorized
editions of the Vulgate). Among the Greek manuscripts the Vaticanus (called No.
2 in Fritzsche’s edition as well as by Holmes and Parsons) and the Alexandrinus
(No. 3) hold the first rank the book not being contained in the Sinaiticus. On
the editions see above pp. 10 and 11. Ancient translations: 1. The old Latin
preserved in two recensions one of which is found in the manuscripts and
editions of the Vulgate the other in the cod. Colbertinus 3703. Both texts in
Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. iii. (in the
Appendix after the New Testament corresponding to the position in the Vulgate).
On the relation of both to one another see Fritzsche Handb. i. 10. 2. The Syriac
on which comp. p. 11. This book is not contained in the large Milan Peshito
manuscripts. On the exegesis in general see p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget.
Handbuch zu den Apokryphen Part i. Leipzig 1851. Separate investigations:
[Trendelenburg] “On the apocryphal Esras” (Eichhorn’s Allg. Biblioth. der bibl.
Literatur vol. i. 1787 pp. 178-232). Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd-alex.
Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 116-125. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael i. 320 sqq. iii. 72 sqq. Treuenfels “Ueber das apokryphische Buch Esra”
(Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients 1850 Nos. 15-18 40-49). The same “Entstehung
des Esra apocryphus” (Fürst’s Orient 1851 Nos. 7-10). Pohlmann “Ueber das
Ansehen des apokryphischen dritten Buchs Esras” (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1859
pp. 257-275). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 163-167. Bissell “The First
Book of Esdras” (Bibliotheca sacra 1877 pp. 209-228; reprinted in Bissell The
Apocrypha of the Old Testament 1880 p. 62 sqq. Clark Edinburgh). The
Introductions of Eichhorn Bertholdt De Wette-Schrader Keil Reuss (see above p.
12). 2. Additions to Esther The canonical Book of Esther relates how a Jewish
virgin a foster-daughter of Mordecai was chosen for his wife by the Persian king
Ahasuerus (Xerxes); how Haman the prime minister of the king published a decree
in his name for the extirpation of all the Jews and was already making
preparations to hang Mordecai; how Mordecai however who had formerly saved the
king’s life was raised to great honour and Haman hanged on the gibbet destined
for Mordecai whereupon Mordecai by an edict promulgated in the king’s name
revoked the edict of Haman and gave permission to the Jews to destroy their
enemies; and finally how the Jewish feast of Purim was instituted for the
commemoration of this wonderful deliverance of the Jews. A multitude of passages
are interpolated in the Greek revision of the book e.g. the edict of Haman a
prayer of Mordecai and a prayer of Esther the edict of Mordecai and the like. In
these portions the spirit of the narrative is maintained and they present
nothing needing remark. There is no reason for adopting the view of a Hebrew
model (so e.g. Langen). According to the superscription of the Greek edition it
was the work of Lysimachus the son of Ptolemy of Jerusalem and was brought to
Egypt in the fourth year of King Ptolemy and Cleopatra by the priest Dositheus
and his son Ptolemy. Since no less than four Ptolemies had a Cleopatra to wife
the information even if it be regarded as trustworthy is not of much
chronological value. It is certain only that Josephus was already acquainted
with the Greek revision with the additions. Josephus in his reproduction of its
contents (Antt. xi. 6) has admitted also all the additions of the Greek
revision. Origenes Epist. ad African. c. 3 mentions these additions and
expressly names the most important; assuming as self-evident the canonicity of
the book in this form (the additions included). He also mentions De oratione c.
13 (Lommatzsch xvii. 134) the prayers of Mordecai and Esther inserted between
chaps. 4 and 5 and gives in the same work c. 14 (Lommatzsch xvii. 143) the first
words of both prayers. The Greek text is extant in two widely differing
recensions: (1) the common which is supported by the best manuscripts the
Vaticanus (No. 2) the Alexandrinus (No. 3) and the Sinaiticus (No. 10); and (2)
a much retouched one in codd. 19 93 108 (or more precisely 19 93a and 108b the
last two manuscripts containing both the common and the touched-up texts).
Langen thought he could prove that Josephus already had access to the latter.
But Josephus chiefly coincides with the common text (comp. e.g. the portion
Esther 2:21-23 = Joseph. Antt. xi. 6.4 which is entirely expunged from the
revised text the name of the eunuch Achrathaios Esther 4:5 = Joseph. Antt. xi.
6. 4 which is also absent in the revised text and other matters). It has also
been rendered very probable by recent investigations that the revised text is
derived from Lucianus (see above p. 165). If then one or two instances of
contact between Josephus and the revised text are really not accidental this
would only prove that the words in question were formerly found in the common
text also. Fritzsche published both texts at first separately (Ἐσθήρ duplicem
libri textum ed. O. F. Fritzsche Zurich 1848) then in his edition of the Libri
apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (1871). Comp. on the editions 10 above. Ancient
translations. 1. The Latin (a) The old Latin scording to a cod. Corbeiensis with
the various readings of two other manuscripts in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum
Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i. The beginning of the book according to the
same translation is also found in Bibliotheca Casinensis vol. i. (1873)
Florileg. pp. 287-289. On the character of the translation see Fritzsche Exeget.
Handb. i. 74 sq. (b) The translation of Jerome who in his translation of the
book from the Hebrew gives also a free Latin version of the Greek additions but
places them all at the end and marks them with the obelus (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix.
1581: Quae habentur in Hebraeo plena fide expressi. Haec autem quae sequuntur
scripta reperi in editione vulgata quae Graecorum lingua et teris continetur …
quod juxta consuetudinem nostram obelo id est veru praenotavimus). 2. The Syriac
translation see above p. 11. For the exegesis in general see above p. 11.
Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen Part i. Leipzig 1851.
The other literature: Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832) pp.
120-122. Langen “Die beiden griechischen Texte des Buches Esther” (Theol.
Quartalschr. 1860 pp. 244-272). The same Die deuterokanonischen Stücke des
Buches Esther Freiburg 1862. The introductory works of von Jahn Eichhorn
Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert
Reuss (see above p. 12). 3. Additions to Daniel The Greek text of the Book of
Daniel contains the followig additions: (a) The Prayer of Azariah and the
Thanksgiving of the Three Children in the Furnace. For when the three companions
of Daniel were cast into the furnace (Daniel 3) one of them Azariah who was also
called Abed-Nego first uttered a prayer for deliverance and when this was heard
all three joined in a song of praise. The words of both are given. (b) The
History of Susannah. A beautiful Jewess named Susannah the wife of Jehoiakim is
while bathing surprised by two lustful Jewish elders and then when she cries for
assistance slanderously accused by them of having committed adultery with a
youth. Upon the false witness of the elders Susannah is condemned to death but
saved by the wisdom of the youthful Daniel who procures a fresh investigation
and by a skilful examination convicts the elders of perjury. (c) The History of
Bel and the Dragon. Properly two independent narratives both of which are
intended to expose the worthlessness and imposture of idolatrous worship. In the
one we are told how King Cyrus (so Theodotion the king’s name not being
mentioned in the Septuagint text) was convinced by a clever contrivance of
Daniel that the image of Bel did not itself consume the food laid before it. In
the other how Daniel having fed the Dragon to whom divine honours were paid by
the Babylonians with cakes made of pitch fat and hair and so killed it was cast
into the den of lions and there miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk and
after seven days drawn out of the pit unhurt. Of these fragments only the first
(the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children) is properly speaking
a completion of the canonical Book of Daniel the two others having no internal
connection with it. In the text of Theodotion the History of Susannah stands at
the commencement of that book the History of Bel and the Dragon at its close.
This position is also evidenced by the Fathers (Hippolytus Julius Africanus and
Origen). Neither of the fragments gives occasion for assuming a Hebrew original.
The History of Susannah is even very certainly a Greek original as Julius
Africanus and Porphyry already showed from the play upon the words σχῖνος and
σχίζειν (vers. 54 55) πρῖνος and πρίειν (vers. 58 59) (African. epist. ad Origen
Porphyr. quoted by Jerome praef. comment. in Daniel ed. Vallarsi 619).[2422]
[2422] The Catholic apologists from Origen (Epist. ad African. c. vi. and xii.)
to Wiederholt (Theol. Quartalschr. 1869 pp. 290-321) have in vain endeavoured to
do away with the proof furnished by this play upon words. Specially copious
material is in existence for the history of the use and canonical validity of
these fragments in the Christian Church. Justin Martyr mentions Apol. i. Ananias
Azarias and Misael the three companions of Daniel. But it is not clear from his
brief notice of them whether he was also acquainted with the additions. Irenaeus
and Tertullian quote both the History of Susannah and that of Bel and the
Dragon. Irenaeus iv. 26. 3: audient eas quae sunt a Daniele propheta voces etc.
(comp. Susanna vers. 56 and 52 53 according to Theodotion). Idem iv. 5. 2: Quem
(Deum) et Daniel propheta cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex Persarum: “Quare non adoras
Bel?” annuntiavit dicens: “Quoniam” etc. Tertullian De corona c. iv. (Susanna).
Idem De idololatria c. xviii. (Bel and the Dragon); de jejunio c. vii. fin. (the
same). Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel deals also with the Greek
additions. The explanation of the History of Susannah (Opp. ed. Lagarde pp.
145-151) and a few notes on the Song of the Three Children (Lagarde p. 186
fragm. 122 p. 201 fragm. 138) are extant. It is evident from the beginning of
the notes on Susannah that Hippolytus read this portion as the commencement of
the Book of Daniel. See in general Bardenhewer Des heiligen Hippolytus von Rom
Commentar zum Buche Daniel Freiburg 1877; and Zahn Theol. Litztg. 1877 p. 495
sqq. Julius Africanus alone among the older Fathers disputes the canonicity of
these fragments. In his Epistola ad Origenem (printed in the editions of Origen
e.g. in Lommatzsch xvii. 17 sqq.) he calls Origen to account for appealing in a
disputation to the History of Susannah which is but a spurious addition to
Daniel: Θαυμάζω δὲ πῶς ἔλαθέ σε τὸ μέρος τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦτο κίβδηλον ὄν … ἥδε ἡ
περικοπὴ σὺν ἄλλαις δύο ταῖς ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει τῷ παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰλημμένῳ Δανιὴλ
οὐκ ἐμφέρεται. The last remark refers as appears from the reply of Origen to the
two pieces of Bel and of the Dragon. Hence Africanus read these at the close and
the History of Susannah at the beginning of the book. Origen in his reply
(Epistola ad Africanum) seeks to defend the genuineness and canonicity of these
pieces with a great amount of scholarship.[2423] In so doing he mentions not
only the History of Susannah and those of Bel and the Dragon but also the Prayer
of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children and indeed speaks of them as
standing in the midst of the text of Daniel remarking that all three were found
both in the LXX. and in the text of Theodotion (Epist. ad African. c. ii.). In
the tenth book of his Stromata he gives an exegesis of the History of Susannah
and that of Bel from which Jerome makes extracts in his commentary on Daniel
chaps. 13-14 (Hieron. Opp. ed. Vallarsi v. 730-736; also in Orig. Opp. ed.
Lommatzsch xvii. 70-75). All the fragments are elsewhere frequently quoted by
Origen and that according to the text of Theodotion. (1) Susannah Comm. in
Joann. vol. xx. c. 5 (Lommatzsch ii. 204); ibid. vol. xxviii. c. 4 (Lommatzsch
ii. 316); Comm. in Matth. series lat. c. 61 (Lommatzsch iv. 347); Comm. in
Epist. ad. Rom. lib. iv. c. 2 (Lommatzsch vi. 249); Fragm. in Genes. vol. iii.
c. iv. (Lommatzsch viii. 13); in Genes. homil. xv. 2 (Lommatzsch viii. 261); in
Josuam homil. xxii. 6 (Lommatzsch xi. 190); Selecta in Psalmos Psalms 36 (37)
homil. iv. 2 (Lommatzsch xii. 210); in Ezekiel homil. vi. 3 (Lommatzsch xiv.
82); Selecta in Ezek. c. 6 (Lommatzsch xiv. 196). Comp. especially with respect
to canonicity in Levit. homil. i. 1 (Lommatzsch ix. 173) against those who
adhere to the literal and historical sense of Scripture: sed tempus est nos
adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanctae Susannae vocibus quas illi quidem
repudiantes historiam Susannae de catalogo divinorum voluminum desecarunt. Nos
autem et suscipimus et opportune contra ipsos proferimus dicentes “Angustiae
mihi undique.” (2) Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Children: Comm. in
Matth. vol. xiii. c. 2 (Lommatzsch iii. 211); Comm. in Matth. series lat. c. 62
(Lommatzsch iv. 352); Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. i. c. 10 (Lommatzsch vi. 37);
ibid. lib. ii. c. 9 (Lommatzsch vi. 108); ibid. lib. vii. c. 1 (Lommatzsch vii.
87); De Oratione c. xiii. and xiv. (Lommatzsch xvii. 134 143). (3) Bel and the
Dragon: Exhortatio ad martyrium c. 33 (Lommatzsch xx. 278). [2423] Wetstein in
his separate edition of the letters (Julii Africani de historia Susannae
epistola ad Origenem et Origenis ad illum responsio ed. J. R Wetstenius Basil.
1674) incorrectly denies that Origen really desired to prove the canonicity of
these fragments. See on the contrary the Monitum in de la Rue and Lommatzsch.
Cyprian de dominica oratione c. 8 adduces the Song of the Three Children as a
standard example of publica et communis oratio. Comp. also De Lapsis c. 31. He
quotes the story of Bel ad Fortunatum c. 11; and Epist. lviii. 5. The Greek text
used by the Fathers since Irenaeus was that of Theodotion which has also passed
into the manuscripts and editions of the LXX. (see above p. 173). The genuine
Septuagint text of Daniel is preserved to us in only one manuscript a cod.
Chisianus; and after the previous labours of others (Bianchini and Vincentius de
Regibus see Theol. Litztg. 1877 p. 565) has been published for the first time by
Simon de Magistris (Daniel secundum LXX. ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum
editus e singulari Chisiano codice Rom. 1772). On this edition which is not free
from errors are based the more recent ones and also that of Hahn (Δανιὴλ κατὰ
τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα e cod. Chisiano ed. etc. H. A. Hahn Lips. 1845). Still more
incorrect is the text in part formed from Holmes and Parsons’ Apparatus of
Various Readings which Tischendorf has added to his edition of the Septuagint.
It is to Cozza (Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta Graeca et Latina ed.
Cozza pars iii. Romae 1877; comp. the notice of Gebhardt Theol. Litiztg. 1877 p.
565 sq.) that we are first indebted for a trustworthy impression of the MSS. The
Syriac translation of the hexaplarian LXX. text of which Daniel and other books
have been preserved in a Milan manuscript serves as a check and criticism of the
cod. Chisianus. The Book of Daniel from this translation has already been
published by Bugati (Daniel secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex Tetraplis
desumtam ex codice Syro-Estranghelo Bibliothecac Ambrosianae Syriace edidit etc.
Caj. Bugatus Mediol. 1788). A photo-lithographic copy of the whole manuscript
has been published by Ceriani (Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus
photolithographice editus Mediol. 1874 as vol. vii. of the Monum. sacra et
prof.). Fritzsche in his edition of the Apocrypha gives both the Greek texts
(LXX. and Theodotion) of Susannah Bel and the Dragon and the Septuagint only
with the various readings of Theodotion of the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of
the Three Children in which Theodotion has made but few alterations. Comp. on
the editions of the Greek text (i.e. of Theodotion) p. 10 above. Ancient
translations. A Vetus Latinus only fragmentary in Sabatier Biblior. sacror.
Latinae versiones antiguae vol. ii. The Greek original is Theodotion. Jerome has
likewise translated the Greek additions from Theodotion and admitted them marked
with the obelus into his translation of Daniel from the Hebrew. See his remarks
ed. Vallarsi ix. 1376 1399. On the editions of the Syriac common text see above
p. 11. The Syriac translation of the Story of Bel and the Dragon from a
collection of Midrashim is also found in Neubauer The Book of Tobit 1878 pp.
39-43. For the exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche
Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen Pt. i. Leipzig 1851. The other literature:
Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832) p. 122 sq. Delitzsch De
Habacuci prophetae vita atque aetate (Lips. 1842) pp. 23 sqq. 105 sqq. Frankel
Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1868 pp. 440-449 (on
Susannah). Wiederholt Theol. Quartalschr. 1869 pp. 287 sqq. 377 sqq. (History of
Susannah); 1871 p. 373 sqq. (Prayer of Azarias and Song of the Three Children);
1872 p. 554 sqq. (Bel and the Dragon). Rohling Das Buch des Propheten Daniel
1876. Brüll “Das apokryphische Susannabuch” (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und
Literatur Pt. iii. 1877 pp. 1-69; also separate). The Introductions of Jahn
Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen
Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12). 4. The Prayer of Manasseh In like manner as
the prayers of Mordecai and Esther were interpolated as supplements to the Book
of Esther and the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children to that
of Daniel so was a prayer of Manasseh in which the king in his captivity humbly
confesses his sin before God and prays for pardon composed as a completion of 2
Chronicles 33:12-13. There was the more occasion for the composition of such a
prayer since it is stated in 2 Chronicles 33:18-19 that the Prayer of Manasseh
is written in the history of the kings of Israel and in the Chronicle of Hosai.
The prayer stands in most manuscripts in the appendix to the Psalms where many
other similar fragments are collected (so e.g. in the cod. Alexandrinus). The
Prayer is first quoted in the Constitut. apostol. ii. 22 where it is given in
its literal entirety. For later Christian testimony to its canonicity see
Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 732 sq. In the authorized Romish
Vulgate it is in the appendix to the Bible after the New Testament (like 3 and 4
Ezra). The Latin translation which has passed into the Vulgate is “of quite
another kind from the usual old Latin and is certainly of more recent origin”
(Fritzsche i. 159). Sabatier has compared three manuscripts for it (Biblior.
sacror. Lat. vers. ant. iii. 1038 sq.). The editions and the exegesis are the
same as of the other Apocrypha. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den
Apocryphen Pt. i. Leipzig 1851. For other legends (Jewish and Christian) with
respect to Manasseh see Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1100-1102. Id. Biblioth.
gr. ed. Harl. iii. 732 sq. Fritzsche Handb. i. 158. 5. The Book of Baruch The
Greek Book of Baruch properly belongs to the class of Pseudepigraphic prophets
and is distinguished among them by its very meritorious contents. We place it
here as being at least according to its second half of Graeco-Jewish origin and
as having been admitted into the Greek Bible as a canonical book. The whole
claims to be the composition of Baruch the confidential friend and companion of
the prophet Jeremiah. Its contents are tolerably miscellaneous and are divided
into two halves the second of which again comprises two sections. The first half
(chaps. 1:1-3:8) begins with a superscription in which what follows is described
as a Book of Baruch which he wrote in the fifth year after the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (1:1 2). This book was read by Baruch before King
Jeconiah and all the exiles in Babylon; and the reading produced such an
impression that it was resolved to send money to Jerusalem that sacrifices and
prayers might there be offered for King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar.
At the same time the Jews dwelling in Jerusalem were enjoined to read out in the
temple on the feast days the writing therewith sent (1:3-14). This writing which
is next given in full is evidently identical with that read by Baruch and
therefore announced in the superscription.[2424] It is an ample confession of
sin on the part of the exiles who recognise in the fearful fate which has
overtaken themselves and the holy city the righteous chastisement of God for
their sins and entreat Him again to show them favour. They confess especially
that their disobedience to the King of Babylon was a rebellion against God
Himself because it was His will that Israel should obey the King of Babylon
(2:21-24). The second half of the book (chaps. 3:9-5:9) contains instruction and
consolation for the humbled people: (a) Instruction—Israel is humbled because
they have forsaken the source of wisdom. True wisdom is with God alone. To it
must the people return (3:9-4:4). (b) Consolation—Jerusalem is not laid waste
for ever nor are the people to be always in captivity. They must take courage
for the scattered members shall again he assembled in the Holy Land (4:5-5:9).
[2424] The writing announced in the superscription and read by Baruch cannot as
many critics suppose be chap. 3:7 sqq. For the effect of the reading is that a
sacrifice for Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is resolved upon and this can only
refer to chap. 2:21-24. The superscription 1:1 2 too is by no means in
accordance with 3:9 sqq. this latter section giving no kind of hint of its
having been written by Baruch. Comp. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten
Testaments § 510. The second half is joined to the first without any intervening
matter at chap. 3:9. An internal connection only so far exists that both halves
presuppose the same historical situation viz. the desolation of Jerusalem and
the carrying away of the people into captivity. In other respects however they
stand in no connection with each other and it is hardly conceivable that they
formed from the first part of the same whole. To this must be added that the
style and mode of expression widely differ being in the first half Hebraistic
and in the second fluent and rhetorical Greek. Hence Fritzsche Hitzig Kneucker
Hilgenfeld and Reuss have correctly inferred that the two halves are the works
of different authors. Nay one might feel inclined with Hitzig Kneucker and
Hilgenfeld to regard even the first half as no single work but to look upon
chap. 1:3-14 as a later interpolation. For it cannot be denied that the
narrative of the reading of the Book of Baruch and of the effect produced
thereby comes in like an interruption between 1:1 2 and 1:15-3:8. After the
superscription 1:1 2 the book itself is expected. A discrepancy of statement
also ensues owing to the inserted narrative the destruction of the temple being
assumed by the book itself (1:2 2:26) and; the continuance of the sacrificial
service by the narrative (1:10-14). But lastly all these inconsistencies are
possible in one and the same author; and other matters such especially as the
like dependence on Daniel in 1:11 12 and 1:15-2:20 favour identity of
authorship. Most of the older critics adopt the view of a Hebrew original for
the whole; and Kneucker in spite of his assumption of three different composers
firmly maintains it nay tries with much care to reconstruct the Hebrew original.
There are however sufficient points of contact for this in the first half only.
The second half is evidently a Greek original. Hence we are constrained with
Fritzsche Hilgenfeld and Reuss to admit concerning the origin of this book that
its first half was originally composed in Hebrew then translated into Greek and
completed by the addition of the second half. In determining the date of its
composition its close dependence on the Book of Daniel is decisive. There are in
it correspondences with the latter which make the employment of it by the author
of Baruch indubitable. Especially is there an almost verbal agreement between
Daniel 9:7-10 and Bar_1:15-18. The juxtaposition too of Nebuchadnezzar and
Belshazzar is common to both books (Daniel 5:2 sqq. = Bar_1:11-12). That so
thoroughly original and creative a mind however as the author of the Book of
Daniel should have copied from the Book of Baruch is certainly not to be
admitted. Thus we have already arrived at the Maccabaean period and most
Protestant critics stop there (so e.g. Fritzsche Schrader Keil). But the
situation assumed in the Book of Baruch by no means agrees with the Maccabaean
era. The Book of Baruch and especially its first half with which we are first of
all concerned presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and the leading of the
people into captivity (Bar_1:2; Bar_2:23-26). In this catastrophe the people
recognise a judgment of God for their sins and particularly for their rebellion
against the heathen authority which God Himself had set over Israel
(Bar_2:21-24). The penitent people hasten therefore to order sacrifices and
prayers for their heathen rulers (Bar_1:10-11). All this—as the destruction by
the Chaldeans is out of question—only suits the time after the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus. This very catastrophe was moreover brought about by the
rebellion of the people against the heathen authorities. And the special act of
rebellion was as Josephus expressly states the doing away with the daily
sacrifice for the Roman emperor (Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4; comp. above sq.). In
this political revolution our author saw a rebellion against the will of God and
therefore in the fearful catastrophe the righteous judgment of God upon it. And
he sought by all he relates of the exiles in the time of Baruch to bring this
view to bear upon his fellow-countrymen. It must therefore certainly be admitted
as by Hitzig and Kneucker that this book was written after the year A.D. 70. For
the quite non-historical juxtaposition of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar
recalling the relation of Vespasian and Titus also agrees with that date. The
narrative that in the straits of war parents ate the flesh of their children
(Bar_2:3) frequently recurs indeed in the description of the horrors of war but
is also found just in the description of the siege of A.D. 70 by Josephus (Bell.
Jud. vi. 3. 4). What has been said applies chiefly to only the first half of the
book. But the second half also essentially assumes the same situation viz. the
desolation of Jerusalem and the leading of the people into captivity (4:10-16).
Its object is to give instruction and consolation in view of these events. Hence
its composition cannot well be placed much later than that of the first half. At
all events this second half is later than the Salomonian Psalter. For Baruch 5.
agrees almost verbally with Psalt. Salom. 11.; and the dependence must by reason
of the psalm-like character and the probably primitive Hebrew of the Salomonian
Psalter be sought for on the side of the Book of Baruch. The fact that it found
acceptance in the Christian Church is not opposed to our conclusion as to the
somewhat recent composition of the book. For exactly the same thing took place
in the case of the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra. The
existence of a Hebrew text of this book is disputed by Jerome see praef.
comment. in Jerem. (Vallarsi iv. 834): Libellum autem Baruch qui vulgo editioni
Septuaginta copulatur nec habetur apud Hebraeos. Idem praef. in version. Jerem.
(Vallarsi ix. 783): Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus qui apud Hebraeos nec
legitur nec habetur. So too Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 5: τῶν θρήνων
αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν Βαροὺχ εἰ καὶ οὐ κεῖνται ἐπιστολαὶ παρʼ Ἑβραίοις. But
both Jerome and Epiphanius for the most part try only to prove that the book was
not in the Hebrew canon. Certainly they seem to have known of no Hebrew text at
all but that does not prove that none ever existed. For its existence may be
cited the remark found three times in the Milan manuscript of the Syrus
hexaplaris (on i. 17 and ii. 3) “this is not in the Hebrew” (see Ceriani’s notes
to his edition in the Monum. sacra et prof. i. 1 1861). Among the Jews (i.e.
among the Hellenistic Jews?) this book together with the Lamentations of
Jeremiah was according to the testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions read at
public worship on the 10th Gorpiaios (by which is certainly meant the 10th Ab
the day of the destruction of Jerusalem) Const. apost. v. 20: καὶ γὰρ καὶ νῦν
δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Γορπιαίου συναθροιζόμενοι τοὺς θρήνους Ἱερεμίου ἀναγινώσκουσιν
… καὶ τὸν Βαρούχ. In the Syriac text of the Const. apost. the Book of Baruch it
is true is not named. See Bunsen Analecta Ante-Nicaena ii. 187. On the date of
the 10th Gorpiaios comp. also Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte
Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (1869) p. 147 sq. On its use in the
Christian Church see the copious proofs in Reusch Erklärung des Buch’s Baruch
(1853) pp. 1-21 and 268 sqq. The book is very frequently quoted as a work of the
prophet Jeremiah because it was from early times combined with his book. The
passage concerning the appearance of God upon earth (Bar_3:37 : μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς ὤφθη καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη) which Kneucker rightly regards
as a Christian gloss was a favourite one with the Fathers. The oldest quotation
is in Athenagoras Suppl. c. 9 where Bar_3:35 is cited as the saying of a
προφήτης. Irenaeus iv. 20 refers to Bar_3:37. He also quotes (v. 35. 1) Bar_4:36
to 5 fin. with the formula significavit Jeremias propheta dicens. Clemens
Alexandrinus Paedag. i. 10. 91 92 quotes various passages of this book as
sayings of the prophet Jeremiah. In Paedag. ii. 3. 36 he quotes Bar_3:16-19 with
the formula ἡ θεία που λέγει γραφή. Hippolytus mentions in his work Contra
Noetum that Noetus and his followers appealed to Bar_3:35-37 among other
passages in proof of their patripassian Christology (Hippol. ed. Lagarde p. 44).
He then to help himself out of difficulty himself gives (ed. Lagarde p. 47) a
very sophistical interpretation of the passage. Hence the book is for Hippolytus
as well as Noetus a standard authority. Origenes in Jerem. homil. vii. 3
(Lommatzsch xv. 190): γέγραπται· “ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ κ.τ.λ.” = Bar_3:9-13. Idem.
Selecta in Jerem. c. 31 (Lommatzsch xv. 456): γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Βαρούχ· “τί ὅτι ἐν
γῇ κ.τ.λ.” = Bar_3:10. Commodian. Carmen apologet. (ed. Ludwig) vers. 367 368:
Hieremias ait: Hic deus est etc. = Bar_3:35-37. Cyprian. Testim. ii. 6: Item
apud Hieremiam prophetam: Hic deus noster etc. = Bar_3:35-37. Material from
later Fathers will be found in Reusch as above quoted to which need only be
added Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani ed. Harnack p. 17 (in
Gebhardt and Harnack Texte und Untersuchungen vol. i. No. 3 1883). Among the
Greek manuscripts the most important are: the Vaticanus (which however not
having been collated for this book by Holmes and Parsons has also been paid no
regard to in Fritzsche’s edition) the Alexandrinus (No. iii. in Holmes and
Parsons) and the Marchalianus (No. xii.). The Sinaiticus does not contain the
Book of Baruch. On the editions see above p. 10. Ancient translations. 1. The
Latin which is extant in two widely differing recensions: (a) that which has
passed into the Vulgate and (b) one first published by Joseph Caro Rome 1688.
The latter according to three MSS. in Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Latinae
versiones antiquae vol. ii. p. 734 sqq. Also in Bibliotheca Casinensis vol. i.
(1873) Florileg. pp. 284-287. On the relation of the two to each other see
Fritzsche Handb. i. 175. Reusch Erklärung des Buchs Baruch p. 88 sq. Kneucker
Das Buch Baruch p. 157 sqq. 2. The two Syriac translations (a) the Peshito or
the Syriac common text comp. above p. 11. (b) The Syrus hexaplaris contained for
this book in the Milan manuscript of the Syrus hexaplaris. The Book of Baruch
with the letter of Jeremiah of this MS. were first published by Ceriani
(Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. i. 1861). Also in the
photo-lithographic copy of the entire manuscript see above p. 187. 3. A Coptic
translation published by Brugsch (Zeitschr. für ägyptische Sprache und
Alterthumskunde 10-12th year 1872-1874 comp. 1876 p. 148). The exegesis in
general see above p. 11. Commentaries: Fritzsche Exeget. Handb. zu den
Apokrypken Part i. Leipzig 1851. Reusch Erklarung des Buchs Baruch Freiburg
1853. Ewald Die Propheten des Alten Bundes vol. iii. (2nd ed. 1868) pp. 251-298.
Kneucker Das Buch Baruch Geschichts und Kritik Uebersetzung und Erklärung
Leipzig 1879. The other literature: Hävernick De libro Baruchi apocrypho comm.
crit. Regim. 1843. Hitzig Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 pp. 262-273.
Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (1864) p. 265 sqq. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr.
für wissensch. Theol. vol. v. 1862 pp. 199-203; xxii. 1879 pp. 437-454; xxiii.
1880 pp. 412-422. Kneucker the same periodical 1880 pp. 309-323. The
Introductions of Jahne Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz De Wette-Schrader Reusch
Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12). 6. The Letter of Jeremiah The
letter of Jeremiah which is said to have been written to the exiles destined to
be led away to Babylon is a warning against idolatry turning upon the theme that
images of wood silver and gold are the weak powerless and perishable creatures
of man’s hand which can absolutely do neither good nor harm. The author seeks by
these particulars to restrain his co-religionists in the Dispersion from all
participation in heathen rites. This small fragment is certainly of Greek
origin. Many have seen in the passage 2Ma_1:1 sqq. a reference to this letter.
But what is there said does not actually suit it. When Origen asserts that the
Lamentations and “the letter” also were combined in the Hebrew canon with the
Book of Jeremiah (Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2: Ἱερεμίας σὺν θρήνοις καὶ τῇ
ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί) this certainly rests upon an oversight. Origen only means to
say that the writings of Jeremiah were reckoned by the Jews as one so that the
number twenty-two is consequently that of the collected books of Holy Scripture.
Christian quotations: Tertullian Scorpiace c. 8. Cyprian De dominica oratione c.
5 and later writers. In the majority of editions and manuscripts the letter is
appended to the Book of Baruch (in the Vulgate as its sixth chapter). Hence what
has been said of manuscripts editions ancient translations and exegesis with
respect to that book applies almost throughout in this case.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 99: III. HISTORICAL LITERATURE
========================================================================

III. HISTORICAL LITERATURE The literary productions as yet discussed are in part
compilations in part imitations of older scriptural works. Hence there is but
little specifically “Hellenistic” to be observed in them. The peculiarity of
Judaeo-Hellenistic literature is apparent in an entirely different manner in
those works which incline in form towards non-scriptural Greek models and are
thus found in the department of historical poetic and philosophic literature.
And first for the historical. Pharisaic Judaism as such had scarcely an interest
in history. It saw in history merely an instruction a warning how God ought to
be served. Hellenistic Judaism was certainly in a far higher degree interested
in history as such. A knowledge of the history of the past formed part of the
culture of the times. And no people could lay claim to he reckoned among the
civilised nations unless they could point to an old and imposing history. Even
nations hitherto regarded as barbarian now compiled their histories and clad
them in Greek garments for the purpose of making them accessible to the entire
cultured world. The Hellenistic Jews also took their part in such efforts. They
too worked up their sacred history for the instruction of both their own
fellow-countrymen and the non-Jewish world. The most comprehensive work of the
kind with which we are acquainted is the great historical work of Josephus. He
had however a series of predecessors who laboured some upon longer some upon
shorter periods of Jewish history in various forms. Of these some set to work in
modest annalistic manner (Demetrius) some with fantastic and legendary
embellishments in majorem Judaeorum gloriam (Eupolemus Artapanus) while some
sought in a philosophical manner to represent the great Jewish lawgiver as the
greatest of philosophers nay as the father of all philosophy (Philo). But the
Greek Jews occupied themselves not only with the older Jewish history but also
depicted—as Pharisaic Judaism had ceased to do—important occurrences which they
had as contemporaries experienced for the purpose of transmitting them to
posterity (Jason of Cyrene Philo Josephus Justus of Tiberias). Many who carried
on authorship as a vocation were active in both departments. We therefore here
place together historical works of both kinds viz. compilations of the older
sacred history and delineations of contemporary events. The most ancient of
these Judaeo-Hellenistic historians have been only rescued from utter oblivion
by Alexander Polyhistor. This voluminous writer who lived about the years 80-40
B.C. (according to the statements of Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος and Sueton. De
gramm. c. 20 comp. Müller Fragm. iii. 206 and Unger Philologus 1884 p. 528 sqq.)
composed among other works one περὶ Ἰουδαίων in which he strung together
apparently with scarcely any additions of his own extracts from foreign authors
concerning the Jews. Eusebius in his turn embodied in his Praeparatio evangelica
(ix. 17-39) a large portion of this collection of extracts. And it is to this
circumstance that we are almost entirely indebted for our acquaintance with the
oldest Judaeo-Hellenistic and Samaritan compilations of scriptural history
whether in poetic or prosaic form with those of Demetrius Eupolemus Artapanus
Aristeas Kleodemus Philo Theodotus and Ezekiel. Besides Eusebius Clemens
Alexandrinus also once quotes Alexander’s work περὶ Ἰουδαίων (Strom. i. 21.
130); and he undoubtedly makes use of it even when he quotes Demetrius Philo
Eupolemus Artapanus and Ezekiel from whom Alexander gives extracts (Strom. i.
21. 141 23. 153-156). The quotation also in Josephus Antt. i. 15 is certainly
derived from the work περὶ Ἰουδαίων with which Josephus elsewhere betrays his
acquaintance (contra Apion. i. 23 and various traces in the Antiquities). But
this is all that is preserved of independent quotation from Alexander’s work.
The extracts in Eusebius are in chronological order. They begin with fragments
on the history of Abraham from Eupolemus Artapanus Molon Philo Kleodemus. Then
follow portions on the history of Jacob from Demetrius and Theodotus then others
on Joseph from Artapanus and Philo. That this order is not first derived from
Eusebius but was followed by Alexander Polyhistor is shown by the nature of the
text. For the single portions are joined together by the connecting words of
Alexander himself. This is moreover confirmed by a comparison of the quotations
in Clemens Alexandrinus. For as in Eusebius so in Clemens Alexandrinus the
extracts on the history of Moses follow each other in direct succession:—
Eupolemus = Euseb. ix. 26 = Clemens Str. i. 23. 153. Artapanus = Euseb. ix. 27 =
Clemens Str. i. 23. 154. Ezekiel = Euseb. ix. 28 = Clemens Str. i 23. 155 156.
Hence we see that this is the original order of Alexander Polyhistor. The
genuineness of Alexander’s work has of late been frequently disputed especially
by Rauch and Cruice. It is thought inconceivable that a heathen author like
Alexander should have had so special an interest in Jewish affairs; it is also
thought strange that he should call the Old Testament Scriptures ἱεραὶ βίβλοι
(Euseb. ix. 24 29. 15) and that he should here give such detailed accounts of
Jewish history while he elsewhere betrays the strangest ignorance of it. Its
genuineness has been defended against these objections by Hulleman (p. 156 sq.)
Müller (Fragm. iii. 209) and especially with convincing proofs by Freudenthal
(pp. 174-184). The question is moreover one of minor importance since it is
tolerably indifferent whether these extracts were collected by Alexander or by
some one else; for in either case the extraordinary differences in form and
contents existing in these fragments is a guarantee that we have here to deal
with extracts from works then actually existing and not with the single work of
a forger. Only the determination of the date would be affected if it could be
really proved that the collection was not the production of Alexander Polyhistor
inasmuch as the time of Alexander would then cease to be a limit. The fragments
in themselves furnish no cause for relegating them to a later date. For the most
recent of the authors from whom the extracts are made and whose date can be
determined independently of Alexander is Apollonius Molon (Euseb. ix. 19) a
Greek orator of probably about 120-100 B.C. (see No. VI. below). References to
Jewish affairs are also found in other works of Alexander Polyhistor. He quotes
the Jewish Sibyl in his Chaldaean ancient history (Euseb. Chron. ed. Schöne i.
23. Cyrill. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 9c. Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 81. Comp.
Joseph. Antt. i. 4. 3; Freudenthal p. 25 sq.). In his work on Italy is found the
odd assertion that the Jewish law was derived from a female named Moso (Suidas
Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος. Müller Fragm. n. 25); and to his work on Syria belongs
probably the information that Judaea received its name from Juda and Idumaea the
children of Semiramis (Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἰουδαία. Müller Fragm. n. 98-102). It is
just these strange statements which have given rise to the denial of Alexander’s
authorship of the work περὶ Ἰουδαίων—but very incorrectly for he simply copied
what he found in his authorities. Consequently according to their nature his
information is now correct now incorrect. It rests upon only a somewhat wanton
combination when the pseudo-Justinian Cohort. ad Graec. c. 9 ascribes also to
Alexander a statement concerning the date of Moses (see my article on “Julius
Africanus as the source of the pseudo-Justinian Cohortatio ad Graecos” in
Brieger’s Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. ii. 1878 p. 319 sqq.). The text of
the fragment περὶ Ἰουδαίων is in Euseb. Evangelicae Praeparationis libri xv. ed.
Gaisford 4 vols. Oxford 1843. Clementis Alex. Opera ed. Dindorf 4 vols. Oxford
1869. Müller Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum vol. iii. pp. 211-230. The prose
fragments partly according to a recent collation of manuscripts are best given
in Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor pp. 219-236. On the manuscripts and editions of
Eusebius see Freudenthal pp. 199-202. Comp. in general: Rauch De Alexandri
Polyhistoris vita atque scriptis Heidelb. 1843 quoted by Müller and others as
“Rumpf.” Cruice De Fl. Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem afferendis fide et
auctoritate (Paris 1844) pp. 20-30. Hulleman “De Corn. Alexandro Polyhistore”
(Miscellanea philologa et paedagoga edd. gymnasiorum Batavorum doctores vol. i.
1849 pp. 87-178). C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 206-244. Vaillant De
historicis qui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere nempe Aristea Demetrio
Eupolemo Hecataeo Abderita Cleodemo Artapano Justo Tiberiensi Cornelio Alexandro
Polyhistore (Paris 1851 Didot) pp. 88-98 (a follower of Cruice). Creuzer Theol.
Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 76 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 570 sqq.
Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. der class. Alterthums-wissensch. i. 1 (2nd ed.
1864) p. 734 sq. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen
Reste judaischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke Bresl. 1875. Reuss Gesch.
der heiligen Schriften A. T.’s (1881) § 520 521. Unger “Wann schrieb Alexander
Polyhistor?” (Philologus vol. xliii. 1884 pp. 528-531). 1. Demetrius In the same
century in which Berosus composed the ancient history of the Chaldaeans and
Manetho that of the Egyptians but about sixty years later Demetrius a Jewish
Hellenist compiled in a brief chronological form a history of Israel his work
being equally with theirs according to the sacred records. Clem. Alex. Strom. i.
21. 141 states its title to have been περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων. And it
can be scarcely a reason for doubting the correctness of this title that the
fragments deal almost all with only the most ancient period (so Freudenthal p.
205 sq.). For Justus of Tiberias e.g. also treated of the time of Moses in his
Chronicle of the Jewish kings. The first fragment in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 21
concerns the history of Jacob from his emigration to Mesopotamia till his death.
At the close the genealogy of the tribe of Levi is carried on to the birth of
Moses and Aaron. Chronology is made a special aim. Nay the whole is far more a
settlement of chronology than a history properly so called. The date of every
single circumstance in the life of Laban e.g. the birth of each of his twelve
sons and such matters is precisely determined. Of course many dates have to be
assumed for which Scripture offers no support. A large portion of the
chronological statements is obtained by combinations and in some instances very
complicated combinations of actual dates of Holy Scripture. A second fragment
(Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 1-3) from the history of Moses is chiefly occupied
in proving that Zipporah the wife of Moses was descended from Abraham and
Keturah. This fragment is also used in the Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 117
and is quoted from Eusebius in the Chron. Anon. in Cramer Anecdota Paris ii.
256. In a third (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 15) the history of the bitter
waters (Exodus 15:22 sqq.) is related. Lastly the chronological fragment
preserved in Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141 gives precise statements concerning
the length of time from the carrying away into captivity of the ten tribes and
the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to Ptolemy IV. It is just this fragment which
gives us also a key to the date of Demetrius. For it is evident that he chose
the time of Ptolemy IV. (222-205 B.C.) as a closing point for his calculations
because he himself lived in the reign of that monarch. Hence we obtain also an
important standpoint for determining the date of the LXX. For that Demetrius
made use of the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch is acknowledged even by
Hody although such acknowledgment is unfavourable to his tendency of pointing
out the limited diffusion obtained by the LXX. A glance at the contents of the
fragment renders it needless to prove that its author was a Jew. It would
certainly never have entered the mind of a heathen to take such pains in
calculating and completing the Biblical chronology. Nevertheless Josephus took
him for one and confounded him with Demetrius Phalereus (Contra Apion. i. 23 =
Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 42; comp. Müller Fragm. ii. 369a. Freudenthal p. 170
note). Among moderns too e.g. Hody is found the mistaken notion that he was a
heathen. The correct one is however already met with in Eusebius Hist. eccl. vi.
13. 7 and after him in Hieronymus De vir. illustr. c. 38 (ed. Vallarsi ii. 879).
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141: Δημήτριος δέ φησιν ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ
βασιλέων τὴν Ἰούδα φυλὴν καὶ Βενιαμὶν καὶ Λευὶ μὴ αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ
Σεναχηρεὶμ ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ταύτης εἰς τὴν ἐσχάτην ἣν ἐποιήσατο
Ναβουχοδονόσορ ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἔτη ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ὀκτὼ μῆνας ἕξ. ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ αἱ
φυλαὶ αἱ δέκα ἐκ Σαμαρείας αἰχμάλωτοι γεγόνασιν ἕως Πτολεμαίου τετάρτου [B.C.
222] ἔτη πεντακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα τρία μῆνας ἐννέα ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἔτη
τριακόσια τριάκοντα ὀκτὼ μῆνας τρεῖς. The text of this fragment is in many
instances corrupt 1. It is impossible that Demetrius with his minute accuracy in
scriptural chronology could have reckoned from 573-338 i.e. 235 years from the
carrying away of the ten tribes to the carrying away of the tribes of Benjamin
and Judah when the interval amounts to about a hundred years less. Hence the
number 573 must either be reduced or that of 338 increased by one hundred. The
latter is undoubtedly correct since it may be shown that other ancient
chronologists have made the post-exilian period too long (see above on Daniel p.
54). If Demetrius therefore put down about seventy years too much for this time
there is for just this reason utterly no motive for doing away with this mistake
by altering “Ptolemy IV.” into “Ptolemy VII.” For even in the accurate Demetrius
such a mistake concerning the length of the post-exilian period cannot seem
surprising since the scriptural figures here leave him in the lurch. 2. By
abbreviation of the text arose the absurdity that an αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ
Σεναχηρείμ is first denied and then that this αἰχμαλωσία is computed from. The
thought of the original text undoubtedly is that the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin were not made captives but only laid under contribution by Sennacherib;
and that 120 years elapsed between this pillaging expedition of Sennacherib and
the carrying away of Judah and Benjamin. With this computation it best agrees
that from the carrying away of the ten tribes to that of Judah and Benjamin 573
- 438 = 135 years are reckoned. For the carrying away of the ten tribes by
Shalmanezer actually took place about seven or eight years before Sennacherib’s
attack upon Judah (2 Kings 18:9-13). Comp. in general: Vigerus’ Anmerkungen to
his edition of the Praep. evang. of Eusebius (1628). Huetius Demonstr. evang.
(5th ed. Lips. 1703) Prop. iv. c. 2 § 22 30. Hody De biblior. textibus (1705) p.
107. Valckenaer De Aristobulo p. 18. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der
jüd.-alex. Rel.-Phil. ii. 220 sq. Cruice De Fl. Josephi fide (1844) pp. 53-58.
C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis gui ante
Josephum Judaicas res scripsere (Paris 1851). pp. 45-52. Herzfeld Gesch. des
Volkes Jisrael iii. 486-488 575 sq. M. Niebuhr Gesch. Assur’s und Babel’s (1857)
pp. 101-104. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor (1875) pp. 35-82 205 sqq. 219 sqq.
Mendelssohn Anzeige Freudenthal’s in der Jenaer Lit.-Ztg. 1885 No. 6. Siegfried
Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 475. Gutschmid Jahrbb. für
Protestant. Theol. 1875 p. 744 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d.
Judenth. 1877 p. 68 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus (1879) p. 56 sqq. 2.
Eupolmus In place of the dry chronological computations of Demetrius we find in
Eupolemus a chequered narrative which freely handles the scriptural history and
further embellishes it with all kinds of additions. Formerly three different
works of this writer were spoken of: 1. Περὶ τῶν τῆς Ἀσσυρίας Ἰουδαίων; 2. Περὶ
τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας; and 3. Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων (so Kuhlmey p. 3).
The first of these falls away because in the fragment in Euseb. Praep. evang.
ix. 17: Εὐπόλεμος δὲ ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἰουδαίων τῆς Ἀσσυρίας φησὶ πόλιν Βαβυλῶνα πρῶτον
μὲν κτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν κ.τ.λ. the words τῆς Ἀσσυρίας certainly refer to what
follows (Rauch p. 21; Freudenthal p. 207). The title περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ
βασιλέων is certified by Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153. To this work also
undoubtedly belongs the fragment referring to the history of David and Solomon
in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30-34 which Alexander Polyhistor asserts that he
took from a work περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας (Freudenthal p. 208). Thus we in
truth obtain only one work instead of the supposed three. The first fragment
(Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17) probably does not belong to Eupolemus at all
(comp. hereon No. 6 below); a second almost verbally identical in Euseb. Praep.
evang. ix. 26 and Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153 represents Moses as the “first
sage” who transmitted to the Jews the art of alphabetical writing which was then
handed on by the Jews to the Phoenicians and by the latter to the Hellenes. The
Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 117 also has this fragment from Eusebius and
Cyrillus Alex. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 231d has it from Clement. The long
passage in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30-34 refers to the history of David and
Solomon. It commences with a summary of chronology from Moses to David then
briefly relates the chief events of the history of David (Euseb. ix. 30) and
then gives a correspondence between Solomon and the kings Uaphree of Egypt and
Suron of Phoenicia about assistance in the building of the temple (Euseb. ix.
31-34; comp. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 130; Chron. pasch. ed. Dind. i. 168);
and lastly describes in detail the building of the temple (Euseb. ix. 34). The
correspondence with Suron = Hiram is taken from 2 Chronicles 2:2-15 comp. 1
Kings 5:15-18; and that with Uaphres freely imitated from this model. Probably
the fragment in Euseb. ix. 39 in which it is related how Jeremiah foretold the
captivity and how his prediction was fulfilled by the conquest of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar also belongs to Eupolemus. The fragment is according to the
reading of the best manuscripts anonymous but may on internal grounds be
ascribed to Eupolemus (Freudenthal p. 208 sq.). A chronological fragment in
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 2114. 1 which computes in a summary manner the time from
Adam and Moses respectively to the fifth year of Demetrius or the twelfth of
Ptolemy gives us information concerning the date of Eupolemus. For by this
Demetrius we must probably understand (see below) Demetrius I. Soter (162-150
B.C.) and hence Eupolemus would have written in the year 158-157 B.C. or shortly
afterwards. He may therefore be as many have supposed identical with the
Eupolemus mentioned 1Ma_8:17. In this case he would be a Palestinian which is
certainly favoured also by the circumstance that he seems besides the
translation of the LXX. of which the Book of Chronicles was certainly in his
hands to have made use also of the original Hebrew text (Freudenthal pp. 108
119). Concerning his nationality whether Jew or heathen opinions are as also in
the case of Demetrius divided; Josephus c. Apion. i. 23 (= Euseb. Praep. evang.
ix. 42) esteemed him a heathen as do also Hody and Kuhlmey. On the other hand
Eusebius Hist. eccl. vi. 13. 7 and Jerome De viris illustr. c. 38 regard him as
a Jew. And this as Freudenthal has recently shown is undoubtedly correct (pp.
83-85). Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141: Ἔτι δὲ καὶ Εὐπόλεμος ἐν τῇ ὁμοίᾳ
πραγματείᾳ τὰ πάντα ἔτη φησὶν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ ἄχρι τοῦ πέμπτου ἔτους Δημητρίου
βασιλείας Πτολεμαίου τὸ δωδέκατον βασιλεύοντος Αἰγύπτου συνάγεσθαι ἔτη ͵ερμαʹ.
ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ χρόνου ἐξήγαγε Μωυσῆς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐπὶ τὴν προειρημένην
προθεσμίαν συνάγεσθαι ἔτη δισχίλια πεντακόσια ὀγδοήκοντα. [ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ χρόνου
τούτου ἄχρι τῶν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ὑπάτων Γαΐου Δομετιανοῦ Κασιανοῦ συναθροίζεται ἔτη
ἑκατὸν εἵκοσι]. In this fragment also the text is defective. Above all it is
certain that the number 2580 must be corrected to 1580 since Eupolemus could not
have reckoned 2580 years from Moses to his own time. Then the synchronism of the
fifth year of Demetrius with the twelfth of Ptolemy causes difficulties. For no
twelfth year of any Ptolemy coincides with the fifth year of Demetrius II. (=
142-141 B.C.). The twelfth year indeed of Ptolemy VII. (= 159-158) concurs with
the fifth year of Demetrius I. (= 158-157 B.C.). But Ptolemy VII. Physcon was at
that time only ruler of Cyrenaica. He reigned in Egypt contemporaneously with
his brother Ptolemy VI. Philometor who however began his reign four years
previously. We must therefore either regard with Gutschmid the whole statement
concerning Ptolemy as a gloss or which is more simple alter the number. However
this may be the supposition that Demetrius I. Soter is intended is especially
favoured by the circumstance that at all events such was the view of Clemens
Alex. For he reckons from the fifth year of Demetrius to the consulship of Cn.
Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio (these names being certainly hidden
under the corrupted words Γαΐου Δομετιανοῦ Κασιανοῦ) i.e. to the year 40 B.C. in
which Herod was named king (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 14. 5) 120 years which of
necessity reach back to Demetrius L even if the reckoning is not quite accurate.
Gutschmid has best restored the closing words by the complement Γναίου Δομετίου
καὶ Ἀσινίου ὑπὸ Κασιανοῦ συναθροίζεται. Cassianus is mentioned as a chronologist
by Clem. Strom. i. 21. 101. Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang. Prop. iv.
c. ii. § 29. Hody De biblior. textib. p. 106. Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 18
24. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung ii. 221 sq. Kuhlmey Eupolemi fragmenta
prolegomenis et commentario instructa Berol. 1840. Rauch De Alex. Polyh. pp.
20-22. Cruice De Fl. Jos. fide pp. 58-61. C. Müler Fragm. hist. gr. iii. 207
sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 52-59. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael
iii. 481-483 572-574. M. Niebuhr Gesch. Assur’s pp. 353-356. Cobet in Λόγιος
Ἑρμῆς ἐκδ. ὑπὸ Κόντου vol. i. (Leyden 1866) p. 168 sq. Ewald Gesch. d. V. Isr.
i. 76 vii. 91 92. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 82 sqq. 105-130 208 sqq. 225 sqq.
Siegfried Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 476 sqq. Gutschmid Jahrbb.
f. prot. Theol. 1875 p. 749 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d.
Judenth. 1877 p. 61 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus (1879) p. 58 sqq. 3.
Artapanus In his work περὶ Ἰουδαίων Artapanus is still farther removed than
Eupolemus from the sober and unadorned style of Demetrius. The sacred history is
quite methodically embellished or to speak more correctly remodelled by
fantastic and tasteless additions—and this recasting is throughout in the
interest of the tendency to a glorification of the Jewish people. One chief aim
is directed towards proving that the Egyptians were indebted to the Jews for all
useful knowledge and institutions. Thus the very first fragment (Euseb. Praep.
evang. ix. 18) relates that Abraham when he journeyed into Egypt instructed the
king Pharethothes in astrology. A second (Euseb. ix. 23) narrates how Joseph
when raised by the king to be the chief governor of the country provided for the
better cultivation of the land. And finally the long article concerning Moses
(Euseb. ix. 27) gives detailed information of his being the real founder of all
the culture and even of the worship of the gods in Egypt. For he it was whom the
Greeks call Musaeus the instructor of Orpheus the author of a multitude of
useful inventions and attainments of navigation architecture military science
and philosophy. He also divided the country into thirty-six provinces and
commanded each province to worship God; he also instructed the priests in
hieroglyphics. He introduced order into State affairs. Hence he was beloved by
the Egyptians who called him Hermas διὰ τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ἑρμηνείαν. King
Chenephres however sought out of envy to get rid of him. But none of the means
he used succeeded. When Chenephres was dead Moses received commandment from God
to deliver His people from Egyptian bondage. The history of the exodus and of
all that preceded it especially of the miracles by which the permission to
depart was extorted is then related at length and in accordance with the
Scripture narrative but at the same time with many additions and embellishments.
Single traits from this history are related with express appeal to Artapanus in
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 154 in Chron. pasch. ed. Dindorf i. 117 and in the
Chron. anonym. in Cramer Anecdota Paris ii. 176. Traces of the employment of
this work may be pointed out especially in Josephus (see Freudenthal pp.
169-171). The more plainly its Jewish authorship is manifested by the tendency
of the whole work the more strange does it appear that Moses and the patriarchs
should be exhibited as founders of the Egyptian worships. Jacob and his sons are
represented as founding the sanctuaries at Athos and Heliopolis (23. 4). Moses
directs each province to honour God (τὸν Θεὸν σεφθήσεσθαι); he prescribes the
consecration of the Ibis (27. 9) and of Apis (27. 12). In a word the religion of
Egypt is referred to Jewish authority. This fact has been explained by
Freudenthal by the surely incorrect notion that the author was indeed a Jew but
wanted to pass for a heathen and indeed for an Egyptian priest (pp. 149 sq. 152
sq.). For nowhere does such an attempt come plainly forward. And with such a
tendency an entirely unknown name such as Artapanus would certainly never have
been chosen as a shield. Nor does it at all explain the phenomena. For if the
work had appeared under a heathen mask we should surely expect that it would
have energetically denounced in the name of this acknowledged authority the
abomination of idol-worship as is actually done e.g. in the case of the
Sibyllist (iii. 20) and of pseudo-Aristeas (pp. 38 14 sq. ed. Mor. Schmidt).
Thus under all circumstances the strange fact remains that a Jewish author has
represented Moses as the founder of Egyptian rites. But however strange this may
appear it is explained by the tendency of the whole. Moses was the introducer of
all culture even of religious culture. This and nothing else is the meaning.
Besides it must be considered that the heathen worship is in reality represented
in a tolerably innocent light. For the sacred animals are not so much worshipped
as on the contrary “consecrated” for their utility—τῷ Θεῷ as we cannot but
conclude. But even thus we certainly have still to do with a Jewish author who
cared more for the honour of the Jewish name than for the purity of divine
worship. Perhaps too an apologetic purpose co-operated in causing the Jews who
were decried as despisers of the gods to figure as founders of religious
worship. Considering the marked prominence of Egyptian references there needs no
other proof that the author was an Egyptian. With regard to date it can only be
affirmed with certainty of him and of those who follow that they were
predecessors of Alexander Polyhistor. Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang.
Prop. iv. c. ii. § 62. Valckenaer De Aristobulo p. 26. Dähne Geschichtl.
Darstellung ii. 200-203. Rauch De Alexandro Polyhistore p. 22 sq. C. Müller
Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 74-83. Herzfeld Gesch. des
Volkes Jisrael iii. 483-486 574. Cobet in the Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς i. 170 171. Ewald ii.
129. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 143-174 215 sqq. 231 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen
des Josephus p. 60 sqq. 4. Aristeas A fragment from the work of one otherwise
unknown Aristeas περὶ Ἰουδαίων in which the history of Job is briefly related in
accordance with the Bible is given in Euseb. Praep. ev. ix. 25. The history
itself presents nothing worthy of remark but the personal accounts both of Job
and his friends are supplemented on the ground of other scriptural material.
Thus it is said of Job that he was formerly called Jobab Ἰώβ being evidently
identical with Ἰωβάβ Genesis 36:33. Upon the ground of this identification Job
is then made a descendant of Esau for Jobab was a son of Serach (Genesis 36:33)
and the latter a grandson of Esau (Genesis 36:10-13). According indeed to the
extract of Alexander Polyhistor Aristeas is said to have related that Esau
himself “married Bassara and begot Job of her” (τὸν Ἤσαυ γήμαντα Βασσάραν ἐν
Ἐδὼμ γεννῆσαι Ἰώβ). Most probably however this rests upon an inaccurate
reference of Alexander Polyhistor; for Aristeas who was quoting from the Bible
must certainly have called Jobab not the son but correctly the great-grandson of
Esau. From Genesis 36:33 is also derived the name Bassara as the mother of Job
(Ἰωβὰβ υἱὸς Ζαρὰ ἐκ Βοσόρʼῥας where indeed Bosra is in reality not the mother
but the native place of Jobab). Our author already used the LXX. translation of
the Book of Job. It is moreover remarkable that in the supplement to Job in the
Septuagint the personal accounts of Job are compiled exactly after the manner of
Aristeas. Freudenthal thinks it certain that this supplement was derived from
Aristeas. Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des
Volkes Jisrael iii. 488 sqq. 577-579. Ewald vii. 92. Freudenthal Alex.
Polyhistor pp. 136-143 231. 5. Cleodemus or Malchus The work of a certain
Cleodemus or Malchus of which unfortunately only a short notice is preserved
seems to have presented a classic example of that intermixture of native
(Oriental) and Greek traditions which was popular throughout the region of
Hellenism. The notice in question is communicated by Alexander Polyhistor but is
taken by Eusebius Praep. evang. ix. 20 not directly from the latter but from
Josephus Antt. i. 15 who on his part quotes literally from Alexander. The author
is here called Κλεόδημος ὁ προφήτης ὁ καὶ Μάλχος ὁ ἱστορῶν τὰ περὶ Ἰουδαίων
καθὼς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἱστόρησεν ὁ νομοθέτης αὐτῶν. Both the Semitic name Malchus and
the contents of the work prove that the author was no Greek but either a Jew or
a Samaritan. Freudenthal prefers the latter view chiefly on account of the
intermixture of Greek and Jewish traditions. But about 200-100 B.C. this is
quite as possible in a Jew as in a Samaritan. In the work of this Malchus it is
related that Abraham had three sons by Keturah Ἀφέραν Ἀσουρείμ Ἰάφραν from whom
the Assyrians the town of Aphra and the land of Africa derive their names. The
orthography of the names (which I have given according to Freudenthal)
vacillates considerably. Hence אַשּׁוּרִם עֵיפָה and עֵפֶר Genesis 25:34 are
evidently identical with them. But while in Genesis 25 Arab tribes are intended
our author derives from them entirely different nations which were known to him.
He then further relates that the three sons of Abraham departed with Heracles to
Libya and Antaeus that Heracles married the daughter of Aphra and of her begat
Diodorus whose son again was Sophonas (or Sophax) from whom the Sophaki derive
their name. These last traditions are also found in the Libyan (or Roman?)
history of King Juba (Plutarch. Sertor c. ix. also in Müller Fragm. hist. gr.
iii. 471); only that the genealogical relation of Diodorus and Sophax is
reversed: Heracles begets Sophax of Tinge the widow of Antaeus and Diodorus is
the son of Sophax. Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De
historicis etc. pp. 72-74. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 489 575.
Ewald vii. 91. Freudenthal. Alex. Polyh. pp. 130-136 215 230. Siegfried
Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1875 p. 476 sq. 6. An Anonymous Writer Among the
extracts of Alexander Polyhistor are found Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17 and 18
two which to judge by their contents are evidently identical although the one is
much shorter than the other. The longer (Euseb. ix. 17) is given as an extract
from Eupolemus who relates that Abraham descended in the [thir]teenth generation
from the race of giants who after the deluge built the tower of Babel that he
himself emigrated from Chaldaea to Phoenicia and taught the Phoenicians τροπὰς
ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα. He also proved of assistance to them in
war. He then departed by reason of a famine to Egypt where he lived with the
priests in Heliopolis and taught them much. instructing them in τὴν ἀστρολογίαν
καὶ τὰ λοιπά. The real discoverer however of astrology was Enoch who received it
from the angels and imparted it to men. We are told the same virtually but more
briefly in the second extract Euseb. ix. 18 which Alexander Polyhistor derived
from an anonymous work (ἐν δὲ ἀδεσπότοις εὕρομεν). If this parallel narrative is
itself striking it must also be added that the longer extract can scarcely be
from Eapolemus. Eupolemus was a Jew but in the extract Gerizim is explained by
ὄρος ὑψίστου. Also according to Eupolemus Moses was the first sage (Euseb. ix.
26) while in the extract Abraham is already glorified as the father of all
science. Hence the supposition of Freudenthal that the original of both extracts
was one and the same viz. the anonymous work of a Samaritan and that the longer
extract of Alexander has been ascribed by an oversight to Eupolemus is one which
commends itself. In this work also as remains to be mentioned Greek traditions
and Scripture history are again blended. Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii.
207 sqq. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 82-103 207 sq. 223 sqq. Siegfried
Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 476. 7. Jason of Cyrene and the
Second Book of Maccabees The authors from whom extracts were made by Alexander
Polyhistor compiled chiefly from the older Scripture history. The work of Jason
of Cyrene on which our second Book of Maccabees is based is an example of the
treatment of those important epochs of later Jewish history in which they had
themselves lived by Hellenistic Jews. For this book is as the author himself
informs us only an abridgment (ἐπιτομή 2Ma_2:26-28) from the larger work of a
certain Jason of Cyrene (2Ma_2:23). The original work comprised five volumes
which are in our second Book of Maccabees condensed into one (2Ma_2:23). Thus
the contents of the former seem to have been parallel with those of the latter.
The abridgment handed down to us tells first of an unsuccessful attack upon the
treasury of the temple undertaken in the time of Seleucus IV. (B.C. 175) by his
minister Heliodorus; it then relates the religious persecution of Antiochus
Epiphanes and the apostasy of a portion of the Jews; and lastly recounts the
Maccabaean rising and its progress down to the decisive victory of Judas over
Nicanor (160 B.C.). Thus the book comprises a period of not much more than
fifteen years 175-160 B.C. The events related are for the most part the same as
in the first Book of the Maccabees. But the narrative differs in many
particulars and in some parts even in the order of the events from the account
in the first book. The differences are of such a kind that an acquaintance with
that book can hardly be assumed on the part of our author (Hitzig Gesch. des
Volkes Israel ii. 415 holds the opposite view). At the same time there can be no
doubt that on the whole the simple narrative of 1 Macc. based as it is on good
native sources deserves the preference over the rhetorical narrative of the
second. On the other hand the latter offers a copiousness of independent detail
especially in the preliminary history of the Maccabaean rising the historical
truth of which there are no grounds for doubting. The view must therefore be
accepted that contemporary sources of information were at the disposal also of
Jason of Cyrene but that these were probably not in writing but only the oral
accounts of contemporaries who narrated from memory the events of those fifteen
years. If such narratives reached Jason not directly but through a series of
intermediaries this would explain both the copiousness and the inaccuracy of the
details. If the view that Jason of Cyrene derived the history he relates from
the lips of contemporaries is correct he must have written not long after 160
B.C. At all events unless we are willing to allow for the use of written
documents also we must not make the interval between the events and the date of
the author too long as otherwise an acquaintance with such numerous and yet
relatively correct particulars would be no longer possible. Nor does the
mythical character of many of the narratives (e.g. the martyrdom of Eleazar and
the seven brethren 2 Maccabees 6-7) tend against the view of so early an origin.
For a period of a few decades—especially at a distance from the scene of the
events—is more than sufficient for the formation of such myths. The unhistorical
notice xv. 37 that after the victory over Nicanor Jerusalem remained in the
hands of the Hebrews can indeed only have been written by one at a great
distance from the events. But on the other hand this scarcely affects Jason but
his epitomizer. Why the narrative breaks off at the victory over Nicanor is
somewhat enigmatical. Perhaps this ending was not contemplated by Jason. With
respect to the date of the epitomizer it can only be said that he is certainly
more ancient than Philo who seems to have been acquainted with this book. Both
the original work and the epitome were without doubt originally written in
Greek. For it is very characteristically distinguished by its rhetorical Greek
style from the annalistic Hebrew style of the first Book of Maccabees. The
second book is very unlike the first in another respect also; it aims directly
at edification by the narrative of the heroic faith of the Maccabees and of the
marvellous events by which God preserved the continuance of the Jewish religion
and worship. The two letters which are now placed before this book (2Ma_1:1 to
2Ma_2:18) stand in no connection with it. They are letters of the Palestinian to
the Egyptian Jews in which the latter are summoned to the feast of the
Dedication. They are evidently two originally independent pieces of writing
afterwards combined by a later hand but not that of the epitomizer with this
second Book of Maccabees. Their purpose is to influence the Egyptian Jews with
respect to the feast of the Dedication. In Philo’s work Quod omnis probus liber
§ 13 (Mang. ii. 459) is described the manner in which many tyrants have
persecuted the pious and virtuous. The several features of this description so
greatly recall that of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second Book of Maccabees that
an acquaintance with this book on the part of Philo can scarcely be doubted;
comp. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 36-39. Josephus has indeed a few points
in common with this book which are absent from 1 Macc. (see Grimm Exeget. Handb.
zu 2 Macc. p. 13). It is nevertheless very improbable that he was acquainted
with the second Book of Maccabees (see Grimm p. 20). On the other hand the
philosophical exhortation known as the fourth Book of Maccabees is entirely
based upon it. Christian testimony begins with Hebrews 11:35; for ἐτυμπανίσθησαν
evidently refers to 2Ma_6:19-28 (ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον προσῆγε ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον εὐθέως
ἦλθε) while other allusions in Hebrews 11:35 sq. recall 2 Maccabees 6-7 Comp.
Bleek Stud. und Kritik 1853 p. 339 and Bleek’s Commentary on Hebrews 11:35. The
oldest quotation is Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 97: Ἀριστοβούλῳ … οὗ μέμνηται ὁ
συνταξάμενος τὴν τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἐπιτομήν (comp. 2Ma_1:10). Hippolytus in his
work de Christo et Antichristo c. 49 (Lagarde p. 25) refers to this book in the
words: καὶ ταῦτα μὲν … σεσήμανται ἐν τοῖς Μακκαβαϊκοῖς. Origen appeals in many
passages to this book in proof of important doctrines: 1. Of the doctrine of
creation ex nihilo to 2Ma_7:28 (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός): Comment. in
Joann. vol. i. c. 18 (Lommatzsch i. 37); de principiis ii. 1. 5 (Lommatzsch xxi.
142). 2. Of the doctrine of the intercession of saints to 2Ma_15:14 (ὁ πολλὰ
προσευχόμενος περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῆς ἁγίας πόλεως Ἱερεμίας): Comment. in Joann.
vol. xiii. c. 57 (Lommatzsch ii. 120); in Cant. Cant. lib. iii. (Lommatzsch xv.
26); de oratione c. 11 (Lommatzsch xvii. 125). 3. He also makes special and very
full mention of the history of Eleazar and the seven Maccabaean brothers
(2Ma_6:18-27 fin.) as glorious examples of dauntless martyrdom in the Exhortatio
ad martyrium c. 22-27 (Lommatzsch xx. 261-268); comp. also Comment. in epist. ad
Rom. lib. iv. c. 10 (Lommatzsch vi. 305). 4. Other quotations in Origen: fragm.
in Exod. (Lommatzsch viii. 302); contra Cels. viii. 46 fin. (Lommatzsch xx.
176). Cyprian also quotes the history of the Maccabaean martyrs 2 Maccabees 6-7
(ad Fortunatum c. 11 and Testim. iii. 17). The Fathers in general have delighted
in treating of these Maccabaean martyrs (often with the use of the so-called
fourth Book of Maccabees); nay they were at last transplanted among Christian
saints. For material bearing on this see Wetstein’s notes on Origen Exhort. ad
martyr. c. 23 (Lommatzsch xx. 262) and the Vitae Sanctorum (Lipomannus Surius
Bollandist. Nilles’ Kalendarium manuale 1879 to August 1); some also in
Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der
Vernunft (1869) p. 29 sqq. Creuzer Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 85 sq. Bähr Die
christlichen Dichter und Geschichtschreiber Roms (2nd ed. 1872) p. 50 sqq. Its
title as the second Book of the Maccabees is first found in Euseb. Praep. evang.
viii. 9 fin.: Ἀριστόβουλος … οὗτος δʼ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος οὗ καὶ ἡ δευτέρα τῶν
Μακκαβαίων ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς βίβλου μνημονεύει. Hieronymus Prol. galeatus to the Books
of Samuel (Vallarsi ix. 459): Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi.
Secundus Graecus est quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest. With respect to
manuscripts editions and ancient translations what was said above p. 10 in the
case of the first Book of Maccabees applies in most instances to the second. We
need only remark: (1) that the second Book of Maccabees is not contained in the
cod. Sinaiticus and (2) that besides the old Latin translation which has passed
into the Vulgate (and which alone Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Lat. versiones
antiquae vol. ii. knows) there is another in a cod. Ambrosianus from which
Peyron has published it (Ciceronis orationum pro Scauro pro Tullio et in Clodium
fragmenta inedita 1824 p. 73 sqq.); the edition of the same text promised for
Ceriani’s Monumenta sacra et prof. vol. i. fasc. 3 has as far as I know not yet
made its appearance. The exegetical and critical literature also of this book is
almost entirely the same as that of the first Book of Maccabees (see above p. 11
sq.). In the Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen (Leipzig 1857) the fourth
part compiled by Grimm treats of the second third and fourth Books of the
Maccabees. We mention besides: [H. Eberh. Glo. Paulus] “Ueber das zweyte Buch
der Maccabäer” (Eichhorn’s Allg. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur vol. i. 1787 pp.
233-241). Bertheau De secundo libro Maccabaeorum Gotting. 1829. Herzfeld Gesch.
des Volkes Jisrael ii. 443-456. Patrizzi De consensu utriusque libri
Machabaeorum Romae 1856. Cigoi Historischchronologische Schwierigkeiten im
zweiten Makkabäerbuche Klagenfurt 1868. Kasten Der historische Werth des zweiten
Buches der Makkabäer Stolp 1879 (Gymnasialprogr.). On the two letters at the
beginning of the book see (besides the above-named literature): Valckenaer De
Aristobulo pp. 38-44. Schlünkes Epistolae quae secundo Macc. libro i. 1-9
legitur explicatio Colon. 1844. The same Difficiliorum locorum epistolae quae 2
Macc. i. 10-ii. 18 legitur explicatio Colon. 1847. Grätz “Das Sendschreiben der
Palästinenser an die ägyptischjudäischen Gemeinden wegen der Feier der
Tempelweihe” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 pp. 1-16
49-60). 8. The Third Book of Maccabees The so-called third Book of Maccabees may
here be mentioned along with the second as having at least the form of an
historical narrative of a supposed episode of later Jewish history. In truth it
is a tolerably insipid piece of fiction founded at most on an entirely
unascertainable historical fact. It relates how Ptolemy IV. Philopator after his
victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphia came to Jerusalem and entertained the
desire of entering also the interior of the temple. As he was not to be turned
from his purpose by any representations the Jews in their distress cried to God
who heard their prayer and struck Ptolemy so that he fell stunned to the ground
(1-2:24). Ptolemy exasperated returned to Egypt and meditated revenge. He
deprived the Alexandrian Jews of their civic rights and commanded that all the
Jews in Egypt together with their wives and children should be brought in chains
to Alexandria where they were confined in the racecourse. Their number was so
great that the clerks who were to write down the names of each had not after
forty days’ labour come to the end and were obliged to leave off for want of
writing materials (2:25-4 fin.). Ptolemy now commanded that five hundred
elephants should be intoxicated by wine and incense and incited against the
people in the racecourse. When all preparations had been made the execution was
delayed till the next day because the king had slept till the time for his chief
meal. On the second day too nothing was done because the king had through the
dispensation of God suddenly forgotten everything and was very angry to find
that hostile designs were entertained against his faithful servants the Jews. On
the same day however he repeated at his repast the former order for the
extirpation of the Jews. When then on the third day matters at last seemed
getting serious and the king was already approaching the racecourse with his
troops two angels appeared from heaven at the prayer of the Jews and paralysed
the troops of the king with terror. The elephants then rushed upon the troops of
the king trampled on and destroyed them (5-6:21). The king was now much
irritated against his counsellors and commanded the Jews to be liberated from
their chains nay to be entertained for seven days at his expense. Then they
celebrated their deliverance with feasting and rejoicing and resolved to keep
these days as festivals for ever. And the king issued a letter of protection in
favour of the Jews to all governors in the provinces and gave the Jews
permission to put to death such of their fellow-countrymen as had apostatized
from the faith. They made abundant use of this permission and returned joyfully
home (6:22-7 fin.). This narrative is not only almost throughout a mere fiction
but it belongs among productions of the kind to those of the weakest sort. The
author evidently revels in keeping up psychological impossibilities. The style
also corresponds being bombastic and involved. The only foundation for the
author’s fiction seems to have been an old legend which we still read in
Josephus. For he relates (contra Apion. ii. 5) that Ptolemy VII. Physcon cast
the Jews of Alexandria who as adherents of Cleopatra were his political
opponents to intoxicated elephants who however turned instead against the
friends of the king whereupon the king gave up his purpose and the Jews of
Alexandria celebrated the day in remembrance of the event. According to this
account the celebration of this festival which is also mentioned in the third
Book of Maccabees (6:36) seems at all events to be historical. And some
unascertained fact may certainly be the foundation of the legend the older form
of which seems to have been in the hands of Josephus since all is in his account
simpler and more psychologically comprehensible and he was evidently
unacquainted with the third Book of Maccabees. When then the latter refers the
history to Ptolemy IV. instead of VII. this is already a divergence from the
older legend and still more so are the other additions with which the author has
enriched his narrative. As to the date of the author the utmost that can be
ventured is a conjecture. The contents and tendency of the book seem to
presuppose a persecution of the Alexandrian Jews on account of which the author
desires to comfort and encourage his co-religionists. This leads our thoughts to
the time of Caligula when such a persecution on a large scale took place for the
first time. Hence Ewald Hausrath Reuss and others place the composition of the
book in his reign. But then it would be strange that the author does not make
Ptolemy lay claim to divine honours which was the chief stumbling-block in the
case of Caligula. On the whole we should expect in it more special references to
events under Caligula. Hence we can but approve of Grimm’s reservation though he
has every inclination to agree with Ewald’a hypothesis (Exeget. Handb. p. 218
sq.). In general we may say that the book originated at the earliest in the
first century before Christ at the latest in the first century after Christ; the
former because the author already knows the Greek additions to Daniel (6:6); the
latter because it would otherwise have found no acceptance with the Christian
Church. The oldest Christian testimony is the Canones apost. (in Cotelier Patr.
apost. 2nd ed. i. 453) canon 76 (al. 85): Μακκαβαίων τρία. The stichometry of
Nicephorus also reckons: Μακκαβαϊκὰ γʹ (in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p.
119). In the Synopsis Athanasii stands instead Μακκαβαϊκὰ βιβλία δʹ Πτολεμαϊκά
(Credner p. 144) where according to Credner’s conjecture καί is perhaps to be
read instead of the number δʹ so that our third Book of Maccabees would have to
be understood by Πτολεμαϊκά. For other testimony see Eichhorn Einl. in die
apokr. Schriften des A. T. p. 288 sq. Grimm Handb. p. 221 sq. The book seems
never to have been known in the Latin Church on which account it is absent from
the Vulgate. On the other hand it found approbation in the Syrian Church as the
existing old Syriac translation proves. The name “Book of Maccabees” has been
very inaptly given to the book merely because here also a persecution of Jews
faithful to their religion is the subject. The book is as a rule found in the
manuscripts of the Septuagint so especially in the cod. Alexandrinus. Hence it
is also found in most editions of the Septuagint and in the separate editions of
the Greek apocryphal books (see above p. 10 sq.). Of ancient versions the old
Syriac need only be mentioned here (see above p. 11). For the exegetical aids in
general see above p. 11. Commentary: Grimm “Das zweite dritte und vierte Buch
der Maccabäer” (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A.T.’s Part 4)
Leipzig 1857. Investigations: Eichhorn Einl. in die apokryphischen Schriften des
A.T.’s pp. 278-290. Bertholdt Einl. in sammtliche kanon. und apokr. Schriften
des A. u. N. T. vol. iii. pp. 1082-1091. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv.
611-614. De Wette-Schrader Einl. in das A.T.’s p. 572 sq. Keil Einl. in das A.T.
3rd ed. p. 720 sq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 262-265. Reuss
Gesch. der heil Schriften Alten Testaments § 574. 9. Philo’s Historical Works
Philo the philosopher must also be named here as a writer of works on Jewish
history. Indeed he has left us narratives not only from the more ancient history
but also from that of his own times. 1. With respect to the former a large work
which has been preserved almost entire viz. a comprehensive delineation of the
Mosaic legislation must first be mentioned. It is not indeed an historical
narrative properly so called but a systematic statement; still it is one so made
that Philo attempts therein to give a survey of the legislative labours of Moses
himself i.e. of the virtual contents of the Pentateuch. That he does not do this
without being essentially influenced by his own philosophical views is a thing
self-evident. But still his purpose is simply to give in an objective historical
manner; a survey of the Mosaic legislation. The several parts of this work have
come down to us in the manuscripts and editions under special titles as though
they were separate books. It will be shown below § 34 that the plan of the whole
work is as follows: (a) The first book refers to the creation of the world. For
Moses treated of this in the beginning of his work to make it plain that his
legislation was according to the will of nature. (b) The following books treat
of the lives of Enos Enoch Noah Abraham Isaac Jacob and Joseph but so that the
first three are only briefly treated in the introduction to the life of Abraham
while the last four have each a separate book devoted to them. The lives of
Abraham and Joseph have been preserved. The histories of all these individuals
is related because by their lives they exhibit the universal types of morality
“the living unwritten laws.” (c) Next follows the legislation proper the ten
chief commandments first in one book and then in four books the special laws
arranged according to the rubrics of the ten commandments (particulars § 34).
Thus a survey is really taken of the actual contents of the Pentateuch. The
tendency of the entire work is everywhere to hold up the Jewish law as the
wisest and most humane. The ritual and ceremonial laws are not passed by; but
Philo always knows how to realize their rational side so that he who perfectly
observes them is not only the best but also the most cultured man the true
philosopher. This also makes it clear that the work if not solely was chiefly
intended for non-Jewish readers. The educated of all nations were to be brought
by it to the perception that the Jewish was the most perfect law the law by
which men were best trained to be good citizens and true philosophers. In a
separate work which does not as has been usually supposed belong to this
collective work Philo has also written a life of Moses himself. In this also the
manner and object are the same as in the systematic work. Moses is described as
the greatest and wisest of lawgivers and as raised above all others by mighty
deeds and miraculous experiences. 2. Philo also described in a lengthy work the
most important and the saddest episode of the Jewish history of his times the
persecutions of the Jews under Caligula. By way of introduction he spoke also in
it of the persecutions brought about by Sejanus in the reign of Tiberius. The
work according to Eusebius contained five books. The two which have come down to
us (in Flaccum and de legatione ad Cajum) probably formed the third and fourth
(particulars § 34). Philo having been an eye-witness of the events he narrates
nay as leader of a Jewish embassy to Caligula a prominent sharer in them his
work is a first-class authority for the history of this period. 10. Josephus The
best known historian of Jewish affairs in the Greek language is the Palestinian
Josephus properly Joseph the son of Matthias a priest of Jerusalem. Of his two
chief works one is the Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία a comprehensive delineation of the
entire Jewish history from the beginning to his own times. It is the most
extensive work on Jewish history in the Greek language with which we are
acquainted and has on that account so retained the lasting favour of Jewish
heathen and Christian readers as to have been preserved entire in numerous
manuscripts (particulars see above Div. i. vol. i. § 3). Notwithstanding its
great difference from the philosophizing delineation of Philo its tendency is
similar. For it is the purpose of Josephus not only to instruct his heathen
readers for whom it was in the first instance intended in the history of his
people but also to inspire them with respect for the Jewish nation both as
having a history of hoar antiquity and a long series of celebrities both in
peace and war to point to and as able to bear comparison in respect of laws and
institutions with any nation (comp. especially Antt. xvi. 6. 8). The other chief
work of Josephus the History of the Jewish War from A.D. 66-73 gives the history
more for its own sake. The events of these years are in themselves so important
that they seemed worthy of a detailed description. Perhaps it was written by
command of Vespasian from whom Josephus received an annual salary (Vita 76) and
to whom the work was delivered as soon as it was completed (contra Apion. i. 9;
Vita 65). If a tendency to boasting is detected in it this refers rather to the
individual Josephus and the Romans than to the Jewish nation. 11. Justus of
Tiberias Justus of Tiberias a contemporary and fellow-countryman of Josephus was
also his fellow-labourer. He too devoted himself to authorship after the
destruction of his nation but having been less successful therein than Josephus
his works were less read and have therefore been lost. He has this in common
with Josephus that he too treated both of Jewish history as a whole and of the
events of his own times each in one work. His History of the Jewish Kings from
Moses to Agrippa II. was according to the statement of Photius who was still
acquainted with it (Biblioth. Cod. 33) “very brief in expression and passed over
much that was necessary.” As it was made use of by Julius Africanus in his
Chronicle it may well be supposed that its form was that of a chronicle in which
stress was chiefly laid upon the settling of the chronology. In another work
Justus seems to have presented whether wholly or partly the History of the
Jewish War in a manner by which Josephus felt himself compromised since in his
Vita he enters into a very warm controversy against Justus.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 100: IV. EPIC POETRY AND THE DRAMA
========================================================================

IV. EPIC POETRY AND THE DRAMA 1. Philo the Epic Poet The appropriation of Greek
forms of literature on the part of the Hellenistic Jews did not stop at prose.
Even the epic and dramatic poetry of the Greeks were transplanted to the soil of
Hellenistic Judaism the sacred history being sung under the form of the Greek
Epos nay represented in the form of the Greek drama. For what is still preserved
of this remarkable literature we are indebted to the extracts of Alexander
Polyhistor which have been inserted by Eusebius in his Praeparatio evangelica
(see above p. 197 sqq.). Three small fragments from a Greek poem “On Jerusalem”
(Περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα) by a certain Philo are given by Eusebius (Euseb. Praep.
evang. ix. 20 24 37). The subject of the first is Abraham of the second Joseph
of the third the springs and water-pipes of Jerusalem the abundance of which is
extolled. The first and third are taken from the first book of the work quoted
(ix. 20: Φίλων ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα; ix. 37: Φίλων ἐν τοῖς Περὶ
Ἱεροσολύμων … ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ); the second professedly from the fourteenth (ix. 24:
Φίλων ἐν τῇ ιδʹ τῶν Περὶ Ἱεροσόλυμα). But that Philo should have used fourteen
books to get as far as the history of Joseph is too improbable. Hence we may
suppose with Freudenthal that possibly we must read ἐν τῇ ιδʹ instead of ἐν τῇ
δʹ. The language of Philo is that of the Greek epic but his hexameters are
written with a true contempt of Greek prosody and the diction is pompous and so
involved as to be unintelligible. The Philo mentioned by Clemens Alex. Strom. i.
21. 141 and by Josephus contra Apion. i. 23 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 42) and
whom Josephus distinguishes from the more recent philosopher by calling him
Philo the elder (Φίλων ὁ πρεσβύτερος) is certainly identical with our epic
writer. According to the notice of him in Clemens Alexandrinus we might indeed
suppose that some prose writer who treated Jewish history in like manner as
Demetrius and Eupolemus do was spoken of (Strom. i. 21. 141: Φίλων δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς
ἀνέγραψε τοὺς βασιλεῖς τοὺς Ἰουδαίων διαφώνως τῷ Δημητρίῳ). Josephus took him
for a heathen for he adduces him together with Demetrius and Eupolemus as a
proof that many heathen authors also had a tolerably accurate acquaintance with
Jewish history. But the circumstance that both Clemens and Josephus in the
passages cited place this Philo in the same series as Demetrius and Eupolemus
(both have the order Demetrius Philo Eupolemus) proves that both were drawing
from the same source and this can be no other than Alexander Polyhistor. Since
then no other Philo than the epic writer occurs in the copious contributions
from Alexander Polyhistor in Eusebius there is no doubt that Clemens and
Josephus mean the same. Consequently Philo as the fragments in Eusebius give us
reason to suppose sang in such wise of the town of Jerusalem as to give at the
same time a history of the Jewish kings. As to the date of Philo this much only
can be said that he preceded Alexander Polyhistor. Hence he may be perhaps
placed in the second century before Christ. There is no direct evidence that he
was a Jew but from the tenor of his poem it can scarcely be doubtful. Comp. in
general: Huetius Demonstr. ev. Prop. iv. c. 2 § 33. Viger’s Anm. zu Euseb. ix.
20. Philippson Ezechiel des jüdischen Trauerspieldichters Auszug aus Egypten und
Philo des Aelteren Jerusalem 1830. Delitzsch Zur Gesch. der jüd. Poesie (1836)
pp. 24 209. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religions-Philosophie
ii. 215 note. Cruice De Fl. Josephi fide (1844) p. 61 sq. Müller Fragm. hist.
Graec. iii. 207 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 519 575. Ewald
Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 338 vii. 91. Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor pp. 34
100 170. 2. Theodotus The poem of Theodotus on Sichem a long portion from which
is given partly by verbal quotation partly by a statement of its contents in
Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 22 seems to have been of the same kind as that of Philo
on Jerusalem. The entire portion refers to the history of the town of Sichem.
Its situation is first described and then its seizure by the Hebrews in
accordance with Genesis 34; how Jacob first dwelt in Mesopotamia there married
and begat children then departed with them to the district of Sichem and
received a portion of land from Emmor the king of Sichem; next how Sichem the
son of Emmor ravished Dinah Jacob’s daughter whereupon Jacob declared himself
ready to give Dinah to Sichem to wife on condition that all the Sichemites
should be circumcised; and lastly how Simeon and Levi two of Jacob’s sons slew
Emmor and Sichem and in conjunction with their brethren destroyed the city of
the Sichemites. Jacob’s sojourn in Mesopotamia not being mentioned till after
the description of the town of Sichem and only as an introduction to the history
of its seizure by the Hebrews which follows it is evident that the history of
the town of Sichem is the real theme of the poem; and since it is called a “holy
city” (ἱερὸν ἄστυ) it can scarcely be doubted that Theodotus was a Samaritan.
Hence the title Περὶ Ἰουδαίων given to the poem in Eusebius can hardly be
accurate. At the commencement of the extract it is said that the town had its
name from Sikimios a son of Hermes (ἀπὸ Σικιμίου τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ). Theodotus thus
seems like other Hellenists to have embellished Jewish history with scraps from
Greek mythology. The diction as well as the construction of the hexameters is
better than Philo’s. With respect to date what was said of Philo applies here
also. Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. ev. iv. 2. 32. Fabricius-Harles
Biblioth. gr. x. 516. Müller Fragm. hist. gr. iii. 207 sqq. Pauly’s Real-Enc.
der class. Alterthumswissensch. art. “Theodotus” Nr. 13. Herzfeld Gesch. des
Volkes Jisrael iii. 520 sq. 576 sq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 338 vii.
91. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. p. 99 sq. 3. Ezekiel the Tragic Poet The most
remarkable phenomenon in the department of Judaeo-Hellenistic poetry is the
manufacture of scriptural matter into Greek dramas. We know indeed of only one
such Jewish dramatist Ezekiel; and it must be left uncertain whether he had
either successor or predecessor. But at all events he composed other dramas
besides the one which is known to us by extracts being called “The poet of
Jewish tragedies” (Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 155: ὁ Ἐζεκίηλος ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν
τραγῳδιῶν ποιητής. Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 28: Ἐζεκιῆλος ὁ τῶν τραγῳδιῶν
ποιητής). We know more by extensive extracts in Eusebius and Clemens
Alexandrinus (after Alexander Polyhistor) of one of them which was called “the
Exodus” Ἐξαγωγή and which depicted the history of the departure of the Jews from
Egypt (Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 155: ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ δράματι “Ἐξαγωγή.”
Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 14 ed. Gaisford: ἐν τῷ δράματι τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ
Ἐξαγωγή). The moment chosen as the starting-point of the action was apparently
that when Moses fled to Midian after slaying the Egyptian (Exodus 2); for the
first extract transposes us to that period (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 28 =
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 155-156). It is a long monologue of Moses in which
he relates the history of his life down to that juncture and concludes with the
words that he is now in consequence a wanderer in a foreign land. He then sees
the seven daughters of Raguel approaching (Exodus 2:16 sqq.) and asks who they
are when Zipporah gives him the information. The further progress of the action
is only alluded to in the extract where we are told that the watering of the
flock and the marriage of Zipporah with Moses now takes place (Exodus 2:16
sqq.). In the second extract (Euseb. ix. 29. 4-6 ed. Gaisford) Moses relates a
dream to his father-in-law which the latter explains to mean that Moses will
attain to a high official post and will have the knowledge of things past
present and future. In another scene (Euseb. ix. 29. 7-11 ed. Gaisford) it is
represented on the authority of Exodus 3-4 how God spoke to Moses from a burning
bush and commissioned him to deliver the people of Israel from bondage. As God
speaks invisibly from the bush He is not made to appear on the stage but only
His voice is heard. The details are pretty much in agreement with Exodus 3-4. In
the extract which follows (Euseb. ix. 29. 12-13 ed. Gaisford) God gives
(according to Exodus 11-12) more exact directions concerning the departure and
the celebration of the Passover. It cannot be decided whether this also belongs
to the scene of the bush. In a further scene (Euseb. ix. 29. 14 ed. Gaisford) an
Egyptian enters who has escaped the catastrophe in the Red Sea and relates how
the Israelites passed safely through the waters and the Egyptian host perished
in them. Finally in the last fragment (Euseb. ix. 29. 15-16) a messenger in whom
we are to imagine one sent to reconnoitre for the Israelites announces to Moses
the discovery of an excellent place of encampment at Elim with twelve springs of
water and seventy palm trees (Exodus 15:27 = Numbers 33:9). Then the messenger
relates how a marvellously strong bird nearly twice as large as an eagle which
all the other birds followed as their king appeared. The description of this
bird is also found without mention of the name of Ezekiel in Eustathius Comm. in
Hexaemeron ed. Leo Allatius (1629) p. 25 sq. From these fragments it appears
that the action agrees pretty closely with the scriptural narrative though with
many embellishments of detail. The poetry of the author is very prosaic. On the
other hand a certain amount of skill in dramatizing the material cannot be
denied him. The diction and versification (Iambic trimeters) are tolerably
fluent. It has been doubted—incorrectly it seems to me—whether this drama was
ever intended for representation. The aim of it is certainly the same as that of
the scriptural dramas of the Middle Ages (the passion plays etc.) viz. on the
one hand to make the people in this way also better acquainted with sacred
history on the other and chiefly to supplant as far as possible profane and
heathen pleasures by the supply of such “wholesome food.” Here perhaps as in
other productions of Judaeo-Hellenistic literature heathen readers and
spectators were calculated on. That Ezekiel was a Jew is undoubtedly shown even
by his name. What was said of the dates of Philo and Theodotus applies in his
case also. Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang. iv. 2. 24. Fabricius
Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles ii. 305 sq. viii. 624 sq. 635 636. Eichhorn “De
Judaeorum re scenica” in the Commentationes Societ. Gotting. recentiores vol.
ii. Gotting. 1813. Philippson Ezechiel des jüdischen Trauerspieldichters Auszug
aus Egypten und Philo des Aelteren Jerusalem 1830. Delitzsch Zur Gesch. der
jüdischen Poesie (1836) pp. 28 209 211-219. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der
jüd.-alex. Religions-Philosophie ii. 199 sq. Fürst Biblioth. Jud. i. 264.
Frankel Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische
Hermeneutik (1851) pp. 113-119. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 517-519.
Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel ii. 127 iv. 338. Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iii.
365. Dübner in the appendix to Fragmenta Euripidis iterum ed. F. G. Wagner
(accedunt indices locupletissimi Christus patiens Ezechieli et christianorum
poetarum reliquiae dramaticae) Paris Didot 1846 pp. 7-10 and 1-7. Magnin Journal
des Savants 1848 pp. 193-208 (Recension of Dübner’s appendix to Fragm. Eurip.
ed. Wagner). Dindorf Praefat. to his edition of Euseb. Opp. vol. i. pp. 19-25.
Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur ii. 2 (3rd ed. 1872) p. 76.
Cobet in the Λογιος Ερμης i. 457-459.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 101: V. PHILOSOPHY
========================================================================

V. PHILOSOPHY In the departments of history and poetry it was chiefly only the
external form that was borrowed from the Greeks but in that of philosophy a real
internal blending of Jewish and Greek thought a strong actual influencing of
Jewish belief by the philosophy of the Greeks took place. We perceive this the
most plainly in Philo. He exhibits a completely double aspect; on one side he is
a Jew on the other a Greek philosopher (particulars § 34). But we should be much
mistaken if we took him for an isolated phenomenon in the history of his people
and age. He is but a classic representative of a current flowing through
centuries and necessarily implied by the nature of Hellenistic Judaism. To Greek
culture belonged also an acquaintance with the great thinkers of the Greeks. The
Hellenistic Jews in appropriating the former thereby placed themselves also
under the influence of Greek philosophy. We have certain proofs of this since
the second century before Christ. But we may assume that the fact mentioned is
in general as old as Hellenistic Judaism itself. The Jew whom Aristotle met in
Asia Minor was already Ἑλληνικὸς οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ (see vol.
ii. 225). The Jewish feature of this Judaeo-Hellenistic philosophy appears
chiefly in the fact that like the Palestinian חָכמָה it pursued essentially
practical aims. Not logic or physics but ethic was in its sight the chief
matter. This ethic was indeed often founded upon the theoretic philosophy of the
Greeks. Still the latter is but a means to an end the proper end of Jewish
philosophers viz. the practical one of educating man to true morality and piety.
Also in the choice made of the literary form the Jewish foundation is still
apparent. The case here is exactly the reverse of what it is in poetry. The
contents exhibit a strong Greek influence but the literary form is derived from
Palestine. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon chooses the form of proverbs
Philo gives his discussions in the manner of Rabbinic Midrash i.e. in prolix
learned commentaries on the text of the Pentateuch from which the most
heterogeneous philosophic ideas are developed by the help of allegorical
exegesis. The so-called fourth Book of the Maccabees is a hortatory address of
which the synagogue sermon may perhaps be regarded as the model. Only in a few
smaller pieces does Philo choose the form of inquiry and dialogue after Greek
models. In the mixture of Jewish and Greek notions in these writers the
proportions of course vary. In some the influence of Greek ideas is stronger in
others weaker. But even those which are most saturated with Greek ideas are
essentially rooted in the soil of Judaism. For they not only insist upon the
unity of a supramundane God and the control of Divine Providence which punishes
the wicked and rewards the good but they also firmly adhere to the belief that
the most perfect knowledge of things human and divine is given in the Mosaic
revelation so that Judaism is the way to true wisdom and virtue. And not only
does the amount of Greek influence vary but different Greek systems are
preferred now one now another being more agreed with. Plato Aristotle the Stoics
and Pythagoreans have all furnished material to the sphere of ideas of these
Jewish philosophers. Especially in the Platonico-Pythagorean and in the Stoic
teaching did Jewish thinkers find many elements capable of being assimilated
with the Jewish faith. That the appropriation of these was always eclectic is
self-evident. But here Jewish philosophy only participates in the fundamental
characteristic of later Greek philosophy in general. 1. The Wisdom of Solomon We
place the so-called “Wisdom of Solomon” first not because it is certainly the
oldest of the literary productions to be here discussed but because it most
closely resembles in form the ancient Palestinian proverbial wisdom. In like
manner as Jesus the son of Sirach does the author praise true wisdom which is to
be found only with God and is imparted to man by God alone. But the execution is
quite different from that of Jesus Sirach. While the latter shows how the truly
wise man comports himself in the different circumstances of practical life this
book is properly only a warning against the folly of ungodliness and especially
of idolatry. Around this one theme do the contents of the whole book revolve and
consequently the proverbial form is not strictly adhered to but often passes
into that of connected discourse. According to chap. 9:7 sqq. Solomon himself is
to be regarded as the speaker and those addressed are the judges and kings of
the earth (1:1: οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν; 6:1: βασιλεῖς δικασταὶ περάτων γῆς). Thus
it is properly an exhortation of Solomon to his royal colleagues the heathen
potentates. He the wisest of all kings represents to them the folly of
ungodliness and the excellence of true wisdom. Its contents may be divided into
three groups. It is first shown (chaps. 1-5) that the wicked and ungodly
although for a period apparently prosperous will not escape the judgments of God
but that the pious and just after having been for a time tried by sufferings
attain to true happiness and immortality. In a second section (chaps. 6-9)
Solomon directs his royal colleagues to his own example. It is just because he
has loved high and divine wisdom and has united himself to her as his bride that
he has attained to glory and honour. Hence he still prays for such wisdom. The
third section (chaps. 10-19) points out by referring to the history of Israel
and especially to the different lots of the Israelites and the Egyptians the
blessing of godliness and the curse of ungodliness. A very long tirade on the
folly of idolatry (chaps. 13-15) is here inserted. The work being in its chief
contents a warning against the folly of ungodliness it can only be so far
intended for Jewish readers as ungodliness was to be found among them also. But
we should be hardly mistaken if we were to suppose that the author had heathen
readers at least as much in view. The numerous allusions to Scripture history
seem indeed to presuppose Jewish readers (so e.g. Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 27).
But then what is the purpose of the garment chosen according to which the kings
and potentates of the earth are addressed? Why the long-winded discourse on the
folly of idolatry for which there was no occasion with Jewish readers who still
deserved the name? The contents recall in many respects the Sibylline oracles
which going forth under a heathen authority were certainly intended for heathen
readers. As in these so in the book in question the folly of an ungodly life is
set before its readers. At all events its warning and instruction are addressed
to heathen-minded readers whether these are by birth Jews or heathen and chiefly
indeed to the great and mighty of this world. The special theological standpoint
of the author agrees with that of Palestinian proverbial wisdom as we find it in
the Proverbs of Solomon and in Jesus the son of Sirach. Divine Wisdom is the
supreme good the source of all truth virtue and happiness with our author also.
But while like the author of the Book of Proverbs and Jesus Sirach he starts
from the assertion that this Wisdom is first of all present with God it becomes
in his conception almost an independent person beside God. His utterances indeed
do not seem to really exceed what we already read in Proverbs 8-9. But what is
there more a poetic personification becomes with him a philosophic theory.
Wisdom is according to him a breath (ἀτμίς) of God’s power a pure effluence
(ἀπόρʼῥια) from the glory of the Almighty the brightness (ἀπαύγασμα) of the
everlasting light (7:25 26). It is most intrinsically united with God (συμβίωσιν
θεοῦ ἔχουσα) is initiated into the knowledge of God (μύστις τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ
ἐπιστήμης) and a chooser of His works (αἱρέτις τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ) i.e. chooses
among the works of which God has conceived the idea which shall be carried into
execution (8:3 4: comp. Grimm on the passage) is assessor on God’s throne (9:4:
ἡ τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρος) understands the works of God and was present when He
created the world knows what is well-pleasing in His eyes and right according to
His commandments (9:9). Wisdom is thus not only represented as the special
possession of God but as an assistant of God originating from His own nature.
Together therewith “the almighty word of God” (ὁ παντοδύναμός σου λόγος) is also
personified in a manner which approaches hypostatic union (18:15 sq.). Thus we
have here already the elements from which the Philonian doctrine of the λόγος (=
reason and word of God) as a hypostasis mediating between God and the world is
formed. For Wisdom occupies in our author a position similar to that of Philo’s
Logos with respect to the world also. She has a spirit which is easily moving
all-overseeing all-pervading (7:22-24: εὐκίνητον πανεπίσκοπον διήκει καὶ χωρεῖ
διὰ πάντων etc.). She works everything (8:5; τὰ πάντα ἐργαζομένη) rules all
things (8:1: διοικεῖ τὰ πάντα) makes all things new (7:27: τὰ πάντα καινίζει).
“By passing from generation to generation into holy souls she prepares friends
of God and prophets” (7:27). It is she who was manifested in the history of
Israel e.g. in the pillar of fire and cloud which led the Israelites through the
wilderness (10:17 and chap. 10 in general). Hence Wisdom is in a word the medium
by which God works in the world. The tendency of this whole speculation is
evidently the same as in Philo viz. to secure by the insertion of such an
intermediary the absolute supramundane nature of God who cannot be conceived of
as in direct contact with a sinful world. But it must not be lost sight of that
it is by no means our author’s concern to dwell upon this thought. He desires on
the contrary to exhibit Divine Wisdom as the supreme good. He does not seek to
show that Wisdom is different from God but on the contrary how near it is to
Him. While then he is moving in this sphere of thought he merely takes up a view
already current among his associates.[2425] [2425] Compare on this “doctrine of
Wisdom” in general: Lücke Commentar über das Ev. Joh. i. p. 257 sqq. Bruch
Weisheitslehre der Hebräer ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Philosophie Strassb. 1851.
Oehler Grandzüge der alttestamentl. Weisheit Tüb. 1855. Grimm Exeget. Handb. zu
den Apokr. Pt. vi. p. 1 sq. The influence of Greek philosophy is moreover shown
in the details of execution. The formulae with which the rule of wisdom in the
world is described (7:24: διήκει χωρεῖ; 8:1: διοικεῖ) recall the Stoic doctrine
of the world-spirit of God as the wisdom of the world immanent in and pervading
it.[2426] The enumeration also of the four cardinal virtues (8:7: σωφροσύνη
φρόνησις δικαιοσύνη ἀνδρεία) is to be referred to Stoic influence (see Zeller as
above). The psychology of the author on the other hand is Platonico-dualistic.
The soul of man is pre-existent. If it is good it enters an undefiled body
(8:20: ἀγαθὸς ὢν ἦλθον εἰς σῶμα ἀμίαντον). The body is only an “earthly
tabernacle” for the νοῦς (9:15: γεῶδες σκῆνος). After a short time the body must
restore the soul like a loan and then fall to dust (15:8). In this anthropology
the territory of the Jewish view is entirely forsaken. Instead of a resurrection
of the body we have here the Greek view of the immortality of the soul. [2426]
Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. (3rd ed. 1881) p. 271. Heinze Die Lehre
vom Logos p. 192. With respect to the author’s date it must be regarded as
certain that he succeeds Jesus the son of Sirach but precedes Philo. For his
standpoint is a preliminary step to Philo’s. This would not in itself prove a
higher antiquity. But with the near affinity of the two it is not conceivable
that our author would have remained unaffected by Philo if he had succeeded him.
There is absolutely no foundation for the notion (as e.g. by Weisse) of
Christian origin. That the author was an Alexandrian may by reason of the great
prominence of references to Egyptian matters be regarded as certain. On the
other hand it cannot be imagined that Philo was himself the author of this book
as was believed by some even in the time of Jerome (Hieron. praef. in vers.
libr. Salom. Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1293 sq.: “Nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc
esse Judaei Philonis affirmant”); and also by many moderns as Luther Joh.
Gerhard Calovius and others (see Grimm Handb. p. 21 sqq.). The authorship of
Philo is entirely excluded by the difference of his sphere of thought. The book
has been used from the beginning in the Christian Church. Even in the Pauline
Epistles such loud echoes are found as make St. Paul’s acquaintanceship with the
book probable (see Bleek Stud. und Krit. 1853 pp. 340-344; on the other side
Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 35 sqq.). It is tolerably certain that it was known to
Clemens Romanus (Clem. Rom. xxvii. 5 = Sap. Sal. 12:12 and 11:21; comp. also
Clem. lx. 1 = Sap. 7:17). In Tatian Oratio ad Graecos c. vii. init. the same is
said of Christ as is said (Sap. 2:23) of God. Irenaeus in his large work on
heresy nowhere quotes indeed Sap. Sol. but borrows from it (iv. 38. 3) the
saying: ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ θεοῦ (Sap. 6:20). With reference to this
Eusebius (Hist. eccl. v. 8. 8) says of Irenaeus: Καὶ ῥητοῖς δέ τισιν ἐκ τῆς
Σολομῶνος σοφίας κέχρηται μονονουχὶ φάσκων· Ὅρασις δὲ θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ
ἀφθαρσίας ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ θεοῦ. In the βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων
which has not come down to us Irenaeus according to the testimony of Eusebius
expressly quoted from the Book of Wisdom (Hist. eccl. v. 26: τῆς λεγομένης
σοφίας Σολομῶντος μνημονεύει). Canon Muratorianus lin. 69-71: “Sapientia ab
amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta.” See also Hesse Das muratorische
Fragment (1873) p. 239 sqq. Tertullian adv. Valentinianos c. 2 refers to Wis_1:1
in the words: “ut docet ipsa Sophia non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis.”
Tertullian also made use of the Book of Wisdom. Clemens Alexandrinus quotes it
nine times and frequently makes use of it besides. The express quotations are
introduced as either sayings of Solomon (so Strom. vi. 11. 93 14. 110 14. 114
15. 120-121) or of the σοφία (Paedag. ii. 1. 7; Strom. ii. 2. 5 iv. 16. 103-104
v. 14. 89) or with the formula εἴρηται (Strom. vi. 14. 113). Hippolytus
repeatedly quotes the book as a genuine προφητεία Σολομῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ (adv.
Judaeos § 9 and 10 = Lagarde p. 66 sq.) especially the passage 2:12-20 which is
also frequently interpreted in a Messianic sense by moderns (see vol. ii. p.
139). Origen is after the author of the Muratorian Fragment the first to
intimate a doubt with respect to the Solomonian authorship. He quotes it with
the sceptical formula as ἡ ἐπιγεγραμμένη τοῦ Σολομῶντος σοφία (in Joann. vol.
xx. c. 4 = Lommatzsch ii. 202) ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐπιγεγραμμένη Σολομῶντος (in Jerem.
homil. viii. 1 = Lommatzsch xv. 193) ὁ περὶ τῆς σοφίας εἰπών (Selecta in Jerem.
c. 29 = Lommatzsch xv. 453) ἐν τῇ ἐπιγεγραμμένῃ Σολομῶντος σοφίᾳ (contra Cels.
v. 29 = Lommatzsch xix. 216) “in sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis qui utique
liber non ab omnibus in auctoritate habetur” (de principiis iv. 33 = Lommatzsch
xxi. 472 sq.). But he quotes it almost as frequently simply as a work of
Solomon. And that it is to him a canonical book is especially shown by the
entire section de principiis i. 2. 5-13 where he uses the passage Wis_7:25-26
together with Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3 as fundamental passages from which
he develops his Christology. The whole section de princ. i. 2. 9-13 is nothing
but an exegetical discussion of Wis_7:25-26. On the whole there are about forty
quotations from this book in Origen. Cyprian uses the Book of Wisdom as in the
fullest sense canonical. He quotes it as Sapientia Salomonis (Testim. ii. 14
iii. 16 53 58 59 66; Ad Fortunatum c. 1) scriptura divina (De habitu virginum c.
10; Epist. vi. 2) scriptura sancta (Ad Demetrianum c. 24) or with the formulae
as scriptum est (De zelo et livore c. 4; Epist. iv. 1 Leviticus 22) per
Salomonem docet spiritus sanctus and the like (De mortalitate c. 23; Ad
Fortunatum c. 12). He quotes two or three times passages from the Proverbs with
the formula in Sapientia Salomonis (Testim. iii. 1 6 16 56); and once a passage
from Wisdom with the formula in Ecclesiastico (Testim. iii. 112); but both from
inadvertence since he elsewhere decidedly distinguishes between Proverbs
Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. The manuscripts editions and ancient translations
(together with their editions) are the same for this book as for Ecclesiasticus
(see above p. 29) the two books being as a rule combined with each other. The
cod. Vaticanus has been used for our book in Fritzsche’s edition of the
Apocrypha but apparently only according to the data in Reusch (Observ. crit.
1861) which on their part rest upon the untrustworthy edition of the codex by
Mai (see upon this p. 11 above). Valuable contributions to the textual criticism
are given in Reusch Observationes criticae in librum Sapientiae Frib. 1861. The
separate edition (Reusch Liber Sapientiae graece Frib. 1858) gives the text of
the Sixtine edition. An edition of the Greek text with the old Latin and the
Authorized English translation: Deane Σοφια Σαλωμων The Book of Wisdom the Greek
text the Latin Vulgate and the Authorized English version with an introduction
critical apparatus and a commentary Oxford 1881. The exegesis in general see
above p. 11. Commentaries: Bauermeister Commentarius in Sapientiam Salomonis
Götting. 1828. Grimm Commentar über das Buch der Weisheit Leipzig 1837. J. A.
Schmid Das Buch der Weisheit übersetzt und erklärt 1858 (Cathol.). Grimm Das
Buch der Weisheit erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 6 pts.)
Leipzig 1860 (not a new edition of the former work but an entirely new one).
Gutberlet Das Buch der Weisheit übersetzt und erklärt 1874 (Cathol.). Deane in
the above-named separate edition. The older literature in Fabricius Biblioth.
graec. ed. Harles iii. 727-732. Fürst Biblioth. Jud. iii. 219-221. Grimm Exeget.
Handb. p. 45 sq. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496. Separate investigations:
Salthenius Diss. critico-theol. de auctore libri Sapientiae Philone potius
Alexandrino quam seniore Regim. 1739. Bretschneider De libri Sapientiae parte
priore c. i.-xi. e duobus libellis conflata. Pts. i.-iii. Viteb. 1804. Winzer De
philosophia morali in libro Sap. exposita Viteb. 1811. Grimm De Alexandrina
Sapientiae libri indole perperam asserta Jen. 1833 (subsequently withdrawn by
himself). Gfrörer Philo vol. ii. (1831) pp. 200-272. Dähne Geschichtl.
Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 152-180.
Bruch Weisheitslehre der Hebräer Strassb. 1851 pp. 322-378. Schmieder Ueber das
B. der Weisheit 1853. Weisse Die Evangelienfrage (1856) p. 202 sqq. Noach Psyche
iii. 2 pp. 65-102. Nägelsbach in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xvii. 622 sqq. Ewald
Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 626 sqq. The same Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. iii.
264 sq. ix. 234 sq. x. 219 sq. xi. 223 sqq. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen
iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 271-274. Kübel “Die ethischen Grundanschauungen der
Weisheit Salomo’s” (Stud. und Krit. 1865 pp. 690-722). Heinze Die Lehre vom
Logos (1872) pp. 192-202. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 647 sqq. Hausrath
Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 259 sqq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iii.
(3rd ed. 1878) pp. 628-630 (note 3). Perez La Sapienza di Salomone saggio
storico-critico Firenze 1871. The same Sopra Filone Alessandrino e il suo libro
detto “La Sapienza di Salomone” Palermo 1883. The Introductions of Jahn Eichhorn
Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert
Reuss (see above p. 12). 2. Aristobulus The author of the Wisdom of Solomon is
one whose views are still chiefly based upon the Palestinian Proverbial Wisdom
which in him is only peculiarly modified by the influence of Greek philosophy.
The Alexandrian Aristobulus on the contrary is a Hellenistic philosopher in the
proper sense. He is acquainted with and expressly quotes the Greek philosophers
Pythagoras Socrates Plato and is at home with their views as a philosopher by
profession. The statements of the ancients do not indeed entirely agree as to
his date. It may however pass for certain that he lived in the time of Ptolemy
VI. Philometor and therefore towards the middle of the second century before
Christ (about 170-150 B.C.). He himself says in one of his works addressed to a
Ptolemy that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was made “under King
Philadelphus thy ancestor” (Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2 ed. Gaisford: ἐπὶ
τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ προγόνου). Thus he at all events
wrote under a descendant of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus. But both Clemens
Alexandrinus and Eusebius in his Chronicle distinctly mention Philometor.[2427]
The same chronology is also presupposed when Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius
identify this Aristobulus with the one who is mentioned in the beginning of the
second Book of Maccabees (2Ma_1:10).[2428] In opposition to such evidence it
cannot be taken into consideration that Anatolius places him under Ptolemy II.
Philadelphus[2429] and that the only manuscript of the Stromata of Clemens
Alexandrinus has erroneously Philadelphus instead of Philometor in one
passage.[2430] [2427] Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 150: Ἀριστόβουλος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ
τῶν πρὸς τὸν Φιλομήτορα. The reading here is guaranteed for in Eusebius also who
in the Praep. evang. ix. 6 gives this passage from Clemens the manuscripts all
have Φιλομήτορα. Euseb. Chron. ad Olymp. 151 (ed. Schoene ii. 124 sq.). The
Greek text which is preserved in the Chronicon paschale is as follows:
Ἀριστόβουλος Ἰουδαῖος περιπατήτικὸς φιλόσοφος ἐγνορίζετο ὃς Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ
Φιλομήτορι ἐξηγήσεις τῆς Μωϋσέως γραφῆς ἀνέθηκεν. So too the Armenian and
Jerome. The 151st Olympiad = 176-172 B.C. [2428] Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 97.
Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin. [2429] Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii.
32. 16. [2430] Clemens Strom. v. 14. 97. The cod. Laurentianus i.e. the only
manuscript in which the Stromata of Clemens has come down to us (for the
Parisinus saec. 15 is only a copy from it) has here Φιλάδελφον. Modern editors
have however correctly replaced it by Φιλομήτορα. According to Clem. Alex.
Strom. v. 14. 97 this Aristobulus wrote βιβλία ἱκανά. Probably Clemens does not
mean to say that he wrote several books but that the one work which he knew of
his was an extensive one. We are indebted for further particulars to Clemens
Alexandrinus (Strom. i. 15. 72 i. 22. 150 v. 14. 97 vi. 3. 32) Anatolius (in
Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32 16-19 Anatolius was an older contemporary of
Eusebius) and Eusebius (Praep. evang. vii. 14 viii. 10 xiii. 12). Aristobulus is
also briefly mentioned by Origen (contra Cels. iv. 51). The only two passages
which are verbally preserved are in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 10 and xiii. 12.
For whatever other verbal quotations are found (Clemens Strom. i. 22. 150 =
Euseb. Praep. ix. 6. Clemens Strom. vi. 3. 32 = Euseb. Praep. vii. 14) are
certainly contained also in the text of these larger fragments.[2431] The
passage which Cyrillus Alex. (contra Julian. p. 134 ed. Spanh.) ascribes to
Aristobulus is derived from the third Book of the Indica of Megasthenes and has
been only ascribed to Aristobulus in consequence of a very inconsiderate use of
Clem. Al. Strom. i. 15. 72. [2431] Namely: (1) Clem. Str. i. 22. 450 = Eus. Pr.
ix. 6 = Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 1. (2) Clem. Strom. vi. 3. 32 = Eus. Pr. viii. 10.
14. (3) Eus. Pr. vii. 14 = Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 10-11. The work which was in the
hands of these Fathers is designated as an explanation of the Mosaic laws.[2432]
According however to the fragments preserved we must conceive of it not as an
actual commentary on the text but as a free reproduction of the contents of the
Pentateuch in which the latter is philosophically explained. Hence it is not
Philo’s allegorical commentaries on single passages of the text but his
systematic delineation of the Mosaic legislation the characteristics of which
have been described p. 219 above which is analogous to it. Like Philo
Aristobulus already seems to have given a connected representation of the
contents of the Pentateuch for the purpose of showing to the cultured heathen
world that the Mosaic law if only correctly understood already contained all
that the best Greek philosophers subsequently taught. The work was first of all
intended for King Ptolemy Philometor himself[2433] who is therefore addressed in
the text (Eus. Pr. viii. 10. 1 sqq. xiii. 12. 2). Hence it is self-evident that
it is addressed simply to heathen readers. His chief object was as Clement says
to show “that the peripatetic philosophy was dependent upon the law of Moses and
the other prophets” (Strom. v. 14. 97: Ἀριστοβούλῳ … βιβλία πεπόνηται ἱκανὰ διʼ
ὧν ἀποδείκνυσι τὴν περιπατητικὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἔκ τε τοῦ κατὰ Μωυσέα νόμου καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων ἠρτῆσθαι προφητῶν). This is substantially confirmed by the fragments
preserved only instead of the peripatetic the Greek philosophy in general should
rather be spoken of. For Aristobulus is not contented with exhibiting the
intrinsic agreement of the Mosaic law with the philosophy of the Greeks but
roundly asserts that the Greek philosophers a Pythagoras a Socrates a Plato
derived their doctrines from Moses nay that even the poets Homer and Hesiod
borrowed much from him for that the essential contents of the Pentateuch had
been rendered into Greek long before the Greek translation of the Pentateuch
made under Ptolemy Philadelphus.[2434] This bold assertion that Moses was the
father of Greek philosophy and culture was embraced also by later Jewish
Hellenists. Especially do we again meet with it in Philo. [2432] Euseb. Praep.
evang. vii. 13. 7 ed. Gaisford: τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἑρμηνείαν. Euseb. Chron. ad
Olymp. 151 (ed. Schoene ii. 124 sq.): ἐξηγήσεις τῆς Μωυσέως γραφῆς (this Greek
wording preserved by means of the Chron. paschale is confirmed by the Armenian
[enarrationem librorum Moysis] and by Jerome [explanationem in Moysen
commentarios]). Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16: βίβλους ἐξηγητικὰς
τοῦ Μωϋσέως νόμου. [2433] Clemens Al. Strom. i. 22. 150 = Eus. Praep. evang. ix.
6. 6: ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν πρὸς τὸν Φιλομήτορα. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin.: ἐν
τῷ πρὸς Πτολλεμαῖον τὸν βασιλέα συγγράμματι. Euseb. Praep. evang. vii. 13 fin.
Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16. [2434] See especially Euseb. Praep.
evang. xiii. 12. 1 = Clemens Strom. i. 22. 150 = Euseb. Praep. ix. 6. 6-8.
Pythagoras Socrates and Plato: Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 4 ed. Gaisford. Homer and
Hesiod: Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 13. The fragments preserved give us at least an
approximate notion of the execution in detail. A large portion of the passages
are employed in settling the true sense of the Biblical anthropomorphisms. Thus
e.g. the long passage in Euseb. Pr. evang. xiii. 12. 1-8 which according to the
parallel passage in Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 150 = Euseb. Pr. ix. 6 is taken
from the first book of Aristobulus’ work and evidently belonged to the
explanation of the history of the Creation shows that nothing else is meant by
the words “God said and it was” than that everything came to pass by the
operation (δυνάμει) of God as indeed was taught by the Greek philosophers
Orpheus and Aratus. The following passage (Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 9-16) which also
belonged to the explanation of the history of the Creation treats of the seventh
day as the day of rest and explains its meaning by an appeal among other things
to supposed verses of Hesiod Homer and Linus.[2435] Another passage (Eus. Pr.
viii. 10) shows what we are to understand when the hands arms face and feet of
God or a walking of God are spoken of.[2436] Lastly the extract from Anatolius
given in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 17-18 is occupied with the Passover which
is celebrated when both the sun and moon are in the equinox viz. the sun in the
vernal and the moon opposite him in the autumnal equinox. Just this fragment
shows that Aristobulus by no means occupied himself with only philosophically
explaining away the text of the Pentateuch but that he really gave a description
and explanation of the Mosaic law. While endeavouring however to settle its
meaning he often enters as Origen especially intimates (contra Cels. iv. 51)
into the region of allegorical interpretation. [2435] A small portion of this
(Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 10-11) is also found Pr. evang. vii. 14. [2436] A small
sentence from it is found in Eus. Pr. viii. 10. 14; also in Clem. Alex. Strom.
vi. 3. 32. The fragments give no further disclosure concerning the philosophical
standpoint of Aristobulus. It may without any hesitation be assumed that he was
an eclectic. The fragment on the meaning of the Sabbath “enters into a
Pythagorean-like dilation on the power of the number seven.”[2437] Elsewhere
Aristobulus appeals not only generally to Pythagoras Socrates and Plato but when
entering more into detail to the peripatetic doctrine in particular.[2438] That
he the more closely adhered to the latter is vouched for by the Fathers who
unanimously call him a peripatetic.[2439] [2437] Zeller Die Philosophie der
Griechen iii. 2. (3rd ed.) p. 264. [2438] Eus. Pr. ev. xiii. 12. 10-11 = vii.
14. [2439] Clemens Strom. i. 15. 72 v. 14. 97. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin.
ix. 6. 6. Chron. ad Olymp. 151 (ed. Schoene ii. 124 sq.). It is almost
incomprehensible that many more recent scholars (e.g. Richard Simon Hody
Eichhorn Kuenen Grätz Joel) should have disputed the genuineness of the whole
work of Aristobulus. The picture which we obtain from the fragments of the work
that have come down to us so entirely coincides with all that we elsewhere learn
of the intellectual tendency of Hellenistic Judaism that there is absolutely no
occasion for any kind of doubt. The sole reason against the genuineness which at
all deserves mention is the certainly indisputable fact that Aristobulus cites
supposed verses of Orpheus Hesiod Homer and Linus which are certainty forged by
a Jew. It is thought that such audacity is inconceivable in a work intended for
King Ptolemy himself. The assumption on which the argument starts is that the
verses were forged by Aristobulus himself—an assumption not only incapable of
proof but in the highest degree improbable. The verses were probably derived
from an older Jewish work (see on this point No. VII.) and adopted by
Aristobulus in all good faith in their genuineness. Aristobulus only did what
later Christian apologists have also done without thereby affording a ground for
doubting the genuineness of their works. The entire work of Aristobulus is said
according to a marginal note in the cod. Laurentianus of Clemens Alexandrinus’
Stromata to have been still extant towards the dose of the Middle Ages in a
library at Patmos (on Strom. i. 22. 150 a hand of the fifteenth or sixteenth
century remarks: Ἀριστοβούλου βίβλος αὕτη ἡ πρὸς τὸν Φιλομήτορα ἐστὶν εἰς τὴν
Πάτμον ἣν ἔγωγε οἶδα; see the note in Dindorf’s ed.). Whether this note is
worthy of credence is however very doubtful. Compare in general: Richard Simon
Histoire critique du Vieux Testament pp. 189 499. Hody De bibliorum textibus p.
50 sqq. Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i. 164 iii. 469 sq. Eichhorn
Allgem. Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur vol. v. (1793) pp. 253-298.
Valckenaer Diatribe de Aristobulo Judaeo philosopho peripatetico Alexandrino
Lugd. Bat. 1806 (chief work). Gabler’s Journal für auserlesene theolog.
Literatur vol. v. (1810) pp. 183-209 (advertisement of Valckenaer’s work). Winer
in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encydop. § 1 vol. v. (1820) p. 266. Lobeck
Aglaophamus i. (1829) p. 448. Gfrörer Philo ii. 711-21. Dähne Geschichtl.
Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 73-112. Fürst Biblioth. Jud.
i. 53 sq. Herzteld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 473 sqq. 564 sqq. Ewald Gesch.
des Volkes Israel iv. 335 sqq. Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Enc. i. 2 (2nd ed.) p.
1600. Cobet in the Λογιος Ἑρμης i. (1866) pp. 173-177 521. Zeller Die
Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed.) pp. 257-264. Ueberweg Grundriss 4th
ed. i. 240 sqq. Binde Aristobulische Studien 2 pts. Glogau 1869-1870
(Gymnasialprogr.). Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos (1872) pp. 185-192. Kuenen De
godsdienst van Israël ii. (1870) pp. 433-440. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor
pp. 166-169. Grätz Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1878 pp.
49-60 97-109. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten
christlichen Jahrhunderts (1880) pp. 77-100. 3. Philo Philo the more recent
fellow-countryman of Aristobulus by two centuries represents the same tendency.
His main effort also is to prove that the views derived from Greek philosophers
were genuinely Jewish. And this he does now for heathen now for Jewish readers;
for the former to inspire them with respect for Judaism for the latter to
educate them to such a Judaism as he himself represents. It may safely be
assumed that there were between Aristobulus and Philo other representatives of
this tendency. For it presented itself in Philo with such assurance and in such
maturity of form as would not be conceivable without historical connection.
Nothing however of the supposed literary productions of such individuals has
come down to us. Since Philo by reason of his eminent importance and the extent
of his extant works demands a separate delineation (§ 34) we will here only
briefly mention those writings of his in which philosophical instruction and
discussion form the main object. Among these are in the first place two of his
principal works on the Pentateuch viz.: (1) the Ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις a short
explanation of Genesis and Exodus in the form of questions and answers; and (2)
the Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι the extensive allegorical commentaries on select
passages of Genesis in the form of Rabbinical Midrash. These form Philo’s chief
philosophical work properly so called and constitute in extent about the half of
Philo’s still extant writings. (3) The work Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι
ἐλεύθερον (Quod omnis probus liber) properly only the second half of a work
whose first half which is lost dealt with the theme περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα
φαῦλον was also occupied in the discussion of philosophical questions. (4) Περὶ
προνοίας. (5) Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ περὶ τοῦ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα. Particulars
concerning all these works will be found in § 34. The two last-named are also of
interest because Philo in them chooses the form of the Greek dialogue in
discussing the theme. 4. The Fourth Book of Maccabees To philosophical
literature belongs also the so-called fourth Book of Maccabees. For the Judaism
which the author recommends is influenced by the Stoic philosophy. In its form
this piece of writing is a discourse. It directly addresses its hearers or
readers (1:1 18:1).[2440] The contents being of a religious and edifying kind it
might even be called a sermon and the choice of this form referred to the custom
of religious lectures in the synagogues. But when Freudenthal (pp. 4-36)
emphatically insists that we have here an actual specimen of synagogue preaching
this is not only incapable of proof but also improbable the theme discoursed on
being not a text of Holy Scripture but a philosophic proposition. [2440] I quote
according to the division into chapters and verses of Fritzsche’s edition of the
Apocrypha. The author had only Jews in view whether as hearers or readers (18:1:
ὦ τῶν Ἀβραμιαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ἰσραηλῖται). He desires to show them
that it is not difficult to lead a pious life if only they follow the precepts
of “pious reason.” For “pious reason is the absolute ruler of the motives” (1:1:
αὐτοδέσποτός ἐστι τῶν παθῶν ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός). This proposition is the proper
theme of the discourse; its meaning is first explained and its truth afterwards
proved by facts from Jewish history especially by the laudable martyrdom of
Eleazar and the seven Maccabaean brothers. A large portion of the contents is
therefore devoted to a description of the martyrdom of these heroes of faith. In
his grossly realistic delineation of the several tortures the author shows even
greater want of taste than the second Book of Maccabees and the psychology
assumed is as contrary as possible to nature. His authority seems to have been
the second Book of Maccabees. At least it cannot be proved that he drew as
Freudenthal (pp. 72-90) supposes from the larger work of Jason of Cyrene
(2Ma_2:23). The author’s own standpoint is influenced by Stoicism. The
fundamental idea of the whole discourse is that of Stoic morality viz. the rule
of reason over impulse. The setting up too of four cardinal virtues (φρόνησις
δικαιοσύνη ἀνδρεία σωφροσύνη) is derived from Stoicism. But this influence of
Stoicism does not anywhere penetrate more deeply with the author. Even the
fundamental idea is transformed in Jewish fashion. For the reason to which he
ascribes dominion over desire is not human reason as such but pious reason: ὁ
εὐσεβὴς λογισμός (1:1 7:16 13:1 15:20 16:1 18:2) i.e. reason guiding itself
according to the rule of the divine law (comp. also 1:15 sq.). He also goes his
own way in the description and division of the affections (see Freudenthal p. 55
sqq.; Zeller iii. 2. 276). But it would be doing him too much honour to
designate him as an eclectic philosopher. He is but a dilettante in
philosophicis somewhat after the fashion of Josephus who also knows how to give
his Judaism a philosophic tinge. Of all Jewish philosophers known to us our
author stands relatively nearest to Pharisaism for just what he extols in the
Maccabaean brethren is their punctilious adherence to the ceremonial law. Two of
his Jewish views in particular may be brought forward as worthy of notice—(1)
his belief in the resurrection the form of which is not that of the Pharisaic
belief in that doctrine but the form met with among other Jewish Hellenists of a
faith in an eternal and blessed life of pious souls in heaven (13:16 15:2 17:5
18 fin.);[2441] and (2) the notion that the martyrdom of the righteous serves as
an atonement for the sins of the people (6:29: καθάρσιον αὐτῶν ποίησον τὸ ἐμὸν
αἷμα καὶ ἀντίψυχον αὐτῶν λάβε τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν; 17:29: ὰντίψυχον γεγονότας τῆς τοῦ
ἔθνους ἁμαρτίας).[2442] [2441] For further particulars see Grimm Exeget. Handb.
p. 289 and Freudenthal pp. 67-71. Caution is however needed in the settlement of
details because the text seems to be not quite free from Christian
interpolations. See Freudenthal p. 165 sqq. Such an interpolation are the words
εἰς τοὺς κόλπους αὐτῶν which are wanting in the cod. Alex. and Sin. The thought
however remains the same even without these words. [2442] Comp. Freudenthal p.
68. Josephus is named by Eusebius and other Church writers as the author of this
book. This view however has only the value of a hypothesis. For the book still
appears in many manuscripts anonymously and was therefore certainly at first
issued without the name of the author. The entirely different style and the
circumstance that Josephus in his Antiquities nowhere makes use of the second
Book of Maccabees and thus seems not to know it while the work in question is
entirely based upon it speak against his authorship. The first century after
Christ is generally accepted as the date of composition chiefly because the book
must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Though the latter
cannot be proved this view must be pretty nearly correct since a more recent
book would no longer have been accepted by the Christian Church. Eusebius
speaking of the writings of Josephus says concerning the title and authorship
Hist. eccl. iii. 10. 6: Πεπόνηται δὲ καὶ ἄλλο οὐκ ἀγεννὲς σπούδασμα τῷ ἀνδρὶ
περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ ὅ τινες Μακκαβαϊκὸν ἐπέγραψαν κ.τ.λ. Hieronymus De
viris illustr. c. 13 (Vallarsi ii. 851): “Alius quoque liber ejus qui
inscribitur περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ valde elegans habetur in quo et
Machabaeorum sunt digesta martyria.” The same contra Pelagianos ii. 6 (Vallarsi
ii. 749): “Unde et Josephus Machabaeorum scriptor historiae frangi et regi posse
dixit perturbationes animi non eradicari (= 4Ma_3:5).” The article in Suidas
Lex. s.v. Ἰώσηπος is taken from the Greek translation of Hieron. de viris
illustris c. 13. For other authors who attribute this book to Josephus see Grimm
Handb. p. 293 sq. It is also frequently attributed to Josephus in the MSS.
(Grimm as above. Freudenthal p. 117 sqq.). Its title as the fourth Book of
Maccabees (Μακκαβαίων δʹ) is found in Philostorgius and Syncellus and in some
Scripture MSS. and indeed in the latter without the mention of Josephus as its
author (so esp. cod. Alex. and Sin.). For further particulars see Freudenthal
pp. 117-120. On the use of the book in Christian ascetic literature see above p.
214. The manuscripts in which our book has come down are some of them
manuscripts of Scripture some of Josephus. The former are not numerous since as
a rule only three books of Maccabees were received as canonical (Freudenthal pp.
118 119). Still the two most important manuscripts for our book are Scripture
MSS. viz. the codex Alexandrinus (No. iii. in Fritzsche) and Sinaiticus (No. x.
in Fritzsche). On the editions of these manuscripts see above p. 166. More
concerning them will be found in Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. v. 26 sq.
Grimm Handb. p. 294 Freudenthal pp. 120-127 169 sq. 173. Fritzsche Prolegom. p.
xxi. sq. Collations chiefly in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus ii. 1. 497 sqq.
ii. 2. 157 sqq. A fragment in Tischendorf Monumenta sacra inedita vol. vi. 1869.
Various readings of a Florentine MS. (Acquis. ser. iii. No. 44) are given by
Pitra Analecta sacra vol. ii. (1884) pp. 635-640. The text is printed in
accordance with the manuscripts on the one hand in some editions of the
Septuagint and in separate editions of the Apocrypha on the other and chiefly in
the editions of Josephus. Most of the editors have troubled themselves very
little about the manuscripts. The first attempt at a recension of the text from
the best authorities is made in Fritzsche’s edition of the Libri apocryphi Vet.
Test. graece (Lips. 1871). For more on the editions see Grimm Handb. p. 294 sq.
Freudenthal pp. 127-133. Erasmus compiled a Latin paraphrase of this book
(printed e.g. in Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 148-156). Nothing reliable is as
yet known of any ancient Latin translation on which it is based. See Grimm p.
296. Freudenthal p. 133 sqq. The old Syriac translation is published in
Ceriani’s photo-lithographic edition of the Milan Peshito manuscript (see above
p. 92). Grimm has given a careful commentary on this book in his Exeget. Handb.
zu den Apokryphen 4 parts Leipzig 1857. Freudenthal’s Die Flavius Josephus
beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft (4 Makkabäerbuch) eine
Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert untersucht Breslau 1869 is a
complete monograph. A German translation is contained in the Bibliothek der
griechischen und römischen Schriftsteller über Judenthum und Juden in neuen
Uebertragungen und Sammlungen 2 vols. Leipzig 1867. Comp. in general: Gfrörer
Philo ii. 173-200. Dähne Geshichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex.
Religionsphilosophie ii. 190-199. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 632 sqq.
Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 74-83. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr.
für Wissensch. und Leben 1869 pp. 113-116. Fritzeche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iv.
98-100. Keil Einl. in’s A. T. 3rd ed. (1873) p. 722 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. für
Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 p. 454 sqq. Reuss Gesch. der heil.
Schriften A. T.’s § 570. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed.
1881) pp. 275-277. VI. APOLOGETICS The peculiarity of the Jewish people involved
the circumstance that the Jews were felt to be more than other Orientals an
anomaly in the framework of the Graeco-Roman world. Denying all authority to
other religions they were paid in the same coin and their right of existence
upon the soil of Hellenistic culture disputed. The town municipalities tried to
get rid of such inconvenient fellow-citizens; the populace was always ready to
lift up a hand against them while by the educated they were despised and derided
(see vol. ii. pp. 273-276 291). Hellenistic Judaism thus found itself
continually at war with the rest of the Hellenistic world; it had ever to draw
the sword in its own defence. Hence a large share of the entire Graeco-Jewish
literature subserves apologetic purposes. Especially does the historic and
philosophic literature essentially pursue the design of showing that the Jewish
nation was by reason of the greatness of its history and the purity of its
teaching if not superior at least equal to others. Besides these indirectly
apologetic works there were also some which sought in a systematic manner to
refute the reproaches with which Judaism was assailed. These were called forth
by the sometimes utterly absurd fables propagated by certain Greek literati
concerning the Jews and generally by the direct accusations brought against them
in Greek and Latin literature. These accusations had their rise in Egypt
(Joseph. contra Apion. i. 25). Alexandrian literati were the first to write
against the Jews. From these turbid waters later writers especially Tacitus
drew. In what follows we shall speak in the first place of literary opponents
and afterwards of the apologetic works and the points of dispute themselves
(Attack and Defence). 1. The Literary Opponents 1. Manetho (comp. Josephus
contra Apion. i. 26-31). The Egyptian priest Manetho composed in the time of
Ptolemy II. Philadelphus therefore about 270-250 B.C. a learned work on Egyptian
history in the Greek language derived from the sacred records themselves
(Joseph. contra Apion. i. 14: γέγραφε Ἑλλάδι φωνῇ τὴν πάτριον ἱστορίαν ἔκ τε τῶν
ἱερῶν ὡς φησὶν αὐτός μεταφράσας. Ibid. i. 26: ὁ τὴν Αἰγυπτιακὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶν
ἱερῶν γραμμάτων μεθερμηνεύειν ὑπεσχημένος). From these Αἰγυπτιακά of Manetho
Josephus gives in two places long fragments which however as Josephus himself
states are of very different character. The portions (from the second Book of
the Αἰγυπτιακά) in i. 14-16 which treat of the rule of the Hyksos in Egypt make
by the copiousness of their contents and the conciseness of their form the most
favourable impression. Nothing in them gives occasion for doubting that their
contents are really derived from the ancient records. Of quite another kind are
the portions in i. 26 27. These do not indeed pretend to be authentic history
but only give according to Manetho’s own confession the legends current
concerning the Jews (i. 16: ὁ Μανεθὼν οὐκ ἐκ τῶν παρʼ Αἰγυπτίοις γραμμάτων ἀλλʼ
ὡς αὐτὸς ὡμολόγηκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀδεσπότως μυθολογουμένων προστέθεικεν. I. 26: μέχρι
μὲν τούτων ἠκολούθησε ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς ἔπειτα δὲ δοὺς ἐξουσίαν αὑτῷ διὰ τοῦ φάναι
γράψειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λόγους ἀπιθάνους
παρενέβαλεν). It is here related how King Amenophis of Egypt assembled in one
place all the lepers of the country 80000 in number and sent them to work in the
stone quarries east of the Nile. After they had laboured there a long time they
petitioned the king to assign to them the town of Auaris which had formerly been
inhabited by the Hyksos as a place of residence. The king granted their request.
When however they had taken possession of the town they were attacked by the
king and chose a priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph as their head who gave them
new laws in which they were especially commanded to worship no gods and to kill
the sacred animals. He also invoked the aid of the Hyksos from Jerusalem as
allies. With their assistance the lepers now drove away King Amenophis and ruled
Egypt for thirteen years. The priest Osarsiph then took the name of Moses. After
the thirteen years the Hyksos and the lepers were driven out of Egypt by King
Amenophis. This history concerning the origin of the Jews was therefore read in
his text of Manetho by Josephus. Whether it is derived from Manetho himself is
questionable. Many recent investigators e.g. Boeckh Carl Müller Kellner regard
it as a later insertion.[2443] The possibility of its being such cannot be
disputed since this much read work already existed in various recensions even in
the time of Josephus.[2444] This view does not however appear to me to be
probable in the case in question. For if an enemy of the Jews had subsequently
inserted the passage he would scarcely have been so truthful as expressly to
bring forward the fact that he was not giving a history accredited by ancient
records but only τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. In these words we
hear the strict investigator who indeed as an enemy of the Jews cannot deny
himself the reporting of these tales but expressly distinguishes them as legends
from authentic history. At any rate Josephus read the section in all the copies
known to him of Manetho; for he says nothing of any difference in this
respect.[2445] [2443] Boeckh Manetho und die Hundssternperiode p. 302. Müller
Fragm. hist. graec. ii. 514b. Kellner De fragmente Manethonianis p. 52 sq.
[2444] In the passage i. 14 Josephus gives a long extract from Manetho in which
the name Hyksos is explained by “Shepherd Kings.” On this Josephus remarks that
“in another copy” (ἐν ἄλλῳ ἀντιγράφῳ) another explanation is given. Ἐν ἄλλῃ δέ
τινι βίβλῳ (i. 14 near the end) must be understood in the same sense i.e. of
another manuscript not of another part of Manetho’s work. [2445] It must not be
urged (as by Kellner) against the origin of the section in question that it is
contradictory to the passage given i. 14. Such a contradiction only exists if
the Hyksos are identified—as by Josephus—with the Jews which is certainly a
mistake. The fragments of Manetho are best collected in Carl Müller Fragmenta
historicorum Graecorum vol. ii. (1848) pp. 511-616. Comp. on Manetho in general:
Böckh Manetho und die Hundssternperiode ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pharaonen
Berlin 1845. Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1477 sqq. Nicolai Griechische
Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. vol. ii. (1876) pp. 198-200. Krall “Die Composition
und die Schicksale des Manethonischen Geschichtswerkes” (Sitzungsberichte der
Wiener Akademie philos.-histor. Classe vol. xcv. yearly course 1879 pp. 123-226)
treats pp. 152-169 especially of the fragments in Josephus. On the fragments in
Josephus: Hengstenberg Die Bücher Moses und Aegypten with an appendix: Manetho
und die Hyksos Berlin 1841. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel (3rd ed.) ii. 110
sqq. Kellner De fragmentis Manethonianis quae apud Josephum contra Apionem i. 14
and i. 26 sunt. Marburg 1859. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen
den Apion (Basel 1877) pp. 120 sqq. 185 sqq. 214 sqq. 2. Apollonius Melon (or
Molonis?). Among the literary opponents of Judaism Josephus frequently names one
Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μόλων (contra Apion. ii. 14 ii. 36) in a later passage ὁ Μόλων
Ἀπολλώνιος (comp. ii. 7: Apollonium Molonis) whose full name he also abridges so
as to write either only Ἀπολλώνιος (ii. 14 and ii. 37 twice) or only Μόλων (ii.
2 ed. Bekker 226. 13; comp. ii. 33 and ii. 41: Μόλωνες). This adversary of the
Jews in Josephus is undoubtedly identical with him from whom Alexander
Polyhistor gives a passage (in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19: ὁ δὲ τὴν συσκευὴν
τὴν κατὰ Ἰουδαίων γράψας Μόλων).[2446] An orator of the same name (Apollonius
Molon) is elsewhere frequently mentioned as the teacher of Cicero and Caesar and
as a writer on rhetoric.[2447] It seems however that some discrepancies had
already crept in concerning him among the ancients. For Strabo distinguishes two
orators an Apollonius and a Molon evidently by reason of a more accurate
knowledge of the matter. He mentions both (xiv. 2. 13 p. 655) as eminent men who
lived in Rhodes and remarks that both came from Alabanda in Caria but that Molon
came to Rhodes subsequently to Apollonius on which account Apollonius said to
him “ὀψὲ μολών.” Thus they were not only fellow-countrymen but contemporaries.
Strabo also distinguishes them in another passage in which he is enumerating the
eminent men of Alabanda (xiv. 2. 26 p. 661). Cicero too mentions both and indeed
so that he calls the one only Apollonius and the other who was Cicero’s tutor
only Molon.[2448] Hence we must certainly distinguish between the two.
Apollonius however was called by his full name Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ τοῦ Μόλωνος
(Plutarch. Cicero 4 Caesar 3; Joseph. Apion. ii. 7); and he seems by placing his
father’s name beside his own according to a custom which may be pointed to
elsewhere to have called himself Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μόλων.[2449] This gave rise to his
being frequently confounded with Molon. Cicero had probably heard both but his
own teacher was Molon. We are here concerned not with the latter but with his
older fellow-countryman Apollonius who according to Cicero was already a noted
teacher 120 years before Christ.[2450] [2446] The form Μόλων is given by
Gaisford according to the better manuscripts; other editions have Μήλων. [2447]
Quintilian xii. 6. 7. Sueton. Caesar 4. Quintilian iii. 1. 16. Phoebammon in
Rhetores graeci ed. Walz viii. 494 (here Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Μόλων). [2448]
For proof see Riese Molon or Apollonius Molon? (Rhein. Museum 1879 pp. 627-630)
from which the above details concerning the distinctness of the two men is
taken. [2449]a Comp. Quaestiones epicae 1837 p. 23 note (with appeal to Sturz
Opp. p. 14). The supposition of Riese that the name Apollonius Molon originated
in a misunderstanding of the title-superscription Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Μόλωνος is
according to what has been said neither necessary nor probable. [2450] Cicero
makes Scaevola say De orat. i. 17. 75: “Quae cum ego praetor Rhodum venissem et
cum illo summo doctore istius disciplinae Apollonio ea quae a Panaetio acceperam
contulissem irrisit ille quidem ut solebat philosophiamque contempsit” etc.
Scaevola was praetor about A.U.C. 633 = 121 B.C. (see Pauly’s Enc. v. 183).
Cicero also mentions this same Apollonius De oratore i. 28. 126 (Alabandensem
Apollonium) and i. 28. 130 De inventione i. 56. 109. There existed before the
end of the second century before Christ in Caria and Rhodes sufficient occasion
for the composition of a polemical work against the Jews by a living orator. For
we know that just here the Jews were already numerously dispersed during the
second century B.C.[2451] The work of Apollonius was according to Alexander
Polyhistor a συσκευὴ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19). Hence it dealt
not merely occasionally like Manetho’s Αἰγυπτιακά but exclusively with the Jews.
As Josephus says Apollonius did not like Apion heap up his accusations in one
place but calumniated the Jews in many passages and throughout the work now in
one manner now in another (contra Apion. ii. 14: τὴν κατηγορίαν ὁ Ἀπολλώνιος οὐκ
ἀθρόαν ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀπίων ἔταξεν ἀλλὰ σποράδην καὶ διὰ πάσης τῆς συγγραφῆς …
λοιδορεῖ) hence it must be supposed that the work was not a purely polemical one
but that in connection with statements concerning the Jews it contained much
polemical invective. This is also thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the
fragment in Alexander Polyhistor (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19) is occupied in a
purely objective manner with the history of Abraham. It follows from the
allusions of Josephus that the history of the exodus from Egypt was also treated
of (contra Apion. ii. 2) and that the work “contained unjust and untrue reports
concerning our legislator Moses and our laws” (ii. 14). In the latter respect we
learn also that Apollonius reproached the Jews with “not worshipping the same
gods as others” (ii. 7) with having no fellowship with those who believed
differently (ii. 36) and with being therefore ἄθεοι and μισάνθρωποι also as at
one time cowardly at another fanatic as the most incapable among barbarians and
as having furnished nothing towards general culture (ii. 14). Josephus on his
part repays Apollonius in his own coin reproaching him with gross want of sense
arrogance and immoral conduct (ii. 36 37). [2451] Comp. 1Ma_15:16-24 and . The
Carian towns of Myndos Halicarnassus and Cnidus and the neighbouring islands of
Cos and Rhodes are presupposed (1Ma_15:16-24 and elsewhere) to be abodes of the
Jews. On Halicarnassus comp. also (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 23). Comp. on
Apollonius in general: C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 208 sq. Creuzer Theol.
Stud. u. Krit. 1853 p. 83 sq. Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Enc. l. 2 (2nd ed.) p.
1318. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 230.
Riese “Molon oder Apollonius Molon?” (Rheinisches Museum vol. xxxiv. Jahrg. 1879
pp. 627-630). 3. Lysimachus (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 34-35). The
fragment which Josephus ibid. gives from the work of a certain Lysimachus
relates to the departure of the Jews from Egypt and narrates concerning it
similar fables but still more absurd than those told by Manetho. The few
occasional notices which Josephus elsewhere (contra Apion. ii. 2 twice and ii.
14) gives refer to the same fact. According to contra Apion. ii. 2: Ἀπίων … τὸν
αὐτὸν Λυσιμάχῳ σχεδιάσας he seems to have been Apion’s predecessor. From the
tenor of the fragment it may be assumed that he was an Egyptian. According to
Cosmas Indicopleustes the work from which the fragment is taken is said to have
been a “History of Egypt.”[2452] Since however Cosmas evidently derives his
information only from Josephus and erroneously reckons Apollonius Molon among
the Αἰγυπτιακὰ συγγραψάμενοι and nothing else is known of the Αἰγυπτιακά of
Lysimachus the matter must be left uncertain. Two works Θηβαϊκὰ παράδοξα and
Νόστοι (returns reversiones i.e. of Greek heroes from Troy) of an author named
Lysimachus are frequently cited elsewhere in ancient literature. As the author
of the Νόστοι seems to have been an Alexandrian and to have lived in the first
century before Christ he is probably identical with this Lysimachus. [2452]
Cosmas Indicopleustes Topograph. christ. lib. xii. (by Gallandi Biblioth. patr.
xi. 572): Οἱ δὲ τὰ Αἰγυπτιακὰ συγγραψάμενοι τουτέστι Μανεθὼν καὶ Χαιρημὼν καὶ
Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μολῶν καὶ Λυσίμαχος καὶ Ἀπίων ὁ γραμματικὸς μέμνηνται Μωϋσέως καὶ
τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ τῆς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου. The fragments of Lysimachus (both
those from Josephus and those of the Φηβαϊκὰ παράδοξα and the Νόστοι) are
collected in C. Müller Fragm. historicorum Graecorum iii. 334-342. The fragments
of the Θηβ. παράδ. are also in Westermann Παραδοξογράφοι (Brunsvigae 1839) p.
xxx. sq. 164 sq. Comp. in general: Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1311.
Stiehle “Die Nosten des Lysimachos” (Philologus vol. iv. 1849 pp. 99-110; v.
1850 p. 382 sq.). J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Scrhift gegen den Apion p.
208. 4. Chaeremon (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 32-33). The fragment from
Chaeremon also refers to the departure of the Jews from Egypt and is with
respect to its contents nearer to the narrative of Manetho than Lysimachus is.
Josephus in this case expressly says that the fragment was taken from the
Αἰγυπτιακὴ ἱστορία of Chaeremon (contra Apion. i. 32) This Chaeremon is also
elsewhere known as an author on Egyptian matters. In the letter of Porphyrius to
the Egyptian Anebon from which Eusebius Praep. evang. iii. 4 and v. 10 gives
extracts two portions which relate to the Egyptian mythology and theology are
cited from Chaeremon. In the second (Euseb. v. 10. 5 ed. Gaisford) Porphyrius
designates Chaeremon as ἱερογραμματεύς. In the work of Porphyrius which has come
down to us De abstinentia iv. 6-8 a detailed description of the life of Egyptian
priests is given from Chaeremon which Porphyry introduces with the words:
“Chaeremon the Stoic in treating of the Egyptian priests who as he says are
esteemed philosophers among the Egyptians relates that they chose the
sanctuaries as the place for philosophizing (Τὰ γοῦν κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἱερέας
Χαιρήμων ὁ Στωικὸς ἀφηγούμενος οὓς καὶ φιλοσόφους ὑπειλῆφθαί φησι παρʼ
Αἰγυπτίοις ἐξηγεῖται ὡς τόπον μὲν ἐξελέξαντο ἐμφιλοσοφῆσαι τὰ ἱερά).… Despising
every other occupation and human pursuit they devote their whole life to the
contemplation of things divine” etc.[2453] At the end of this account Porphyrius
calls Chaeremon a truth-loving trustworthy and intelligent Stoic philosopher
(iv. 8 fin.: ἀνδρὸς φιλαλήθους τε καὶ ἀκριβοῦς ἔν τε τοῖς Στωικοῖς
πραγματικώτατα φιλοσοφήσαντος). All these portions may well have stood in an
“Egyptian History.” From it are also derived the communications from Chaeremon
in a treatise of Psellus published by Sathas (1877). The same Chaeremon also
wrote a work which is taken up in explaining the hieroglyphics (διδάγματα τῶν
ἱερῶν γραμμάτων). From this the Byzantine Tzetzes has given extracts in his
historical work (v. 403 in Müller Fragm. iii. 499) and in his commentary on the
Iliad (ed. Gottfr. Hermann 1812 pp. 123 and 146). Tzetzes also designates
Chaeremon as ἱερογραμματεύς and says that according to Chaeremon’s view “the
φυσικὸς λόγος concerning the gods their physical signification is allegorically
exhibited in the hieroglyphics” (Zeller). This also characterizes Chaeremon as a
Stoic. Hence there can be no doubt that he is identical with our ἱερογραμματεύς
who in a few other citations (e.g. in Origen’s contra Celsum l. 59. Euseb. Hist.
eccl. vi. 19. 8) is simply called Στωικός. He is on this account a very
remarkable personage for his age: an Egyptian priest and at the same time a
Stoic philosopher. Since he was according to Suidas the instructor of Nero
(Suidas’ Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος Αἰγαῖος) and also the instructor and predecessor
of Dionysius of Alexandria who lived from Nero to Trajan (Suidas’ Lex. s.v.
Διονύσιος Ἀλεξανδρεύς) he must have lived towards the middle of the first
century after Christ. He was according to Suidas the predecessor of Dionysius in
the office of librarian at Alexandria. He cannot by reason of the chronology
stated be identical with the Chaeremon who is mentioned by Strabo (xvii. 1. 29
p. 806) as a contemporary of Aelius Gallus. Besides the latter has been
described as a man who made himself ridiculous by his ostentation and ignorance
which are certainly not characteristics of a philosopher. [2453] The description
does not refer to all Egyptian priests but as is declared at the conclusion (iv.
8) only to the élite among them the προφῆται ἱεροστολισταί ἱερογραμματεῖς and
ὡρολόγοι. Hieronymus adv. Jovinian. ii. 13 borrows the description from
Porphyrius (Vallarsi ii. 342 sq.). The fragments of Chaeremon are collected in
C. Müller Frag. hist. graec. iii. 495-499. To these are to be added: (1) the
extracts given in Tzetzes Draconis Stratonicensis liber de matris poeticis et
Joannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem 1st ed. Godofr. Hermannus Lips. 1812
pp. 123 and 146; and (2) those in the treatise of Psellus published by Sathas
(Bulletin de correspondance hellénique vol. i. 1877 pp. 121-133 194-208
309-314). Comp. in general: Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. ii. 298 sq. Birch “On the
lost book of Chaeremon on Hieroglyphics” (Transactions of the Royal Society of
Literature second series vol. iii. 1850 pp. 385-396). Bernays Theophrastos’
Schrift über die Frömmigkeit (1866) pp. 21 sq. 150 sq. Zeller “Die
Hieroglyphiker Chäremon und Horapollo” (Hermes vol. xi. 1876 pp. 430-433).
Nicolai Griechische Literaturgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 559 561 677 690 iii. 383. J. G.
Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 203 sqq. 5. Apion
(comp. Josephus contra Apion. ii. 1-13). Apion the grammarian who was
distinguished among all the opponents of the Jews for his special malevolence
and was therefore treated with special harshness by Josephus was a contemporary
and fellow-countryman of Chaeremon. His full name was Ἀπίων ὁ
Πλειστονίκης.[2454] According to Suidas Πλειστονίκης was the name of his father
(Lex. s.v. Ἀπίων ὁ Πλειστονίκου) which he afterwards took as a surname. When
Julius Africanus (in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10. 16 ed. Gaisford; and in
Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 120 and 281) and after him the pseudo-Justinian
Cohortatio ad Graecos c. 9 call the name of the father Ποσειδώνιος this is
certainly but a corruption of Πλειστονίκης. According to Josephus (contra Apion.
ii. 3) Apion was born in the oasis of Egypt and hence was not as he gave himself
out to be a native of Alexandria. He afterwards however received the rights of
Alexandrian citizenship (Jos. l.c.) and acquired some fame in Alexandria as a
grammarian. He taught temporarily in Rome also in the time of Tiberius and
Claudius (Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀπίων). In the reign of Caligula he travelled through
Greece as an itinerant orator delivering lectures on Homer (Seneca epist. 88).
It was also under Caligula that on the occasion of the sanguinary conflict of
the Alexandrians with the Jews he came to Rome as the ambassador of the former
(Joseph. Antt. xviii. 8. 1). According to Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 3) his
death was caused by ulcers in the genitals against which circumcision was of no
avail. He is described as having been ridiculously vain. Tiberius called him
cymbalum mundi. He himself said without embarrassment that those to whom he
addressed a work became thereby immortal[2455] and congratulated Alexandria on
having such a citizen as he was (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 12). [2454] Clemens Alex.
Strom. i. 21. 101 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 12. 2): Απίων τοίνυν ὁ γραμματικὸς
ὁ Πλειστονίκης ἐπικληθείς. Clem. Rom. Homil. iv. 6: Ἀππίωνα τὸν Πλειστονίκην
ἄνδρα Ἀλεξανδρέα γραμματικὸν τὴν ἐπιστήμην. Plinius Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 5. 75:
Apion cognominatus Plistonices. Gellius Noct. Att. v. 14: Apion qui Plistonices
appellatus est. Ibid. vi. 8: Ἀπίων Graecus homo qui Πλειστονίκης est appellatus.
[2455] Plinius Hist. Nat. praef. § 25: Apion quidam grammaticus (hic quem
Tiberius Caesar cymbalum mundi vocabat cum propriae famae tympanum potius videri
posset) immortalitate donari a se scripsit ad quos aliqus conponebat. The works
of Apion were manifold. The best known seem to have been his works on Homer
(Commentaries and a Dictionary). We are here only concerned with his Egyptian
History (Αἰγυπτιακά) which according to Tatian comprised five books of which
Josephus cites the third Tatian and his successors the fourth and Gellius the
fifth book.[2456] This Egyptian History evidently contained all those attacks
upon the Jews to which the reply of Josephus refers (c. Apion. ii. 1-3).
Josephus says at the beginning of his discussion that it was not easy to go
through the discourse (τὸν λόγον) of Apion because he brought forth all in the
greatest disorder. But that about three points might be distinguished: (1) the
fables concerning the departure of the Jews from Egypt (2) the malicious
assertions concerning the Alexandrian Jews and (3) the accusations in respect of
worship and legal customs. Of the latter Josephus says that they are mixed up
with the accusations of the first two categories (ἐπὶ τούτοις μέμικται ii. 1
fin.). Thus it appears that a single λόγος of Apion containing all these
accusations and divided by Josephus for the sake of order into three categories
was in question. Josephus after entering successively into all three categories
(c. Apion. ii. 2-3 relates to the first ii. 4-6 to the second ii. 7-13 to the
third) leaves Apion and begins to give a positive delineation of the Mosaic
legislation. At its commencement he once more touches incidentally upon Apion
and says of him that he has heaped his indictments all together (ii. 14: τὴν
κατηγορίαν … ἀθρόαν … ἔταξεν) in distinction from Apollonius Molon whose polemic
pervades his whole work. There can therefore be no doubt that the polemic of
Josephus refers to only one work of Apion’s and indeed to only one section of a
larger work. This work was as Josephus expressly says in the beginning of his
discussion (ii. 2) the Egyptian History. In it Apion apparently took occasion in
narrating the departure of the Jews from Egypt to give a hostile description of
them in like manner as Tacitus does in his Histories (Hist. v. 1-12). When
consequently Clemens Alexandrinus and later Church authors mention a special
work of Apion κατὰ Ἰουδαίων this rests only upon a mistaken inference from the
information of Josephus. It is just the silence of Josephus which proves that no
such work ever existed. That these Church authors also had no actual
acquaintance with it is made evident by a more accurate comparison of the text.
For Clemens Alexandrinus in the passage where he mentions it is in fact only
copying from Tatian who on his part is only quoting Apion’s Egyptian History.
And all subsequent writers who pretend to know anything of a work of Apion κατὰ
Ἰουδαίων obtain their information from either Clement or Josephus. [2456]
Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 2: φησὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν. Tatian Oratio ad
Graecos c. 38 (= Euseb. Praep. ev. x. 11. 14): Ἀπίων ὁ γραμματικός άνηρ
δοκιμώτατος ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν (πέντε δέ εἰσιν αὐτῷ γραφαί) κ.τ.λ. In
agreement herewith Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 101 = Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 12.
2. Julius Africanus in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10. 16 and in Syncell. ed.
Dindorf i. 120 and 281. Pseudo-Justin. Cohortat. ad Graec. c. 9. Gellius Noct.
Att. v. 14: Apion … in libro Aegyptiacorum quinto scripsit. Tatian Oratio ad
Graecos c. 38 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 11. 14 ed. Gaisford): Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον
Ἀπίων ὁ γραμματικός ἀνὴρ δοκιμώτατος ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν (πέντε δέ
εἰσιν αὐτῷ γραφαί) πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα φησὶ δὲ ὅτι· Κατέσκαψε τὴν Αὔαριν Ἄμωσις
κατὰ τὸν Ἀργεῖον γενόμενος Ἴναχον ὡς ἐν τοῖς Χρόνοις ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Μενδήσιος
Πτολεμαῖος. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 101 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 12. 2 ed.
Gaisford): Ἀπίων τοίνυν ὁ γραμματικὸς ὁ Πλειστονίκης ἐπικληθεὶς ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ
τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν ἱστοριῶν καίτοι φιλαπεχθημόνως πρὸς Ἑβραίους διακείμενος ἅτε
Αἰγύπτιος τὸ γένος ὡς καὶ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων συνπάξασθαι βιβλίον Ἀμώσιος τοῦ
Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέως μεμνημένος καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὸν πράξεων μάρτυρα παρατίθεται
Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Μενδήσιον καὶ τὰ τῆς λέξεως αὐτοῦ ὧδε ἔχει· "Κατέσκαψε δὲ τὴν
κ.τ.λ." (here follows verbally the same quotation as in Tatian whom Clemens had
just before expressly quoted). Julius Africanus in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10.
16 and in Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 120 and 281: Ἀπίων δὲ ὁ Ποσειδωνίου
περιεργότατος γραμματικῶν ἐν τῇ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν
ἱστοριῶν φησὶ κατὰ Ἴναχον Ἄργους βασιλέα Ἀμώσίος Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεύοντος
ἀποστῆναι Ἰουδαίους ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι Μωσέα. Pseudo-Justin. Cohortatio ad Graec. c. 9:
Οὕτω γἀρ Πολέμων τε ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἱστοριῶν μέμνηται καὶ Ἀππίων ὁ
Ποσειδωνίου ἐν τῇ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν λέγων κατὰ
Ἴναχον Ἄργους βασιλέα Ἀμώσιδος Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεύοντος ἀποστῆναι Ἰουδαίους ὧν
ἡγεῖσθαι Μωϋσέα. Καὶ Πτολεμαῖος δε ὁ Μενδήσιος τὰ Αἰγυπτίων ἱστοριῶν ἅπασι
τούτοις συντρέχει. The mention of Apion’s supposed work κατὰ Ἰουδαίων was first
introduced in this connection by means of Clement. But Clement only says that
Apion wrote such a work; for the rest he simply quotes as Tatian does Apion’s
Egyptian History as his authority for the statement that Amosis reigned in the
time of Inachus. Julius Africanus on the contrary now ventures to assert on the
foundation of the passage of Clement that this statement was found in both the
supposed works of Apion and at the same time drags in Moses also who is not even
spoken of in the passage quoted from Apion. Finally the author of the Cohortatio
again copies only from Julius Africanus. This latter fact I have I think proved
in Brieger’s Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch. ii. (1878) pp. 319-331. Comp. also
Donaldson History of Christian Literature ii. 96 sqq. Harnack Texts und
Untersuchungen vol. i. Nos. 1 2 1882 p. 157. Neumann Theol. Literaturzeitung
1883 p. 582. Renan Marc-Aurèle 1882 p. 107 note. The dependence of the
Cohortatio upon the text to which Julius Africanus had access is at any rate
indubitable. Hence Gutschmid starting from the mistaken assumption that the
Cohortatio was more ancient than Julius Africanus supposed that both had a
common source (Jahrbb. fü class. Philologie 1860 pp. 703-708). Some moderns also
acquiesce in this view more through faith in Gutschmid than on sufficient
grounds. So Völter Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1883 p. 180 sqq. Dräseke
Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. vii. p. 257 sqq. Eusebius Hist. eccl. iii. 9. 4
in enumerating the works of Josephus says that his work Ueber das hohe Alter der
Juden (i.e. contra Apion.) was written “against Apion the grammarian” who had
then composed a λόγος against the Jews (πρὸς Ἀπίωνα τὸν γραμματικὸν κατὰ
Ἰουδαίων τηνικάδε συντάξαντα λόγον). Evidently this is only inferred from
Josephus. The same applies also to Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 13 (Opp. ed.
Vallarsi ii. 851): adversum Appionem grammaticum Alexandrinum qui sub Caligula
legatus missus ex parte gentilium contra Philonem etiam librum vituperationem
gentis Judicae continentem scripserat. The account of Eusebius which Jerome as
his custom is copies is here only enlarged by the combination that Apion’s book
was directed against Philo. This combination is founded on Joseph. Antt. xviii.
8. 1. From the Greek translation of Jerome (Sophronius) again arise the
statements in Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἰώσσηπος. When it is at last said in the
Clementine Homilies that Apion wrote πολλὰ βιβλία against the Jews this
statement must of course not be taken seriously. Comp. on Apion in general:
Burigny “Mémoire sur Apion” (Mémoires de l’Academie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres ancient series vol. xxxviii. 1777 pp. 171-178). Lehrs “Quid Apio
Homero praestiterit” (Quaestiones Epicae 1837 pp. 1-34). Cruice De Flavii
Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem offerendis fide et auctoritate (Paris 1844)
p. 9. Schliemann Die Clementinen (1844) p. 111 sqq. C. Müller Fragm. hist.
Graec. iii. 506-516. Volkmann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. i. 1 (2nd ed.). p. 1243 sq.
Creuzer Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 80 sq. Paret Des Flavius Josephus Werke
übersetzt 7 vols. (1856) pp. 741-745. Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte
2nd ed. ii. 187-195. Nicolai Griech. Literaturgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 345-347. J. G.
Müller Des Fl. Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) pp. 14-17. Lightfoot art.
“Apion” in Smith and Wace Dictionary of Christian Biography i. 128-130. 6. The
literary opponents of the Jews hitherto mentioned have been here treated of more
thoroughly because the polemic of Josephus is directed chiefly against them. An
exhaustive enumeration of all the Greek and Roman authors who from the beginning
of the second century after Christ expressed themselves in a hostile manner
against the Jews would furnish a list of distinguished names. Almost all the
authors who have to speak of the Jews at all do so in a hostile manner. Among
pre-Christian Greek authors Josephus chiefly names the distinguished historian
and philosopher Posidonius as an adversary of the Jews (c. Apion. ii. 7). In his
great historical work (see on it Div. i. vol. i. § 3) he probably somewhere
seized the opportunity of giving a polemical excursus against the Jews and
afterwards many subsequent writers as Diodorus (xxxiv. 1) and Trogus Pompeius
who comes down to us through the extract of Justin (xxxvi. 2 3)[2457] drew
either directly or indirectly from his much read work. The works too of
Nikarchus (Müller Fragm. iii. 335) and Damokritus (Müller Fragm. iv. 377) which
are scarcely known by name were also polemical. Of Roman historians besides
Trogus Pompeius already mentioned prominence must be given to Tacitus whose
description of the Jews (Hist. v. 2 sqq.) is dictated by the most profound
contempt. The Roman satirists Horace Juvenal and Martial have also notably made
the Jews the butt of their wit. [2457] Comp. on Posidonius as the source of
subsequent writers the article of J. G. Müller Stud. u. Kritik. 1843 p. 893 sqq.
and his commentary on Joseph c. Apion. (1877) pp. 214 sqq. and 258 sq. 2.
Apologetic Jewish Apologetic followed a twofold way of defence a direct and an
indirect one against the many attacks which Judaism had to undergo. A large
portion of the historic and philosophic literature of Hellenistic Judaism is of
an indirectly apologetic character; it seeks to show that the Jewish nation need
in no respect shrink from a comparison with other nations. But this was not
thought enough; the attempt was also sometimes made to refute point after point
in a systematic manner the accusations raised against the Jews. Two of such
systematically apologetic works are known to us one (that of Philo) only by a
short fragment the other (that of Josephus) in the complete text. (1) Eusebius
gives in the Praep. evang. viii. 11 the description of the Essenes from Philo’s
ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων. From this however we can form no idea of its whole
design. The work of Philo περὶ Ἰουδαίων mentioned in Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18.
6 is certainly identical with it. (2) The work of Josephus to he mentioned in
this connection is known to us by the title of contra Apion. This title which
did not originate with Josephus himself gives an erroneous idea of its contents.
For it is by no means occupied with Apion alone but undertakes a comprehensive
and systematic defence of the Jewish people against all the accusations raised
against them (further particulars Div. i. vol. i. § 3). In endeavouring in what
follows to give a sketch of the main substance of the indictment and defence we
must chiefly restrict ourselves to the material afforded by Josephus his work
being the only one handed down to us which both contains a survey of the points
of accusation and furnishes a view of the method of apologetic demonstration.
The disposition of the Graeco-Roman world towards the Jews has been already
described (). Here only the actual accusations and the Jewish answer to them
will be brought forward. 1. Extensive and learned matter is furnished by
Josephus in the first section (i. 1-23) to prove that the Jewish nation was not
inferior in point of antiquity to other cultured nations. He says that to
maintain that it is of recent origin because the Greek historians say nothing of
it is foolish even if the assumption were correct. For even the silence of all
the Greek historians would prove nothing against the early existence of the
nation since the Jews as dwelling in an inland country might easily remain
unknown to the Greeks. In truth however the Jewish nation was already known in
very ancient times by the best historians of he Egyptians Phoenicians Chaldaeans
(Manetho Dios Menander Berosus and others) nay even by Greek historians
themselves. The zeal which Josephus exhibits and the large amount of matter he
brings forward show how important this point was in his eyes. The assertion of
modern origin was equivalent to the assertion of historical insignificance. A
nation which had but recently appeared upon the stage of history had of course
also no importance in history. It received its culture from the more ancient
nations. But this was to strike at the roots of Jewish honour and hence the
Jewish apologist regarded it as his first duty thoroughly to repel such an
insult.[2458] [2458] On the motive for the proof of antiquity see contra Apion.
ii. 15. It is well known that Christian apologists also lay great stress upon
it. See Tatian c. xxxi. 36-41. Theophilus ad Autol. iii. 20 sqq. Clemens
Alexandrinus Strom. i. 21. 101-147. Tertullian Apolog. 19. Pseudo-Justin Cohort.
ad Graec. c. 9. Eusebius Praep. evang. x. 9 sqq. And more in Semisch Justin i.
134. 2. While the Greeks in general were satisfied with denying the high
antiquity of the Jewish nation the Alexandrians related very unfair things
concerning the origin of the Jews. The quintessence of their fictions was that
the Jews were leprous Egyptians who succeeded in a very dishonourable manner in
forming themselves into a separate nation in leaving Egypt and settling in
Palestine.[2459] Josephus felt himself master of the situation in opposing these
fables. With dignified superiority he pointed out to the Alexandrians the
absurdity and the internal discrepancy of their assertions (i. 24-35 ii. 1-3).
[2459] So with much variation of detail: Manetho (contra Apion. i. 26)
Lysimachus (i. 34) Chäremon (i. 32) Apion (ii. 2). Also Justin xxxvi. 2 and
Tacitus Ilist. v. 3. Comp. also . 3. With the imputation of recentness of origin
was connected the assertion that the Jews had done nothing for culture.
Apollonius Molon said that they were the most incapable of barbarians and had
therefore contributed no useful invention to general culture (contra Apion. ii.
14: ἀφυεστάτους εἶναι τῶν βαρβάρων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲν εἰς τὸν βίον εὕρημα
συμβεβλῆσθαι μόνους). Apion said that they had produced no eminent men such as
inventors of arts or men distinguished for wisdom (contra Apion. ii. 12:
θαυμαστοὺς ἄνδρας οὐ παρεσχήκαμεν οἷον τεχνῶν τινῶν εὑρετὰς ἢ σοφίᾳ
διαφέροντας). These reproaches were encountered with the older Jewish legend
that the Jews were on the contrary the originators of all culture. According to
Eupolemus Moses was the first sage the inventor of alphabetic writing (see above
p. 203). According to Artapanus Abraham instructed the Egyptians in astrology
Joseph undertook the improved cultivation of the land and Moses introduced
culture of every kind (p. 206). The philosopher Aristobulus already declares
Moses to be the father of Greek philosophy and that Pythagoras Socrates Plato
and the rest all derived their philosophy from him (p. 240 sq.). The same
assertion is repeated by Philo and Josephus takes just the same tone though
making no use in his Apology of the legends of Eupolemus and Artapanus. He lays
the chief stress upon proving besides the high antiquity the wisdom and
excellence of the Mosaic legislation. 4. The special accusations against Judaism
were above all in respect of its religious worship which was always connected
with the refusal to acknowledge any other worship as legitimate. This last was
in the era of heathenism a thing unheard of. “To live and let live” was the
motto in the province of religion. The most opposite kinds of religious worship
were readily tolerated if only the adherents of one cultus would hold others
legitimate. Especially was it taken for granted as a thing self-evident that the
citizens of the same town should besides any private worship of their own
participate in honouring the gods of the town. What an abnormity then must it
have been felt that the Jews should entirely reject every kind of worship except
their own and absolutely refuse to take part in any other! From the standpoint
of Hellenism this was synonymous with Atheism. If they are citizens why do they
not worship the gods of the city? This accusation of ἀθεότης of contempt for the
gods recurs in almost all adversaries of the Jews from Apollonius Molon and
Posidonius to Pliny and Tacitus;[2460] and from it certainly arose in great part
the conflicts of municipalities with the Jews especially in the towns where they
possessed rights of citizenship. It was easy in theory but difficult in practice
for apologetic to hold its ground in presence of this accusation. With an
educated reader it was not very difficult to make manifest the advantages of the
monotheistic and spiritual view of the nature of God especially as Greek
philosophy offered an abundance of thoughts which came in this respect to the
aid of Jewish apologists. In this sense does Josephus proceed simply exhibiting
the Jewish idea of God in its superiority (contra Apion. ii. 22). In practice
however the masses were not to be influenced by such considerations. For the
reproach still adhered to the Jews that they absolutely rejected what others
regarded as the worship of God. Hence the chief weapon of Jewish apologetic upon
this point was a vigorous attack. When the Jews were reproached for despising
the gods they showed on their part what kind of gods they were whom others
honoured; weak images of wood stone silver or gold the work of men’s hands or
animals of every kind or at best beings who were affected with manifold human
weaknesses. The Jews might well feel themselves superior to the worshippers of
such gods (comp. e.g. pseudo-Aristeas in Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 116. Sap.
Salomonis c. 13-15. The Epistle of Jeremiah Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 33-35 and
especially the Sibyllines). [2460] Apion in Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 6: quomodo
ergo inquit si sunt cives eosdem deos quos Alexandrini non colunt? Posidonius
and Apollonius Molon ibid. ii. 7: accusant quidem nos quare nos eosdem deos cum
aliis non colimus. Apollonius Molon ibid. ii. 14: ὡς ἀθέους … λοιδορεῖ. Plinius
H. N. xiii. 4. 46: gens contumelia numinum insignis. Tacitus Hirt. v. 5:
contemnere deos. Of less practical importance than the charge of ἀθεότης were
certain ridiculous fables which were related concerning the Jewish worship; that
they paid divine honours to an ass’s head and that they annually sacrificed a
Greek and fed upon his entrails (see above § 31 notes [2461] [2462] [2463] Such
fables were indeed believed only in small circles and Josephus very easily
proves their absurdity (contra Apion. ii. 7-9). [2461] Joseph. contra Apion. ii.
7. [2462] 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.
[2463] 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). 5. Of greater weight on the other hand was another point connected with
the ἀθεότης of the Jews viz. their refusal of the worship of the emperor.
Subsequently to Augustus all the provinces emulated each other in the practice
of this cult (see sq.). Zeal for this was the standard of a loyal and
Rome-loving disposition its entire rejection was synonymous with not showing due
respect to the authorities. Such was at least the view of the Hellenistic
population who according to the customs of the Hellenistic period freely offered
their worship to the emperor. The Jews were in a favourable position in this
respect inasmuch as the emperors of the first centuries with the sole exception
of Caligula did not directly demand this worship. Nor apart from the short
episode under Caligula was it ever required of the Jews whose mode of worship
received legal protection together with the legal recognition of their
communities from Caesar onwards (see above ). For the adversaries of the Jews
however it was always a welcome point of attack that they proved themselves bad
citizens by their refusal of worship to the emperor.[2464] Jewish apologists
could in answer to this charge appeal to the fact that a sacrifice was daily
offered for the emperor in the temple at Jerusalem (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 6
fin.; Bell. Jud. ii. 10. 4; comp. ) and that on special occasions even hecatombs
were offered for the Roman emperor (Philo Leg. ad Caj. § 45 Mang. ii. 598). Thus
in fact was a certain equivalent furnished for that worship of the emperor which
was impossible to Jews. Josephus besides does not neglect pointing on every
occasion to the favour which the Jews enjoyed both from the Ptolemies and from
Caesar (c. Apion. ii. 4 5; Antt. xiv. 10 xvi. 6). This surely would have been
impossible unless they had been loyal citizens! [2464] Apion in Joseph c. Apion.
ii. 6 med.: derogare nobis Apion voluit quia imperatorum non statuamus imagines.
Tacitus Hist. v. 5: non regibus haec adulatio non Caesaribus honor. 6. With this
religious isolation was connected a certain amount of social isolation. Judaism
expressly repudiated the idea now more and more making its way in Hellenism that
all men are brethren and therefore equal before God. It saw in the unbeliever
only the sinner who has incurred the judgment of God and referred the fatherly
love of God only to the seed of Abraham on which account only the children of
Abraham are brethren to each other. If this particularism was not held in its
full rigour by philosophic and Hellenistic Judaism in general it gained on the
other hand a support from the view that the heathen as such were unclean that in
the interest of Levitical purity intercourse with them was as far as possible to
be avoided and from the anxiety with which contact with everything that stood in
any kind of relation to idolatry was abhorred (comp. Div. ii. vol. i. pp.
51-56). If then the Jew was already directed in theory to regard the non-Jew as
only an “alien” it was also impossible to him in practice if he desired to
observe the law to live in any close social intercourse with the heathen. This
theoretical and practical ἀμιξία which was in opposition to the entire tendency
of the Hellenistic period was constantly and very specially made a reproach
against the Jews. To the Greeks and Romans who were unacquainted with its deeper
motives it appeared only as a want of humanity of true philanthropy nay as
criminal misanthropy. And it may indeed not infrequently have really manifested
itself in such forms.[2465] The process adopted in this respect by apologetic
writers was on the one hand chiefly that of pointing to the humane appointments
of the law especially with regard to strangers (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 28-29) and
on the other that of showing how the ancient laws of other States went much
farther in the exclusion of strangers than the Mosaic law did (c. Apion. ii.
36-37). [2465] The councillors of Antiochus Sidetes already pointed to the
ἀμιξία of the Jews (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 8. 3 and Diodor. xxxiv. 1 probably after
Posidonius). Justinus xxxvi. 2. 15: caverunt ne cum peregrinis conviverent.
Apollonius Molon in Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 14: ὡς … μισανθρώπους λοιδορεῖ. Ibid.
ii. 36: ὁ Μόλων Ἀπολλώνιος ἡμῶν κατηγόρησεν ὅτι μὴ παραδεχόμεθα τοὺς ἄλλαις
προκατειλημμένους δόξαις περὶ θεοῦ μηδὲ κοινωνεῖν ἐθέλομεν τοῖς καθʼ ἑτέραν
συνήθειαν βίου ζῆν προαιρουμένοις. Lysimachus asserted (Joseph c. Apion. i. 34)
that Moses had directed the Jews: μήτε ἀνθρώπων τινὶ εὐνοήσειν etc. According to
Apion (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 8) the Jews were accustomed at the annual sacrifice
of a Greek to swear ut inimicitias contra Graecos haberent or as it is said ii.
10: μεδενὶ εὐνοήσειν ἀλλοφύλῳ μάλιστα δὲ Ἕλλησιν Tacit. Hist. v. 5: adversus
omnes alios hostile odium: separati epulis discreti cubilibus … alienarum
concubita abstinent. Juvenal Sat. xiv. 103-104 (see ). 7. The peculiarities of
the Jews already mentioned viz. their ἀθεότης and their ἀμιξία are those which
came forward the most prominently in public life. It was on this account that
the Jews appeared to be the enemies of such public regulations and institutions
as had then been formed nay as the opponents of all other human intercourse.
Hence it is on these points that attacks are most seriously directed. Other
peculiarities gave occasion rather to derision and contempt than to actual
accusations. Among these were (a) circumcision (b) abstinence from swine’s flesh
and (c) the observance of the Sabbath.[2466] Even the most malicious of their
other opponents did not venture upon the reproach of that special immorality to
which Tacitus alludes.[2467] Apologetic writers oppose to the derision shown
towards these several peculiarities an ideal picture of the entire Mosaic code.
As Philo by his idealistic representation of the Mosaic legislation (see above
p. 219 sq.) already gave an indirect apology for it so also does Josephus
endeavour by a connected and positive statement to show that the precepts of the
Mosaic law are in every respect the purest and most ideal (c. Apion. ii. 22-30).
In doing this he does not enter into these objectionable points but contents
himself with referring his opponent the Egyptian Apion to the fact that the
Egyptian priests also were circumcised and abstained from swine’s flesh (Ap. ii.
13). To show the value and excellency of the law he points out in general its
high antiquity (ii. 15) the blameless character of Moses the lawgiver and also
the fact that this law really fulfilled its object being known and obeyed by all
which astonishing result arose from its being not only taught but practised (ii.
16-19). Finally Josephus brings forward the circumstance that no Jew is ever
unfaithful to his law which is again a proof of its excellence (ii. 31-32 38).
The deficiencies found in this treatise inasmuch as it does not further enter
into those points which were objected to by the heathen are abundantly
compensated for by Philo who in his special delineation of the Mosaic law treats
all these points very thoroughly and everywhere proves their
reasonableness.[2468] [2466] Circumcision: Apion in Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 13
init. Horace Sat. i. 9. 69 sq. Swine’s flesh: Apion in Joseph c. Apion. ii. 13
init. Juvenal Sat. vi. 160 xiv. 98. Observance of the Sabbath: Juvenal Sat. xiv.
105-106. Tacit Hist. v. 4. [2467] Tacit. Hist. v. 5 projectissima ad libidinem
gens … inter se nihil illicitum. [2468] On Circumcision: de circumcisione = Opp.
ed. Mang. ii. 210-212. Sabbath observance: de septenario § 6-7 = Mang. ii.
281-284. Prohibition of unclean animals: de concupiscentia § 4-9 = Mang. ii.
352-355. On the observance of the Sabbath compare also Aristobulus in Euseb.
Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 9-16 on unclean animals pseudo-Aristeas in Havercamp’s
Josephus ii. 2. 117.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 102: VII. JEWISH PROPAGANDA UNDER A HEATHEN MASK
========================================================================

VII. JEWISH PROPAGANDA UNDER A HEATHEN MASK At the close of our survey we have
still to discuss a class of literary productions highly characteristic of
Hellenistic Judaism viz. Jewish works under a heathen mask. The works which
belong to this category differ greatly so far as their literary form is
concerned but have all the common feature of appearing under the name of some
heathen authority whether of a mythological authority as the sibyl or of persons
eminent in history as Hecataeus and Aristeas. The very choice of this
pseudonymic form shows that all these works were calculated for heathen readers
and designed for the propagation of Judaism among the heathen. For only with
heathen readers were such names a standard authority and only on their account
could this form have been chosen by Jewish authors. Hence the tendency which is
peculiar to a large portion of the Graeco-Jewish literature in general viz. the
tendency to influence non-Jewish readers here obtains significant expression. In
one respect or another its intention was to carry on among the heathen a
propaganda for Judaism. The special design however certainly differed in
different cases. The Sibyllines desire to effect a propaganda properly so
called. They set forth directly before the heathen world the folly of idolatry
and the depravity of its moral conduct; they threaten punishment and ruin in
case of impenitence and promise reward and eternal happiness in case of
conversion and they thus seek to win adherents to the Jewish faith in the midst
of the heathen world. An effect however of quite a different kind is aimed at in
other works of this category; their purpose is not so much to propagate the
faith as the honour and credit of the Jews. Thus pseudo-Aristeas e.g. seeks in
his whole narrative of the translation of the Jewish law into Greek to show what
a high opinion was entertained by the learned Ptolemy II. of this law and of
Jewish wisdom in general and with what great honour he treated Jewish scholars.
A directly missionary purpose does not come forward in this author; he cares
more to create a favourable disposition towards Judaism and the Jewish law. And
thus throughout this category now one now the other purpose comes more into the
foreground—at one time that of winning believers at another that of creating a
favourable impression. Still in one way or the other and in the wider meaning
all subserve the propagation of Judaism. And since they all make choice of a
heathen mask for this purpose they all belong however much they may differ
otherwise in form and contents to one category. We begin our discussion with the
Sibylline oracles not because these are the oldest works of this class but
because they are the most important both with respect to extent and actual
effect. 1. The Sibyllines The sibyl was in heathen antiquity “the semi-divine
prophetess of the orders and counsels of the gods concerning the fate of cities
and kingdoms” (Lücke).[2469] She was distinguished from the official priestly
order of prophets by representing a free and non-official prophetic power being
indeed first of all a personification of the Deity as revealing itself in
nature. She is represented as a nymph dwelling by streams and grottoes. The most
ancient authors speak only of a sibyl; so Heraclitus who is the first to mention
one at all (in Plutarch de Pythiae oraculis c. 6); so also Euripides
Aristophanes Plato.[2470] The fact that her voice was said to have been
perceived in different places then led to the supposition that she wandered from
place to place.[2471] At last this was not found sufficient and different sibyls
said to dwell in different places were distinguished. Their number is very
differently stated. There are learned combinations which have been made now in
one manner now in another.[2472] The statement of Pausanias (Descr. Graec. x.
12) who distinguishes four sibyls is worthy of notice. These are: (1) The
Herophile who came from Marpessus in the region of Troy prophesied in various
parts of Asia Minor and Greece and was falsely stated by the Erythraeans to have
been an Erythraean; (2) a more ancient one probably the Libyan (Maass p. 7) but
whose abode in consequence of a gap in the text of Pausanias cannot be
determined; (3) the Cumanian; and (4) the Hebrew who is also called the
Babylonian or Egyptian. It seems as if Pausanias purposed thus to state the four
chief kinds of sibyl: the Libyan as the most ancient that of Greek Asia Minor
the Roman and the Oriental. He expressly designates the latter as the most
recent. It is highly probable that the information relating to this subject is
already a deposite of the Jewish sibyl fiction.[2473] Among other computations
the most noted is that of Varro who names ten sibyls.[2474] In the Roman period
the most famous were the Erythraean (from Erythraea on the Ionian coast opposite
the island of Chios) and the Cumanian (in Lower Italy). [2469] The most
important material concerning the sibyls was already collected by Opsopöus in
his edition of the Orac. Sibyll. pp. 56-143. For more recent authorities comp.
especially: Klausen Aeneas und die Penaten (1839) pp. 203-312. Lücke Einleitung
in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed.) p. 81 sqq. Alexandre in his 1st ed.
vol. ii. (1856) pp. 1-101. Scheiffele art. “Sibyllae” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. vi.
1147-1153. Pape-Benseler Wörterb. der griech. Eigennamen s.v. Σίβυλλα. Marquardt
Römische Staatsverwaltung vol. iii. (1878) p. 336 sqq. Bouché-Leclercq Histoire
de la divination vol. ii.; Les sacerdoces divinatoires; devins chresmologues
Sibylles; Oracles des dieux Paris 1879. Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus Diss.
Gryphiswald 1879. [2470] Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus p. 1. [2471] E.g.
Pausanias Descr. Graec. x. 12. [2472] On the numerous calculations see
especially Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus 1879. [2473] On the numerous
calculations see especially Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus 1879. [2474] Varro in
Lactantius Div. Instit. i. 6: primam fuisse de Persis … secundam Libycam …
tertiam Delphida … quartam Cimmeriam in Italia … quintam Erythraeam … sextam
Samiam … septimam Cumanam … octavam Hellesponticam in agro Troiano natam vico
Marmesso circa oppidum Gergitium … nonam Phrygiam … decimam Tiburtem. See other
computations e.g. in Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21. 108 and 132; Suidas Lex. s.v.
Σίβυλλα and others. Written records of supposed Sibylline oracles were here and
there in circulation; but such remains of them as have come down to us through
occasional quotations in authors such as Plutarch Pausanias and others are brief
and scanty and furnish no distinct notion of them.[2475] In Asia Minor and
Greece these pieces circulated only in private possession without being publicly
supervised or officially used. But their credit and influence must not be on
that account slightly estimated.[2476] They attained quite a different
importance in Rome where they arrived by way of Cumae from Asia Minor.[2477]
King Tarquin Superbus is said to have obtained a collection of Sibylline oracles
which were preserved in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.[2478] These having
perished in the conflagration of the Capitol B.C. 83 the Senate at the
instigation of the consul C. Curio sent an embassy B.C. 76 to Asia Minor which
again made in Erythraea and other places a collection of about a thousand verses
which was again deposited in the Capitol.[2479] The collection was afterwards
occasionally enlarged and expurgated and was in existence in the fourth century
after Christ. Besides this official collection Sibylline verses in private
possession were also circulated but these by reason of the misuse made of them
were frequently confiscated and destroyed by the authorities. The official
collection was kept secret and only consulted on important occasions chiefly to
ascertain what expiations were required on the occurrence of public misfortunes.
[2475] See the collection in Alexandre’s 1st ed. of the Orac. Sibyll. vol. ii.
(1856) pp. 118-129. Some already in Opsopöus in his edit. of the Orac. Sibyll.
p. 414 sqq. [2476] See on the Sibylline oracles among the Greeks Alexandre as
above ii. 102-147. [2477] See on the Sibylline oracles among the Romans Opsopöus
pp. 462-496. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. i. 248-257. Alexandre in his 1st
ed. ii. 148-253. Marquardt Römische Staatsverwaltung vol. iii. (1878) p. 336
sqq. Huidekoper Judaism at Rome (New York 1876) pp. 395-459. [2478] Dionys.
Halicarn. iv. 62. [2479] Lactant. i. 6. 14 (comp. i. 6. 11). Tacit. Annal. vi.
12. Dionys. Halic. iv. 62. This Sibyllism was from its very nature specially
adapted for being turned to account in the interest of religious propaganda. The
oracles being of apocryphal origin in private possession and circulating without
control might be completed and added to at pleasure. What had been done in this
respect by Greek hands might as easily be undertaken by Jewish. Besides the
oracles like the mysterious in general enjoyed a high reputation among
religiously disposed minds. It might then be hoped that entrance to extensive
circles would be obtained under this form. Hence it was a happy hit when Jewish
propaganda took possession of this form to turn it to account for its own
purposes. As far as can be ascertained it was in the second century before
Christ that an extensive Sibylline oracle of Jewish origin was first put in
circulation from Alexandria. The result seems to have been favourable for
imitators soon arose at first among the Jews and subsequently among the
Christians. For Christians were in this respect also the apt scholars of
Hellenistic Judaism. They not only made willing use of the Jewish Sibylline
oracles and highly esteemed them but also copiously increased what they found
extant. Production in this department continued down to later imperial times and
it is just to the tradition of the Christian Church that we are indebted for the
possession of the older Jewish Sibylline oracles also. The first edition of the
Judaeo-Christian Sibyllines (Basle 1545) which have come down to us was prepared
by Xystus Betuleius after an Augsburg now a Munich manuscript and comprised
eight books. The later editions show the same number down to and including that
printed in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca patrum (vol. i. Venice 1788). Angelo Mai was
the first to publish from a Milan manuscript a fourteenth book (1817) and
afterwards from two Vatican manuscript books eleven to fourteen (1828). All are
combined in the modern editions of Alexandre (1st ed. in 2 vols. 1841-1856 2nd
ed. 1 vol. 1869) and Friedlieb (1852). The form of these Judaeo-Christian
Sibylline oracles is the same as that of the ancient heathen ones. The Jewish
and Christian authors respectively make the ancient Sibyl speak to heathen
nations in Greek hexameters and in the language of Homer. The contents subserve
throughout the purposes of religious propaganda. The Sibyl prophesies the fate
of the world from the beginning to the times of the author for the purpose of
then uniting with it both threats and promises for the immediate future; she
rebukes the heathen nations for the sinfulness of their idolatry and blasphemy
and exhorts them to repent while yet there is time for that fearful judgments
will fall upon the impenitent. The collection as we have it is a chaotic
wilderness to sift and arrange which will ever baffle the most acute criticism.
For unfortunately it is not the case that each book forms of itself an original
whole but that even the single books are some of them arbitrary aggregates of
single fragments. The curse of pseudonymous authorship seems to have prevailed
very specially over these oracles. Every reader and writer allowed himself to
complete what existed after his own pleasure and to arrange the scattered papers
now in one now in an opposite manner. Evidently much was at first circulated in
detached portions and the collection of these afterwards made by some admirer
was a very accidental one. Hence duplicates of many portions are found in
different places. And the manuscripts which have come down to us exhibit great
discrepancies in the arrangement.[2480] [2480]a The preface of the compiler of
our present collection is still preserved (Friedlieb Appendix pp. ii.-vii.
Alexandre’s 1st ed. i. 2-13 2nd ed. pp. 14-21). Alexandre thinks he can place it
in the sixth century after Christ (1st ed. ii. 421-435 2nd ed. p. xxxvi. sqq.).
Such being the nature of the whole it is not possible always to distinguish with
certainty between Jewish and Christian matter. The oldest portions are at all
events Jewish worked up perhaps with single small heathen oracles. The main body
of the later books is certainly Christian. But neither the one nor the other
appears in large and closely connected masses. As a rule we have always but
small portions quite loosely strung together and often without any connection.
Hence it is only with respect to single and comparatively small portions that we
can pass a certain judgment as to whether they are Jewish or Christian. Much is
of so neutral a character that it may just as well have proceeded from one side
as from the other. The following portions may with some probability be
distinguished as Jewish. 1. The most ancient and certainly Jewish portions are
in any case contained in the third book. All critics since Bleek concur in this
opinion. Views however differ widely as to any nearer determination whether of
the date of composition or of the extent of the Jewish portions. According to
Bleek Book iii. 97-807 (according to another computation iii. 35-746) is the
work of an Alexandrian Jew of the time of the Maccabees (170-160 B.C.) and
contains also a working up of older Jewish fictions (97-161 433-488 [= 35-99
371-426]) and later Christian interpolations (350-380 [= 289-318]). The majority
of Bleek’s successors regard the whole as Jewish. Gfrörer Lücke and Friedlieb
concur with Bleek with regard to the date of composition. Hilgenfeld on the
ground of an ingenious exposition of the difficult section iii. 388-400 places
the whole (iii. 97-817) about 140 B.C. and is followed herein by Reuss Badt and
Wittichen. Zündel also accepted his exposition of iii. 388-400 but kept to
Bleek’s view of the earlier date of composition. Ewald went a little farther
forward than Hilgenfeld by placing the composition of Book iii. 97-828 at about
124 B.C. But while all hitherto mentioned agree in assuming a Jewish authorship
Alexandre ascribes only the portions iii. 97-294 489-817 to an Alexandrian Jew
of about 168 B.C. and the intermediate portion 295-488 on the contrary to a
Christian writer. Larocque while going still farther in the division agrees with
Alexandre in regarding the bulk of Book iii. 97-294 489-828 as written about 168
B.C. but admits also later interpolations in the last section and considers the
sections iii. 1-96 and 295-488 as “subordinate collections of heterogeneous
pieces” of which only certain individual portions belong to the author of the
two first-named large portions. Delaunay also esteems the portions iii. 97-294
and 489-817 not as single productions but as aggregates of separate unconnected
oracles of different periods ranging from about the beginning to the middle of
the second century B.C. For the purpose of forming a judgment we will first give
a survey of the contents with the omission of the section iii. 1-96 which
certainly does not belong to what follows. The rest is clearly divided by means
of the recent additions in vers. 295 and 498 into three groups (97-294 295-488
489-828). The beginning of the first group is wanting. It commences abruptly by
recalling the building of the Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues as the
causes of the dispersion of mankind in all lands (97-100). When the whole earth
was peopled the sovereignty over it was divided between Chronos Titan and
Japetos. All three at first ruled peacefully near each other but a quarrel arose
between Chronos and Titan which was only settled for a time by an assembly of
the gods (or as the Jewish author expresses it by an assembly of the βασιλεῖς)
and resulted in the contest between the Chronides and Titans and the destruction
of both these races. After their annihilation arose successively the kingdoms of
the Egyptians Persians Medes Ethiopians Assyrians Babylonians Macedonians then
again of the Egyptians and lastly of the Romans (110-161). Now first does the
Sibyl begin to prophesy; in the first place the prosperity of the Solomonian
kingdom then the Graeco-Macedonian lastly the many-headed (πολύκρανος) kingdom
of the Romans. After the seventh king of Egypt of the Hellenic race the people
of God again attain to sovereignty and will be to all mortals a leader of life
(162-195). The judgment of God will fall upon all the kingdoms of the world from
the Titans and Chronides onwards. Even the pious men of Solomon’s kingdom will
be visited by misfortune. Here the author takes occasion to give a sketch of the
Jewish people their reverence for God and the main points of their history from
their departure from Egypt down to Cyrus (196-294). The second group is almost
entirely taken up with announcements of judgments and calamities: Against
Babylon (295-313) against Egypt (314-318) against Gog and Magog (319-322)
against Libya (323-333). After the signs which forebode calamity have been
stated there follow proclamations of woe to single towns and countries
concluding with the promise of a universal condition of Messianic prosperity and
peace in Asia and Europe (341-380). Then follow oracles concerning Antiochus
Epiphanes and his successors (381-400) concerning Phrygia Troy (interspersed
with polemic against Homer) Lycia Cyprus Italy and other countries towns and
islands (401-488). The third group begins with oracles concerning Phoenicia
Crete Thrace Gog and Magog the Hellenes (489-572); it then points to the people
of Israel who cleave to the law of God and do not devote themselves to idolatry
and unnatural crimes (573-600). Hereupon follows a second prophecy of judgment
upon the sinful world terminating in promises (601-623) and an exhortation to
conversion with a description of the ruin which will come upon the ungodly world
and especially upon Hellas (624-651). The promise of the Messianic King a
prophecy of judgment and a detailed description of Messianic prosperity
interspersed with exhortations to Hellas to cease from their presumption and
references to omens of the last judgment form the conclusion (652-807). The
Sibyl says in the epilogue that she came from Babylon but was wrongly regarded
by the Greeks as a native of Erythraea (808-817) also that she was a daughter of
Noah and had been with him in the ark at the time of the Deluge (818-828).[2481]
[2481] Bleek denies the authorship of the whole epilogue to the composer of the
rest. With respect to the first half (808-817) there is no valid ground for such
denial. It might rather be doubted whether the first and second halves belong to
each other. See Hilgenfeld Apokal. pp. 78-80. This survey of the contents shows
that in any case we have not to deal with a single composition. In the second
group especially the different portions are entirely unconnected with each
other. Hence it is in any case a collection of separate oracles. Nevertheless it
is at least possible that the greater number of them are the work of one author.
For there is not sufficient support for accepting either a heathen or a
Christian origin of the pieces. The mythological portion at the beginning which
kindly makes the heathen gods guiltless human kings of antiquity may very well
have been written by a Jew nay this kind of intermixture of Greek and Jewish
legends just corresponds with the character of Hellenistic Judaism. There exists
however no reason for supposing that it contains Christian elements since
instead of υἱὸν θεοῖο in ver. 775 the correct reading is probably νηὸν θεοῖο
(see vol. ii. p. 139). The circumstance that the time of the seventh Ptolemy is
referred to in all three groups (vers. 191-193 316-318 608-610) speaks for their
virtual connection. Hence the inference attained with respect to the date of
composition of the separate portions may with a certain amount of probability be
extended to the whole. For determining the date of composition the following
limits exist. The author is acquainted with the Book of Daniel (vers. 388-400)
and the expeditions of Antiochus Epiphanes to Egypt (vers. 611-615). On the
other hand Rome is still a republic (ver. 176: πολύκρανος). But the most
accurate limit is furnished by the threefold recurrence of the assurance that
the end will appear under the seventh king of Egypt of Hellenic race (vers.
191-193 316-318 608-610). Hence the author wrote under Ptolemy VII. Physcon who
at first reigned together with his brother Ptolemy VI. Philometor (170-164 B.C.)
was then banished from Egypt but attained after his brother’s death to the sole
sovereignty (145-117 B.C.). When Zundel thinks that because the king is called
βασιλεὺς νέος (ver. 608) only the years from 170-164 B.C. can be thought of
since Ptolemy Physcon could by no means be any longer called young after the
year 145 it must be answered that νέος means not only “young” but “new.” The
proper sovereignty however of Ptolemy Physcon did not begin till the year 145.
And that the author intended just this period of sole sovereignty is already in
and by itself probable; for he would have designated the joint government of the
two brothers as the sixth kingship. This too is confirmed by the plain allusions
to the destruction of Carthage and Corinth (vers. 484 sq. 487 sq.) both which
cities were as is well known destroyed in the year 146 before Christ. The
section vers. 388-400 also leads according to the ingenious but not indeed quite
certain explanation of Hilgenfeld to the same period (Apokalyptik p. 69 sq.;
Zeitschr. 1860 p. 314 sqq. 1871 p. 35). Here Antiochus Epiphanes is first
referred to and his overthrow then prophesied: “He will himself destroy their
race through whose race his race also will be destroyed. He has a single root
which also the manslayer (Ares) will eradicate out of ten horns. But he will
plant another shoot beside it. He will eradicate the warlike progenitor of a
royal race. And he himself is exterminated by the sons. And then will a horn
planted near rule.”[2482] The race which Antiochus Epiphanes will destroy is
that of his brother Seleucus IV. The sole root of Antiochus Epiphanes viz. his
son Antiochus V. Eupator is murdered by Demetrius I. son of Seleucus IV. or as
the author expresses it he is eradicated out of ten horns i.e. as the last of
ten kings. The shoot which the god of war plants near is Alexander Balas. He
will exterminate the warlike progenitor of a royal race viz. Demetrius I. But he
will be himself destroyed by Demetrius II. and Antiochus VII. Sidetes sons of
Balas. And then will the upstart Trypho rule (146-139 B.C.). According to this
explanation of Hilgenfeld our author would have written about 140 B.C. And to
this we must in any case adhere even if the details of the explanation should
not be all correct.[2483] Traces of a later time can scarcely be found. For the
western nation which according to vers. 324 328 sq. is to take part in the
destruction of the temple is not the Roman but according to Ezekiel 38:5 the
Libyan (so Lücke Hilgenfeld). Only vers. 464-470 seem to turn upon later Roman
times and to be an insertion (Hilgenfeld Apokal. p. 72; Zeitschr. 1871 p. 35
sq.). [2482] Vers. 394-400: Ὧν δή περ γενεὴν αὐτὸς θέλει ἐξαπολέσσαι [2483] Two
things only are suspicious: (1) The subject of κόψει ver. 398 seems to be not
φυτὸν ἄλλο but the god of war and αὐτός ver. 399 not to go upon φυτὸν ἄλλο but
upon γενετήρ. (2) Alexander Balas was not overthrown by Demetrius II. and
Antiochus VII. but by the former and his father-in-law Ptolemy VI. Philometor
(1Ma_11:1-19; Joseph. Antt. xiii. 4. 5-8). Ἐκ τῶν δὴ γενεῆς κείνου γένος
ἐξαπολεῖται· Ῥίζαν ἴαν γε διδοὺς ἣν καὶ κόψει βροτολοιγὸς Ἐκ δέκα δὴ κεράτων
παρὰ δὲ φυτὸν ἄλλο φυτεύσει. Κόψει πορφυρέης γενεῆς γενετῆρα μαχητὴν Καὐτὸς ἀφʼ
υἱῶν ὧν ἐς ὁμόφρονα αἴσιον ἄρʼῥης Φθεῖται· καὶ τότε δὴ παραφυόμενον κέρας ἄρξει.
The words ὧν ἐς ὁμόφρονα αἰσιον ἄρʼῥης are certainly corrupt. The conclusion
arrived at is also confirmed by external testimony. For according to the
information of Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene i. 23 = Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 81 =
Cyrill. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 9 the prophecy of the Sibyl concerning the
building of the Tower of Babel and the conflict between the Chronides and Titans
which followed it was already expressly quoted under the name of the Sibyl
(Σίβυλλα δέ φησιν etc.) by Alexander Polyhistor and therefore in the first half
of the first century before Christ in his Χαλδαϊκά.[2484] Such are also found
especially from the third book[2485] among the oldest patristic quotations.
[2484] The quotation in Josephus is taken from Alexander Polyhistor without
mention of his name (Antt. i. 4. 3 = Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 15). See Bleek i.
148-152. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. p. 25 note. The statements too concerning the
building of the Tower of Babel in Abydenus (Euseb. Chron. i. 34 and Praep.
evang. ix. 14. Syncell. i. 81 sq. Cyrill. p. 9). [2485] Athenagoras Suppl. c.
30. Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 31. Tertullian ad nationes ii. 12. Clemens Alex.
Protrept. vi. 70 vii. 74. Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. ad Graec. c. 16. 2. To the
oldest Jewish Sibylline oracles undoubtedly belong also the two extensive
fragments (together eighty-four verses) communicated by Theophilus ad Autol. ii
36. Single verses from them are also quoted by other Fathers.[2486] These are
not found in our manuscripts. In the editions they are generally printed at the
head of the whole collection because Theophilus says that they stood at the
beginning of the Sibyl’s prophecy (ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς προφητείας αὐτῆς). But the
present first and second books being very recent and placed quite by accident at
the beginning of the collection and the third book being certainly the oldest
part it may be assumed beforehand that these pieces formed the introduction to
our third book. This supposition probable in itself becomes a certainty through
the fact that Lactantius among his numerous citations calls only such portions
as are found in the Theophilus fragments and in our third book prophecies of the
Erythraean Sibyl nay evidently quotes both as parts of one book.[2487] The
contents of these verses may be called the special programme of all Jewish
Sibyllism: they contain an energetic direction to the only true God and as
energetic a polemic against idolatry. From no portion can the tendency of Jewish
Sibyllism be better perceived than from this proem. [2486] Gnostic fragment in
Hippolyt. Philosophum. v. 16. Clemens Alex. Protrept. ii. 27; Protr. vi. 71 =
Strom. v. 14. 108; Protr. viii. 77 = Strom. v. 14. 115; Strom. iii. 3. 14.
Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. ad Graec. c. 16. Lactantius i. 6. 15-16 7. 13 8. 3; ii.
11. 18 (?) 12. 19; iv. 6. 5. Id. de ira dei c. 22. 7. [2487] Comp. Bleek i.
160-166. Lactantius distinguishes the different books as different Sibyls. When
after quoting from one book he makes a quotation from another he says: alia
Sibylla dicit. Among his somewhere about fifty quotations extending over Books
iii. to viii. of our collection only those from the proem preserved in
Theophilus and from the third book are entitled prophecies of the Erythraean
Sibyl. From the proem: Lact i. 6. 13-16 8. 3; ii. 12. 19; iv. 6. 5. From the
third book: Lact. ii. 16. 1 (= Sib. 3:228 229 ed. Friedlieb); iv. 6. 5 (= Sib.
3:774); iv. 15. 29 (= Sib. 3:814-817); vii. 19. 9 (= Sib. 3:618); vii. 20. 1-2
(= Sib. 3:741 742); vii. 24. 12 (= Sib. 3:787-793). The passage Lact. iv. 6. 5
is however the most instructive: Sibylla Erythraea in carminis sui principio
quod a summo Deo exorsa est filium Dei ducem et imperatorem omnium his versibus
praedicat: παντοτρόφον κτίστην ὅστις γλυκὺ πνεῦμα ἅπασι || κάτθετο χʼ ἡγητῆρα
θεῶν πάντων ἐποίησε (= proem vers. 5-6). Et rursus in fine ejusdem carminis:
αὐτὸν ἔδωκε θεὸς πιστοῖς ἀνδράσσι γεραίρειν (= Sib. 3:774 ed. Friedlieb). Et
alia Sibylla praecipit hunc oportere cognosci: αὐτὸν σὸν γίνωσκε θεὸν θεοῦ υἱὸν
ἐόντα (= Sib. 8:329). Here then it is plainly said that the proem belongs to our
third book. 3. Section iii. 36-92 (according to another computation: vers. 36-62
of the intermediate section between Books ii. and iii. and Book iv. 1-30) now
standing at the beginning of the third book is also a Jewish fragment of the
prae-Christian period. Bleek already perceived that this fragment proceeded from
an Alexandrian Jew of the time of the first triumvirate (40-30 B.C.) and he has
justly found general acquiescence So Gfrörer Lücke Friedlieb Hilgenfeld (Apokal.
p. 241) Reuss Larocque (at least for vers. 26-52) and Wittichen. Only Badt (pp.
54-61) goes as far as 25 B.C. thinking according to a suggestion made by Frankel
that the Σεβαστηνοί of ver. 63 must mean inhabitants of Sebaste-Samaria.
Alexandre and Ewald indeed ascribe the oracle to a Christian author of the time
of the Antonines (Alexandre) or even of about A.D. 300 (Ewald). Bleek’s view is
however the best founded. The piece begins with a cry of woe to the wicked race
which is full of all crimes. With this is combined the prophecy that when Rome
rules over Egypt also then will begin the judgment and the rule of the Messianic
King. Even this definition of time: “when Rome rules over Egypt also” (ver. 46:
Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ Ῥώμη καὶ Αἰγύπτου βασιλεύσει) points to a period when the rule of
Rome over Egypt was something new therefore to the time of Antony soon after 40
B.C. The date becomes perfectly clear by the allusion to the triumvirate of
Antony Octayius and Lepidus (ver. 52: Τρεῖς Ῥώμην οἰκτρῇ μοίρῃ καταδηλήσονται)
and by the mention of the widow under whose hands the world finds itself being
governed by her and obeying her in all things i.e. Cleopatra (vers. 75-80).
Hence the oracle was written between 40 and 30 B.C. To go farther down is
inadmissible the end being expected during the lifetime of Cleopatra. The
mention of the Σεβαστηνοί (ver. 63) on account of which Badt would place the
oracle as late as 25 B.C. may safely be laid to the account of a later
interpolator. It is probable as Bleek and Lücke suppose that the bracketed words
in vers. 60-63 should be expunged— Ἥξει γὰρ ὁπόταν θείου διαβήσεται ὀδμὴ Πᾶσιν
ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν [Ἀτὰρ τὰ ἕκαστʼ ἀγορεύσω Ὅσσαις ἐν πόλεσιν μέροπες κακότητα
φέρουσιν Ἐκ δὲ Σεβαστηνῶν ἥξει] Βελίαρ μετόπισθεν. 4. Opinions are more divided
concerning the fourth book than with regard to the passages hitherto treated of.
The majority of older critics regard it as Christian. Friedlieb Ewald Hilgenfeld
(Zeitschr. 1871 pp. 44-50) and especially Badt (1878) admit a Jewish author and
place its composition about A.D. 80.[2488] This view must be allowed to pass as
correct. For there is nothing at all specifically Christian in the book. The
Sibyl who at the commencement calls herself the prophetess of the true God
proclaims by His commission manifold calamities through war earthquakes and
other natural events to the cities countries and peoples of Asia and Europe.
Unless they repent God will destroy the whole world by fire and will then raise
men from the dead and sit in judgment sending the ungodly to Tartarus and
bestowing a new life on earth upon the godly. There is nothing in these
particulars to recall the Christian sphere of thought although it would hardly
be possible to a Christian author to avoid mentioning Christ when writing on
eschatology. Nor are there any grounds for supposing the author to have been an
Essene (so Ewald and Hilgenfeld). For the polemic against animal sacrifices
(ver. 29) is only directed against heathen sacrifices; and the baptism to which
the heathen are summoned is merely Jewish proselyte baptism (comp. ). For
determining the date of composition it is decisive that the destruction of
Jerusalem (vers. 115-127) and the eruption of Vesuvius of A.D. 79 (vers.
130-136) are presupposed. The author also believes with many of his
contemporaries in Nero’s flight across the Euphrates and his impending return
(vers. 117-124 137-139). Consequently the oracle must have been composed about
A.D. 80 or not much later and more probably in Asia Minor (so e.g. Lightfoot and
Badt) than in Palestine (so Freudenthal). The patristic quotations from this
book begin with Justin.[2489] It is also noteworthy that two verses included in
it (97-98) are already mentioned by Strabo p. 536 as oracular sayings. [2488] So
too Lightfoot (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon 1:2 nd ed.
1876 p. 96 sq.) and Freudenthal (Alex. Polyhistor pp. 129 195). Comp. also my
account of the work of Badt in the Theol. Litztg. 1878 p. 358. Dechent again
gives his decision for the Christian authorship Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. ii.
491-496. [2489] Justin. Apol. i. 20 (refers to Sib. 4:172-177) Clemens Alex.
Protrept. iv. 50 and 62; Paedag. ii. 10. 99 iii. 3. 15; Constit. apostol. v. 7.
Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. c. 16. Lactant. vii. 23. 4. Id. de ira dei c. 23 (three
passages). 5. Very divergent are the decisions of critics concerning the fifth
book. Bleek distinguishes the following portions as Jewish:—(a) vers. 260-285
481-531 written about the middle of the second century before Christ by an
Alexandrian Jew; (b) vers. 286-332 by a Jew of Asia Minor soon after A.D. 20;
(c) perhaps also vers. 342-433 by a Jewish author about A.D. 70. While Lücke
entirely and Gfrörer at least partly agree with Bleek Friedlieb ascribes the
whole fifth book to a Jew of the beginning of Hadrian’s reign and Badt to a Jew
of about A.D. 130; Ewald Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. 1871 pp. 37-44) and Hildebrandt
regard at least Book v. 52-531 as the work of a Jew of about A.D. 80 (Ewald) or
a few years earlier (Hilgenfeld Hildebrandt); while Alexandre Reuss and Dechent
(Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. ii. 497 sqq.) attribute the book to a Christian Jew.
It seems to me a vain effort to attempt to settle in detail the origin and date
of composition of the pieces combined in this book. For it is palpable that we
have here no compact whole but a loose conglomerate of heterogeneous portions.
The greater number are certainly of Jewish origin; for the sections in which
Jewish interests and views are brought more or less plainly forward run through
the whole book (comp. especially vers. 260-285 328-332 344-360 397-413 414-433
492-511). On the other hand the remarkable passage vers. 256-259 in which “the
excellent man coming from heaven who spreads out his hands on the fruit-bearing
tree” (Jesus) is identified with Joshua (Jesus the son of Nave) is certainly
Christian.[2490] Thus Jewish and Christian pieces are at all events combined in
this book. The summing up of the discrepant elements under the common term
“Judaeo-Christian” is as unhappy an expedient as it is e.g. in the Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs. When however the mixture of Jewish and Christian pieces
in this fifth book is acknowledged it cannot in many instances where religion is
a matter of indifference be determined to which side they belong. So much only
is certain that the Jewish element preponderates. With such characteristics it
is also impossible to determine the respective dates of composition. In the
Jewish pieces the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem (397-413) and
apparently the destruction also of the Onias-temple in Egypt (so far as vers.
492-511 refer to this) are lamented. These pieces and consequently the main body
of the book might then have been written in the first century after Christ. On
the other hand the chronological oracle at the beginning (vers. 1-51) certainly
leads as far as to the time of Hadrian. Quotations are first found in Clemens
Alexandrinus.[2491] [2490] Sib. vers. 256-259:— [2491] Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv.
50; Paedag. ii. 10. 99. Εἷς δέ τις ἔσσεται αὖθις ἀπʼ αἰθέρος ἔξοχος ἀνὴρ Οὗ
παλάμας ἥπλωσεν ἐπὶ ξύλον πολύκαρπον Ἑβραίων ὁ ἄριστος ὃς ἠέλιόν ποτε στῆσεν
Φωνήσας ῥήσει τε καλῇ καὶ χcίλεσιν ἁγνοῖς. 6. Of the remaining books vi vii. and
viii. are generally and correctly esteemed to be of Christian authorship.[2492]
The origin on the other hand of Books i-ii and xi-xiv is doubtful. Most
investigators regard these also as Christian. Lücke Friedlieb and Dechent on the
contrary ascribe Book xi. and Friedlieb Book xiv. also to a Jewish author.
Dechent attempts as Friedlieb also partly does to point out in Books i. and ii.
Jewish pieces of greater extent. How difficult it is to find sure footing in
this respect is proved by the circumstance that Lücke in a later section of his
work (Einl. die Offenb. des Joh. p. 269 sqq.) retracted his view concerning Book
xi. and ascribed it to a Christian author.[2493] This eleventh book is really
not worth contesting. It is a religiously colourless versified history of Egypt
down to the beginning of the Roman supremacy and may just as well be Jewish as
Christian. Nor is it very different with the other pieces. The portions
separated by Dechent from Books i and ii. may in fact be Jewish but they may
just as well be Christian and their entire lack of attestation by the Fathers of
the first three centuries rather speaks for a later i.e. a Christian
origin.[2494] [2492] The eighth book (viii. 217-250) contains the famous
acrostic upon Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς θεοῦ υἱὸς σωτὴρ σταυρός which is also given in
Constantine’s Oratio ad sanct. coet. (= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 18. [2493] So
also Bleek in his notice of Lücke’e book (Stud. u. Krit. 1854 p. 976). According
to this the statement in Dechent (Dissert. p. 49) that Bleek’s view concerning
Book xi. “was not known” must be corrected. [2494] The oldest testimony which
Dechent (Dissert. p. 37) can point out is found in Constantine’s Oratio ad
sanct. coet. (= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 18: ἡ τοίνυν Ἐρυθραία Σίβυλλα φάσκουσα
ἑαυτὴν ἕκτῃ γενεᾷ μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμὸν γενέσθαι. Comp. Sib. 1:283 sqq. The most
ancient author who quotes a Jewish Sibylline book (and indeed Sib. 3:97 sqq. ed.
Friedlieb) is Alexander Polyhistor about 80-40 B.C. See the passage from his
Χαλδαϊκά in Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene i. 23 = Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 81 =
Cyrill. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 9. The almost verbally identical passage in
Josephus Antt. i. 4. 3 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 15) is copied from Alexander
Polyhistor without mention of his name. Comp. p. 282 above. On the use of the
Sibyllines by the Fathers see Vervorst De carminibus Sibyllinis apud sanctos
Patres disceptatio Paris 1844. Besançon De l’emploi que les Pères de l’église
ont fait des oracles sibyllins Montauban 1851. Alexandre’s 1st ed. vol. ii.
(1856) pp. 254-311. A collection of the most ancient quotations is also given in
Harnack’s Patres apostol. note on Hermas Vis. ii. 4. A thorough discussion of
the numerous citations in Lactantius is given by Struve Fragmenta librorum
Sibyllinorum quae apud Lactantium reperiuntur Regiom. 1817. A manuscript
collection by the Scotchman Sedulius (ninth century) of the quotations in
Lactantius is printed in Mont-faucon’s Paleogr. gr. lib. iii. cap. vii. pp.
243-247 and from this in Gallandi’s Biblioth. patr. i. 400-406 comp. his proleg.
p. lxxxi. Whether Clemens Romanus has quoted the Sibyllines is doubtful. For it
is said in the pseudo-Justinian Quaestt. et response ad orthodoxos quaest. 74
(Corp. apolog. ed. Otto 3rd ed. vol. v. p. 108): εἰ τῆς παρούσης καταστάσεως τὸ
τέλος ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κρίσις τῶν ἀσεβῶν καθά φασιν αἱ γραφαὶ προφητῶν τε
καὶ ἀποστόλων ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς Σιβύλλης καθώς φησιν ὁ μακάριος Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς
Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ. The Sibyl not being mentioned in the received text of the
Clementine Epistles the καθώς must probably be taken as parallel to the καθά and
thus the words ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴς Σιβύλλης are not the words of Clement but of the
pseudo-Justin. Comp. Harnack’s 2nd ed. of the Clementine Epistles Proleg. p.
xl.; Otto in his note on the passage is of the contrary opinion. Hermas Vis. ii.
4 mentions only the Sibyl and not the Sibylline books. Quotations from the
latter are on the other hand given in the Predicatio Petri et Pauli in Clemens
Alex. Strom. vi. 5. 42-43 (see also Lücke Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. p. 238;
Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extra canon. rec. fasc. iv. 2nd ed. pp. 57 63 sq.).
Gnostics in Hippolyt. Philosophum. v. 16. Justin. Apol. i. 20. Athenagoras
Suppl. c. 30. Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 3. 31 36. Tertullian ad nationes ii. 12.
Pseudo-Melito Apol. c. 4 (in Otto Corp. apolog. vol. ix. pp. 425 463 sq.).
Pseudo-Justin. Cohortat. ad Graec. c. 16 37-38. Const. Apost. v. 7. Constantini
Oratio ad sanct. coet. (= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 18-19. Quotations abound
most in Clemens Alex. and Lactantius. Clemens Alexandrinus quotes: (1) The
prooemium: Protrept. ii. 27. Protr. vi. 71 = Strom. v. 14. 108. Protr. viii. 77
= Strom. v. 14. 115. Strom. iii. 3. 14. (2) The third book: Protr. vi. 70 vii.
74. (3) The fourth book: Protrept. iv. 50 and 62. Paedag. ii. 10. 99 iii. 3. 15.
(4) The fifth book: Protrept. iv. 50. Paedag. ii. 10. 99. Comp. also Strom. i.
21. 108 132. It is seen from these statistics that just the three books which on
internal grounds we esteem (or at least their greater part) to be Jewish and
these only were known to Clement. Other patristic quotations too down to Clement
refer to these books alone. They thus evidently form the most ancient Jewish
body of Sibylline oracles. Lactantius quotes about fifty passages from our
Sibyllines most frequently from Book viii. next to this from Book iii. only
sometimes from Books iv. v. vi. and vii. from the rest not at all. See the
material in Struve and Alexandre. Hence it seems that he was acquainted with
only Books iii. to viii. of our present collection. He must however have had in
them somewhat which is lacking in our MSS.; for apart from the passages from the
prooemium which indeed is only preserved to us by Theophilus other quotations
are also found in Lactantius which cannot be pointed out in our texts Lact. vii.
19. 2 viii. 24. 2. The verses too cited by Lactantius ii. 11. 18 and very
probably belonging to the prooemium are not contained in Theophilus. Iactantius
expresses himself in general on the books known to him as follows: Inst. 1 6
(after an enumeration of the ten Sibyls) Harum omnium Sibyllarum carmina et
feruntur et habentur praeterquam Cymaeae cujus libri a Romanis occuluntur nec
eos ab ullo nisi a quindecimviris inspectos habent. Et sunt singularum singuli
libri qui quia Sibyllae nomine inscribuntur unius esse creduntur; auntque
confusi nec discerni ac suum cuique adsignari potest nisi Erythraeae quae et
nomen suum verum carmini inseruit et Erythraeam se nominat ubi praelocuta est
quum esset orta Babylone. Celsus also testifies to the credit of the Sibyllines
among Christians (Orig. c. Cehus vi. 61 vii. 53 56). Celsus however already
charges the Christians with having forged the oracles nor were such charges
subsequently wanting. Comp. the allusions in Constantine’s Oratio ad sand. coet.
(= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 19. 1. Lactant. Inst. iv. 15. 26. Augustine de civ.
Dei xviii. 46. On the credit and use of the Sibyllines in the Middle Ages see
Alexandre’s 1st ed. ii. 287-311. Lücken “Die sibyllinischen Weissagungen ihr
Ursprung und ihr Zusammenhang mit den afterprophetischen Darstellungen
christlicher Zeit” (Katholische Studien No. V.) Würzb. 1875. Vogt “Ueber
Sibyllenweissagung” (Beiträge zur Gesch. der deutschen Sprache und Literatur
edited by Paul and Braune vol. iv. 1877 pp. 48-100). Bang Voluspá und die
sibyllinischen Orakel translated from the Danish Wien 1880. On the manuscripts
see Friedlieb De codicibus Sibyllinorum manuscriptis in usum criticum nondum
adhibitis commentatio Vratislav. 1847. Friedlieb’s edition Introd. p. lxxii.
sqq. and App. pp. ix.-xii. Alexandre’s 1st ed. vol. i. p. xliii. sqq.; his 2nd
ed. pp. xxxviii-xlii Volkmann Lectiones Sibyllinae Pyritz 1861. Bernhardy
Grundriss der griech. Literatur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) p. 452 sq. On the editions
see Gallandi Biblioth. patr. i. p. 81. Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i.
257-261. Bleek i. p. 123 sq. Alexandre’s 1st ed. vol. i. pp. xxx-xliii The first
edition superintended by Xystus Betuleius according to an Augsburg now a Munich
manuscript was brought out by Oporinus in Basle 1545. The same with a Latin
translation by Seb. Castalio (which first appeared separately in 1546) Basle
1555. The most esteemed among the older editions is that of Opsopöus Paris 1599
(repeated in 1607; the account by the bibliographers of a supposed edition of
1589 rests upon a mistake). The edition of Gallaeus Amsterdam 1689 is less
esteemed. The Sibyllines have appeared besides in various collections e.g. in
Gallandi’s Bibliotheca veterum patrum vol. i. (Venetiis 1788) pp. 333-410; comp.
Proleg. pp. lxxvi-lxxxii. All these editions contain only the first eight books.
The fourteenth book was first published from a Milan manuscript by Angelo Mai
(Sibyllae liber xiv. editore et interprete Angelo Maio Mediolan. 1817); and
afterwards Books xi. to xiv. from two Vatican manuscripts by the same
(Scriptorum veterum nova collectio ed. ab Angela Maio vol. iii. 3 1828 pp.
202-215). Everything hitherto known is combined in the editions of Alexandre
(Oracula Sibyllina curante C. Alexandre 2 vols. Paris 1841-1856. Editio altera
ex priore ampliore contracta integra tamen et passim aucta multisque locis
retractata Paris 1869 [the copious Excursi of the first edition are omitted in
this second one]) and of Friedlieb (Die sibyllinischen Weissagungen vollständig
gesammelt nach neuer Handschriften-Vergleichung mit kritischen Commentare und
metrischer deutscher Uebersetzung Leipzig 1852). A Latin translation is added to
most editions a German one to that of Friedlieb. A French one has been commenced
by Bouché Leclercq (Revue de l’histoire des religions vol. vii. 1883 pp.
236-248; vol. viii. 1883 pp. 619-634 etc.). Contributions to textual criticism:
Volkmann De oraculis Sibyllinis dissertatio supplementum editionis a Friedliebio
exhibitae Lips. 1853. The same Specimen novae Sibyllinorum editionis Lips. 1854
(containing the first book). A discussion of Alexandre’s edition in the
Philologus vol. xv 1860 p. 317 sqq. The same Lectiones Sibyllinae Pyritz 1861.
X: “Zur Textkritik der sibyllin. Bücher” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1861
pp. 437-439). Meineke “Zu den sibyllinischen Büchern” (Philologus vol. xxviii.
1869 pp. 577-598). Ludwich. “Zu den sibyllinischeu Orakeln” (Neue Jahrbb. für
Philol. und Pädagogik vol. cxvii. 1878 pp. 240-245). Nauck “Kritische
Bemerkungen” (Mélanges gréco-romains tirés du bulletin de l’académie impériale
des sciences de St. Pétersbourg vol. ii. 1859-1866 p. 484 sq.; iii. 1869-1874
pp. 278-282; iv. 1875-1880 pp. 155-157 630-642). Rzach “Zur Kritik der
Sibyllinischen Weissagungen” (Wiener Studien vol. iv. 1882 pp. 121-129). More in
Engelmann’s Biblioth. script. class. ed. Preuss. Lists of the literature on the
Sibyllines in general are given in Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i.
227-290. Bleek i. 129-141. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments §
274. Alexandre’s 1st ed. ii. 2. 71-82 also 2nd ed. p. 418 sq. Engelmann
Bibliotheca scriptorum classicorum (8th ed. revised by Preuss) Div. i. 1880 p.
528 sq. The first to investigate the collection according to correct critical
principles was: Bleek “Ueber die Entstehung und Zusammensetzung der uns in 8
Büchern erhaltenen Sammlung Sibyllinischer Orakel” (Theologische Zeitschrift
edited by Schleiermacher de Wette and Lücke No. 1 1819 pp. 120-246; No. 2 1820
pp. 172-239). Comp. also his notice of Lücke’s Einl. in the Stud. und Krit. 1854
pp. 972-979. Gfrörer Philo vol. ii. 1831 pp. 121-173. Lücke Versuch einer
vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp.
66-89 248-274. Friedlieb’s Introd. to his edition (1852). Alexandre’s 1st ed.
ii. 312-439; 2nd ed. p. 21 sqq. Hilgenfeld Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer
geschichtlichen Entwickelung (1857) pp. 51-90. The same Zeitschr. für
wissenchaftl. Theologie vol. iii. 1860 pp. 313-319; xiv. 1871 pp. 30-50. Ewald
“Abhandlung über Entstehung Inhalt und Werth der Sibyllischen Bucher”
(Transactions of the Göttinger Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. viii. 1858-1859
hist.-philol. Class pp. 43-152 also separately). Frankel “Alexandrinische
Messiashoffnungen” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1859 pp.
241-261 285-308 321-330 359-364). Volkmann in the “Philologus” vol. xv. 1860 pp.
317-327. Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Literatur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) pp.
441-453. Reuss art. “Sibyllen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xiv. 1861 pp.
315-329 (2nd ed. xiv. 1884 pp. 179-191). The same Gesch. der heil. Schriften
Alten Testaments 1881 § 489 490 537. Zündel Kritische Untersuchungen über die
Abfassungszeit des Buches Daniel 1861 pp. 140-172. Langen Das Judenthum in
Palästina zur Zeit Christi 1866 pp. 169-174. Badt De oraculis Sibyllinis a
Judaeis compositis Bresl. 1869. The same Ursprung Inhalt und Text des vierten
Buches der sibyllinischen Orakel Breslau 1878. Larocque “Sur la date du
troisième livre des Oracles sibyllins” (Revue archéologique new series vol. xx.
1869 pp. 261-270). Wittichen Die Idee des Reiches Gottes 1872 pp. 134-144 160
sq. Dechent Ueber das erste zweite und elfte Buch der sibyllinischen
Weissagungen Frankf. 1873. The same “Charakter und Geschichte der
altchristlichen Sibyllenschriften” (Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. ii. 1878
pp. 481-509). Hildebrandt “Das römische Antichristenthum zur Zeit der
Offenbarung Johannis und des fünften sibyllinischen Buches” (Zeitschr. f.
wissensch. Theol. 1874 pp. 57-95). Delaunay Moines et Sibylles dans l’antiquité
judeogrecque Paris 1874. Renan Journal des Savants 1874 pp. 796-809. Delitzsch
“Versuchte Lösung eines sibyllischen Räthsels” [on i. 137-146] Zeitschr. für
luth. Theol. 1877 pp. 216-218. The Edinburgh Review No. 299 July 1877 pp. 31-67.
Drummond The Jewish Messiah 1877 pp. 10-17. Nicolai Griechische
Literaturgeschichte vol. iii. 1878 pp. 335-338. 2. Hystaspes Ammianus
Marcellinus (xxiii. 6. 32-33) relates of Hystaspes the Mede the father of King
Darius that during his sojourn among the Indian Brahmins he learned from them
“the laws of the motions of the world and stars and pure religious customs”
(purosque sacrorum ritus) and then imparted some of these to the native Magi who
handed them down to posterity. A Greek work under the name of this Hystaspes who
was thus regarded by antiquity as an authority in religious matters was known to
the Fathers by whom the following indications concerning it are given. According
to Justin the future destruction of the world by fire was therein predicted. In
the Praedicatio Petri et Pauli cited by Clemens Alex. it is asserted that
Hystaspes plainly referred to the Son of God and to the conflict of Messiah and
his people with many kings and to his stedfastness (ὑπομονή) and glorious
appearing (παρουσία). Lastly according to Lactantius the destruction of the
Roman Empire was foretold in it and also that in the tribulation of the last
times the pious and believing would pray to Zeus for assistance and that Zeus
would hear them and destroy the ungodly. Lactantius finds fault here only with
the circumstance that what God will do is ascribed to Zeus and at the same time
laments that in consequence of the deceit of the daemons nothing is here said of
the sending of the Son of God. From these notices it is evident that the work
was of an apocalyptic and eschatological tenor. Since Lactantius expressly says
that the sending of the Son of God to judge the world is not mentioned in it we
must regard it as rather Jewish than Christian. The choice too of Zeus as the
name of God corresponding more with the literary usages of Hellenistic Judaism
than with those of Christianity speaks for its Jewish origin. What the author
also of the Praedicatio Petri et Pauli says concerning the appearance of the
Messiah prophesied of in Scripture does not go beyond the framework of Jewish
expectation. The apparent contradiction between his statement and that of
Lactantius may be explained by remembering that Lactantius only misses the
co-operation of the Messiah at the day of judgment. Yet it may be also possible
that the author of the Praedicatio Petri et Pauli had an inter polated copy
before him. The limits of the date of composition are fixed by the appearance on
the one side of the Roman Empire as the power hostile to God on the other by
Justin’s acquaintance with the work. Justin. Apol. i. 20: Καὶ Σίβυλλα δὲ καὶ
Ὑστάσπης γενήσεσθαι τῶν φθαρτῶν ἀνάλωσιν διὰ πυρὸς ἔφασαν. Comp. also c. 44.
Praedicatio Petri et Pauli in Clemens Alex. Strom. vi. 5. 42-43 (comp. Lucke
Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. p. 238; Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extra canonem rec. fasc.
iv. 2nd ed. pp. 57 63 sq.): Λάβετε καὶ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς βίβλους ἐπίγνωτε Σίβυλλαν
ὡς δηλοῖ ἕνα θεὸν καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα ἔσεσθαι καὶ τὸν Ὑστάσπην λαβόντες ἀνάγνωτε καὶ
εὑρήσετε πολλῷ τηλαυγέστερον καὶ σαφέστερον γεγραμμένον τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ
καθὼς παράταξιν ποιήσουσι τῷ Χριστῷ πολλοὶ βασιλεῖς μισοῦντες αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς
φορούντας τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ὑπομονὴν καὶ τὴν
παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ. Lactantius Inst. vii. 15. 19: Hystaspes quoque qui fuit
Medoruin rex antiquissimus … admirabile somnium sub interpretatione vaticinantis
pueri ad memoriam posteris tradidit sublatum iri ex orbe imperium nomenque
Romanum multo ante praefatus quam illa Troiana gens conderetur. Ibid. vii. 18.
2-3: Hystaspes enim quem superius nominavi descripta iniquitate saeculi hujus
extremi pios ac fideles a nocentibus segregatos ait cum fletu et gemitu
extensuros esse ad coelum manus et imploraturos fidem Jovis; Jovem respecturum
ad terram et auditurum voces hominum atque impios extincturum. Quae omnia vera
sunt praeter unum quod Jovem dixit illa lacturum quae Deus faciet. Sed et illud
non sine daemonum fraude subtractum est missum iri a patre tune filium Dei qui
deletis omnibus malis pios liberet. Comp. in general: Walch “De Hystaspe”
(Commentationes societatis scientt. Gotting vol. ii. 1780). Fabricius-Harles
Biblioth. graec. i. 108 sq. A. G. Hoffmann in Ersch and Gruber’s Alllgem.
Encykl. § 2 vol. xiii. 1836 p. 71 sq. Lücke. Einl. in die Offenbarung des
Johannes 2nd ed. pp. 237-240. Otto’s Anmerkung zu Justin as above (in his
edition of the Corpus apologet.) 3. Forged Verses of Greek Poets Both Jewish and
Christian apologists repeatedly appeal to the most eminent Greek poets to prove
that the more intelligent among the Greeks held correct views concerning the
nature of God His unity spirituality and supramundane character. Many such
quotations especially in Clemens Alexandrinus are really taken from the genuine
works of these poets and have been skilfully selected and explained by the
apologists.[2495] But among these genuine quotations are also to be found not a
few which have been palpably forged in the interest of either Jewish or
Christian apologetic. The works where such forged verses have been discovered
are chiefly the following: 1. Aristobulus in Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica
xiii. 12. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. v. 14; also given in Euseb. Praep.
evang. xiii. 13; comp. also Protrept. vii. 74. 3. The pseudo-Justinian
Cohortatio ad Graecos c. 15 and 18. 4. The pseudo-Justinian work De monarchia c.
2-4 (the two latter in Otto’s Corpus apologetarum Christian. vol. iii.). The
authors to whom the verses are ascribed are: the great tragic poets Aeschylus
Sophocles Euripides; the writers of comedies Philemon Menander Diphilus; a large
fragment is ascribed to Orpheus; and certain verses on the Sabbath to Hesiod
Homer and Linus (or Callimachus). [2495] So e.g. the celebrated commencement of
the Phaenomena of Aratus (third century B.C.): Ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα τὸν οὐδέποτʼ
ἄνδρες ἐῶσιν ἄρʼῥητον etc. from which is derived the saying quoted Acts 17:28 :
τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. The Jewish philosopher Aristobulus (in Euseb. Praep.
evang. xiii. 12. 6 ed. Gaisford) already quotes this verse; also Theophilus ad
Autol. ii. 8. Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 101 = Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 13.
26. In forming a judgment concerning the origin of these pieces the following
considerations are of importance. Almost all the portions which come under
notice are found both in Clemens Al. Str. v. 14. 113-133 (= Eus. Pr. xiii. 13.
40-62 ed. Gaisford) and in the pseudo-Justinian work De monarchia c. 2-4.
Aristobulus and the Cohortatio ad Graecos have only single verses and such as
are found in the others also. Both in Clement and in the work De monarchia
however the suspicious portions stand pretty thick together; in the De monarchia
indeed almost without other accessories. It is thus clear that either one made
use of the other or that both drew from a common source. A strict observation
shows however that the former supposition cannot be accepted. For though the
pieces quoted are almost all identical they are more completely and accurately
given now by one now by another.[2496] It is then indubitable that both drew
from a common source in which all the suspected pieces were probably found
together. What this source was moreover we are directly told by Clement: it was
the work of the pseudo-Hecataeus on Abraham. For Clement introduces the first of
the suspected quotations a supposed portion of Sophocles with the words (Strom.
v. 14. 113 = Eus. Pr. xiii. 13. 40 ed. Gaisford): Ὁ μὲν Σοφοκλῆς ὥς φησιν
Ἑκαταῖος ὁ τὰς ἱστορίας συνταξάμενος ἐν τῷ κατʼ Ἄβραμον καὶ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους
ἄντικρυς ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἐκβοᾷ. Böckh already showed that he on the whole
correctly perceived the state of matters by ascribing all the quotations from
the scenic poets (tragic and comic) to the pseudo-Hecataeus. Hence it was no
advance when Nauck e.g. (in his edition of the Fragm. tragic.) and Otto (in his
notes in the Corp. apologet.) again spoke of Christian forgeries for the work of
the pseudo-Hecataeus is certainly Jewish. The verdict of Böckh must however be
also extended to the large portion from Orpheus and to the verses of Hesiod
Homer and Linus on the Sabbath which are already cited by Aristobulus (in Euseb.
xiii. 12) and the forgery of which is therefore set by many e.g. Valckenaer and
also Böckh to the credit of Aristobulus. The Orphean piece is also found both in
Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14. 123 sqq. (= Euseb. xiii. 13. 50 sqq.) and in the work
De monarchia c. 2 in the midst of the forged verses of the tragic and comic
poets. And the testimonies of Hesiod and Homer concerning the Sabbath stand at
least near in Clement (Strom. v. 14. 107 = Euseb. xiii. 13. 34) and in
juxtaposition along with the Orphean piece certainly in Aristobulus. It is hence
very probable that these forgeries also belong to the pseudo-Hecataeus. [2496]
De monarchia c. 3 e.g. comp. with Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 121-122 (= Euseb.
Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 47-48) is instructive. First a portion from Sophocles is
given in De monarchia (ἔσται γάρ ἔσται etc.). Then Clement has the same portion
but divided into two halves; and the second half is introduced by the formula:
καὶ μετʼ ὀλίγα αὖθις ἐπιφέρει. Undoubtedly Clement is here the more original.
The author of De monarchia joined together the two pieces which are not directly
connected. A contrary relation takes place in the next following but in Clement
preceding piece: οἴει σὺ τοὺς θανόντας of which Clement ascribes the whole to
Diphilus while the author of De monarchia ascribes the first and longer half to
Philemon the second and shorter to Euripides. In the latter ascription he is
correct for it contains a few genuine verses of Euripides which are completed by
spurious ones (see Dindorf’s note in his edition of Clement). Here then the work
“De monarchia” preserves the original; Clement by an oversight ascribing the two
unconnected pieces to one author. If our conjecture is correct these forgeries
belong to the third century before Christ; for such is the date of the
pseudo-Hecataeus (see next paragraph). It seems that numerous passages from
Greek poets were collected in his work as testimonies to the true belief in God
that among them many were certainly genuine but that these not seeming
sufficiently powerful to the author he enhanced and completed them by verses of
his own making. The work was certainly in the hands of Clemens Alex and the
author of De monarchia in the original. Comp. in general: Valckenaer Diatribe de
Aristobulo Judaeo (Lugd. Bat. 1806) pp. 1-16 73-125. Böckh Graecae tragoediae
principum Aeschyli Sophoclis Euripidis num ea quae supersunt et genuina omnia
sint et forma primitiva servata an eorum familiis aliquid debeat ex iis tribui
(Heidelb. 1808) pp. 146-164 (treats especially on the Jewish forgeries). Gfrörer
Philo ii. 74 sqq. (on the Orphean verses). Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der
jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie ii. 89-94 225-228. Meineke
Menandri et Philemonis reliquiae Berol. 1823. The same Fragmenta comicorum
Graecorum vol. iv. Berol. 1841 (among others the Fragments of Philemon Menander
Diphilus). Nauck Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta Lips. 1856. Cobet in Λόγιος
Ἑρμῆς ἐκδ. ὑπὸ Κόντου vol. i. (Leyden 1866) pp. 176 454 459-463 524. Dindorf’s
notes on the passages in question in his edition of Clem. Alex. Otto’s notes on
the passages in question in his edition of the Corpus apologet. christ. vol.
iii. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 566-568 (on the verses quoted by
Aristobulus). Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor pp. 166-169. Huidekoper Judaism
at Home (New York 1876) pp. 336-342. The several portions are (according to
their order in the pseudo-Justinian work De monarchia) as follows:— 1. Twelve
verses of Aeschylus (Χώριζε θνητῶν τὸν θεόν) on the elevation of God above every
creature De monarchia c. 2 (Otto’s Corpus apologetarum 3rd ed. vol. iii. p.
130); Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 131 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 60 ed.
Gaisford. Böckh p. 150 sq. Nauck Tragicorum Graec. fragm. p. 100. 2. Nine verses
of Sophocles (Εἷς ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν) on the unity of God who made heaven and
earth and on the folly of idolatry De monarchia c. 2 (Otto’s Corpus apolog. 3rd
ed. vol. iii. p. 132); Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 113 = Euseb. Praep. evang.
xiii. 13. 40 ed. Gaisford; Clem. Protrept. vii. 74; Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. ad.
Graec. c. 18; Cyrill. Alex. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 32; Theodoret Graecarum
affectionum curatio c. vii. s. fin. (Opp. ed. Schulze iv. 896); Malalas ed.
Bonnens. p. 40 sq. Cedrenus ed. Bonnens. i. 82. The two first verses are also in
Athenagoras Suppl. c. 5. Böckh p. 148 sq. Nauck Trag. Graec. Fragm. p. 284 sq.
Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. ii. 196. Dindorf’s note to Clem. Strom. v. 14. 113.
3. Two verses ascribed in De monarchia c. 2 to the comic poet Philemon but in
Clemens Alex. Protrept. vi. 68 to Euripides (Θεὸν δὲ ποῖον) treat of God as one
who sees everything but is himself unseen. On their spuriousness see Meineke
Fragmenta comicorum Graec. iv. 67 sq. Nauck Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 552. Otto
Corp. Apologet. 3rd ed. vol. iii. p. 132 note 21. Dindorf’s note to Clem. Protr.
l.c. 4. A long piece attributed to Orpheus is extant in two different recensions
which materially differ from each other. The shortest is that in the two
pseudo-Justinian works de monarchia and Cohort. ad graec. c. 15. The text is
identical in both only that in De monarchia the two introductory verses are
omitted. The Cohortatio also gives the text with an abbreviation in the midst
(Cyrill. Alex. adv. Julian. ed. Spanheim p. 26). The contents of the piece
(one-and-twenty verses in the Cohort.) turn upon the thought that there is but
one God who made and still governs all things who is enthroned in supramundane
glory in heaven invisible yet everywhere present. If further proof of the Jewish
origin of these verses were needed it is clearly found in the thought borrowed
from Isaiah 66:1 that heaven is God’s throne and earth His footstool— Οὗτος γὰρ
χάλκειον ἐπʼ οὐρανὸν ἐστήρικται Χρυσέῳ ἐνὶ θρόνῳ γαίης δʼ ἐπὶ ποσσὶ
βέβηκε.[2497] [2497] The same verses run according to Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14.
124 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 51 (and almost exactly so according to
Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. xiii. 12. 5)— Αὐτὸς δʼ αὖ μέγαν αὖτις ἐπʼ οὐρανὸν
ἐστήρικται Χρυσέῳ εἰνὶ θρόνῳ γαίη δʼ ὑπὸ ποσσὶ βέβηκεν. Clement already notices
the agreement with Isaiah 66:1. It is worthy of remark that the author lays
stress on the notion that evil too is sent by God— Οὗτος δʼ ἐξ ἀγαθοῖο κακὸν
θνητοῖσι δίδωσι Καὶ πόλεμον κρυόεντα καὶ ἄλγεα δακρυόεντα. The whole instruction
is addressed to Musaeus the son of Orpheus (to the latter according to Cohort.
c. 15). According to Monarchia c. 2 it is contained in the “Testament of
Orpheus” in which repenting of his former teaching of 360 gods he proclaimed the
one true God (μαρτυρήσει δέ μοι καὶ Ὀρφεύς ὁ παρεισαγαγὼν τοὺς τριακοσίους
ἑξήκοντα θεούς ἐν τῷ Διαθῆκαι ἐπιγραφομένῳ βιβλίῳ ὁπότε μετανοῶν ἐπὶ τούτῳ
φαίνεται ἐξ ὧν γράφει). Comp. also Cohort. c. 15 and 36 and especially in
Theophilus ad Autol. iii. 2: τί γὰρ ὠφέλησεν … Ὀρφέα οἱ τριακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα
πέντε θεοί οὓς αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ βίου ἀθετεῖ ἐν ταῖς Διαθήκαις αὐτοῦ λέγων ἕνα
εἶναι θεόν. (b) A longer recension of the same Orphean fragment is given by
Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 5. At its commencement it
coincides on the whole with the before-named recension but adds considerably
more towards the close especially a reference to the Chaldaean (Abraham) who
alone attained to the true knowledge of God. The passage according to which God
is also the inflicter of evil is here corrected into its opposite— Αὐτὸς δʼ ἐξ
ἀγαθῶν θνητοῖς κακὸν οὐκ ἐπιτέλλει Ἀνθρώποις· αὐτῷ δὲ χάρις καὶ μῖσος ὀπηδεῖ Καὶ
πόλεμος καὶ λοιμὸς ἴδʼ ἄλγεα δακρυόεντα. Aristobulus names as the source the
poems of Orpheus κατὰ τὸν ἱερὸν λόγον (Euseb. Praep. xiii. 12. 4: ἔτι δὲ καὶ
Ὀρφεὺς ἐν ποιήμασι τῶν κατὰ τὸν Ἱερὸν Λόγον αὐτῷ λεγομένων οὕτως ἐκτίθεται). (c)
The quotations in Clemens Alex. Protrept. vii. 74; Strom. v. 12. 78 and
especially Strom. v. 14. 123-127 = Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 13. 50-54 ed.
Gaisford represent a third recension. Theodoret Graecarum affectionum curatio
ii. (Opp. ed. Schulze iv. 735 sq.)[2498] again draws from Clement. Clement gives
the text only piecemeal and broken up into separate quotations. But taking all
these together it is clearly seen that not only the whole portion given by
Aristobulus but also considerably more was in his hands. Much as he agrees in
the main with Aristobulus (especially in having the passage concerning the
Chaldee) this only on the other hand makes the coincidences in many details with
the pseudo-Justinian works the more striking. Clement also has in particular the
passage concerning the infliction of evil by God in its original form like the
pseudo-Justinian works (Strom. v. 14. 126 = Euseb. Praep. xiii. 13. 53). On the
work of Orpheus from which the passage is taken Clement agrees with the others
in saying that Orpheus “after teaching the orgies and the theology of idols made
a recantation conformable with truth by singing though late the truly holy
doctrine” (Protrept. vii. 74: Ὀρφεὺς μετὰ τὴν τῶν ὀρλίων ἱεροφαντίαν καὶ τῶν
εἰδώλων τὴν θεολογίαν παλινῳδίαν ἀληθείας εἰσάγει τὸν ἱερὸν ὄντως ὀψέ ποτε ὅμως
δʼ οὖν ᾄδων λόγον). [2498] Since it can be proved that Theodoret elsewhere
borrows such quotations from Clement there can be no doubt that his text is in
the main a combination of Clem. Strom. v. 12. 78 and v. 14. 124. Only the first
three verses in Theodoret agree in part more with Aristobulus than with Clem.
Protr. vii. 74. On the relation of the three recensions to each other Lobeck
(Aglaophamus i. 438 sqq.) has brought forward the view that the recension of the
Justinian works is the oldest that of Clemens a more recent and that of
Aristobulus the most recent the latter being of a date subsequent to Clemens
Alexandrinus (i. 448: dementis certe temporibus posteriorem). There is however
no constraining reason for the last notion. We have ourselves acknowledged that
the text of Aristobulus is in one point secondary in comparison with the other
two. That is not however saying that it is so in every respect. It may be
regarded as certain that none of the three recensions is directly the source of
the others. Nor can the short portion in the Justinian works be the archetype
for it is evidently only a fragment from a larger copy probably with
abbreviations in the text. The three recensions will thus fall back upon a
common source which has afterwards been subjected to manifold variations. And
this source may very well have been the pseudo-Hecataeus. In any case this
Orphean passage is one of the boldest forgeries ever attempted. It is a supposed
legacy of Orpheus to his son Musaeus in which having arrived at the close of his
life he expressly recalls all his other poems which are dedicated to
polytheistic doctrines and proclaims the alone true God. According to Suidas
(Lex. s.v. Ὀρφεύς) there were ἱεροὺς λόγους ἐν ῥαψωδίαις κδʹ of Orpheus. This
legacy to speak with Clement was to be his true ἱερὸς λόγος. Comp. on this
Jewish piece: Gottfr. Hermann Orphica pp. 447-453 (the text). Valckenaer De
Aristobulo pp. 11-16. 73-85. Lobeck Aglaophamus i. 438-465 (the most thorough
investigation). Gfrörer Philo ii. 74 sqq. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der
jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 89-94 225-228. Abel Orphica pp. 144-148 (the
text). On Orpheus and the Orphean literature in general: Fabricius Biblioth.
graec. ed. Harles i. 140-181. Gottfr. Hermann Orphica Lips. 1805 (collection of
the text and fragments). Lobeck Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae
Graecorum causis 2 vols. Regim. Pr. 1829 (chief work). Klausen art. “Orpheus” in
Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclopädie § 3 vol. vi. 1835 pp. 9-42. Preller art.
“Orpheus” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. v. 992-1004. Bernhardy Grundriss der griech.
Literatur ii. 1 3rd ed. 1867 pp. 408-441. Nicolai Griech. Literaturgesch. i.
445-447 iii. 330-335. Abel Orphica Lips. 1885 (texts and fragments). Still more
literature in Engelmann’s Biblioth. script. class. ed. Preuss. 5. The next
Jewish piece quoted in De monarchia is eleven verses of Sophocles on the future
destruction of the world by fire and the different lots of the righteous and
unrighteous (Ἔσται γάρ ἔσται κεῖνος αἰώνων χρόνος) De monarchia c. 3 (Otto’s
Corp. apol. iii. 136). In Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14 121-122 = Euseb. Pr. xiii.
13. 48 the same verses are cited as words of the τραγῳδία without naming
Sophocles. In Clemens they are also divided into halves by the remark καὶ μετʼ
ὀλίγα αὖθις ἐπιφέρει while pseudo-Justin combines the two halves into a whole.
Clement does not give the verses on the different lots of the righteous and
unrighteous in this connection but in the preceding fragment which he quotes
from Diphilus where they are more suitable (Strom. v. 14. 121 = Euseb. Praep.
viii. 13. 47). Böckh p. 149 sq. Nauck Tragicorum Graec. fragm. p. 285 sq. 6. Ten
verses of the comic poet Philemon on the certain punishment of even hidden sins
by the all-knowing and just God (Οἴει σὺ τοὺς θανόντας) and ten verses of
Euripides on the same theme (Ἄφθονον βίου μῆκος) De monarchia c. 3 (Otto’s Corp.
apolog. iii. 136-140). Part of the Euripidean verses is genuine the rest
spurious (see Dindorf’s note to Clemens and Nauck). In Clemens Alex. Strom. v.
14. 121 = Euseb. Praep. xiii. 13. 47 both pieces are attributed to the comic
poet Diphilus. Theodoret Graec. affect. curatio c. vi. (Opp. ed. Schulze iv. 854
sq.) also gives the text of Clemens in the extract. Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp.
1-8. Böckh pp. 158-160. Meineke Fragm. comicorum Graec. iv. 67. Nauck Tragic.
Graec. fragm. p. 496 sq. 7. Twenty-four verses of Philemon on the theme that a
moral life is more needful and of more value than sacrifice (Εἴ τις δὲ θυσίαν
προσφέρων) De monarchia c. 4 (Otto’s Corp. apol. iii. 140 sq.). In Clemens Alex.
Strom. v. 14. 119-120 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 45-46 the same verses are
attributed to Menander. Böckh p. 157 sq. thinks that the piece is based upon
single genuine verses. 8. Among the other pieces cited from scenic poets in De
monarchia and in Clement there are also a few more suspicious verses which are
introduced in De monarchia c. 5. (Otto’s Corp. apol. iii. 150 sq.) by the
formula Μένανδρος ἐν Διφίλῳ. In Clemens Strom. v. 14. 133 = Euseb. Praep. ev.
xiii. 13. 62 they are ascribed to Diphilus. They summon to the worship of the
one true God. Comp. Meineke Fragm. com. Graec. iv. 429 sq. Perhaps too the
verses of Sophocles in Clem. Strom. v. 14. 111 = Euseb. Praep. xiii. 13. 38 in
which Zeus is represented in a very unflattering light are also spurious. Comp.
Nauck Tragic. Graec. fragm. p. 285. Dindorf’s note to Clemens. 9. Lastly in this
connection must be noticed the verses on the Sabbath to which Aristobulus and
Clement appeal Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 12. 13-16. Clem. Alex.
Strom. v. 14. 87 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 34. They are—(a) two verses of
Hesiod; (b) three verses of Homer; (c) five verses of Linus for whom Clement
erroneously has Callimachus. The verses are a mixture of genuine and spurious.
The divergences in the text between Clement and Aristobulus are but unimportant.
Comp. Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 8 10 89-125. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael iii. 568. Schneider Callimachea vol. ii. Lips. 1873 p. 412 sq. 4.
Hecataeus Hecataeus of Abdera (not to be confounded with the far more ancient
geographer Hecataeus of Miletus about 500 B.C.) was according to Josephus a
contemporary of Alexander the Great and of Ptolemy Lagos (Joseph. c. Apion. 22:
Ἑκαταῖος δὲ ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης ἀνὴρ φιλόσοφος ἅμα καὶ περὶ τὰς πράξεις ἱκανώτατος
Αλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνακμάσας καὶ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Λάγου συγγενόμενος). This
statement is also confirmed by other testimony. According to Diogenes Laert. ix.
69 Hecataeus was a hearer of the philosopher Pyrrho a contemporary of Alexander.
According to Diodor. Sic. i. 46 he made in the time of Ptolemy Lagos a journey
to Thebes. He was a philosopher and historian and seems to have lived chiefly at
the court of Ptolemy. A work on the Hyperboreans (Müller Fr. 1-6) a History of
Egypt (Müller Fr. 7-13) and in Suidas’ Lex. s.v. Ἑκαταῖος a work περὶ τῆς
ποιήσεως Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου of which no other trace is found are mentioned as
his writings. Under the name of this Hecataeus of Abdera there existed a book
“on the Jews” or as it is also entitled “on Abraham” concerning which we have
the following testimonies:—(1) Pseudo-Aristeas quotes Hecataeus as authority for
the notion that profane Greek authors do not mention the Jewish law just because
the doctrine held forth in it is a sacred one (Aristeas ed. Mor. Schmidt in
Merx’ Archiv. i. 259 = Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 107: διὸ πόρʼῥω γεγόνασιν οἵ
τε συγγραφεῖς καὶ ποιηταὶ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἱστορικῶν πλῆθος τῆς ἐπιμνήσεως τῶν
προειρημένων βιβλίων καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὰ πεπολιτευμένων καὶ πολιτευομένων ἀνδρῶν
διὰ τὸ ἁγνήν τινα καὶ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρίαν ὥς φησιν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ
Ἀβδηρίτης. See the passage also in Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 3. 3 and more freely
rendered in Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 3). (2) Josephus says that Hecataeus not only
incidentally alluded to the Jews but also wrote a book concerning them (contra
Apion. i. 22: οὐ παρέργως ἀλλὰ περὶ αὐτῶν Ἰουδαίων συγγέγραφε βιβλίον; comp. i.
23: βιβλίον ἔγραψε περὶ ἡμῶν). He then gives in the same passage (contra Apion.
i. 22 = Bekker’s ed. vol. vi. pp. 202 1-205 22) long extracts from this work
concerning the relations between the Jews and Ptolemy Lagos their fidelity to
the law the organization of their priesthood and the arrangement of their
temple; lastly a passage is given at the close in which Hecataeus relates an
anecdote of which he was himself a witness at the Red Sea: a Jewish knight and
archer who belonged to the expeditionary corps shot a bird dead whose flight the
augur was anxiously observing and then derided those who were angry for their
awe concerning a bird who did not even foreknow its own fate. Eusebius (Praep.
ev. ix. 4) also gives single pieces from these extracts of Josephus. From the
same source Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 4) gives the information that Alexander
the Great bestowed upon the Jews the country of Samaria as a district exempt
from taxation as a reward for their fidelity. While according to all this there
can be no doubt that the book treated on the Jews in general Josephus tells us
in another passage that Hecataeus not only mentions Abraham but also wrote a
book concerning him (Antt. i. 7. 2 = Euseb. Praep. ev. ix. 16: μνημονεύει δὲ τοῦ
πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἄβράμου Βηρωσσός … Ἑκαταῖος δὲ καὶ τοῦ μνησθῆναι πλέον τι πεποίηκε·
βιβλίον γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ συνταξάμενος κατέλιπε). Is this identical with the work
on the Jews? To the decision of this question the two following pieces of
testimony mainly contribute. (3) According to Clemens Alexandrinus the spurious
verses of Sophocles were contained in the work of Hecataeus on Abraham and
others (Clem. Al. Strom. v. 14. 113 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 40: ὁ μὲν Σοφοκλῆς
ὥς φησιν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ τὰς ἱστορίας συνταξάμενος ἐν τῷ κατʼ Ἄβραμον καὶ τοὺς
Αἰγυπτίους ἄντικρυς ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἐκβοᾷ). (4) Origen says that Hecataeus in his
work on the Jews was so strong a partisan for the Jewish people that Herenius
Philo (beginning of the second century after Christ)[2499] at first doubted in
his work on the Jews whether the work was indeed the production of Hecataeus the
historian but afterwards said that if it were his Hecataeus had been carried
away by Jewish powers of persuasion and had embraced their doctrines (Orig.
contra Cels. i. 15: καὶ Ἑκαταίου δὲ τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ φέρεται περὶ Ἰουδαίων βιβλίον
ἐν ᾧ προστίθεται μᾶλλόν πως ὡς σοφῷ τῷ ἔθνει ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὡς καὶ Ἑρέννιον Φίλωνα
ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἰουδαίων συγγράμματι πρῶτον μὲν ἀμφιβάλλειν εἰ τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ ἐστι τὸ
σύγγραμμα· δεύτερον δὲ λέγειν ὅτι εἴπερ ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ εἰκὸς αὐτὸν συνηρπάσθαι ἀπὸ
τῆς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις πιθανότητος καὶ συγκατατεθεῖσθαι αὐτῶν τῷ λόγῳ). According to
these testimonies of Clement and Origen there can be no doubt that the work “on
the Jews” was as much forged by a Jew as that “on Abraham.” We cannot therefore
conclude—as according to the extracts in Josephus we might feel inclined—that
the work on the Jews is genuine and that on Abraham spurious. The two are on the
contrary very probably identical and the different titles to be explained by the
circumstance that the work was indeed entitled περὶ Ἀβράμου but dealt in fact
περὶ Ἰουδαίων. [2499] On Herennius Philo or Philo Byblius see Müller Fragm.
hist. Graec. 560 sqq. Certain however as is especially according to the
information of Origen the spuriousness of the work “on the Jews” it is still
probable that it is founded on genuine portions of Hecataeus. In the extracts of
Josephus we already get a partial impression of genuineness. To this is to be
added that Diodorus Siculus gives a long portion from Hecataeus on the Jews
their origin religious rites political constitution manners and customs which
from its whole tenor is certainly not derived from the pseudo-Jewish Hecataeus
but from the real Hecataeus and indeed not as Diodorus mistakenly states from
Hecataeus of Miletus but from Hecataeus of Abdera.[2500] It is thus probable
that the latter in his Egyptian history went into details concerning the Jews
and that the Jewish counterfeiter thence derived a portion of his material.
[2500] The passage of Diodorus here in question (from Book xl. of his larger
work) has been preserved by Photius Biblioth. cod. 244. See the wording slso in
Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. ii. 391-393. The scanty fragments are not sufficient
to give us a clear idea of the design of the whole work. Since it dealt in the
first instance with Abraham it is probable that the life and acts of that
patriarch served as the point of departure for a general description and
glorification of Judaism. In this the honourable history of the Jews (e.g. the
favour shown them by Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Lagos) as well as the
purity of their religious ideas were referred to. In the description of the
latter the forged verses of the Greek poets would be inserted for the purpose of
proving that the nobler Greeks also were quite in harmony with the views of
Judaism (see the preceding section). The work seems to have been tolerably
extensive and to have contained much genuine as well as spurious material from
the Greek poets. It thus became a mine for subsequent Jewish and Christian
apologists. Its date of composition may be approximately determined. It is
already cited by pseudo-Aristeas who flourished not later than about 200 B.C.
(see the next section). Thus pseudo-Hecataeus would have lived in the third
century before Christ. The fragments of both the real and the spurious Hecataeus
of Abdera are collected in Müller Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum ii. 384-396.
Comp. in general: Hecataei Abderitae philosophi et historici Eclogae sive
fragmenta integri olim libri de historia et antiquitatibus sacris veterum
Ebraeorum graece et latine cum notis Jos. Scaligeri et commentario perpetuo P.
Zornii Altona 1730. Eichhorn’s Allg. Bibliothek der bibl. Literatur v. 1793 pp.
431-443. Creuzer Historicorum graec. antiquiss. fragm. (Heidelb. 1806) pp.
28-38. Kanngiesser in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encykl. sec. ii. vol. v. (1829)
p. 38 sq. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie
ii. 216-219. Cruice De Flavii Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem afferendis
fide et auctoritate (Paris 1844) pp. 64-75. Vaillant De historicis qui ante
Josephum Judaicas res scripsere (Paris 1851) pp. 59-71. Müller Fragm. hist.
Graec. l.c. Creuzer Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853 pp. 70-72. Klein Jahrbb. für
class. Philol. vol. lxxxvii. 1863 p. 532. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel ii. 131
sqq. iv. 320 sq. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor pp. 165 sq. 178. J. G. Müller
Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 170 sqq. 5. Aristeas The
celebrated Epistle of Aristeas to Philocrates on the translation of the Jewish
law into Greek also belongs to the class of writings under consideration. The
legend related forms only the external frame of the statement. The whole is in
truth a panegyric upon Jewish law Jewish wisdom and the Jewish name in general
from the mouth of a heathen. The two individuals Aristeas and Philocrates are
not known to history. Aristeas in the narrative gives himself out as an official
of King Ptolemy II. Philadelphus and as held in high esteem by that monarch (ed.
Mor. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv. i. 261. 13-14 and 262. 8-10 = Havercamp’s Josephus
ii. 2. 108). Philocrates was his brother (Merx’ Archiv i. 254. 10 275. 20-21 =
Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 104 115) an earnest-minded man eager for knowledge
and desiring to appropriate all the means of culture which the age afforded. It
is self-evident that both were not Jews (Aristeas says of the Jews 255. 34-256.
2: τὸν γὰρ πάντων ἐπόπτην καὶ κτίστην θεὸν οὗτοι σέβονται ὃν καὶ πάντες ἡμεῖς δὲ
μάλιστα προσονομάζοντες ἑτέρως Ζῆνα καὶ Δία). Aristeas then relates to his
brother Philocrates—and indeed as one who was both an eye-witness and
assistant—the manner in which the translation of the Jewish law into Greek took
place. The librarian Demetrius Phalereus called the attention of King Ptolemy
II. Philadelphus (for it is he who is intended p. 255. 6 and 17) to the fact
that the law of the Jews was yet lacking in his great library and that its
translation into Greek was desirable for the sake of its incorporation in the
royal collection of books. The king obeyed this suggestion and presently sent
Andreas the captain of his body-guard and Aristeas to Jerusalem to Eleazar the
Jewish high priest with rich presents and with the request that he would send
him experienced men capable of undertaking this difficult task. Eleazar was
ready to fulfil the king’s desire and sent him seventy-two Jewish scholars six
from each of the twelve tribes. Aristeas then gives a full description of the
splendid presents sent on the occasion by Ptolemy to Eleazar also a description
of the town of Jerusalem of the Jewish temple the Jewish worship nay of the land
all which he had himself seen on the occasion of this embassy. The whole
description has evidently the tendency of glorifying the Jewish people with
their excellent institutions and luxuriant prosperity. With the same purpose
does Aristeas then communicate the purport of a conversation he had carried on
with the high priest Eleazar concerning the Jewish law. Aristeas was by reason
of this conversation so much persuaded of the excellency of the Jewish law that
he held it necessary to explain to his brother Philocrates “its holiness and its
naturalness (reasonableness)” (283. 12-13: τὴν σεμνότητα καὶ φυσικὴν διάνοιαν
τοῦ νόμου προῆγμαι διασαφῆσαί σοι). Especially are the folly of idolatry and the
reasonableness of the Jewish laws of purity thoroughly treated of. When the
Jewish scholars arrived at Alexandria they were received with distinguished
honours by the king and were for seven days invited day after day to the royal
table. During these repasts the king continually addressed to the Jewish
scholars in turn a multitude of questions on the most important matters of
politics ethics philosophy and prudence which they answered so excellently that
the king was full of admiration for the wisdom of these Jews. Aristeas himself
too who was present at these repasts could not contain himself for astonishment
at the enormous wisdom of these men who answered off-hand the most difficult
questions which with others usually require long consideration. After these
festivities a splendid dwelling upon the island of Pharos far from the tumult of
the city was allotted to the seventy-two interpreters where they zealously set
to work. Every day a portion of the translation was despatched in such wise that
by a comparison of what each had independently written a harmonious common text
was settled (306. 22-23: οἱ δʼ ἐπετέλουν ἕκαστα σύμφωνα ποιοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς
ταῖς ἀντιβολαῖς). The whole was in this manner completed in seventy-two days.
When it was finished the translation was first read to the assembled Jews who
acknowledged its accuracy with expressions of the highest praise. Then it was
also read to the king who “was much astonished at the intelligence of the
lawgiver” (308. 8-9: λίαν ἐξεθαύμασε τὴν τοῦ νομοθέτου διάνοιαν) and commanded
that the books should be carefully preserved in his library. Lastly the
seventy-two interpreters were dismissed to Judea and rich presents for
themselves and the high priest bestowed upon them. This survey of the contents
shows that the object of the narrative is by no means that of relating the
history in the abstract but the history so far as it shows what esteem and
admiration were felt for the Jewish law and for Judaism in general by even
heathen authorities such as King Ptolemy and his ambassador Aristeas. For the
tendency of the whole culminates in the circumstance that praise was accorded to
the Jewish law by heathen lips. The whole is therefore in the first place
intended for heathen readers. They are to be shown what interest the learned
Ptolemy the promoter of science felt in the Jewish law and with what admiration
his highly placed official Aristeas spoke of it and of Judaism in general to his
brother Philocrates. When then it is also remarked at the close that the
accuracy of the translation was acknowledged by the Jews also this is not for
the purpose of commending the translation to Jews who might still oppose it but
to testify to the heathen that they had in the present translation an accurate
version of the genuine Jewish law and it is they the heathen who are thus
invited to read it. No consensus concerning the date of this book has been
arrived at by critics. It seems however tolerably certain to me that it
originated not later than about 200 years before Christ. The legend that it was
Demetrius Phalereus who suggested the whole undertaking to Ptolemy Philadelphus
is unhistorical not only in its details but in the main point; for Demetrius
Phalereus in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus no longer lived at court at
Alexandria (see above p. 161). When then the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus
designates just Demetrius Phalereus as the originator of the undertaking (in
Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2 see the passage above p. 160) it is very
probable that the book in question was already in his hands. Now Aristobulus
lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor about 170-150 B.C. and the result thus
obtained is supported on internal grounds also. The period when the Jewish
people were leading a peaceful and prosperous existence under the conduct of
their high priest and in a relation of very slight dependence upon Egypt i.e.
the period before the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucidae evidently forms
the background of the narrative. There is nowhere any allusion to the
complications and difficulties which begin with the Seleucidian conquest. The
Jewish people and their high priest appear as almost politically independent. At
all events it is to a time of peace and prosperity that we are transferred.
Especially is it worthy of remark that the fortress of Jerusalem is in the
possession of the Jews (Merx’ Archiv i. 272. 10 to 273. 4 = Havercamp’s Josephus
ii. 2. 113). Whether this stood on the same spot as the one subsequently erected
by Antiochus Epiphanes (1Ma_1:33) or not the author is in any case acquainted
with only the one in the possession of the Jews. The fortress however erected by
Antiochus remained in the possession of the Seleucidae till the time of the high
priest Simon (142-141 B.C. 1Ma_13:49-52). Of this fact the author has evidently
as yet no knowledge and as little of the subsequent princely position of the
high priest; to him the high priest is simply the high priest and not also
prince or indeed king. In every respect then it is the circumstances of the
Ptolemaic age that are presupposed. If the author has only artificially
reproduced them this is done with a certainty and a refinement which cannot be
assumed in the case of a pseudonymous author living after it. Hence the opinion
that the book originated not later than 200 B.C. is justified.[2501] [2501] It
may also be mentioned that Mendelssohn (Jenaer Litsraturzeitung 1875 No. 23)
places the composition in the first half of the first century before Christ
because it is said of the Jewish land that it had “good harbours” (λιμένας
εὐκαίρους) viz. Ascalon Joppa Gaza Ptolemais (Merx’ Archiv 272. 23 sqq. =
Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 114). This presupposed the union of these seaport
towns with the Jewish land by Alexander Jannaeus. But Ascalon and Ptolemais were
never united at all to the Jewish district not even by Alexander Jannaeus. Hence
the inference is inconclusive. The notion of Grätz that pseudo-Aristeas wrote
under Tiberius (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissentch. des Judenthums 1876 pp.
289 sqq. 337 sqq.) is worth as much as many others of this scholar’s fancies.
The legend of this book has been willingly accepted and frequently related by
Jews and Christians. The first who betrays an acquaintance with it is
Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2. The next is Philo Vita Mosis
lib. ii. § 5-7 (ed. Mangey ii. 138-141). Josephus reproduces Antt. xii. 2 a
great portion of this composition almost verbally. Comp. also Antt. proem. 3
contra Apion. ii. 4 fin. In rabbinic literature also are found some echoes
though quite confused ones of this legend. See Lightfoot Opp. ed. Roterod. ii.
934 sqq. Frankel Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (1851) p. 25 sqq. Berliner Targum
Onkelos (1884) ii. 76 sqq. The passages of the Fathers and Byzantines are most
conveniently found collected (with full verbal correctness) in Gallandi
Bibliotheca veterum patrum vol. ii. (Venetiis 1788) pp. 805-824. The legend is
here reproduced with various modifications especially the two following:—1. That
the interpreters translated independently of each other and yet verbally
coincided (the exact opposite of which is found in Aristeas viz. that agreement
was only obtained by comparison). 2. That not only the law but the entire Holy
Scriptures were translated by the seventy-two (in Aristeas only the former is
dealt with). See on the various forms of the legend: Eichhorn’s Repertorium für
bibl. und morgenländ. Literatur i. (1777) p. 266 sqq. xiv. (1784) p. 39 sqq. The
passages given in Gallandi are the following: Justin. Apol. i. 31. Dial. c.
Tryph. c. 71. Pseudo-Justin. Cohortatio ad Graec. c. 13. Irenaeus adv. haer.
iii. 21. 2 (Greek in Euseb. Hist. eccl. v. 8. 11 sqq.). Clemens Alex. Strom. i.
22. 148 sq. Tertullian. Apologet. c. 18. Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii.
32. 16. Eusebius gives in his Praeparatio evangelica viii. 2-5 and 9 large
portions of the book of Aristeas verbatim; comp. also viii. 1. 8 ix. 38.
Chronic. ed. Schoene ii. 118 sq. (ad ann. Abrah. 1736). Cyrill. Hieros.
cateches. iv. 34. Hilarius Pictav. prolog. ad librum psalmorum. The same tractat
in psalmum ii. tractat in psalmum cxviii. Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus §
3 6 9-11 (fully and specially). Hieronymus Praefat. in version. Genes. (Opp. ed.
Vallarsi ix. 3 sq.). The same Praefat. in librum quaestion. hebraic. (Vallarsi
iii. 303). Augustinus De civitate dei xviii. 42-43. Chrysostomus Orat. i.
adversus Judaeos. The same homil. iv. in Genes. Theodoret “praefat. in psalmos.”
Pseudo-Athanasii Synopsis scripturae sacrae c. 77. Cosmas Indicopleustes
Topograph. christ. lib. xii. Joannes Malala Chronogr. lib. viii. ed. Dindorf p.
196. Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 326. Georgius Syncellus ed. Dindorf i.
516-518. Georgius Cedrenus ed. Bekker i. 289 sq. Joannes Zonaras Annal. iv. 16
(after Joseph. Antt. xii. 2). The five last-named are contained in the Bonn
Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. On the manuscripts of this book of
Aristeas comp. Moriz Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung
des alten Testamentes i. 244 sqq.; and especially Lumbroso Recherches sur
l’économie politique de l’Egypte sous les Lagides (Turin 1870) p. 351 sqq. The
latter specifies seven other manuscripts besides the two Parisian ones compared
by Moriz Schmidt. On the editions (and translations) see Fabricius Biblioth.
graec. ed. Harles iii. 660 sqq. Rosenmüller Handbuch für die Literatur der bibl.
Kritik und Exegese vol. ii. (1798) p. 344 sqq. Moriz Schmidt’s above-named work
p. 241 sqq. Lumbroso’s above-named work p. 359 sqq. The editio princeps of the
Greek text was issued by Oporinus in Basle 1561. The book has since been often
reprinted in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus and elsewhere (ii. 2 pp. 103-132)
and in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca patrum (ii. 773-804). Much however remains to be
done for the establishment of a critical text. Moriz Schmidt has taken a first
step towards it by his edition in Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung
des alten Testamentes vol. i. (1869) pp. 241-312 for which two Parisian
manuscripts were compared. The older literature on Aristeas is specified by
Rosenmüller as above ii. 387-411; also in Fürst Biblioth. Jud. i. 51-53. Comp.
especially: Hody Contra historiam Aristeae de LXX. interpretibus dissertatio
Oxon. 1685. The same De bibliorum textibus originalibus versionibus Graecis et
Latina vulgata Oxon. 1705 (in this larger work the earlier dissertation is
reprinted and enriched with notes). Van Dale Dissertatio super Aristea de LXX.
interpretibus Amstelaed. 1705. Rosenmüller Handbuch für die Literatur der bibl.
Kritik und Exegese vol. ii. (1798) pp. 358-386. Gfrörer Philo ii. 61-71. Dähne
Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandr. Rel.-Philosophie ii. 205-215.
Zunz Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden p. 125. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes
Jisrael i. 263 sq. iii. 545-547. Frankel Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch.
des Judenth. 1858 pp. 237-250 281-298. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 322
sqq. Hitzig Gesch. des Volkes Israel p. 338 sqq. Nöldeke Die alttestamentliche
Literatur (1868) pp. 109-116. Cobet in Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς ἐκδ. ὑπὸ Κόντου vol. i.
(Leyden 1866) pp. 171 sqq. 177-181. Kurz Aristeae epistula ad Philocratem Bern
1872 (comp. Literar. Centralbl. 1873 No. 4). Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor
pp. 110-112 124 sq. 141-143 149 sq. 162-165 203 sq. Grätz “Die Abfassungszeit
des Pseudo-Aristeas” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1876
pp. 289 sqq. 337 sqq.). Papageorgios Ueber den Aristeasbrief München 1880 (comp.
Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1881 p. 380 sq.). Reuss Gesch. der
heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 515. The introductions to the Old
Testament of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Herbst Scholz Hävernicki De Wette-Schrader
Bleek Keil Reusch Kaulen. 6. Phocylides Phocylides of Miletus the old composer
of apothegms lived (according to the statements in Suidas Lex. s.v. Φωκυλίδης
and Euseb. Chron. ad Olymp. 60 ed. Schoene ii. 98) in the sixth century before
Christ. Few of his genuine sayings have been preserved. He must however have
been held as an authority in the department of moral poetry. For in the
Hellenistic period a didactic poem (ποίημα νουθετικόν) was interpolated in his
work by a Jew (or Christian?) giving in 230 hexameters moral instruction of the
most diversified kind. Having frequently been used as a school-book in the
Byzantine period it has been preserved in many manuscripts and often printed
since the sixteenth century. The contents of these verses are almost exclusively
ethical. It is but occasionally that we find the one true God and the future
retribution also referred to. The moral doctrines which the author inculcates
extend to the most various departments of practical life somewhat in the manner
of Jesus the son of Sirach. In their details however they coincide most closely
with the Old Testament especially with the Pentateuch echoes of which are heard
throughout in the precepts on civil relations (property marriage pauperism
etc.). Even such special precepts are found here as that which enjoins that when
a bird’s nest is taken only the young ones must be kept but the mother let fly
(Deuteronomy 22:6-7 = Phocylides vers. 84-85) or that the flesh of animals
killed by beasts of prey may not be eaten (Deuteronomy 14:21; Exodus 22:30 =
Phocylides vers. 139 147-148). There can thus be no doubt that the author was
either a Jew or a Christian. The former is the prevailing opinion since the
fundamental investigation of Bernays; Harnack has recently advocated the
latter.[2502] Both views have their difficulties. For there is nothing in the
work either specifically Jewish or specifically Christian. The author designedly
ignores the Jewish ceremonial law and even the Sabbatic command which is more
striking here than in the Sibyllines because the author in other respects enters
into the details of the Mosaic law. On the other side there is no kind of
reference to Christ nor above all to any religious interposition for salvation.
It is just bare morality which is here preached. Hence a certain decision as to
the Jewish or Christian origin of the poem is scarcely possible. The scale
against the Christian origin of the poem seems to me especially turned by the
fact that the author’s moral teaching coincides only with the Old Testament and
not with the moral legislation of Christ as we have it in the synoptists. Of the
latter there is in this poem as far as I can see no certain traces. And this is
scarcely conceivable in a Christian author who means to preach morality. If at
the same time there are still single expressions or propositions in the poem
which betray a Christian hand (like θεοί ver. 104) they must be set to the
account of the Christian tradition and how freely this dealt with the text is
shown us by the portion which by some chance or other got into the collection of
the Sibyllines (Sibyll. ii. 56-148 = Phocylides 5-79). The text as there
presented diverges pretty much from that elsewhere handed down and plainly shows
the hand of a Christian reviser. [2502] In the notice of Bernays’ “Gesammelten
Abhandlungen” in the Theol. Literaturzeitung 1885 p. 160. Harnack chiefly relies
upon ver. 104 where it is said of the risen that they “afterwards become gods”
(ὀπίσω δὲ θεοὶ τελέθονται). This is certainly a specifically Christian view
which Bernays gets rid of by changing θεοί into νέοι. If then this poem is of
Jewish origin it is of especial interest just through its lack of anything
specifically Jewish. The design of the author is first of all to labour only for
Jewish morality. He has not even the courage to speak strongly against idolatry.
The two fundamental religious notions of Judaism the unity of God and the future
retribution are indeed to be found in him also and he indirectly advocates them.
But he does it in so reticent a manner as to make it evident that morality
occupies the first place in his regards. His Judaism is even paler than that of
Philo. For the date of composition no other limits can be laid down than those
which are given for Judaeo-Hellenistic literature in general. It could not have
appeared later than the first century after Christ and in all probability
considerably earlier. It might seem strange that it is not cited by Christian
apologists by a Clement or a Eusebius who use so much else of this kind.[2503]
But the strangeness disappears as soon as we consider the object for which such
quotations are made viz. in the first place to produce heathen testimony to the
religious ideas of Christianity to the notions of the unity of God and the
future retribution and these were not expressed in Phocylides as forcibly as
could be desired. [2503] The first traces of its being used are found in
Stobaeus and in certain classic scholia. See Bernhardy Grundriss der
griechischen Litteratur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) p. 520. The most careful monograph
on this poem is Bernays Ueber das Phokylideische Gedicht ein Beitrag zur
hellenistischen Litteratur Breslau 1856 (reprinted in Bernays Gesammelte
Abhandlungen published by Usener 1885 vol. i. pp. 191-261). The text of the poem
with critical apparatus is best given in Bergk Poetae lyrici Graeci vol. ii.
(3rd ed. 1866) pp. 450-475 (the same pp. 445-449 also the fragment of the
genuine Phocylides). Bernays as above gives the text according to his own
recension. On the older editions especially in the collections of gnomic writers
see Schier in his separate edition Lips. 1751. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec.
i. 704-749. Eckermann art. “Phokylides” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem.
Encyklopädie § 3 vol. xxiv. (1848) p. 485. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 96 sqq.
The separate edition: Phocylidis etc. carmina cum selectis adnotationibus
aliquot doct. virorum Graece et Latine nunc denuo ad editiones praestantissimas
rec. Schier Lips. 1751 must be brought forward. A German translation is given by
Nickel Phokylides Mahngedicht in metrischer Uebersetzung Mainz 1833. Comp. in
general: Wachler De Pseudo-Phocylide Rinteln 1788. Rohde De veterum poetarum
sapientia gnomica Hebraeorum imprimis et Graecorum Havn. 1800. Bleek Theol.
Zeitschr. edited by Schleiermacher de Wette and Lücke i. 1819 p. 185 (in the
article on the Sibyllines). Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex.
Religionsphilosophie ii. 222 sq. Eckermann art. “Phokylides” in Ersch and
Gruber’s Allg. Encyklop. § 3 vol. xxiv. (1848) pp. 482-485. Teuffel in Pauly’s
Real-Enc. v. 1551. Alexandre’s 1st ed. of the Oracula Sibyllina ii. 401-409.
Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) pp.
517-523. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vi. 405 412. Freudenthal Die Flavius
Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (1869) p. 161 sqq.
Leop. Schmidt’s notice of Bernays’ work in the Jahrbb. für class. Philol. vol.
lxxv. (1857) pp. 510-519. Goram “De Pseudo-Phocylide” (Philologus vol. xiv. 1859
pp. 91-112). Hart “Die Pseudophokylideia und Theognis im codex Venetus Marcianus
522” (Jahrbb. für class. Philol. vol. xcvii. 1868 pp. 331-336). Bergk “Kritische
Beiträge zu dem sog. Phokylides” (Philologus vol. xli. 1882 pp. 577-601).
Sitzler “Zu den griechischen Elegikern” (Jahrbb. für class. Philol. vol. cxxix.
1884 p. 48 sqq.). Phocylides Poem of Admonition with introd. and commentaries by
Feuling trans. by Goodwin Andover Mass. 1879. Still more literature in Fürst
Biblioth. Judaica iii. 96 sqq.; and in Engelmann’s Bibliotheca scriptorum
classicorum ed. Preuss. 7. Smaller Pieces Perhaps of Jewish Origin Under Heathen
Names 1. Letters of Heraclitus?—Epistolography was a favourite kind of
literature in the later times of antiquity. The letters of eminent rhetoricians
and philosophers were collected as a means of general culture. Letters were
composed and also feigned under the names of famous persons and generally for
the purpose of furnishing entertaining and instructive reading. To the numerous
species of the latter kind belong also nine supposed letters of Heraclitus to
which Bernays has devoted very thorough research. In two of them the fourth and
seventh he thinks he can recognise the hand of “a believer in Scripture” and
indeed in such wise that the fourth is merely interpolated but the seventh
entirely composed by such an one. In fact the austere polemic against the
worship of images in the fourth letter sounds quite Jewish or Christian as does
also the stern morality preached in the seventh in which especially the
partaking of “live” flesh i.e flesh with the blood is denounced (τὰ ζῶντα
κατεσθίετε; comp. on the Jewish and Christian prohibition Acts 15:29 and ). It
must however as Bernays himself acknowledges remain a question whether this
“believer in the Scriptures” was a Jew or a Christian. Bernays Die
heraklitischen Briefe ein Beitrag zur philosophischen und
religionsgeschichtlichen Litteratur (Berlin 1869) pp. 26 sqq. 72 sqq. 110 sq.
Bernays gives also the text of the letters with a German translation. The latest
edition of the Epistolographi in general is Hercher Epistolographi Graeci
recensuit etc. Paris Didot 1873. A separate edition of the letters of
Heraclitus: Westermann Heracliti epist. quae feruntur Lips. 1857
(Universitäts-progr.). Comp. on the entire epistolographic literature
Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. i. 166-703. Nicolai Griechische
Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. ii. 2 (1877) p. 502 sqq. 2. A letter of
Diogenes?—Among the fifty-one supposed letters of Diogenes Bernays thinks that
one the twenty-eighth may be referred to the same source as the seventh of
Heraclitus. In fact it contains a similar moral sermon to the latter. Bernays
Lucian und die Kyniker (Berlin 1879) pp. 96-98. See the text in all the editions
of the Epistolographi e.g. in Hercher Epistolographi Graeci pp. 241-243. 3.
Hermippus?—Hermippus Callimachius who lived under Ptolemy III. and IV. and
therefore in the second half of the third century before Christ composed a large
number of biographies of eminent persons. Among the pieces of information thence
obtained two arrest our attention. According to Origen contra Cels. i. 15 it was
said in the first book “on the lawgivers” that Pythagoras derived his philosophy
from the Jews (Λέγεται δὲ καὶ Ἕρμιππον ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ νομοθετῶν ἱστορηκέναι
Πυθαγόραν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φιλοσοφίαν ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων εἰς Ἕλληνας ἀγαγεῖν). According to
Josephus contra Apion. i. 22 a similar remark was contained in the first book
“on Pythagoras.” The notice of Josephus is however much more particular and
accurate than that of Origen. For according to Josephus Hermippus relates that
Pythagoras taught “not to go over a place where an ass had sunk on his knees to
abstain from turbid water and to avoid all slander and blasphemy” and on this
Hermippus then remarked: “Pythagoras did and taught these things imitating and
adopting the opinions of the Jews and Thracians” (ταῦτα δʼ ἔπραττε καὶ ἔλεγε τὰς
Ἰουδαίων καὶ Θρᾳκῶν δόξας μιμούμενος καὶ μεταφέρων εἰς ἑαυτόν). Thus Hermippus
did not denote the philosophy of Pythagoras as a whole but only those special
doctrines as borrowed from the Jews. For the words which follow in Josephus:
λέγεται γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐκεῖνος πολλὰ τῶν παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις νομίμων εἰς τὴν
αὑτοῦ μετενεγκεῖν φιλοσοφίαν are no longer the words of Hermippus but of
Josephus. In the reference of Josephus the words of Hermippus contain nothing
which he might not actually have written. It is otherwise with the reference of
Origen. If this had been accurate we should have had to conclude that a Jew had
interpolated the work of Hermippus. But Origen himself intimates that he had not
seen the work of Hermippus; he says only: “Hermippus is said to have declared.”
It is most probable that he is here relying solely on the passage of Josephus
which he reproduces but incorrectly. Thus we have here not a Jewish forgery but
only an inaccurate reference of Origen to authenticate. C. Müller Fragm. hist.
Graec. iii. 35-54 has admitted both passages among genuine fragments of
Hermippus (Fr. 2 and 21). Comp. for and against their genuineness: Dähne
Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 219 sq. Kellner
De fragmentis Manethonianis (1859) p. 42. Hilgenfeld Einl. in das N. T. p. 168
note. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 178 192. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus
Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 161 sqq. 4. Numenius?—The Pythagorean and
Platonist Numenius (towards the end of the second century after Christ) as the
genuine precursor of Neo-Platonism was acquainted with and after his fashion
made use of the Jewish Scriptures nay of Jewish tradition (e.g. concerning
Jannes and Jambres see above p. 149). Origen bears decided testimony to this
when he says contra Cels. iv. 51 that he knows that Numenius quotes “in many
passages of his works sayings of Moses and the prophets and convincingly
explains them in an allegorical manner as e.g. in the so-called Epops in the
books on numbers and in those on space” (ἐγὼ δʼ οἶδα καὶ Νουμήνιον … πολλαχοῦ
τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὑτοῦ ἐκτιθέμενον τὰ Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ οὐκ ἀπιθάνως
αὐτὰ τροπολογοῦντα ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ Ἔποπι καὶ ἐν τοῖς “περὶ ἀριθμῶν” καὶ ἐν
τοῖς “περὶ τόπου”). Comp. also Orig. c. Cels. i. 15; Zeller Philos d. Griechen
iii. 2. 217 sq. We have no reason to mistrust this testimony. It is not however
credible that Numenius should have used just this expression: τί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων
ἢ Μωυσῆς ἀττικίζων which Clemens Alex. and others attribute to him.[2504] If it
really stood in a work of Numenius it would certainly have to be laid to the
account of a Jewish editor. We see however the real state of affairs from
Eusebius who only says that this saying is ascribed to Numenius viz. by oral
tradition.[2505] The saying then is not a Jewish forgery but only an
exaggeration due to oral tradition of the real view of Numenius. [2504] Clem.
Alex. Strom. i. 22. 150. Hesychius Miles in Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iv. 171.
Suidas Lex. s.v. Νουμήνιος. [2505] Euseb. Praep. ev. xi. 10. 14 ed. Gaisford:
Εἰκότως δῆτα εἰς αὐτον ἐκεῖνο τὸ λόγιον περιφέρεται διʼ οὗ φάναι μνημονεύεται τί
γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωσῆς ἀττικίζων; Comp. on this question: Freudenthal Alex.
Polyhistor p. 173 note. On Numenius in general: Zeller Die Philosophie der
Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 216-223. 5. Hermes Trismegistus?—The god
Hermes and that as Trismegistus was first represented as an author by the
Egyptians. According to Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 4. 37 there were forty-two books
of Hermes thirty-six of which contained the entire philosophy of the Egyptians
the other six were devoted to medicine. Tertullian de anima c. 2 and 33 is
already acquainted with books of Mercurius Aegyptius which taught a Platonizing
psychology. From the latter circumstance it is seen that the later Platonists
especially had already taken possession of this pseudonym. Thus then the works
of Hermes which have come down to us are of Neo-Platonic origin. They are first
cited by Lactantius and were probably of the third century after Christ. Their
position with respect to the heathen popular religions is a thoroughly positive
one. “Just the defence of national and particularly of Egyptian religion is one
of their chief objects” (Zeller iii. 2. 234 sq.). But all the pieces are not the
work of one author nor are they even all of heathen origin. Neither can the
co-operation of Jewish hands in the production of this literature be proved. On
the contrary what is not of heathen seems to be of Christian origin (c. 1 and 13
of the so-called Poemander). Comp. on this whole literature: Fabricius-Harles
Biblioth. graec. i. 46-94. Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iii. 1209-1214. Ueberweg
Grundriss der Gesch. der Philosophie i. (4th ed. 1871) p. 256. Erdmann Grundriss
der Gesch. der Philos. 3rd ed. 1878 vol. i. pp. 179-182. Zeller Die Philosophie
der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 224-235. Erdmann and Zeller did not enter
into a thorough description of the Hermes works till the more recent editions of
their works as cited above.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 103: � 34. PHILO THE JEWISH PHILOSOPHER
========================================================================

§ 34. PHILO THE JEWISH PHILOSOPHER


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 104: I. THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF PHILO
========================================================================

I. THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF PHILO THE LITERATURE[2506] [2506] The literature
here named refers only to Philo as an author in general. For the literature on
Philo’s doctrine see No. II. below. For the literature on his several works see
in the places where they are treated of. Still more literature is given in:
Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iv. 721 sqq. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii.
87-94. Engelmann Bibliotheca scriptorum classicorum (8th ed. revised by Preuss)
vol. i. 1880 pp. 546-548. Mangey’s edition of the works of Philo the Prolegomena
and especially the notes prefixed to the several works. Fabricius Bibiotheca
graeca ed. Harles vol. iv. (1795) pp. 721-750. Scheffer Quaestionum
Philonianarum part. I. sive de ingenio moribusque Judaeorum per Ptolemaeorum
saecula Marburgi 1829. Idem De usu Philonis in interpretatione Novi Testamenti
Marburgi 1831. Gfrörer Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie vol. i. (1831)
pp. 1-113. Creuzer “Zur Kritik der Schriften des Juden Philo” (Theol. Stud. und
Krit. 1832 pp. 3-43). Dähne “Einige Bemerkungen über die Schriften des Juden
Philo” (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 984-1040). Idem art. “Philon” in Ersch
and Gruber’s Allg. Encyklopädie § 3 vol. xxiii. (1847) pp. 435-454. Grossman De
Philonis Judaei operum continua serie et ordine chronologico Comment. Pts. i.
ii. Lips. 1841-1842. Steinhart art. “Philo” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. der class.
Alterthumswissensch. vol. v. (1848) p. 1499 sq. J. G. Müller art. “Philo” in
Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xi. (1859) pp. 578-603. Idem Ueber die Texteskritik
der Schriften des Juden Philo Basel 1839 (printed in J. G. Müller Des Juden
Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung 1841 pp. 17-45). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel
3rd ed. vol. vi. (1868) pp. 257-312. Ueberweg Grundriss der Gesch. der
Philosophie 4th ed. i. (1871) pp. 240-249. Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch.
2nd ed. vol. ii. (1875) pp. 131-182 Delaunay Philon d’ Alexandrie écrits
historiques influence luttes et persécutions des juifs dans le monde romain 2nd
ed. Paris 1870. Treitel De Philonis Judaei sermone Bresl. 1872 (30 pp.).
Siegfried Die hebräischen Worterklärungen des Philo und die Spuren ihrer
Einwirkung auf die Kirchenväter (37 pp. gr. 4) 1863. Idem “Philonische Studien”
(Merx’s Archiv für Erforschung des A. T. ii. 2 1872 pp. 143-163). Idem “Philo
und der überlieferte Text der LXX.” (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1873
pp. 217 sqq. 411 sqq. 522 sqq.). Idem Zur Kritik der Schriften Philo’s (Ebendas.
1874 p. 562 sqq.) Siegfried Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten
Testaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet.
Nebst Untersuchungen über die Gräcität Philo’s Jena 1875. Nicolai Griechische
Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. ii. 2 (1877) pp. 653-659. Grätz Gesch. der Juden
vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 678-683. Bernh. Ritter Philo und die Halacha eine
vergleichende Studie Leipzig 1879. Reuss Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten
Testaments (1881) § 566-568. Hamburger Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud vol. ii.
(1883) arts. “Philo” and “Religionsphilosophie.” Zöckler art. “Philo” in
Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xi. (1883) pp. 636-649. Among Jewish Hellenists none
other besides Josephus takes so eminent a position as Philo the Alexandrian.
Even by reason of the extent of his works which have been handed down he is one
of the most important to us. Of no other can we form even approximately so clear
a picture of his thoughts and literary and philosophic labours. But he is also
in himself evidently the most illustrious among all those who strove to unite
Jewish belief with Hellenic culture to be the means of imparting to Jews the
cultivation of the Greeks and to Greeks the religious knowledge of the Jews. No
other Jewish Hellenist was so fully saturated with the wisdom of the Greeks; no
other enjoyed equal consideration in history. This is testified by the immense
influence which he exercised upon after times and above all upon Christian
theology the inheritor of the Judaeo-Hellenistic.[2507] [2507] On the
consideration enjoyed by Philo in antiquity comp. especially Euseb. Hist. eccl.
ii. 4. 3: πλείστοις ἀνὴρ οὐ μόνον τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἔξωθεν
ὁρμωμένων παιδείας ἐπισημότατος. We have but a few scanty notices concerning his
life. The assertion of Jerome that he was of priestly race[2508] has no support
from older sources nor does Eusebius know anything of it. According to
Josephus[2509] he was a brother of the Alabarch Alexander and consequently a
member of one of the most aristocratic families of Alexandrian Jews.[2510] The
sole event in his life which can be chronologically fixed is his participation
in the embassy to Caligula in A.D. 40 of which he has himself furnished an
account in the work De Legatione ad Cajum. As he was then of advanced age[2511]
he may have been born about the year 20-10 B.C. The Christian legend that he met
St. Peter at Rome in the reign of Claudius is of no historical value.[2512]
[2508] De viris illustribus c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 847): Philo Judaeus
natione Alexandrinus de genere sacerdotum. [2509] Antt. xviii. 8.1. [2510] Ewald
(Gesch. vi. 259) and Zeller (Philos. der Griechen 3rd ed. iii. 2. 339) have of
late incorrectly rejected the statement of Josephus and declared Philo to have
been the uncle of Alexander because a nephew of Philo named Alexander is
mentioned in the work published by Aucher De ratione animalium pp. 123 sq. 161
(in the 8th vol. of Ritter’s edition). But it is nowhere said in it that this
Alexander was the Alabarch. [2511] He designates himself (Legat. ad Cajum § 28
ed. Mangey ii. 572) as φρονεῖν τι δοκῶν περιττότερον καὶ διʼ ἡλικίαν καὶ τὴν
ἄλλην παιδείαν. In the beginning of his work composed shortly after (§ 1 Mang.
ii. 572) he calls himself γέρων. [2512] Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 17. 1. Hieronymus
De viris illustr. c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 847). Photius Bibliotheca cod.
105. Suidas Lex. s.v. Φίλων (verbally according to the Greek translation of
Jerome). Much has been lost of Philo’s numerous works. But thanks to his being a
favourite with the Fathers and Christian theologians the bulk of them has been
preserved. Of the collective editions that of Mangey is notwithstanding its
deficiencies the most valuable.[2513] Among recent contributions the works of
Philo preserved only in Armenian published by Aucher are by far the most
important.[2514] Greek portions of greater or less extent were given by
Mai[2515] Grosamann[2516] and Tischendorf.[2517] Pitra has communicated material
of various kinds from manuscripts.[2518] In the more recent hand editions these
publications have been at least partially turned to account.[2519] A
satisfactory collective edition is however as yet wanting. That planned long
since by Grossmann has not been carried into execution.[2520] For a new edition
a careful investigation also of the material offered by the as yet un-printed
Florilegia (collections of extracts from the Fathers and more ancient authors)
would be necessary.[2521] [2513] On the editions of Philo’s works (or of
separate parts) and of the translations comp. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. iv.
746-750. S. F. W. Hoffmann Lexicon bibliogr. vol. iii. p. 231 sqq. Fürst
Biblioth. Judaica iii. 87-92. Graesse Trésor de livres rares et précieux vol. v.
(1864) pp. 269-371. The editio princeps is: Φιλωνος Ιουδαιου εις τα του Μωσεως
κοσμοποιητικα ιστορικα νομοθετικα. Του αυτου μονοβιβλα.. Philonis Judaei in
libros Mosis de mundi opificio historicos. de legibus. Ejusdem libri singulares
Ex bibliotheca regio Parisiis ex officina Adriana Turaebi 1552 fol. Several
publications of Höschel at first contributed to the completion of this very
imperfect edition (Francof. 1587 Augustae Vindel. 1614). Collective editions
appeared also at Geneva 1613 fol. Paris 1640 fol. Frankfort 1691 fol. (the
Frankfort edition is only a reprint of the Parisian with identical paging). The
edition of Mangey 2 vole. London 1742 fol. marks an important advance. It is the
first which is based upon a more extensive comparison of the manuscripts and is
also more complete than any former one. The edition of Pfeiffer vols. i.-v.
Erlangen 1785-1792 2nd ed. 1820 remained unfinished (it contains only what
stands in Mangey vols. i. and ii. 1-40). On the deficiencies in the editions of
Mangey and Pfeiffer see Creuzer Stud. und Krit. 1832 pp. 5-17. J. G. Müller
Ueber die Texteskritik der Schriften des Juden Philo Basel 1839 p. 5 sqq.
(printed in J. G. Müller Des Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung 1841 p. 18
sqq.). [2514] They appeared in two vols. under separate titles: (1) Philonis
Judaei sermones tres hactenus inediti i. et ii. de providentia et iii. de
animalibus ex Armino versione etc. nunc primum in Latium [sic] fideliter
translati per Jo. Bapt. Aucher Venetiis 1822. (2) Philonis Judaei paralipomena
Armena libri videlicet quatuor in Genesin libri duo in Exodum sermo unus de
Sampsone alter de Jona tertius de tribus angelis Abraamo apparentibus opera
hactenus inedita ex Armena versione etc. nunc primum in Latium fideliter
translata per Jo. Bapt. Aucher Venetiis 1826. [2515] The works here in question
are: (1) Philo et Virgilii interpretes. In it Philonis Judaei de cophini festo
et de colendis parentibus cum brevi scripto de Jona editore ac interprete Angelo
Maio Mediolan. 1818. (2) Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum
vol. iv. curante Angelo Maio Romae 1831 (contains: pp. 402-407 Philonis de
cophini festo; pp. 408-429 Philonis de honorandis parentibus; pp. 430-441
Philonus ex opere in Exodum selectae questiones). (3) Scriptorum veterum nova
collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita ab Angelo Maio vol. vii. Romae 1833
(contains Pt. I. pp. 74-109 specimens from a Florilegium of Leontius and
Johannes with numerous smaller fragments of Philo). (4) Philonis Judaei
Porphyrii philosophi Eusebii Pamphili opera inedita. In it: Philonis Judaei de
virtute ejusque partibus ed. Ang. Maius Mediolan. 1816 (this work which in the
Milan manuscript used by Mai bears the name of Philo is in other manuscripts
attributed to Gemistus Pletho and was long printed under his name as Mai himself
subsequently remarked). See Leipziger Literaturzeitung 1818 No. 276. [2516]
Grossmann Anecdoton Graecum Philonis Judaei de Cherubinis Exod. xxv. 18 Lips.
1856 (this supposed Anecdoton from the cod. Vat. n. 379 was already printed in
the year 1831 in Mai Classicorum auctorum vol. iv. pp. 430-441. Tischendorf
indeed knew nothing of it in 1868 comp. his Philonea p. xix. sq.). [2517]
Tischendorf Anecdota sacra et profana (2nd ed. Lips. 1861) pp. 171-174. But
especially Tischendorf Philonea inedita altera altera nunc demum recte ex vetere
scriptura eruta Lips. 1868. Holwerda in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen der
koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeeling Letterkunde tweede reeks derde
deel Amsterdam 1873 pp. 271-288 gives emendations of Tischendorf’s text. Idem
Derde reeks eerste deel 1884 pp. 274-286. [2518]a Pitra Analecta sacra
spicilegio Solesmensi parata vol. ii. (1884) pp. xxii. sq. 304-334. Pitra here
gives: (1) Philo-fragments from the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus 276
(pp. 304-310). (2) Philo-fragments from various Vatican MSS. (pp. 310-314). (3)
A list of the Philo-manuscripts in the Vatican Library together with a list of
the several works of Philo contained in these manuscripts (pp. 314-319). (4)
Information concerning various ancient and modern Latin translations of Philo
(pp. 319-334). [2519] The hand edition of Richter (8 vols. Lips. 1828-1830)
contains besides the text of Mangey the two publications of Aucher and those of
Mai of the year 1818. The same texts are also in the Tauchnitz stereotype
edition (8 vols. Lips. 1851-1853). On recent editions of separate works of Philo
(De opificio mundi by J. G. Müller De incorruptibilitate mundi by Bernays) see
below at the proper places. I may also mention that a number of Philo’s writings
translated into German will be found in the Bibliothek der griechischen und
römischen Schriftsteller über Judenthum und Juden in neuen Uebertragungen und
Sammlungen vol. i. Leipzig 1865 [vol. ii. contains Josephus] vol. iii. 1870 vol.
iv. 1872. [2520] Grossmann publicly expressed his intention so long ago as 1829
(Quaestiones Philoneae i. p. 7). Afterwards Tischendorf in particular collected
materials for him comp. Anecdota sacra et profana p. 171: Quam Grossmannus
longissimo ex tempore novam operum scriptoris istius gravissimi editionem
praeparat ea ex collationibus meis codicum fere triginta ubique terrarum
dispersorum non modo apparatum habebit locupletissimum et textum prioribus
editionibus multo correctiorem verum etiam aucta erit ineditis nonnullis quae in
Italia reperire mihi contigit. On the manuscripts of Philo comp. the Prolegomena
in Mangey’s edition Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. iv. 743-746. Tischendorf
Philonea pp. vii.-xx. Some notices in Mai Nova patrum bibliotheca vi. 2 p. 67
note. A list of the Vatican manuscripts in Pitra Analecta sacra ii. p. 314 and
at pp. 316-319 accurate information as to the manuscripts in which each separate
work of Philo is contained. [2521] The best known among the extant printed
Christian Florilegia are those of Maximus Confessor Johannes Damascenus and
Antonius Melissa. In all three Philo is frequently quoted (see the indexes in
Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. ix. pp. 663 731 756). To the same category belong
also the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes in Mai Script. vet. nova collectio
vii. 1. 74-109. Mangey has collected from Johannes Damascenus (Sacra parallela)
and Antonius Melissa all those passages which are derived from lost works of
Philo (Philonis opp. ii. 648-660 670-674). But what Mangey here gives under the
name of Johannes Damascenus really comes from two different collections. For
Lequien gives in his edition of Johannes Damascenus first (ii. 274-730) the
complete text of the Sacra parallela but then also (ii. 730-790) a selection of
passages from another and considerably divergent recension of the sacra
parallela which is also attributed to Johannes Damascenus. The latter (in a
codex Rupefucaldinus of the Jesuit College Paris) seems to me however exactly
identical with the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus extracts of which from
lost works of Philo are given by Mangey himself after the supposed extracts from
Johannes Damascenus (Philonis opp. ii. 660-670). For both manuscripts belong to
the Jesuit College at Paris and have exactly the same superscription (Lequien
ii. 274 sq. 731; Mangey i. p. xviii. sq. and ii. 660). Seeing the importance of
the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus in the criticism of Philo the matter
deserved a more accurate investigation. Pitra (Analecta sacra ii. 304-310) has
given various fragments from Philo from a third recension of the Sacra parallela
in the cod. Coislinianus 276. Many similar collections of extracts moreover
exist in manuscript which have not as yet been turned to any account with
respect to Philo. See Fabricius-Harles Bibl. gr. ix. 720 sq. 758 sq. Comp. on
this literature in general: Fabricius-Harles ix. 635-759. Nicolai Griech.
Literaturgesch. vol. iii. 1878 pp. 309-318. Wachsmuth Studien zu den
griechischen Florilegien Berlin 1882. Zahn Forschungen zur Geschichte des
neutestamentl. Kanons Pt. iii. (1884) pp. 7-10. A tolerably complete catalogue
of Philo’s works is already given by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical
History.[2522] Unfortunately however it is in such disorder as to afford no
foothold for the correct classification of the works. In this respect we are
almost exclusively referred to the contents of the works themselves a careful
consideration of which evidently shows that they by no means form so unconnected
a mass as appears from the titles in the editions. The great majority are on the
contrary only sub-divisions of some few large works. And indeed as especially
Ewald has correctly perceived three chief works on the Pentateuch may be
distinguished which alone embrace more than three-quarters of what has come down
to us as Philo’s.[2523] [2522] Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. The statements of
Jerome De viris illustr. c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 847 sq.) rest entirely
upon this catalogue of Eusebius. Again the catalogue in Suidas (Lex. s.v. Φίλων)
is copied with only a few additions of his own from the Greek translation of
Jerome. Photius Bibliotheca cod. 103 104 105 on the other hand gives somewhat
that is independent. Comp. in general the testimonia veterum in Mangey i. pp.
xxi.-xxix. The long fragments from different works of Philo in the Praep. evang.
of Eusebius are also especially valuable. [2523] More or less valuable
contributions to the correct classification of Philo’s works have been furnished
by Mangey Fabricius Gfrörer Dähne Grossmann Ewald and Siegfried in the
above-named works and articles (Siegfried in the Zeitshr. für wissenschaftl.
Theol. 1874 p. 562 sqq.). The arbitrarily got up surveys of J. G. Müller and
Zöckler are on the contrary useless. Steinhart and Hamburger are also
inaccurate. Hausrath ii. 152-154 does the most for confusion. I. The Ζητήματα
καὶ λύσεις Quaestiones et solutiones which first became more widely known
through the publications of Aucher from the Armenian are a comparatively brief
catechetical explanation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions and answers.
It is not easy to ascertain how far they extended. In the time of Eusebius they
were extant for only Genesis and Exodus (H. E. ii. 18. 1 and 5) and such other
traces as may be regarded as certain extend only to these two books.[2524] The
explanation of Genesis comprised probably six books at all events only so much
can be certainly pointed out from the quotations.[2525] The explanation of
Exodus comprised according to the testimony of Eusebius (H. E. ii. 18. 5) and
Jerome five books. Of these are preserved (1) in the Armenian tongue about the
half of these eleven books viz. four on Genesis (incomplete) and two on Exodus
(also imperfect);[2526] and (2) a large fragment (comprising about half of the
fourth book on Genesis) in an old Latin translation which was repeatedly printed
in the beginning of the sixteenth century but entirely ignored by the publishers
of the Greek works.[2527] Lastly (3) in Greek numerous small fragments still
awaiting collection.[2528] By the help of the Armenian text it is now settled
that many passages have been taken almost verbally from this work without
mention of Philo’s name by the Fathers and especially by Ambrose.[2529] The
composition of these Quaestiones et solutiones is in some parts of earlier in
other of later date than that of the large allegorical commentary as is shown by
the allusions to each other in both works.[2530] [2524] Grossmann (De Phil. Jud.
operum continua serie i. p. 25) and Ewald (Gesch. vi. 294 sq.) suppose that the
work extended to the three last books of the Pentateuch also. In Mai Script.
vet. nova collectio vii. 1 p. 104a is indeed found a fragment ἐκ τῶν ἐν τῷ
λευιτικῷ ζητημάτων. But sometimes errors occur in these quotation formulae also.
[2525] Three fragments ἐκ τοῦ ςʹ τῶν ἐν γενέσει ζητημάτων (Mai Script. vet. nova
collectio vii. 1 pp. 100b 106b 108b) occur in the Florilegium of Leontius and
Johannes. In Le Quien’s edition of Johannes Damascenus ii. 362 note it is
remarked that a fragment there given is introduced in the cod. Rupefucaldinus
(see above note 15) by the formula ἐκ τοῦ ςʹ τῶν αὐτῶν (scil. τῶν ἐν γενέσει
ζητουμένων). All other known quotations refer to Books i.-v. Only once in Mai
Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1. 99b is found ἐκ τοῦ θʹ τῶν ἐν γενέσει ζητημάτων
where however E must certainly be read for Θ. [2526] Published in Armenian and
Latin by Aucher 1826 (see above note 9). After this in Latin also in Richter
Philonis opp. 6 and 7 vols. and in the Tauchnitz stereotype edition (also in 6
and 7 vols.). On the gaps comp. Dähne Stud und Krit. 1833 p. 1038. [2527]
Philonis Judaei centum et duae quaestiones et totidem responsiones super Genesim
Paris 1520 fol. (Fabricius-Harles iv. 746). The Giessen University library
possesses: Philonis Judaei Alexandrini libri anti-quitatum quaestionum et
solutionum in Genesin de Essaeis de nominibus Hebraicis de mundo Basileae 1527
fol. (in which pp. 61-83: Philonis Judaei quaestionum et solutionum in Genesin
liber). There are also impressions of 1538 and 1550 (Fabricius l.c.). Aucher pp.
362-443 (under the Armenio-Latin text) and Richter vii. 212-261 follow the
impression of 1538. Manuscripts also of this Latin text are still known two
Vaticans (Vatican 488 and Urbin 61) and one Laurentianus; see thereon Pitra
Analecta sacra ii. 298 sq. 314 332. On the age and character of the translation
Pitra Analecta ii. 298 sq. 319 sqq. [2528] Of Greek fragments are known: (1) A
small piece: ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν Φίλωνος Ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων on Genesis in
Eusebius Praep. evang. vii. 13. (2) The fragment De Cherubinis on Exodus
published by Mai Grossmann and Tischendorf (Mai Classicorum auctorum vol. iv.
pp. 430-441; Grossmann Anecdoton etc. 1856; Tischendorf Philonea pp. 144-153).
(3) Numerous small fragments from Johannes Damascenus Johannes Monachus ineditus
Autonius Melissa and the Catena of the cod. Paris Reg. n. 1825 in Mangey
Philonis opp. ii. 648-680. Of these certainly it is only the fragments in the
codex Rupefucaldinus and in Johannes Monachus ineditus Mang. ii. 653-670 (both
probably identical see above note 15) that are expressly traced to the ζητήματα
καὶ λύσεις. But many others especially those in the Catena come from it. (4)
About thirty to forty small fragments in the Florilegium of Leontius and
Johannes in Mai Script. vet. nova collectio vii. 1. 96-109. (5) A portion also
of the small fragments edited by Tischendorf (Anecdota sacra et profana pp.
171-174; Philonea pp. 152-155) are probably derived from this work. (b) Six
small fragments in the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus in Pitra Analecta
sacra ii. 307 sq. Various other fragments from Vatican manuscripts also in Pitra
Analecta ii. 310-314 (a portion at least of these fragments must certainly be
included). (7) A more accurate investigation of the Florilegis especially of
those not as yet edited (see note 15) would furnish considerable gain in the
matter of small fragments. [2529] Numerous passages from Ambrose are reprinted
in Aucher under the Armenio-Latin text. Comp. on the use of Philo by Ambrose
generally: Siegfried Philo pp. 371-391. Förster Ambrosius Bischof von Mailand
(1884) pp. 102-112. [2530] Ewald (Gesch. vi. 294) regards the Quaestiones et
solutiones as older than the large allegorical commentary. Dähne (Stud. und
Krit. 1833 p. 1037) considers it more recent. For a more minute discussion see
Grossmann De Phil. Jud. operum continua serie ii. pp. 14-17. II. While this
shorter explanation in a catechetical form was intended for more extensive
circles Philo’s special and chief scientific work is his large allegorical
commentary on Genesis Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι (such is the title given it in
Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. 1 and Photius Bibliotheca cod. 103. Comp. also Origen
Comment. in Matth. vol. xvii. c. 17; contra Celsum iv. 51).[2531] These two
works frequently approximate each other as to their contents. For in the
Quaestiones et solutiones also the deeper allegorical signification is given as
well as the literal meaning. In the great allegorical commentary on the contrary
the allegorical interpretation exclusively prevails. The deeper allegorical
sense of the sacred letter is settled in extensive and prolix discussion which
by reason of the copious adducting of parallel passages often seems to wander
from the text. Thus the entire exegetic method with its dragging in of the most
heterogeneous passages in elucidation of the idea supposed to exist in the text
forcibly recalls the method of Rabbinical Midrash. This allegorical
interpretation however has with all its arbitrariness its rules and laws the
allegorical meaning as once settled for certain persons objects and events being
afterwards adhered to with tolerable consistency. Especially is it a fundamental
thought from which the exposition is everywhere deduced that the history of
mankind as related in Genesis is in reality nothing else than a system of
psychology and ethic. The different individuals who here make their appearance
denote the different states of soul (τρόποι τῆς ψυχῆς) which occur among men. To
analyse these in their variety and their relations both to each other and to the
Deity and the world of sense and thence to deduce moral doctrines is the special
aim of this great allegorical commentary. Thus we perceive at the same time that
Philo’s chief interest is not—as might from the whole plan of his system be
supposed—speculative theology for its own sake but on the contrary psychology
and ethic. To judge from his ultimate purpose he is not a speculative theologian
but a psychologist and moralist (comp. note 183). [2531] In the quotations in
the Florilegia ἀλληγορία is always in the singular e.g. in Johannes Monachus
ineditus ἐκ τοῦ αʹ τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας ἐκ τοῦ δʹ τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν
ἀλληγορίας (both in Mangey ii. 668). So too in the Florilegrum of the codex
Coislinianus (Pitra Analecta sacra) ii. 306 and to that of Leontius and Johannes
(Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 pp. 95b 96a 98b 99b 100a 102a 105a 107a
107b). The commentary at first follows the text of Genesis verse by verse.
Afterwards single sections are selected and some of them so fully treated as to
grow into regular monographs. Thus e.g. Philo takes occasion from the history of
Noah to write two books on drunkenness (περὶ μέθης) which he does with such
thoroughness that a collection of the opinions of other philosophers on this
subject filled the first of these lost books (Mangey i. 357). The work as we
have it begins at Genesis 2:1 : Καὶ ἐτελέσθησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ. The
creation of the world is therefore not treated of. For the composition De
opificio mundi which precedes it in our editions is a work of an entirely
different character being no allegorical commentary on the history of the
creation but a statement of that history itself. Nor does the first book of the
Legum allegorias by any means join on to the work De opificio mundi; for the
former begins at Genesis 2:1 while in De opif. mundi the creation of man also
according to Genesis 2 is already dealt with. Hence—as Gfrörer rightly asserts
in answer to Dähne—the allegorical commentary cannot be combined with De opif.
mundi as though the two were but parts of the same work. At most may the
question be raised whether Philo did not also write an allegorical commentary on
Genesis 1. This is however improbable. For the allegorical commentary proposes
to treat of the history of mankind and this does not begin till Genesis 2:1. Nor
need the abrupt commencement of Leg. alleg. i. seem strange since this manner of
starting at once with the text to be expounded quite corresponds with the method
of Rabbinical Midrash. The later books too of Philo’s own commentary begin in
fact in the same abrupt manner. In our manuscripts and editions only the first
books bear the title belonging to the whole work Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι. All the
later books have special titles a circumstance which gives the appearance of
their being independent works. In truth however all that is contained in
Mangey’s first vol.—viz. the works which here follow—belongs to the book in
question (with the sole exception of De opificio mundi). 1. Νόμων ἱερῶν
ἀλληγορίαι πρῶται τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber i. (Mangey i.
43-65). On Genesis 2:1-17.—Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι δεύτεραι τῶν μετὰ τὴν
ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber ii. (Mangey i. 66-86). On Genesis 2:18 to
Genesis 3:1‌a.—Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι τρίται τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum
allegoriarum liber iii. (Mangey i. 87-137). On Genesis 3:8‌b-19.—The titles here
given of the first three books as customary in the editions since Mangey[2532]
require an important correction. Even the different extent of Books i. and ii.
leads us to conjecture that they may properly be but one book. In fact Mangey
remarks at the commencement of the third book (i. 87 note): in omnibus codicibus
opusculum hoc inscribitur ἀλληγορία δευτέρα. Thus we have in fact but two books.
There is however a gap between the two the commentary on Genesis 3:1‌b-8‌a being
absent. The commentary too on Genesis 3:20-23 is wanting for the following book
begins with Genesis 3:24. As Philo in these first books follows the text step by
step it must be assumed that each of the two pieces was worked up into a book by
itself and this is even certain with respect to the second.[2533] Hence the
original condition was very probably as follows: Book i. on Genesis 2:1-25‌a
Book ii. on Genesis 3:1‌b-3 8‌a Book iii. on Genesis 3:8‌b-19 Book iv. on
Genesis 3:20-23. With this coincides the fact that in the so-called Johannes
Monachus ineditus the commentary on Genesis 3:8‌b-19 is indeed more often quoted
as τὸ γʹ τῆς τῶν νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας (Mangey i. 87 note). When on the other
hand the same book is entitled in the MSS. ἀλληγορία δευτέρα this must certainly
be explained as showing that the actual second book was already missing in the
archetype of these manuscripts. [2532] I do not give the Latin titles exactly
according to Mangey but as they are usually quoted. [2533] The remark in De
sacrificiis Abelis et Caini § 12 fin. (i. 171 Mang.): τί δέ ἐστι τὸ τὴν γῆν
ἐργάζεσθαι διὰ τῶν προτέρων βίβλων ἐδηλώσαμεν can refer only to the missing
commentary on Genesis 3:23. Comp. Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1863 p. 1015. Grossmann
indeed (i. p. 22) thinks it relates to the book De agricultura which was
certainly a later composition. 2. Περὶ τῶν Χερουβὶμ καὶ τῆς φλογίνης ῥομφαίας
καὶ τοῦ κτισθέντος πρώτου ἐξ ἀνθρώπου Κάϊν. De Cherubim et flammeo gladio
(Mangey i. 138-162). On Genesis 3:24; Genesis 4:1. From this point onwards the
several books have been handed down no longer under the general title νόμων
ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι but under special titles. According to our conjecture as above
this book would be the fifth unless it formed the fourth together with the
commentary on Genesis 3:20-23. 3. Περὶ ὧν ἱερουργοῦσιν Ἄβελ τε καὶ Κάϊν. De
sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Mangey i. 163-190). On Genesis 4:2-4. In the codex
Vaticanus the title runs: Περὶ γενέσεως Ἄβελ καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ
Κάϊν ἱερουργοῦσιν. Frequently quoted in Johannes Monachus ineditus with the
formula Ἐκ τοῦ περὶ γενέσεως Ἄβελ (see Mangey i. 163 note). Also in the
Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus.[2534] The missing commentary on Genesis
4:5-7 would have formed either the conclusion of this book or a separate book.
[2534]a Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 308 sq. 4. Περὶ τοῦ τὸ χεῖρον τῷ κρείττονι
φιλεῖν ἐπιτίθεσθαι. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (Mangey i. 191-225).
On Genesis 4:8-15. The book is already quoted by Origen under this special title
(Comm. in Matth. vol. xv. c. 3). Eusebius mistakenly quotes under the same title
several passages belonging to De confusione linguarum (Praep. Ev. xi. 15). In
the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes several passages are cited from our
book with the formula ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας.[2535] Also in
Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey i. 191 note). The unusual formula ἐκ τοῦ ζ
καὶ η must surely mean that the seventh book was according to another
computation also called the eighth (ἐκ τοῦ ζ τοῦ καὶ η would thus be the more
accurate).[2536] This book then is according to the usual numbering the seventh
but was in consequence of De opificio mundi being placed first also called the
eighth. [2535] The following passages are cited with this formula: 1. Κυρίως
οὔτε ἐπὶ χρημάτων ἢ κτημάτων περιουσίᾳ οὔτε ἐπὶ δόξης λαμπρότητι κ.τ.λ. Mai
Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 96a = Mangey i. 217 med. 2. Ἐν ᾗ μὲν ψυχῇ τὸ
ἐκτὸς αἰσθητὸν ὡς μέγιστον ἀγαθῶν τετίμηται ἐν ταύτῃ λόγος ἀστεῖος οὐχ
εὑρίσκεται κ.τ.λ. Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 107a = Mangey i. 192
init. The same formula is also found 3. Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 102a
(where of course ζ καὶ η must be read for ζ καὶ ιγ); and 4. The same p. 107b.
The former passage is in the beginning of De posteritate Caini (Mang. i. 228); I
have not succeeded in discovering the latter. [2536] Comp. Dähne Stud. und
Kritik. 1833 p. 1015. 5. Περὶ τῶν τοῦ δοκησισόφου Κάϊν ἐγγόνων καὶ ὡς μετανάστης
γίνεται. De posteritate Caini sibi visi sapientis et quo pacto sedem mutat
(Mangey i. 226-261). On Genesis 4:16-25. This book was first published by Mangey
from the cod. Vat. 381. Much more correctly from the same manuscript by
Tischendorf Philonea pp. 84-143. Holwerda gave emendations in 1884 (see note
[2537] above). This book is in like manner as the former quoted with the formula
ἐκ τοῦ η καὶ θ τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας in Leontius and Johannes[2538] in the
Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus[2539] and in Johannes Monachus ineditus
(Mangey i. 226 note). [2537] Tischendorf Anecdota sacra et profana (2nd ed.
Lips. 1861) pp. 171-174. But especially Tischendorf Philonea inedita altera
altera nunc demum recte ex vetere scriptura eruta Lips. 1868. Holwerda in the
Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeeling
Letterkunde tweede reeks derde deel Amsterdam 1873 pp. 271-288 gives emendations
of Tischendorf’s text. Idem Derde reeks eerste deel 1884 pp. 274-286. [2538] Two
passages: 1. Παιδείας σύμβολον ἡ ῥάβδος· ἄνευ γὰρ τοῦ δυσωπῆναι (sic) καὶ περὶ
ἐνίων ἐπιπληχθῆναι νουθεσίαν ἐνδέξασθαι καὶ σωφρονισμὸν ὰμήχανον κ.τ.λ. Mai
Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 99b = Mangey i. 243.—2. Πέφυκεν ὁ ἄφρων ἐπὶ
μηδενὸς ἑστάναι παγίως καὶ ἐνερίσθαι δόγματος· ἄλλοτε γοῦν ἀλλοῖα δοξάζει … Καί
ἐστιν αὐτῷ πᾶσα ἡ ζωὴ κρεμαμένη βᾶσιν ἀκράδαντον οὐκ ἔχουσα κ.τ.λ. Mai Script.
vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 100 = Mangey i. 230-231. [2539]a Pitra Analecta sacra
vol. ii. (1884) p. 306. The two passages here given by Pitra are in Mangey i.
230 above and 253 (de posteritate Caini § 6 and 43). Of these hooks none is
mentioned by its special title in the catalogue of Eusebius Hist. eccl. ii. 18
while all that follow are quoted under these titles evidently because Eusebius
considers the former to be included and the latter not included in the joint
title νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι. To this must be added that in the Florilegia also
the quotations under the general title extend exactly thus far. It is therefore
highly probable that Philo issued the following looks only under the special
titles.[2540] Nay it is also evident why this was done viz. because from this
point onwards the uninterrupted text was no longer commented on but only
selected passages. The exegetic method is however quite the same in the
following books. [2540] In answer to Dähne Stud. und Kritik. 1833 pp. 1019-1024.
Ersch and Grüber’s Enc. art. “Philo” p. 442. 6. Περὶ γιγάντων. De gigantibus
(Mangey i. 262-272). On Genesis 6:1-4.—Ὅτι ἄτρεπτον τὸ θεῖον. Quod deus sit
immutabilis (Mangey i. 272-299). On Genesis 6:4-12. These two paragraphs which
are in our editions separated form together but one book. Hence Johannes
Monachus ineditus cites passages from the latter paragraph with the formula ἐκ
τοῦ περὶ γιγάντων (Mangey i. 262 note 272 note). Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 4: περὶ
γιγάντων ἢ [elsewhere καὶ] περὶ τοῦ μὴ τρέπεσθαι τὸ θεῖον. 7. Περὶ γεωργίας. De
agricultura (Mangey i. 300-328). On Genesis 9:20‌a.—Περὶ φυτουργίας Νῶε τὸ
δεύτερον. De plantatione Noe (Mangey i. 329-356). On Genesis 9:20‌b. The common
title of these two books is properly περὶ γεωργίας. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 18.
2: περὶ γεωργίας δύο. Hieronymus De vir. illustr. 11: de agricultura duo. Euseb.
Praep. Evang. vii. 13. 3 (ed. Gaisford): ἐν τῷ περὶ γεωργίας προτέρῳ. Ibid. vii.
13. 4: ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ. 8. Περὶ μέθης. De ebrietate (Mangey i. 357-391). On
Genesis 9:21. From the beginning of this book it is evident that another book
preceded it in which τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις φιλοσόφοις εἰρημένα περὶ μέθης were stated.
This first book is lost but was still extant in the time of Eusebius Euseb. H.
E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ μέθης τοσαῦτα (viz. two). Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de
ebrietate duo. They seem to have been in the hands of Johannes Monachus ineditus
in the reverse order. For what he quotes with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ μέθης αʹ
is found in that which has come down to us; while what he cites with the formula
ἐκ τοῦ περὶ μέθης δευτέρου λόγου is not found in it (Mangey i. 357 note). 9.
Περὶ τοῦ ἐξένηψε Νῶε. De sobrietate (Mangey i. 392-403). On Genesis 9:24.—In the
best manuscripts (Vaticanus and Mediceus) the title runs: περὶ ὧν ἀνανήψας ὁ
νοῦς εὔχεται καὶ καταρᾶται (Mangey i. 392 note). Almost exactly the same Euseb.
H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ ὧν νήψας ὁ νοῦς εὔχεται καὶ καταρᾶται. Hieronymus vir.
illustr. 11: de his quae sensu precamur et detestamur. 10. Περὶ συγχύσεως
διαλέκτων. De confusione linguarum (Mangey i. 404-435). On Genesis 11:1-9.—The
same title also in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2. In the Praep. evang. xi. 15 Eusebius
quotes several passages from it with the mistaken statement that they are from:
Περὶ τοῦ τὸ χεῖρον τῷ κρείττονι φιλεῖν ἐπιτίθεσθαι. 11. Περὶ ἀποικίας. De
migratione Abrahami (Mangey i. 436-472). On Genesis 12:1-6.—The same title also
in Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 4. 12. Περὶ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων πραγμάτων κληρονόμος.
Quis rerum divinarum haeres sit (Mangey i. 437-518). On Genesis 15:1-18.—Euseb.
H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων ἐστὶ κληρονόμος ἢ περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἴσα
καὶ ἐναντία τομῆς. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11 makes from this double title the
two works: De haerede divinarum rerum liber unus De divisione aequalium et
contrariorum liber. Suidas Lex. s.v. Φίλων[2541] also follows him. Johannes
Monachus ineditus quotes this book with the formula ἐκ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων
κληρονόμος (Mangey i. 473 note). When he likewise quotes it with the formula ἐκ
τοῦ περὶ κοσμοποιΐας (Mangey l.c.) we must not conclude from this that the
latter was a general title which was applied to this book as well as
others[2542] for we have here simply an error in quotation. In the commencement
of this book a former composition is referred to in the words: Ἐν μὲν τῇ πρὸ
ταύτης βίβλῳ περὶ μισθῶν ὡς ἐνῆν ἐπʼ ἀκριβείας διεξήλθομεν. This composition is
not lost as Mangey supposed (see his note on the passage) but is the book περὶ
ἀποικίας which in fact treats περὶ μισθῶν.[2543] We see at the same time that
Genesis 13-14 was not commented on by Philo. [2541]a Comp. also Grossmann i. p.
24 on the fact of the two titles belonging to the same book. [2542] Mangey i.
473 note. Comp. Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 p. 1000 sqq. [2543] Dähne 1018 sq.
Grossmann i. p. 22. 13. Περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ προπαιδεύματα συνόδου. De congressu
quaerendae eruditionis causa (Mangey i. 519-545). On Genesis 16:1-6.—In Eusebius
H. E. ii. 18. 2 the title runs: περὶ τῆς πρὸς τὰ παιδεύματα συνόδου. But the
προπαιδεύματα which has come down in the Philo-manuscripts is preferable for the
fact that Abraham cohabited with Hagar before he had issue by Sarah means
according to Philo that we must become acquainted with propaideutic knowledge
before we can rise to the higher wisdom and obtain its fruit namely virtue.
Comp. also Philo’s own allusion in the beginning of the following book (de
profugis): Εἰρηκότες ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ τὰ πρέποντα περὶ τῶν προπαιδευμάτων καὶ περὶ
κακώσεως κ.τ.λ. 14. Περὶ φυγάδων. De profugis (Mangey i. 546-577). On Genesis
16:6-14.—Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ φυγῆς καὶ εὑρέσεως.[2544] And exactly so
Johannes Monachus ineditus: ἐκ τοῦ περὶ φυγῆς καὶ εὑρέσεως (Mangey i. 546 note).
This is without doubt the correct title. For the work deals with the flight and
refinding of Hagar. [2544] The text of Eusebius was here very early corrupted.
Jerome (de natura et inventione) already read φυγῆς instead of φύσεως. By
continued corruption there then arose in Nicephorus the double title: ὁ περὶ
φυγῆς καὶ αἱρέσεως· ἔτι τε ὁ περὶ φύσεως καὶ εὑρέσεως which monstrosity has been
even admitted into the text of Eusebius by his recent editors. 15. Περὶ τῶν
μετονομαζομένων καὶ ὧν ἕνεκα μετονομάζονται. De mutatione nominum (Mangey i.
578-619). On Genesis 17:1-22.—The same title in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 3. Johannes
Monachus ineditus quotes under this title much that is not found in this book
nor in any of the preserved works of Philo (Mangey i. 578 note). In this book
Philo alludes to a lost work: Τὸν δὲ περὶ διαθηκῶν σύμπαντα λόγον ἐν δυσὶν
ἀναγέγραφα πράξεσι which was no longer extant in the time of Eusebius (comp. H.
E. ii. 18. 3).[2545] [2545]a The allusion in the Quaest. et solut. in Exodum ed.
Aucher p. 493 certainly relates to the same work. Comp. Grossmann i. p. 25. 16.
Περὶ τοῦ θεοπέμπτους εἶναι τοὺς ὀνείρους. De somniis lib. i. (Mangey i.
620-658). On Genesis 28:12 sqq. and Genesis 31:11 sqq. (the two dreams of
Jacob).—Lib. ii. of the same work (Mangey i. 659-699). On Genesis 37, 40-41 (the
dreams of Joseph and of Pharaoh’s chief butler and baker).—According to Euseb.
H. E. ii. 18. 4 and Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11 Philo wrote five books on
dreams. Thus three are lost. Those that have come down to us seem to judge from
their openings to be the second and third. In any case our first was preceded by
another which probably treated on the dream of Abimelech[2546] Genesis 20:3.
Origenes contra Celsum vi. 21 fin. already mentions the paragraph on Jacob’s
ladder Genesis 28:12 (contained in the first of the preserved books). [2546]
Gfrörer i. 43. Dähne 1025. Grossmann i. 25 III. The third chief group of Philo’s
works on the Pentateuch is a Delineation of the Mosaic Legislation for non-Jews.
In this whole group indeed the allegorical explanation is still occasionally
employed. In the main however we have here actual historical delineations a
systematic statement of the great legislative work of Moses the contents
excellence and importance of which the author desires to make evident to
non-Jewish readers and indeed to as large a circle of them as possible. For the
delineation is more a popular one while the large allegorical commentary is an
esoteric and according to Philo’s notions a strictly scientific work. The
contents of the several compositions forming this group differ indeed
considerably and are apparently independent of each other. Their connection
however and consequently the composition of the whole work cannot according to
Philo’s own intimations be doubtful. As to plan it is divided into three parts.
(a) The beginning and as it were the introduction to the whole is formed by a
description of the creation of the world (κοσμοποιΐα) which is placed first by
Moses for the purpose of showing that his legislation and its precepts are in
conformity with the will of nature (πρὸς τὸ βούλημα τῆς φύσεως) and that
consequently he who obeys it is truly a citizen of the world (κοσμοπολίτης) (de
mundi opif. § 1). This introduction is next followed by (b) biographies of
virtuous men. These are as it were the living unwritten laws (ἔμψυχοι καὶ
λογικοὶ νόμοι de Abrahamo § 1 νόμοι ἄγραφοι de decalogo § 1) which represent in
distinction from the written and specific commands universal moral norms (τοὺς
καθολικωτέρους καὶ ὡσὰν ἀρχετύπους νόμους de Abrahamo § 1). Lastly the third
part embraces (c) the delineation of the legislation proper which is divided
into two parts: (1) that of the ten chief commandments of the law and (2) that
of the special laws belonging to each of these ten commandments Then follow by
way of appendix a few treatises on certain cardinal virtues and on the rewards
of the good and the punishments of the wicked. This survey of the contents shows
at once that it was Philo’s intention to place before his readers a clear
description of the entire contents of the Pentateuch which should be in
essential matters complete. His view however is in this respect the genuinely
Jewish one that these entire contents fall under the notion of the νόμος. The
work begins with: 1. Περὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως κοσμοποιΐας. De mundi opificio (Mangey i.
1-42).—It was customary to place this work at the head of Philo’s works before
the first book of the Legum allegoriae. And this position has been resolutely
defended especially by Dähne.[2547] Gfrörer on the other hand already
convincingly showed that the book de Abrahamo must be immediately joined to de
mundi opificio.[2548] He has only erred in the matter of declaring this whole
group of writings older than the allegorical commentary (p. 33 sq.). It was easy
to show in reply that this popular delineation of the Mosaic legislation is on
the contrary more recent than the bulk of the allegorical commentary.[2549] On
the other hand there is nothing to prevent our relegating the work de mundi
opificio also to the more recent group. We have already shown p. 331 above that
it is not connected with the allegorical commentary. On the contrary the
beginning of the work de mundi opificio makes it quite evident that it was to
form the introduction to the delineation of the legislation and it is equally
plain that the composition de Abrahamo directly follows it. Comp. de Abrahamo §
1: Ὃν μὲν οὖν τρόπον ἡ κοσμοποιΐα διατέτακται διὰ τῆς προτέρας συντάξεως ὡς οἷόν
τε ἦν ἠκριβώσαμεν. To refer this intimation to the whole series of the
allegorical commentaries is both by reason of the expression κοσμοποιΐα and of
the singular διὰ τῆς προτέρας συντάξεως quite impossible.—But however certain
all this is the matter is not thus as yet settled. For on the other hand it is
just as certain that the composition de mundi opificio was subsequently placed
at the head of the allegorical commentaries to compensate for the missing
commentary on Genesis 1. Only thus can it be explained that Eusebius Praep.
evang. viii. 13 quotes a passage from this composition with the formula (viii.
12 fin. ed. Gaisford): ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν εἰς τὸν νόμον).[2550] It is just this
which explains the transposition of this treatise into the catalogue of Eusebius
Hist. eccl. ii. 18 (it was in his eyes comprised in the νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι)
and also the peculiar form of citation: ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η [resp. ἐκ τοῦ η καὶ θ]
τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας mentioned p. 333 above.—There still remains the
question whether this supplementary insertion of the Legum allegoriae between de
mundi opificio and de Abrahamo originated with Philo himself? This is especially
the view of Siegfried.[2551] It seems to me however that the reasons brought
forward are not conclusive.[2552] J. G. Müller has lately brought out a separate
edition of this composition with a commentary.[2553] [2547] Dähne Stud. und
Krit. 1833 p. 1000 sqq. Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklop. art. “Philon” p. 441. Comp.
also Grossmann ii. p. 6. J. G. Müller Des Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung
pp. 13 15 sqq. The same in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xi. 581. [2548] Gfrörer i.
pp. 8-10. [2549] See especially Grossmann ii. pp. 13 14. [2550] Another
quotation from this treatise is introduced in the Praep. evang. with the formula
(xi. 23 fin. Gaisf.): λέγει δʼ οὖν ὁ Ἑβραῖος Φίλων τὰ πάτρια διερμηνεύων αὐτοῖς
ῥήμασιν. [2551] Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1874 p. 562 sqq. [2552] For
this arrangement of Philo’s writings ((1) Creation of the world (2) Allegorical
commentary (3) Legislation) the following two passages have since Dähne been
cited as conclusive: 1. Vita Mosis ed. Mang. ii. 141 where it is said of the
Holy Scriptures which Moses composed: τὸ μὲν ἱστορικὸν μέρος τὸ δὲ περὶ τὰς
προστάξεις καὶ ἀπαγορεύσεις ὑπὲρ οὗ δεύτερον λέξομεν τὸ πρότερον τῇ τάξει
πρότερον ἀκριβώσαντες. Ἔστιν οὖν τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου
γενέσεως τὸ δὲ γενεαλογικόν· τοῦ δὲ γενεαλογικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ κολάσεως ἀσεβῶν τὸ
δʼ αὖ περὶ τιμῆς δικαίων. Philo here divides the contents of the Mosaic writings
into only two chief groups the historical and the legislative. When he then says
that he would treat of the latter after having already minutely treated of the
former it follows first only that the delineation of the Mosaic legislation was
later than the allegorical commentary (to which the expression with respect to
the ἱστορικὸν μέρος probably refers; for the βίοι σοφῶν which treat only of the
good not of both good and bad cannot by any means be intended). When he next
goes on to again divide the historical portion more particularly into two
sections: (1) περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως (2) τὸ γενεαλογικόν we may certainly
infer that the composition of de mundi opificio must be placed before that of
the vita Mosis which is also probable on other grounds (see note 82 below). At
all events there is in the passage no intimation as to what was the actual order
of Philo’s own works. 2. This is also the case with the second passage de
praemiis et poenis ed. Mang. ii. 408 sq. Philo here divides the revelations
(λόγια) imparted by means of Moses into three categories (ἰδέαι) viz. (1) τὴν
περὶ κοσμοποιΐας (2) τὸ ἱστορικὸν μέρος i.e. the ἀναγραφὴ πονηρῶν καὶ σπουδαίων
βίων and (3) τὸ νομοθετικὸν μέρος. Of all this he had so far as time allowed
treated in his former writings. This indication too can with respect to the
ἱστορικὸν μέρος refer only to the allegorical commentary. I cannot however
discern in it any intimation as to the actual order of Philo’s own works since
only the order of the contents of the Pentateuch is given and it is said that
all this was treated of in Philo’s earlier writings. [2553] J. G. Müller Des
Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung herausgegeben und erklärt Berlin 1841. 2.
Βίος σοφοῦ τοῦ κατὰ διδασκαλίαν τελειωθέντος ἢ περὶ τόμων ἀγράφων [αʹ] ὅ ἐστι
περὶ Ἀβραάμ. De Abrahamo (Mangey ii. 1-40).—With this composition commences the
group of the νόμοι ἄγραφοι i.e. the βίοι σοφῶν (de decalogo § 1) the biographies
of virtuous men who exhibit by their exemplary behaviour the universal types of
morality. Of such types there are twice three viz. (1) Enos Enoch Noah; (2)
Abraham Isaac Jacob. Enos represents ἐλπίς Enoch μετάνοια καὶ βελτίωσις Noah
δικαιοσύνη (de Abrahamo § 2 3 5). The second triad is more exalted: Abraham is
the symbol of διδασκαλικὴ ἀρετή (virtue acquired by learning) Isaac of φυσικὴ
ἀρετή (innate virtue) Jacob of ἀσκητικὴ ἀρετή (virtue attained by practice) see
de Abrahamo § 11; de Josepho § 1 (Zeller iii. 2. 411). The first three are only
briefly dwelt on. The greater part of this composition is occupied with
Abraham.—In Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 4 the title runs: βίου [read βίος] σοφοῦ τοῦ
κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τελειωθέντος ἢ [περὶ] νόμων ἀγράφων. Δικαιοσύνην instead of the
διδασκαλίαν furnished by the Philo manuscripts is here certainly incorrect. For
Abraham is the type of διδασκαλικὴ ἀρετή. The number αʹ must be inserted after
ἀγράφων this book being only the first of the unwritten laws. 3. Βίος πολιτικὸς
ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ Ἰωσήφ. De Josepho (Mangey ii. 41-79).—After the life of Abraham
we next expect the biographies of Isaac and Jacob. That Philo wrote these is
made certain by the opening of de Josepho. They seem however to have been very
soon lost since not a trace of them is anywhere preserved. The beginning of de
Josepho makes it also certain that this composition follows here which is
strange since we might have expected that the number of typical βίοι was
exhausted with the triad Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Joseph however is made to
succeed them because the examples of Abraham Isaac and Jacob refer only to the
ideal cosmopolitan state of the world not to the empiric world with its various
constitutions. The life of Joseph is therefore said to show “how the wise man
has to move in actually existing political life.”[2554]—In the editions the
title is βίος πολιτικοῦ the manuscripts have βίος πολιτικός (Mangey ii. 41 note.
Pitra Analecta ii. 317). Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6: ὁ πολιτικός. Photius Biblioth.
cod. 103: περὶ βίου πολιτικοῦ. Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀβραάμ· Φίλων ἐν τῷ τοῦ
πολιτικοῦ βίῳ (Suidas in the article Φίλων following the Greek translator of
Jerome writes περὶ ἀγωγῆς βίου). [2554] Siegfried Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl.
Theologie 1874 p. 565 sq. 4. Περὶ τῶν δέκα λογίων ἃ κεφάλαια νόμων εἰσί. De
decalogo (Mangey ii. 180-209).—After the life of Joseph is generally inserted
the life of Moses which certainly would according to its literary character be
in place in this group. It is however nowhere intimated that this composition
which comes forward quite independently is organically connected with the entire
work now under discussion. Nay it would be an interruption in it. For in it
Moses as a lawgiver stands alone he is thus no universally valid type of moral
conduct nor is he depicted as such.—Hence the composition de decalogo with which
the representation of the legislation proper (τῶν ἀναγραφέντων νόμων de decalogo
§ 1) begins reciting indeed first of all the ten commandments given by God
Himself without the intervention of Moses must necessarily follow the life of
Joseph.—The title of this composition vacillates very much in the manuscripts
(Mangey ii. 180 note). The usual form περὶ τῶν δέκα λογίων resting on the cod.
Augustanus is confirmed by Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5. Jerome in consequence of a
careless abbreviation in the text of Eusebius has de tabernaculo et decalogo
libri quattuor. 5. Περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τὰ συντείνοντα
κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λόγων αʹ βʹ γʹ δʹ. On the special laws referring to the
respective heads of the ten sayings Such is the title according to Euseb. H. E.
ii. 18. 5 of the work de specialibus legibus; and with this agree the
Philo-manuscripts with the sole exception that instead of εἰς τὰ συντείνοντα
κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λόγων its special contents are stated for each of the four
books (e.g. εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ τρίτον τὸ τέταρτον τὸ πέμπτον
κ.τ.λ.). In this work Philo makes a very laudable attempt to reduce the special
Mosaic laws to a systematic arrangement according to the ten rubrics of the
decalogue. Thus he states in connection with the first and second commandments
(the worship of God) the entire legislation concerning the priesthood and
sacrifices in connection with the fourth (the sanctification of the Sabbath) all
the laws concerning festivals in connection with the seventh (the prohibition of
adultery) the marriage laws in connection with the remaining three the entire
civil and criminal law. Herein notwithstanding the brevity of statement we
frequently recognise an agreement with the Palestinian Halachah. Philo indeed
has no professional acquaintance with it on which account we also meet with many
divergences therefrom.[2555] According to the testimony of Eusebius H. E. ii.
18. 5 the whole work comprised four books which have it seems been preserved
entire though needing to be restored from the mangling they have undergone in
the manuscripts. [2555] On Philo’s relation to the Halachah comp. the careful
investigation of Bernh. Ritter Philo und die Halacha eine vergleickends Studie
Leipzig 1879. (a) Book I.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς βʹ κεφάλαια
τῶν δέκα λογίων· τό τε μὴ νομίζειν ἔξω ἑνὸς θεοῦ ἑτέρους αὐτοκρατεῖς καὶ τὸ μὴ
χειρότμητα θεὸν πλαστεἳν. This title which is missing in the editions stands in
the cod. Mediceus at the head of the treatise de circumcisione (Mangey ii. 210
note). But even without this external evidence the commencement of the said
treatise would of itself prove that this first book begins with it. The whole
book comprises the following pieces: de circumcisione (Mangey ii. 210-212) de
monarchia (Mangey ii. 213-222)[2556] de monarchia lib. ii. (Mangey ii. 222-232)
de praemiis sacerdotum (ii. 232-237) de victimis (ii. 237-250)[2557] de
sacrificantibus or de victimas offerentibus (ii. 251-264) de mercede meretricis
non accipienda in sacrarium (ii. 264-269).[2558] [2556] The beginning is also in
Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 18. 12 sqq. ed. Gaisford. [2557] This piece is mentioned
Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5 as a separate composition: περὶ τῶν εἰς τὰς ἱερουργίας
ζώων καὶ τίνα τὰ τῶν θυσιῶν εἴδη. [2558] On where this piece belongs see
especially Gfrörer i. 12 sq. (b) Book II.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων
εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ τρίτον τὸ τέταρτον τὸ πέμπτον τὸ περὶ εὐορκίας
καὶ σεβασμοῦ τῆς ίερᾶς ἑβδομάδος καὶ γονέων τιμῆς.[2559] Under this title the
editions give first only a small portion (Mangey ii. 270-277) and then add as a
separate portion the treatise de septenario (Mangey ii. 227-298) which of course
belongs to this book. The text of de septenario is however incomplete in Mangey
and the treatise which we expect de colendis parentibus is entirely missing. The
greater portion of this missing treatise was already given by Mai (De cophini
festo et de colendis parentibus Mediolan. 1818 also in Classicor. auctor. vol.
iv. 402-429); but the complete text of this book was first given by Tischendorf
Philonea pp. 1-83.[2560] [2559] The title according to Tischendorf Philonea p.
1. [2560] Emendations to the text of Tischendorf were given by Holwerda 1873.
See note 12 above. (c) Book III.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς δύο
γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ ἕκτον καὶ τὸ ἕβδομον τὸ κατὰ μοίχων καὶ παντὸς ἀκολάστου
καὶ τὸ κατὰ ἀνδροφόνων καὶ πάσης βίας (Mangey ii. 299-334).—According to Mangey
ii. 299 note Philo here shows a knowledge of Roman law. (d) Book IV.: περὶ τῶν
ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λογίων τὸ ηʹ καὶ τὸ θʹ καὶ ί
τὸ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐκικλέπτειν καὶ ψευδομαρτυρεῖν καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν καὶ τῶν ἐς
ἕκαστον ἀναφερομένων· καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης ἣ πᾶσι τοῖς λογίοις ἐφαρμόζει ὅ ἐστι
τῆς συντάξεως (Mangey ii. 335-358).—This book was first published by Mangey from
the cod. Bodleianus 3400. Some kind of word (such as τέλος) or the number δʹ is
missing at the close of the title. In the editions the last sections also appear
under the special titles: de judice (ii. 344-348) and de concupiscentia (ii.
348-358). That they are also integral portions of this book cannot considering
their contents be doubtful.—To the same book too belongs as an appendix the
treatise περὶ δικαιοσύνης de justitia (Mangey ii. 358-374) which again is in the
editions wrongly divided into two sections: de justitia (ii. 358-361) and de
creatione principum (ii. 361-374). The latter section does not deal exclusively
with the appointment of authorities but is simply a continuation of the treatise
de justitia. This whole treatise is closely connected with the fourth book de
specialibus legibus nay forms part of it as is intimated by the closing words of
the latter (Mang. ii. 358: νυνὶ δὲ περὶ τῆς … δικαιοσύνης λεκτέον) and
especially by the title of the whole book in which it is expressly stated that
it also treats περὶ δικαιοσύνης ἣ πᾶσι τοῖς λογίοις ἐφαρμόζει (Mangey ii.
335).[2561] [2561] In Mangey λογίκοις is printed. I suppose this a printer’s
error is for λογίοις. At all events the latter must be the reading. For the
thought is that justice like the other cardinal virtues is realized not by the
practice of any one of the commandments but by the practice of all the ten (it
is τοῖς δέκα λογίοις ἐφαρμόττουσα as it is said at the close of de
concupiscentia (Mang. ii. 358). 6. Περὶ τριῶν ἀρετῶν ἤτοι περὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ
φιλανθρωπίας καὶ μετανοίας. De fortitudine (Mangey ii. 375-383) de caritate (ii.
383-405) de poenitentia (ii. 405-407).—The treatise de justitia the continuation
of which is here given is referred to in the commencement of this book (περὶ
δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὴν ὅσα καίρια πρότερον εἰπὼν μέτειμι τὸ ἑξῆς ἐπʼ
ἀνδρίαν). This book then also belongs to the appendix of the work de specialibus
legibus and it was only an external reason (viz. that of making the two books
nearly equal in extent) which occasioned Philo to combine a portion of this
appendix with the fourth book itself and to give the rest as a separate
book.[2562] The title of this book is found as given by Mangey in cod.
Bodleianus (Mang. ii. 375 note). Confirmed by Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ τῶν
τριῶν ἀρετῶν ἃς σὺν ἄλλαις ἀνέγραψε Μωϋσῆς. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de
tribus virtutibus liber unus. Two manuscripts the Mediceus and Lincolniensis
have on the other hand: περὶ ἀρετῶν ἤτοι περὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ εὐσεβείας καὶ
φιλανθρωπίας καὶ μετανοίας. It seems to speak in favour of this title that the
treatise de caritate begins with the words (Mang. ii. 383): τὴν δὲ εὐσεβείας
συγγενεστάτην καὶ ἀδελφὴν καὶ δίδυμον ὄντως ἑξῆς ἐπισκεπτέον φιλανθρωπίαν as
though a treatise de pietate were missing between de fortitudine and de
caritate. Still the words do not necessarily require this meaning. On the
contrary the title of the Med. and Lincoln. seems to have arisen from this
incorrect meaning.[2563]—According to Gfrörer and Dähne only the treatise de
fortitudine is in place here and the two others (de caritate and de poenitentia)
must be entirely separated from it and added as an appendix to the Vita
Mosis.[2564] The sole foundation however for this view is the bare fact that in
the beginning of de caritate the Vita Mosis is cited. This is certainly too weak
an argument to oppose to the testimony of the manuscripts to the connection of
these three treatises with each other. Their contents on the contrary show that
the treatises here placed together belong to the work de specialisms legibus.
Those Mosaic laws also are here placed together which belong not to the rubrics
of the ten commandments but to the rubric of certain cardinal virtues which
latter indeed are only actually realized by the practice of the Decalogue in its
entirety (compare the close of de concupiscentia ii. 358 Mangey).[2565] [2562]
That such external reasons were of authority in the literary activity of the
ancients is shown especially by Birt (Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältniss
zur Litteratur 1882).—In Philo it is observable almost throughout that his books
occupy about thirty to forty pages in Mangey’s edition. [2563] The predicate τὴν
εὐσεβείας συγγενεστάτην is said to serve only to characterize the high value of
the φιλανθρωπία (it is directly related to εὐσέβεια the source of all
virtues).—According to the close of de concupiscentia (Mang. ii. 358) Philo had
already on a former occasion spoken on εὐσέβεια and some other cardinal virtues
(περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἡγεμονίδος τῶν ἀρετῶν εὐσεβείας καὶ ὁσιότητος ἔτι δὲ καὶ
φρονήσεως καὶ σωφροσύνης εἴρηται πρότερον). It is probable that this does not
mean a separate lost book but certain sections in the books that have come down
to us. See Grossmann i. pp. 22-24.—We see moreover that the Stoic enumeration of
four cardinal virtues which Philo elsewhere adopts (Leg. alleg. i. 56 Mang.:
φρόνησις σωφροσύνη ἀνδρία δικαιοσύνη; comp. Zeller 3rd ed. iii. 2. 403) is here
also the basis though not strictly adhered to. [2564] Gfrörer i. 17-23. Dähne
Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 1033-1036. Ersch and Grüber art. “Philon” p. 443.
[2565] Gfrörer certainly asserts (i. 20) that the treatise de cantate “is not
written in so didactic and analytic a manner as the compositions de fortitudine
and de justifia but historically and with constant reference to the life of
Moses.” In truth however the de caritate being a summary of all such Mosaic laws
as fall under the rubric of φιλανθρωπία (comp. the survey of it contents in
Richter’s ed. v. 184) properly belongs to the work de specialibus legibus. 7.
Περὶ ἄθλων καὶ ἐπιτιμίων. De praemiis et poenis (Mangey ii. 408-428).—Περὶ ἀρῶν.
De execrationibus (Mangey ii. 429-437).—These two pieces so inaptly separated
from each other form in reality but one book. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5: περὶ
τῶν προκειμένων ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς ἄθλων τοῖς δὲ πονηροῖς ἐπιτιμίων καὶ
ἀρῶν.—In the beginning of this composition Philo says that having in his former
works treated of the three main categories of the Mosaic revelations (the
κοσμοποιΐα the ἱστορικόν and the νομοθετικὸν μέρος) he now purposed to pass to
the rewards appointed for the good and the penalties destined for the wicked.
Hence this writing is later than the works of Philo hitherto discussed and joins
on as a sort of epilogue to the delineation of the Mosaic legislation.—On the
treatise de nobilitate which Mangey combines with this composition see below No.
IV. 7. IV. Besides these three large works on the Pentateuch Philo wrote several
separate compositions of which the following have been preserved some entire
some in fragments. 1. Περὶ βίου Μωσέως.[2566] Vita Mosis lib. i. (Mangey ii.
80-133) lib. ii. (Mangey ii. 134-144) lib. iii. (Mangey ii. 145-179).—The
division into three books is already found in the manuscripts but is certainly a
false one as is proved by the following quotation by Philo himself de caritate §
1 (Mangey ii. 383 sq.): δεδήλωται πρότερον ἐν δυσὶ συντάξεσιν ἃς ἀνέγραψα περὶ
τοῦ βίου Μωϋσέως.[2567] Our books i. and ii. are in fact but one book as even
their extent serves to show. The work is already quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus
Strom. i. 23. 153: ᾗ φησι Φίλων ἐν τῷ Μωυσέως βίῳ. Comp. also Strom. ii. 19.
100. Hence it is the more remarkable that it should be absent from the catalogue
of Eusebius. In its place appears (H. E. ii. 18. 5) a work περὶ τῆς σκηνῆς. Now
as the tabernacle is fully described in the Vita Mosis the treatise περὶ τῆς
σκηνῆς is certainly a portion of the Vita Mosis;[2568] probably however the text
of Eusebius is imperfect. The date of composition of this work was according to
Mangey ii. 141 (see the passage note [2569] above) probably antecedent to that
of the large work on the Mosaic legislation; but probably subsequent to de mundi
opificio (see below note [2570] and thus to speak more precisely between de
mundi opif. and de Abrahamo. We have already seen (p. 342 sq.) that it is no
integral element of the delineation of the Mosaic legislation though certainly
connected with it by its entire literary character. For as in the larger work
the Mosaic legislation so in this the life and acts of the legislator himself
are wortrayed for heathen readers. [2566] Mangey gives the title in the
following form: Περὶ βίου Μοσέως (sic!) ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ θεολογίας καὶ προφητείας.
The addition is a very inappropriate one since the work treats first (Book i.)
of Moses as a ruler and afterwards (Book ii.) of Moses as lawgiver priest and
prophet. [2567] The reading τρισί adopted by Mangey and his followers instead of
δυσί is found in only one manuscript cod. Paris Reg. 2251 (Mangey ii. 80 note
383 note). Comp. also Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 p. 1031 sq. Ewald vi. 300.
[2568] So also Grossmann i. p. 24. [2569] For this arrangement of Philo’s
writings ((1) Creation of the world (2) Allegorical commentary (3) Legislation)
the following two passages have since Dähne been cited as conclusive: 1. Vita
Mosis ed. Mang. ii. 141 where it is said of the Holy Scriptures which Moses
composed: τὸ μὲν ἱστορικὸν μέρος τὸ δὲ περὶ τὰς προστάξεις καὶ ἀπαγορεύσεις ὑπὲρ
οὗ δεύτερον λέξομεν τὸ πρότερον τῇ τάξει πρότερον ἀκριβώσαντες. Ἔστιν οὖν τοῦ
ἱστορικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως τὸ δὲ γενεαλογικόν· τοῦ δὲ
γενεαλογικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ κολάσεως ἀσεβῶν τὸ δʼ αὖ περὶ τιμῆς δικαίων. Philo here
divides the contents of the Mosaic writings into only two chief groups the
historical and the legislative. When he then says that he would treat of the
latter after having already minutely treated of the former it follows first only
that the delineation of the Mosaic legislation was later than the allegorical
commentary (to which the expression with respect to the ἱστορικὸν μέρος probably
refers; for the βίοι σοφῶν which treat only of the good not of both good and bad
cannot by any means be intended). When he next goes on to again divide the
historical portion more particularly into two sections: (1) περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου
γενέσεως (2) τὸ γενεαλογικόν we may certainly infer that the composition of de
mundi opificio must be placed before that of the vita Mosis which is also
probable on other grounds (see note 82 below). At all events there is in the
passage no intimation as to what was the actual order of Philo’s own works. 2.
This is also the case with the second passage de praemiis et poenis ed. Mang.
ii. 408 sq. Philo here divides the revelations (λόγια) imparted by means of
Moses into three categories (ἰδέαι) viz. (1) τὴν περὶ κοσμοποιΐας (2) τὸ
ἱστορικὸν μέρος i.e. the ἀναγραφὴ πονηρῶν καὶ σπουδαίων βίων and (3) τὸ
νομοθετικὸν μέρος. Of all this he had so far as time allowed treated in his
former writings. This indication too can with respect to the ἱστορικὸν μέρος
refer only to the allegorical commentary. I cannot however discern in it any
intimation as to the actual order of Philo’s own works since only the order of
the contents of the Pentateuch is given and it is said that all this was treated
of in Philo’s earlier writings. [2570] Vita Mosis lib. iii. § 11 (Mang. ii.
152): ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀμυθήτους ἀρετὰς ἡ τετρὰς ὧν τὰς πλείστας
ἠκριβώσαμεν ἐν τῇ περὶ ἀριθμῶν πραγματείᾳ.—Quaest. et solut. in Genes. ed.
Aucher p. 331: jam dictum fuit in libro in quo de numeris actum est. Comp. the
same pp. 224 359. Grossmann i. p. 24. In the work de opificio mundi Philo refers
to a dissertation on the number four as one yet to be written p. 11 Mang.:
πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις κέχρηται δυυάμεσι ἡ τετρὰς ἃς ἀκριβέστερον καὶ ἐν τῷ περὶ
αὐτῆς ἰδίῳ λόγῳ προσυποδεικτέον. If this is identical with the work περὶ ἀριθμῶν
it would follow that the Vita Mosis was a later work than de opificio mundi.
Comp. Grossmann ii. p. 6. 2. Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον. Quod
omnis probus liber (Mangey ii. 445-470).—This work is properly only one half of
a larger one which worked out the thought suggested in the title in its two
opposite aspects Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6: περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον ᾧ
ἑξῆς ἐστιν ὁ περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι. Philo himself alludes to
the first and missing half in the opening of the second and preserved half. A
long portion of the latter (on the Essenes) is given in Euseb. Praep. evang.
viii. 12. The genuineness of the work has not been unassailed. The circumstance
that the description of the Essenes differs in a few subordinate points from
that given by Philo himself in another work (Apologia pro Judaeis in Euseb.
Praep. evang. viii. 11) has especially given rise to suspicion. Its genuineness
is however according to the thorough investigations of Lucius surpassingly
probable. The work may it is conjectured belong to Philo’s earliest period and
may not give the description of the Essenes according to his own
inspection.[2571] [2571] Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 13-23. Hilgenfeld also
esteems this work genuine but on the contrary regards the Apologia pro Judaeit
as spurious (Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol. 1882 pp. 275-278.
Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums 1884 pp. 87 sq. 105-116). 3. Εἰς Φλάκκον.
Adversus Flaccum (Mangey ii. 517-544).—Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γάϊον. De
legatione ad Cajum (Mangey ii. 545-600).—In these two books Philo relates the
persecutions which the Jews had to endure especially at Alexandria in the time
of Caligula. The narrative is so detailed and graphic that it could be written
only by one who had himself participated in a prominent manner in the events.
This circumstance makes these two books an authority of the first rank not only
for the history of the Jews of those days but also for the history of Caligula.
It cannot be perceived from the statements in Mangey how the titles run in the
best manuscripts. On the title Φίλωνος εἰς Φλάκκον he only remarks (ii. 517):
similiter codex Mediceus in reliquis vero manuscriptis scribitur Φίλωνος Ἑβραίου
ἱστορία ὠφέλιμος καὶ πάνυ βίῳ χρήσιμος. Τὰ κατὰ τὸν Φλάκκον [sic: therefore not
τοῦ Φλάκκου] ἤτοι περὶ προνοίας.[2572] Still more indefinite are Mangey’s
statements concerning the title of the second composition (ii. 545): in
nonnullis codicibus sic legitur: ἱστορία χρήσιμος καὶ πάνυ ὠφέλιμος περὶ τῶν
κατὰ τὸν Γάϊον καὶ τῆς αἰτίας τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπεχθείας αὐτοῦ.
According to the statements of Pitra (Analecta sacra ii. 318 sq.) the titles
usual in the printed text Εἰς Φλάκκον and Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γάϊον
appear to be also those which prevail in the manuscripts. In Photius Bibliotheca
cod. 105 (ed. Bekker) it is said: Ἀνεγνώσθη δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ λόγος οὗ ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ
"Γάϊος ψεγόμενος" καὶ "Φλάκκος ἢ Φλάκκων ψεγόμενος" ἐν οἷς λόγοις κ.τ.λ.
(therefore two λόγοι). So too Eusebius in the Chronicle.[2573] Comp. also
Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey ii. 517): ἐκ τῶν κατὰ Φλάκκου. On the titles
mentioned by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History see farther on. Only the two
books which have come down to us seem to have been extant in the time of
Photius. But the beginning of the first and the close of the second show that
they are only portions of a larger whole. For the book adversus Flaccum begins
(ii. 517): Δεύτερος μετὰ Σηιανὸν Φλάκκος Ἀουίλλιος διαδέχεται τὴν κατὰ τῶν
Ἰουδαίων ἐπιβουλήν. Thus this book was preceded by another in which the
persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Sejanus were narrated. The book de
legatione ad Cajum moreover ends with the words: Εἴρηται μὲν οὖν
κεφαλαιωδέστερον ἡ αἰτία τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπεχθείας Γάϊου·
λεκτέον δὲ καὶ τὴν παλινῳδίαν [πρὸς Γάϊον].[2574] Hence another book must have
followed in which Philo related the παλινῳδία i.e. the turn for the better in
the fate of the Jews by the death of Caligula and the edict of toleration of
Claudius. Now we know also from a notice in the Chronicle of Eusebius that the
persecutions under Sejanus were related in the second book of this entire
work.[2575] Consequently we should reckon not less than five books for the
whole. And this is confirmed by the decided statement in the Ecclesiastical
History of Eusebius ii. 5. 1: καὶ δὴ τὰ κατὰ Γάϊον οὗτος Ἰουδαίοις συμβάντα
πέντε βιβλίοις παραδίδωσι. The brief survey too given by Eusebius of the
contents of this work agrees exactly with these results. For he says that Philo
here relates how in the time of Tiberius Sejanus made great exertions in Rome to
destroy the whole nation and that in Judaea Pilate caused great commotion among
the Jews because he desired to undertake something with respect to the temple
which was contrary to their institutions.[2576] After the death however of
Tiberius Caius who then came to the throne behaved indeed with the greatest
arrogance to all but inflicted most injury on the whole Jewish nation.[2577]
What is here said respecting Sejanus and Pilate cannot refer to some occasional
declarations in the books preserved to us. For these treat only of the time of
Caligula. The oppressions however of Sejanus and Pilate must according to the
above intimations of Eusebius have been related in a separate paragraph before
the events under Caligula. From all that has been said the following must
consequently have been the arrangement of the whole work. Book i. contained it
may be presumed a general introduction. Book ii. related the oppressions in the
reign of Tiberius by Sejanus in Rome and by Pilate in Judaea. Among the former
must undoubtedly be placed the important measure of A.D. 19 by which all Jews
were banished from Rome.[2578] Among the attempts of Pilate “to undertake
something with respect to the temple contrary to Jewish institutions” the
setting up of consecrated shields in the palace of Herod mentioned in the letter
of Agrippa[2579] communicated by Philo cannot at all events be intended; we must
rather regard them as the facts recorded by Josephus viz. that Pilate caused the
soldiers to march into Jerusalem with the imperial ensigns and employed the
temple-treasure in building an aqueduct.[2580] That the former act was also
related by Philo is expressly testified by Eusebius.[2581] Book iii. is the
preserved composition adversus Flaccum which relates the persecution of the
Alexandrinian Jews arising from the initiative of the populace of that city in
the commencement of Caligula’s reign. It had as yet nothing to do with the
setting up of the statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue nor with any
edict of Caligula. In Book iv. on the contrary i.e. in the Legatio ad Cajum
which is preserved are depicted the sufferings inflicted on the Jews in
consequence of the edict of Caligula that Divine honours should everywhere be
paid him. Lastly the lost Book v. treated of the παλινῳδία in the sense stated
above. [2572]a The title κατὰ Φλάκκον also in the codex Coislinianus is in Pitra
Analecta sacra ii. 310. [2573] Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 150-151. The text
runs: (a) according to Jerome (l.c. p. 151 note k): Refert Filo in eo libro qui
Flaccus inscribitur; (b) according to the Armenian (p. 150 note q): Philon in eo
libro quem ipse ad Flacum scripsit refert; (c) according to Syncellus (ed.
Dindorf i. 626): Φίλων ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ λόγῳ Φλάκκῳ (the title ad
Flacum in the Armenian translation arose from a mistaken understanding of this
dative Φλάκκῳ. Thus a comparison of Jerome and the Armenian shows that the
correct text of Eusebius is preservèd in Syncellus). [2574] The words πρὸς Γάϊον
are according to Mangey missing in the manuscripts and must therefore certainly
be expunged. [2575] Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 150-151 and indeed: (a)
according to Jerome (l.c. p. 151 note b): Seianus praefectus Tiberii qui aput
eum plurimum poterat instantissime cohortatur ut gentem Judaeorum deleat. Filo
meminit in libro legationis secundo (b) According to the Armenian (p. 150):
Seianus Tiberii procurator qui intimus erat consiliarius regis universim gentem
Judaeorum deperdendam exposcebat Meminit autem hujus Philon in secundo
relatione. (c) According to Syncellus (ed. Dindorf i. 621): Σηιανὸς ἔπαρχος
Τιβερίου Καίσαρος περὶ τελείας ἀπωλείας τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαῖων πολλὰ
συνεβούλευε τῷ Καίσαρι ὡς Φίλων Ἰουδαῖος ἐξ Ἀλεξανδρείας διάγων ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῇ
δευτέρᾳ τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ πρεσβείας. [2576] H. E. ii. 5. 7: Πρῶτον δὴ οὗν κατὰ
Τιβέριον ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων πόλεως ἱστορεῖ Σηιανὸν … ἄρδην τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος
ἀπολέσθαι σπουδὴν εἰσηγηοχέναι ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Ἰουδαίας Πιλᾶτον … περὶ τὸ ἐν
Ἱεροσολύμοις ἔτι τότε συνεστὼς ἱερὸν ἐπιχειρήσαντά τι παρὰ τὸ Ἰουδαίοις ἐξὸν τὰ
αέγιστα αὐτοὺς ἀναταράξαι. [2577] H. E. ii. 6. 1: Μετὰ δὲ τὴν Τιβερίου τελευτὴν
Γάϊον τὴν ἀρχὴν παρειληφότα … πάντων μάλιστα τὸ πᾶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος οὐ σμικρὰ
καταβλάψαι. [2578] Tacitus Annal. ii. 85. Sueton. Tiber. 36. Joseph. Antt.
xviii. 3. 5. Comp. also Philo Legat. ad Cajum § 24 (Mang. ii. 569). [2579] Philo
Legat. ad Cajum § 38 (Mang. ii. 589 sq.). [2580] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 1-2.
Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 2-4. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 6. [2581] Euseb. Demonstratio
evangelica viii. p. 403: Αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Φίλων συμμαρτυρεῖ τὰς σημαίας
φάσκων τὰς βασιλικὰς τὸν Πιλάτον νύκτωρ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἀναθεῖναι. A confusion with
Josephus cannot exist since Eusebius just before in the same passage quotes
Josephus also as authority for the same fact.—It must also be remembered that
the setting up of the state took place according to Philo in the temple i.e. the
temple forecourt (which indeed Eusebius erroneously gives as also the account of
Josephus). The statements of Eusebius give rise also to some difficulties with
regard to the title of the entire work. According to the passage from the
Chronicle quoted above (note [2582] the whole work seems to have been designated
ἡ πρεσβεία. And Eusebius says also when giving the contents of the whole work
that all this is written ἐν ᾗ συνέγραψε πρεσβείᾳ (H. E. ii. 5. 6). This title is
therefore possible because Philo’s account of the embassy to Caligula of which
he was the leader forms in fact the kernel of the whole. The several books might
then have had their special titles such as Φλάκκος or the like (see above p.
350). Now Eusebius says further towards the conclusion of his summary of the
contents that Philo had related a thousand other sufferings which befell the
Jews at Alexandria ἐν δευτέρῳ συγγράμματι ᾧ ἐπέγραψε "περὶ ἀρετῶν (H. E. ii. 6.
3). From this it appears to result that Philo had treated of these events in two
works the title of one being ἡ πρεσβεία of the other περὶ ἀρετῶν. This inference
is however precluded not only by its improbability but by the circumstance that
Eusebius in his chief catalogue of Philo’s writings H. E. ii. 18 only mentions
the latter title. He says that Philo ironically gave to his work on the ungodly
deeds of Caius the title περὶ ἀρετῶν (H. E. ii. 18. 8). No other work referring
to these events is mentioned though the catalogue is in other respects a very
complete one. We are thus I think constrained to admit that the δευτέρῳ is the
gloss of a transcriber who could not make the different titles in ii. 5. 6 and
ii. 6. 3 harmonize and that in fact both titles refer to one and the same work.
[2582] Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 150-151 and indeed: (a) according to Jerome
(l.c. p. 151 note b): Seianus praefectus Tiberii qui aput eum plurimum poterat
instantissime cohortatur ut gentem Judaeorum deleat. Filo meminit in libro
legationis secundo (b) According to the Armenian (p. 150): Seianus Tiberii
procurator qui intimus erat consiliarius regis universim gentem Judaeorum
deperdendam exposcebat Meminit autem hujus Philon in secundo relatione. (c)
According to Syncellus (ed. Dindorf i. 621): Σηιανὸς ἔπαρχος Τιβερίου Καίσαρος
περὶ τελείας ἀπωλείας τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαῖων πολλὰ συνεβούλευε τῷ Καίσαρι ὡς
Φίλων Ἰουδαῖος ἐξ Ἀλεξανδρείας διάγων ἱστορεῖ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ
πρεσβείας. A special interest has always been attached to this work by reason of
its importance as an historical authority. It has been repeatedly published
separately[2583] translated into modern languages[2584] and made the subject of
historical research.[2585] The dispute of its genuineness by Grätz scarcely
deserves mention[2586] This book must not be confounded with the book de tribus
virtutibus (see above p. 345) nor with that published by Mai de virtute ejusque
partibus (see above note [2587] [2583] Philonis Judaei lib. de virtutibus s. de
legatione ad Cajum imp. graece cura S. F. N. Mori Lips. 1781. Dahl Chrestomathia
Philoniana 2 vols. 1800-1802. On a Paris edition of 1626 comp. Fabricius-Harles
iv. 741. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 89. [2584] Die Gesandtschaft an den Cajus
aus dem Griechischen des Philo translated by Jo. Frid. Eckhard Leipzig 1783.
Philo Judaeus om Judarnas förföljelse under Flaccus och Legationen till Cajus
Caligula etc. öfversättn. med noter och anmerkn. by J. Berggren Söderköping
1853. Philon d’Alexandrie écrits historiques influence luttes et persécutions
des juifs dans le monde romain by F. Delaunay 2nd ed. Paris 1870 (gives a
translation of contra Flaccum and Leg. ad Caj.). On an older French translation
of d’Andilly see Fabric.-Harles iv. 749. On an English one Fürst Bibl. Jud. iii.
91. An English translation by Yonge of Philo’s entire works appeared in 4 vols.
London 1851-55. [2585] Comp. above § 17‌e and the literature there mentioned.
Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iv. 740 sq. and the works and articles there
mentioned of Boecler Tillemont Ernesti and especially Jo. Christ. Gottleber
Animadversiones historicae et philologico-criticae ad Philonis legationem ad
Cajum 4 pts. Meissen 1773-74. Dähne in Ersch and Gruber art. “Philon” pp.
439-440. Bloch Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus (1879) pp. 117-123. [2586] Grätz
Gesch. der Juden 2nd ed. iii. 487-492 abridged in the 3rd ed. iii. 681. Comp.
also Monaatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 pp. 97 sqq. 145
sqq. [2587] The works here in question are: (1) Philo et Virgilii interpretes.
In it Philonis Judaei de cophini festo et de colendis parentibus cum brevi
scripto de Jona editore ac interprete Angelo Maio Mediolan. 1818. (2)
Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum vol. iv. curante Angelo Maio
Romae 1831 (contains: pp. 402-407 Philonis de cophini festo; pp. 408-429
Philonis de honorandis parentibus; pp. 430-441 Philonus ex opere in Exodum
selectae questiones). (3) Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis
codicibus edita ab Angelo Maio vol. vii. Romae 1833 (contains Pt. I. pp. 74-109
specimens from a Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes with numerous smaller
fragments of Philo). (4) Philonis Judaei Porphyrii philosophi Eusebii Pamphili
opera inedita. In it: Philonis Judaei de virtute ejusque partibus ed. Ang. Maius
Mediolan. 1816 (this work which in the Milan manuscript used by Mai bears the
name of Philo is in other manuscripts attributed to Gemistus Pletho and was long
printed under his name as Mai himself subsequently remarked). See Leipziger
Literaturzeitung 1818 No. 276. 4. Περὶ προνοίας. De providentia.—The title in
Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6; Praep. evang. vii. 20 fin. viii. 13 fin. The work is
only preserved in Armenian and has been published by Aucher with a Latin
translation.[2588] Two Greek fragments a smaller and a very large one in Euseb.
Praep. evang. vii. 21 and viii. 14. The Armenian text comprises two books. Of
these however the first though on the whole genuine has at all events been
preserved in only an abbreviated and in some parts a touched up form.[2589]
Eusebius seems to have been acquainted with only the second at least both
fragments belong to this book and are introduced by Eusebius with the formula ἐν
τῷ (Sing.) περὶ προνοίας.[2590] In the Ecclesiastical History the reading
fluctuates between τὸ περὶ προνοίας and τὰ περὶ προνοίας. There are quotations
also in Johannes Damascenus and Johannes Monachus ineditus.[2591] [2588] Aucher
Philonis Judaei sermones tres etc. (1822) pp. 1-121. Also in Latin in Richter’s
hand edition (8th small vol.) and in the Tauchnitz edition (8th small vol.).
[2589] Comp. Diels Doxographi Graeci (1879) pp. 1-4. Zeller Die Philosophie der
Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) p. 340. [2590] The first fragment (vii. 21) is
from the middle of the second book (Aucher pp. 80-82); the second (viii. 14)
consists of several large portions extending throughout the second book and
forming a selection from it (Aucher pp. 44-121). The two small fragments
published by Höschel (1614) and taken by him from the Ἰωνιά of Michael
apostolius (see Fabricius-Harles v. 110 sq. ix. 758 xi. 189 sqq. Nicolai Griech.
Litgesch. iii. 316 sqq.) are perhaps also derived from Eusebius. See the
fragments in the Frankfort ed. p. 1197 sq.; and Euseb. Praep. evang. ed.
Gaisford viii. 14. 2-7 And 39-41. [2591] See Mangey ii. 634 note x. 5.
Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ περὶ τοῦ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα (this title in Euseb. H. E. ii
18. 6). De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant (so Jerome
de viris illustr. c. 11).[2592]—This work too is preserved only in Armenian and
has been published by Aucher.[2593] Two short Greek fragments are found in the
Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes.[2594] The book belongs to Philo’s later
works the embassy to Rome being already contemplated p. 152 (ed. Aucher). [2592]
Some editions and manuscripts of Jerome have De Alexandro dicente quod etc.
[2593] Aucher Philonis Judaei sermones tres etc. (1822) pp. 123-172. And
following him Richter (8th email vol.) and the Tauchnitz edition (8th small
vol.). [2594] Mai Script. vet. nov. coll. vii. 1 p. 99b (below): ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τῶν
ἀγόγων ζῴων. Ibid. p. 100a (above): ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. 6. Ὑποθετικά.—Our knowledge of
this work rests solely on the fragments in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 6-7 which
are introduced by Eusebius with the words (viii. 5 fin.): Φίλωνος … ἀπὸ τοῦ
πρώτου συγγράμματος ὧν ἐπέγραψεν Ὑποθετικῶν ἔνθα τὸν ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων ὡς πρὸς
κατηγόρους αὐτῶν ποιούμενος λόγον ταῦτά φησιν. The title does not signify
“suppositions concerning the Jews”[2595] but as Bernays has pointed out
“counsels recommendations.” For Ὑποθετικοὶ λόγοι are such dissertations as
contain moral counsels or recommendations in contradistinction to theoretical
investigations of ethic questions. Philo as the preserved fragments already show
has devoted the main point of his work to the discussion of such Jewish precepts
as he could recommend to the obedience of a non-Jewish circle of readers to whom
the work is unmistakeably directed.[2596] As the work pursues apologetic aims we
might be inclined to regard it as identical with the Apologia pro Judaeis to be
forthwith mentioned but that Eusebius distinguishes the two by different titles.
[2595] So Ewald vi. 304. Comp. also Grossmann i. p. 16. [2596] Bernays “Philon’s
Hypothetika und die Verwünschungen des Buzyges in Athen” (Monatsberichte der
Berliner Akademie 1876 pp. 589-609; reprinted in Bernays Gesammelte Abhandlungen
1885 i. 262-282. Comp. especially p. 599). 7. Περὶ Ἰουδαίων.—This title in
Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6. Ἡ ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων ἀπολογία from which Eusebius (Praep.
evang. viii. 11) borrows the description of the Essenes is certainly identical
with this work. The conjecture of Dähne that the piece de nobilitate (Mangey ii.
437-444) also belongs to this work is not improbable.[2597] It treats of true
nobility i.e. of the wisdom and virtue of which the Jewish nation also was not
devoid and is therefore a very suitable element in an apology for the Jews. The
genuineness of the ἀπολογία has been recently disputed by Hilgenfeld (see above
note [2598] [2597] Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 990 1037. In the article
“Philes” in Ersch and Grüber p. 440 Dähne again expresses this conjecture.
[2598] Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 13-23. Hilgenfeld also esteems this work
genuine but on the contrary regards the Apologia pro Judaeit as spurious
(Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol. 1882 pp. 275-278. Ketzergeschichte des
Urchristenthums 1884 pp. 87 sq. 105-116). V. The last-named works are only known
to us by fragments but the following books most of which have been already
mentioned in this survey are entirely lost. (1) Of the Quaestiones et solutiones
two books on Genesis and more than three on Exodus (see above p. 327). (2) Two
books of the Legum allegoriae (see above p. 332). (3) The first book περὶ μέθης
(see p. 335). (4) Both the books περὶ διαθηκῶν (see p. 337). (5) Three of the
five books de somniis (see p. 337). (6) The two biographies of Isaac and Jacob
(see p. 342). (7) The work περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον (see p. 349). (8)
The first second and fifth books of the work on the persecutions of the Jews
under Caligula (see p. 350). (9) A work περὶ ἀριθμῶν to which Philo refers in
the Vita Mosis and elsewhere.[2599] (10) A dialogue between Isaac and Ishmael on
the difference between true wisdom and sophisticism of which it is not indeed
certain whether Philo wrote or only intended to write it.[2600] (11) According
to a remark in Quod omnis probus liber Philo intended to write a disquisition
“On the government of the wise.”[2601] We do not know whether this intention was
carried out. (12) In the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes a small piece is
cited ἐκ τῶν περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ.[2602] Can a work known to us under some other name
be intended? [2599] Vita Mosis lib. iii. § 11 (Mang. ii. 152): ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰς
ἄλλας ἀμυθήτους ἀρετὰς ἡ τετρὰς ὧν τὰς πλείστας ἠκριβώσαμεν ἐν τῇ περὶ ἀριθμῶν
πραγματείᾳ.—Quaest. et solut. in Genes. ed. Aucher p. 331: jam dictum fuit in
libro in quo de numeris actum est. Comp. the same pp. 224 359. Grossmann i. p.
24. In the work de opificio mundi Philo refers to a dissertation on the number
four as one yet to be written p. 11 Mang.: πολλαῖς δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις κέχρηται
δυυάμεσι ἡ τετρὰς ἃς ἀκριβέστερον καὶ ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτῆς ἰδίῳ λόγῳ
προσυποδεικτέον. If this is identical with the work περὶ ἀριθμῶν it would follow
that the Vita Mosis was a later work than de opificio mundi. Comp. Grossmann ii.
p. 6. [2600] De sobrietate § 2 (Mang. i. 394 above): Σοφίαν μὲν γὰρ Ἰσαὰκ
σοφιστείαν δὲ Ἰσμαὴλ κεκλήρωται ὡς ἐπειδὰν ἑκάτερον χαρακτηρίζωμεν ἔν τισι
διαλόγοις ἐπιδείκνυμεν. Comp. Grossmann i. p. 25. [2601] Quod omnis probus liber
§ 3 (Mang. ii. 448): Ἀλλʼ ὁ μὲν περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ σοφοῦ λόγος εἰς καιρὸν
ἐπιτηδειότερον ὑπερκείσθω. Comp Grossmann i. p. 25. [2602] Mai Script. vet. nov.
coll. vii. 1 p. 103a. VI. The following supposed works of Philo are now pretty
generally regarded as spurious:— 1. Περὶ βίου θεωρητικοῦ ἢ ἱκετῶον ἀρετῶν. De
vita contemplativa (Mangey ii. 471-486).—Eusebius twice cites the title in the
following form (H. E. ii. 17. 3 and ii. 18. 7): περὶ βίου θεωρητικοῦ ἢ ἱκετῶν.
The ἀρετῶν added at the end must therefore be expunged. Eusebius H. E. ii. 17
gives full information concerning the contents comp. also ii. 16. 2. This
composition has since the time of Eusebius enjoyed special approbation in the
Christian Church. Christian monks being almost universally recognised in the
“Therapeutae” here described and glorified.[2603] The likeness is indeed
surprising; but for that very reason the suspicion is also well founded that the
author’s design was under the mask of Philo to recommend Christian monachism.
But apart from this there are other suspicious elements by reason of which even
such critics as do not regard the Therapeutae as representing a Christian but as
a Jewish ideal of life have denied the authorship of Philo.[2604] Upon the
ground of the identification of the Therapeutae with Christian monks Lucius
after the precedent of Grätz and Jost[2605] has declared this composition
spurious.[2606] It is by his thorough and methodical investigation that the
spuriousness of its authorship has been definitely decided.[2607] [2603] Photius
Bibliotheca cod. 104 forms an exception: Ἀνεγνώσθησαν δὲ καὶ τῶν παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις
φιλοσοφησάντων τήν τε θεωρητικὴν καὶ τὴν πρακτικὴν φιλοσοφίαν βίοι· ὧν μὲν
Ἐσσηνοὶ οἱ δὲ θεραπευταὶ ἐκαλοῦντο κ.τ.λ. Epiphanius Haer. 29. 5 quotes this
composition with the formula ἐν τῇ περὶ Ἰεσσαίων αὐτοῦ ἐπιγραφομένῃ βίβλῳ but is
nevertheless of opinion that it treats of Christians. Compare the testimonia
veterum before Mangey’s edition and the literature in Fabricius-Harles iv. 738
sq. Of this older literature must be specially mentioned Montfaucon’s French
translation furnished with valuable notes Le livre de Philon de la vie
contemplative etc. traduit sur l’original grec avec des observations ou l’on
fait voir que les Therapeutes dont il parle etoient Chrestiens Paris 1709. The
texts of an old and of a more recent Latin version are given by Pitra Analecta
sacra ii. 322-331. [2604] Especially Nicolas Revue de Théologie Strasbourg 1868
p. 25 sqq. and Kuenen De godsdienst van Israël ii. 440-444. Also Weingarten art.
“Mönchtum” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. 761-764. [2605] Grätz Gesch. der Juden
2nd ed. iii. 463 sqq. Jost Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Secten i. 214 note
2. [2606] Lucius Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Geschichte der Askese
eine kritische Untersuchung der Schrift de vita contemplativa Strassburg 1879.
[2607] Comp. also my notice of Lucius in the Theol. Literaturzeitung 1880 pp.
111-118. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1880 pp. 423-440. Zeller
Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) p. 307. For its genuineness
also Delaunay Revue archéologique new series vol. xxii. (1870-71) pp. 268-282
xxvi. (1873) pp. 12-22. The same Moines et sibylles dans l’antiquité
judéo-grecque 1874 pp. 11-51. Bestmann Gesch. der christlichen Sitte vol. i.
(1880) p. 133 sqq. 2. Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου. De incorruptibilitate mundi (Mangey
ii. 487-516).—This composition is regarded as genuine by Grossmann and
Dähne.[2608] But even the transmission of the manuscripts and the external
testimony are unfavourable to its genuineness[2609] which since the
investigations of Bernays has been generally given up. Bernays has also
especially shown that the traditional text has fallen into disorder through the
transposition of the pages.[2610] He has published the text in Greek and German
according to the order restored by himself[2611] and furnished it with a
commentary.[2612] Bücheler gives emendations of Bernays’ text.[2613] Zeller
attempts to show that the composition has been touched up.[2614] [2608]
Grossmann i. p. 21. Dähne in Ersch and Gruber art. “Philon” p. 441. [2609]
Mangey remarks of this composition (ii. 487 note): deest in maxima parte codicum
nec recensetur in indiculis Eusebii Hieronymi Photii et Suidae. [2610] Bernays
“Ueber die Herstellung des Zusammenhanges in der unter Philo’s Namen gehenden
Schrift περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου durch Blätterversetzung” (Monatsberichte der
Berliner Akademie 1863 pp. 34-40; reprinted in Bernays Gesammelte Abhandlungen
1885 i. 283-290). [2611] Bernays “Die unter Philon’s Werken stehende Schrift
über die Unzerstörbarkeit des Weltalls nach ihrer ursprünglichen Anordnung
wieder-hergestellt und ins Deutsche übertragen” (Transactions of the Berlin
Academy 1876 phil.-hist. class pp. 209-278). Also separately. [2612] Bernays
“Ueber die unter Philon’s Werken stehende Schrift über die Unzerstörbarkeit des
Weltalls” (Transactions of the Berlin Academy 1882 phil.-hist. class Tr. iii. p.
82). Also separately. The commentary has been published by Usener as a
posthumous work of Bernays. [2613] Bücheler Philonea (Rhein. Museum vol. xxxii.
1877 pp. 433-444). [2614] Zeller Der pseudophilonische Bericht über Theophrast
(Hermes vol. xv. 1880 pp. 137-146). 3. Περὶ κόσμου. De mundo (Mangey ii.
601-624).—The spuriousness of this work has long been acknowledged.[2615] It is
a collection of extracts from other works of Philo especially from the
composition de incorruptibilitate mundi.[2616] [2615] Wilh. Budäus who
translated it into Latin (1526) already acknowledged its spuriousness. Comp.
also Mangey ii. 601 note. Fabricius-Harles iv. 742. Grossmann i. p. 21. Dähne in
Ersch and Grüber art. “Philon.” [2616] See the parallels pointed out in
Grossmann i. p. 28. 4. De Sampsone (Aucher Paralipomena Armena 1826 pp.
549-577).—De Jona (Aucher pp. 578-611).—A general agreement prevails as to the
spuriousness of these two discourses which are published in Armenian and Latin
by Aucher.[2617] [2617] The text is also given in Richter’s and the Tauchnitz
editions. Comp. generally: Dähne Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 987-989. Freudenthal
Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (Fourth
Book of Maccabees) 1869 pp. 9-12 141-147. Grossmann i. p. 21 does not express
himself quite decidedly on the question of genuineness. 5. Interpretatio
Hebraicorum nominum. Origen Comment. in Joann. vol. ii. c. 27 (Opp. ed.
Lommatzsch i. 150) mentions an apparently anonymous work on this subject:
εὕρομεν τοίνυν ἐν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ τῶν ὀνομάτων. Eusebius says that it is ascribed to
Philo but the manner in which he speaks of it plainly shows that he was only
acquainted with the work as an anonymous one H. E. ii. 18. 7: καὶ τῶν ἐν νόμῳ δὲ
καὶ προφήταις Ἑβραϊκῶν ὀνομάτων αἱ ἑρμηνεῖαι τοῦ αὐτοῦ σπουδαὶ εἶναι λέγονται.
Jerome says that according to the testimony of Origen Philo was the author.
Hence he evidently saw the work only in an anonymous copy. He himself desired to
translate it into Latin but found the text so barbarized that he considered it
necessary to undertake an entirely new work.[2618] In the preface he expresses
himself concerning the history of these Onomastica as follows: Philo vir
disertissimus Judaeorum Origenis quoque testimonio conprobatur edidisse librum
hebraicorum nominum eorumque etymologias juxta ordinem litterarum e latere
copulasse. Qui cum vulgo habeatur a Graecis et bibliothecas orbis inpleverit
studii mihi fuit in latinam eum linguam vertere Verurn tam dissona inter se
exemplaria repperi et sic confusum ordinem ut tacere melius judicaverim quam
reprehensione quid dignum scribere. Itaque.… singula per ordinem scripturarum
volumina percucurri et vetus aedificium nova cura instaurans fecisse me reor
quod a Graecis quoque adpetendum sit.… Ac ne forte consummato aedificio quasi
extrema deesset manus novi testamenti verba et nomina interpretatus sum imitari
volens ex parte Origenem quem post apostolos ecclesiarum magistrum nemo nisi
inperitus negat. Inter cetera enim ingeni sui praeclara monimenta etiam in hoc
laboravit ut quod Philo quasi Judaeus omiserat hic ut christianus inpleret.
According to this account of Jerome it must certainly be admitted that Origen
already considered Philo to be the author. But the work being anonymous his
testimony is not sufficient and the question of authorship cannot be decided on
internal grounds because the work is no longer extant in its most ancient
form.[2619] A tolerably copious list of Philonean etymologies may be collected
from those works of Philo which have been preserved.[2620] [2618] This
Onomasticon of Jerome (liber interpetationis hebraicorum nominum) is in
Vallarsi’s edition of Jerome’s works vol. iii. 1-120 and in Lagarde Onomastica
sacra (1870) pp. 1-81. [2619] For various Greek and Latin Onomastica of
scriptural names see Vallarsi Hieronymi Opp. iii. 537 sqq. and Lagarde
Onomastica sacra p. 161 sqq. The work de nominibus Hebraicis (see above note 21)
printed under Philo’s name in the Basle collection of certain works of Philo is
simply the Onomasticon of Jerome. Comp. on this whole literature
Fabricius-Harles Bibliotheca graeca iv. 742 sq. vi. 199 sqq. vii. 226 sq. [2620]
Such collections are found in Vallarsi Hieronymi Opp. iii. 731-744 and in
Siegfried Philonische Studien (Merx’ Archiv ii. 2. 143-163). 6. On a Latin work
de biblicis antiquitatibus ascribed to Philo see Fabricius-Harles iv. 743 and
especially Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 298 sq. 319-322. The pseudo-Philonian
Breviarum temporum a forgery of Annius of Viterbo (Fabricius-Harles l.c.) must
not be confounded with this. On the treatise de virtute ejusque partibus
published by Mai under Philo’s name see above note [2621] [2621] The works here
in question are: (1) Philo et Virgilii interpretes. In it Philonis Judaei de
cophini festo et de colendis parentibus cum brevi scripto de Jona editore ac
interprete Angelo Maio Mediolan. 1818. (2) Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis
codicibus editorum vol. iv. curante Angelo Maio Romae 1831 (contains: pp.
402-407 Philonis de cophini festo; pp. 408-429 Philonis de honorandis
parentibus; pp. 430-441 Philonus ex opere in Exodum selectae questiones). (3)
Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita ab Angelo Maio
vol. vii. Romae 1833 (contains Pt. I. pp. 74-109 specimens from a Florilegium of
Leontius and Johannes with numerous smaller fragments of Philo). (4) Philonis
Judaei Porphyrii philosophi Eusebii Pamphili opera inedita. In it: Philonis
Judaei de virtute ejusque partibus ed. Ang. Maius Mediolan. 1816 (this work
which in the Milan manuscript used by Mai bears the name of Philo is in other
manuscripts attributed to Gemistus Pletho and was long printed under his name as
Mai himself subsequently remarked). See Leipziger Literaturzeitung 1818 No. 276.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 105: II. THE DOCTRINE OF PHILO
========================================================================

II. THE DOCTRINE OF PHILO THE LITERATURE[2622] [2622] For the older literature
see Fabricius-Harles iv. 721-727. Comp. also Freudenthal “Zur Geschichte der
Anschauungen über die jüdischhellenistische Religionephilosophie” (Monatsschr.
für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1869 pp. 399-421). Stahl “Versuch eines
systematischen Entwurfs des Lehrbegriffs Philo’s von Alexandrien” (Eichhorn’s
Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur vol. iv. paragraph 5 1793 pp.
765-890). Grossmann Questiones Philoneae. I. De theologiae Philonis fontibus et
auctoritate quaestionis primae particula prima. II. De λόγῳ Philonis. Quaestio
altera. Lips. 1829. Gfrörer Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie (also under
the title Kritische Geschichte des Urchristenthums) 2 vols. Stuttgard 1831.
Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen
Religions-Philosophie 2 vols. Halle 1834. Comp. also his art. “Philon” in Ersch
and Gruber’s Encyklopädie. Ritter Geschichte der Philosophi vol. iv. (1834) pp.
418-492. Georgii “Ueber die neuesten Gegensätze in Auffassung der
Alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie insbesondere des Jüdischen
Alexandrinismus” (Zeitschr. für die histor. Theol. 1839 No. 3 pp. 3-98 No. 4 pp.
3-98). Lücke Commentar über das Evang. des Johannes vol. i. (3rd ed. 1840) p.
272 sqq. Keferstein Philo’s Lehre von den göttlichen Mittelwesen zugleich eine
kurze Darstellung der Grundzüge des philonischen Systems Leipzig 1846. Bucher
Philonische Studien Tübingen 1848. Niedner De subsistentia τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ apud
Philonem tributa quaestionis Parts i. ii. Lips. 1848 1849 (also in the Zeitsch.
für die histor. Theol. 1849). Lutterbeck Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe
vol. i. (1852) pp. 418-446. Dorner Entwickelungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person
Christi vol. i. pp. 21-57. Wolff Die philonische Philosophie in ihren
Hauptmomenten dargestellt 2nd ed. 1858. Joel “Ueber einige geschichtliche
Beziehungen des philonischen Systems” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenth. 1863 pp. 19-31). Frankel “Zur Ethik des jüdisch-alexandrinischen
Philosophen Philo” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1867 pp.
241-252 281-297). Keim Gesch. Jesu i. 208-225. Lipsius art. “Alexandrinische
Religionsphilosophie” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 85-99. Zeller Die Philosophie
der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung Part iii. Div. 2 (3rd ed.
1881) pp. 338-418. Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie
(1872) pp. 204-297. Stein Sieben Bücher zur Geschichte des Platonismus Part iii.
(1875) pp. 3-17. Soulier La doctrine du Logos chez Philon d’Alexandrie Turin
1876 (comp. Theol. Litztg. 1877 101). Réville Le Logos d’après Philon
d’Alexandrie Genève 1877 (see Bursian’s Philol. Jahresber. xxi. 35 sq.). The
same La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrième évangile et dans les oeuvres de
Philon Paris 1881. Nicolas “Etudes sur Philon d’Alexandrie” (Revue de l’histoire
desreligions vol. v. 1882 pp. 318-339; vol. vii. 1883 pp. 145-164; vol. viii.
1883 pp. 468-488 582-602 756-772). Comp. also the works and articles mentioned
above p. 321 sq. of Steinhart J. G. Müller Ewald Ueberweg Hausrath Siegfried
Hamburger Zöckler. The survey already given of Philo’s works is sufficient to
show the many-sidedness of his culture and of his literary efforts. That which
applies to the representatives of Judaeo-Hellenism in general viz. that they
combined in themselves both Jewish and Hellenic culture is pre-eminently true of
him. It must be admitted that Greek philosophy comes the most prominently into
the foreground.[2623] He was a man saturated with every means of culture
afforded in his age by the schools of the Greeks. His diction was formed by the
Greek classical authors; and especially “may the influence of Plato’s works upon
Philo in even a lexical and phraseological respect be called very
considerable.”[2624] He was intimately acquainted with the great Greek poets
Homer Euripides and others whom he occasionally quotes.[2625] But it is the
philosophers whom he most highly esteems. He calls Plato “the great;”[2626]
Parmenides Empedocles Zeno Cleanthes are in his eyes divine men and form a
sacred society.[2627] But it is his own view of the world and of life which
shows more than aught else how highly he esteemed the Greek philosophers. It
agrees in the most essential points with the great teachers of the Greeks. Nay
Philo has so profoundly absorbed their doctrines and so peculiarly worked them
up into a new whole as himself to belong to the series of Greek philosophers.
His system may on the whole be entitled an eclectic one Platonic Stoic and
Neo-Pythagorean doctrines being the most prominent. Just in proportion as now
one now the other was embraced has he been designated at one time a Platonist at
another a Pythagorean.[2628] He might just as correctly be called a Stoic for
the influence of Stoicism was at least as strong upon him as that of Platonism
or Neo-Pythagoreanism.[2629] [2623] Comp. on this and especially on Philo’s
linguistic culture Siegfried Philo von Alexandria pp. 31-141. Also Zeller iii.
2. 343 sqq. [2624] Siegfried Philo p. 32. [2625] A list of Greek classics quoted
by Philo is given by Grossmann Quaestiones Philoneae i. p. 5. Siegfried Philo p.
137 sqq. [2626] De providentia ii. 42 p. 77 ed. Ancher (Richter 8th small vol.).
Comp. also Quod omnis probus liber ii. 447 Mangey (Richter 5th small vol.) where
according to the cod. Mediceus (one of the best manuscripts) τὸν ἱερώτατον
Πλάτωνα is the reading instead of τὸν λιγυρώτατον Πλάτωνα. [2627] De providentia
ii. 48 p. 79 ed. Aucher (Richter 8th small vol.): Parmenides Empedocles Zeno
Cleanthes aliique divi homines ac velut verus quidam proprieque sacer coetus.
Comp. Quod omnis probus liber ii. 444 Mang. (Richter 5th small vol.): τὸν τῶν
Πυθαγορείων ἱερώτατον θίασον. [2628] A Platonist in the well-known proverb: ἢ
Πλάτων φιλωνίζει ἢ Φίλων πλατωνίζει (Hieronymus vir. illustr. c. 11. Suidas Lex.
s.v. Φίλων. Photius Bibliotheca cod. 105). Clemens Alex. calls him a Pythagorean
and that in the two passages in which he is characterizing his philosophical
tendency Strom. i. 15. 72: διὰ πολλῶν ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑποδείκνυσι Φίλων. Strom.
ii. 19 100: ὥς φησιν ὁ Πυθαγόρειος Φίλων. Eusebius brings forward both his
Platonism and his Pythagoreanism H. E. ii. 4. 3: μάλιστα τὴν κατὰ Πλάτωνα καὶ
Πυθαγόραν ἐζηλωκὼς ἀγωγήν. [2629] Zeller and Heinze in particular have pointed
out the strong influence of Stoicism. Stein in opposition to them seeks to lay
more stress on Platonism. But comp. Heinze Theol. Litztg. 1877 112 (in the
discussion on Stein’s Geschichte des Platonismus). Notwithstanding however this
profound appropriation of Greek philosophy Philo remained a Jew: and the wisdom
of the Greeks did not make him unfaithful to the religion of his fathers. Nor
must his Jewish education be depreciated in presence of the philosophical
culture which certainly appears the more prominent.[2630] He was not indeed
fluent in the Hebrew tongue and he read the Old Testament exclusively in the
Greek translation. Still he had a respectable knowledge of Hebrew as is shown by
his numerous etymologies which indeed often appear absurd to us but are in truth
not worse than those of the Palestinian Rabbis.[2631] He had indeed no accurate
knowledge of the Palestinian Halachah. But that he had a general acquaintance
with it is proved not only by a single decided intimation[2632] but especially
by his whole work de specialibus legibus.[2633] In the Haggadic interpretation
of Scripture he was quite a master. For the whole of his allegorical commentary
is with respect to form nothing else than a transference of the method of the
Palestinian Midrash to the region of Hellenism. It is just by this means that
Philo gains the possibility of showing that his philosophical doctrine already
exists in the Old Testament. Many close approximations are also found with
respect to substance though these are much slighter than the agreement in
method.[2634] For his legendary embellishment of the life of Moses Philo
expressly appeals to the tradition of the πρεσβύτεροι who “always combined oral
tradition with what was read aloud.”[2635] [2630] Comp. Siegfried pp. 142-159.
[2631] Comp. the collections of Vallarai and Siegfried named above (note 103).
[2632] Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 7.6 (from the first book of the Hypothetica).
Philo having here given by way of example a series of commands says there are
also μυρία ἄλλα ἐπὶ τούτοις ὅσα καὶ ἐπὶ ἀγράφων ἐθῶν καὶ νομίμων κἂν τοῖς
νομίμοις αὐτοῖς. [2633] See above p. 343 and Ritter’s work Philo und die Halacha
1879 there named; also Siegfried p. 145. [2634] Comp. Siegfried p. 145 sqq. Also
much in Frankel Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die
alexandrinische Hermeneutik (1851) especially pp. 190-200. [2635] Vita Mosis
lib. i § 1 (Mang. ii. 81): Ἀλλʼ ἔγωγε … τὰ περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα μηνύσω μαθὼν αὐτὰ καὶ
ἐκ βίβλων τῶν ἱερῶν … καὶ παρά τινων ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔθνους πρεσβυτέρων. Τὰ γὰρ λεγόμενα
τοῖς ἀναγινωσκομένοις ἀεὶ συνύφαινον. Philo has nowhere given a systematic
statement of his system. He has at most developed single points such as the
doctrine of the creation of the world with some degree of connection. As a rule
he gives the ideas he has worked out in conjunction with the text of the Old
Testament This is consistent with the formal principle of his whole theology
viz. the assumption of the absolute authority of the Mosaic law. The Thorah of
Moses is to him as to every Jew the supreme nay the sole and absolutely decisive
authority: a perfect revelation of Divine wisdom. Every word written in Holy
Scripture by Moses is a divine declaration.[2636] Hence no word in it is without
definite meaning.[2637] The Scriptures also of the other prophets in conjunction
with those of Moses contain Divine revelations. For all the prophets are God’s
interpreters who makes use of them as instruments for the revelation of the
Divine will.[2638] With this formal principle of the absolute authority of Holy
Scripture and especially of the Mosaic law is connected the further assumption
that all true wisdom was actually contained just in this source of all
knowledge. In other words Philo deduces formally from the Old Testament all
those philosophical doctrines which he had in fact appropriated from the Greek
philosophers. Not in Plato Pythagoras and Zeno but above all in the writings of
Moses is to be found the deepest and most perfect instruction concerning things
divine and human. In them was already comprised all that was good and true which
the Greek philosophers subsequently taught. Thus Moses is the true teacher of
mankind and it is from him—as Philo like Aristobulus presupposes—that the Greek
philosophers derived their wisdom.[2639] [2636] Vita Mosis ii. 163 ed. Mangey
(Richter 4th small vol.): Οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μὲν οὖν ὡς πάντα εἰσὶ χρησμοὶ ὅσα ἐν ταῖς
ἱεραῖς βίβλοις ἀναγέγραπται χρησθέντες διʼ αὐτοῦ (scil. Μωϋσέως). [2637] In De
profugis i. 554 Mangey (Richter 3rd small vol.) we are told of Philo that the
expression θανάτῳ θανατοῦσθαι instead of the simple θανατοῦσθαι Exodus 21:12
disquieted him because he well knew ὅτι περιττὸν ὄνομα σὐδὲν τίθησιν.—For other
examples see De Cherubim i. 149 Mangey (Richter 1st small vol.). De agricultura
Noe i. 300 Mangey (Richter 2nd small vol.). [2638] The extent of Philo’s Canon
cannot be defined as to details. It is quite certain that the Thorah of Moses
has in his view quite a different importance to the rest of Holy Scripture. But
the latter also i.e. the most important of the Nebiim and Kethubim are quoted by
him as prophetic and sacred writings. For further particulars see Gfrörer i. 46
sqq. On the inspiration of the prophets see De monarchia ii. 222 Mang. (Richter
4th small vol.): προφήτης θεοφόρητος θεσπιεῖ καὶ προφητεύσει λέγων μὲν οἰκεῖον
οὐδέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰ λέγει δύναται καταλαβεῖν ὅγε κατεχόμενος ὄντως καὶ ἐνθουσιῶν.
Ὅσα δὲ ἐνηχεῖται διελεύσεται καθάπερ ὑποβάλλοντος ἑτέρου. Ἑρμηνεῖς γάρ εἰσιν οἱ
προφῆται θεοῦ καταχρωμένου τοῖς ἐκείνων ὀργάνοις πρὸς δήλωσιν ὧν ἂν ἐθελήσῃ.
Comp. also De specialibus legibus ii. 343 Mangey (Richter 5th small vol.). Quis
rerum divinarum heres. i. 511 Mangey (Richter 3rd small vol.). For more on
Philo’s doctrine of inspiration see Gfrörer i. 54-68. [2639] So Heraclitus (Leg.
allegor. i. 65 Mang. Richter 1st small vol. Quis rerum divinarum heres. i. 503
Mang. Richter 3rd small vol.). Zeno (Quod omnis probus liber ii. 454 Mang.
Richter 5th small vol.). The scientific means by which it was possible for Philo
to adhere to and carry out these assumptions is allegorical
interpretation.[2640] This was no invention of Philo but one which had already
been perfected and wielded by others.[2641] Hence it was for him a quite
self-evident process which he nowhere thought it necessary to justify although
he occasionally extols its value and declares it indispensable. By the help of
this process he was able to read out of the primitive history of Genesis those
profound philosophical theories especially in the department of Psychology and
Ethic which really grew up in the soil of Greek philosophy. The most external
occurrences of scriptural history become in his hands mines of instruction
concerning the supreme problems of human existence. [2640] Comp. Gfrörer i.
68-113. Zeller iii. 2. 346-352; and especially Siegfried. Philo pp. 160-197.
[2641] Zeller iii. 2. 265 sq. Only by means of this method could the double
mission be in fact fulfilled which Philo saw allotted to him. He thus became to
his Jewish co-religionists with whom he shared the presupposition of the Divine
authority of the Mosaic law the medium of the philosophic culture of the Greeks;
showing them that Moses had taught just what appeared to him true and valuable
in Greek philosophy. On the other hand he proved to the Greeks by the same means
that all the knowledge and intuition for which they so highly esteemed their own
philosophers were already to be found in the writings of Moses. It was not they
but Moses who was both the best of lawgivers and the first and greatest of
philosophers. These two tendencies are it may be plainly perceived the
mainsprings of Philo’s extensive literary activity. Being himself both Jew and
Greek he desired to act upon both to make the Jews Greeks and the Greeks Jews.
His religious assumptions are in the first place those of Judaism with its
belief in revelation. But these religious assumptions underwent a powerful and
peculiar modification by the elements which he derived from the Greek
philosophy. And as he combined both in himself he desired to set up a propaganda
on both sides. No strictly completed system of Philo can in truth be spoken of.
The elements of which his view of the world is compounded are too heterogeneous
to form a strictly completed unity. Nevertheless his several views exhibit a
connected whole whose members mutually condition one another. In the following
attempt to give a brief sketch of this whole we shall leave out of consideration
his specifically Jewish assumptions and confine ourselves to his philosophical
views. The characteristic feature of his standpoint is just this that his
philosophy i.e. his entire view of the world may be completely stated without
the necessity of mentioning any Jewish particularistic notions. His Judaism
virtually consists in the formal claim that the Jewish people are by reason of
the Mosaic revelation in possession of the highest religious knowledge—one might
almost say of the true religious illumination. In a material respect Greek views
have gained the upper hand. For even his theology is only so far Jewish as to
insist on monotheism and on the worship of God apart from images. In this
however it stands in opposition only to the polytheism of the heathen religions
but not to the idea of God of Greek philosophy which on the contrary Philo very
closely follows. Thus his Judaism is already very powerfully modified. Moreover
the specifically Jewish i.e. the particularistic notions are embraced by him in
a form which is tantamount to their denial. It is just this which makes it
possible entirely to disregard them in a sketch of his view of the
world.[2642]—The following survey follows chiefly the excellent exposition of
Zeller certainly the best we now have. [2642] With regard to detail the
following remarks may suffice. Philo firmly adheres to the obligation of the
Mosaic law. But only because it is in his eyes the most perfect just and
reasonable because its moral demands are always the purest its social
institutions the best and most humane its religious ceremonies the most
consistent with the Divine intelligence. In this sense it is that he exhibits it
in his work de specialibus legibus. He also adheres to the prerogative of the
Jewish people: the Jews are the privileged people of God (Gfrörer i. 486 sq.
Dähne i. 428 sq.). But they owe their privileges to their own and their
forefathers’ virtues. God makes no distinction between men as such. Hence too
the Messianic promise i.e. the promise of earthly prosperity to which also Philo
adheres (see § 29) applies not to Israel according to the flesh but to all who
are converted from idolatry to the only true God (see especially de
execrationibus § 8 Mang. ii. 435). We see that Jewish particularism is here
everywhere in course of dissolution. Judaism is on the contrary the best
religion just because it is cosmopolitan (comp. below note 179). 1. The Doctrine
of God.[2643] The fundamental thought from which Philo starts is that of the
dualism of God and the world. God alone is good and perfect the finite as such
is imperfect. All determinations which are adapted to finite existence are
therefore to be denied of God. He is eternal unchangeable simple free
self-sufficing.[2644] He is not only free from human faults but exalted above
human virtuss He is better than the good and the beautiful.[2645] Nay since
every determination would be a limitation He is devoid of qualities ἄποιος
without a ποιότῃς[2646] and thus His nature is undefinable. We can only say that
He is not what He is.[2647]—It is true that together with these purely negative
definitions which advance almost to an absence of attributes is found also a
series of positive assertions on the nature of God by which assertions of the
former kind are again abolished. This contradiction however is not to be
wondered at. For the object of this assertion of an absence of attributes is
merely to remove all limitation all imperfection from God. And therefore Philo
makes no difficulty in placing beside it the other assertion: that all
perfection is combined in God and derived from Him He fills and comprises
everything.[2648] All perfection in the creature is derived solely and only from
Him[2649] [2643] Comp. Gfrörer i. 113 sqq. Dähne i. 114 sqq. Zeller iii. 2 pp.
353-360. [2644] Eternal ἀΐδιος De mundi opificio i. 3 Mang. (Richter small vol.
5); De caritate ii. 386 Mang. (Richter small vol. 5) and elsewhere. Unchangeable
ἄτρεπτος De Cherubim i. 142 Mang. (Richter small vol. 1); Legum alleyoriae i. 53
Mang. (Richter small vol. 1) and the whole work Quod deus sit immulabilis i. 272
sqq. Mang. (Richter small vol. 2).—Simple ἁπλοῦς Legum allegor. i. 66 Mang.
(Richter small vol. 1).—Free De somniis i. 692 Mang. (Richter small vol.
3).—Self-sufficing χρῄζων οὐδενὸς τὸ παράπαν ἑαυτῷ ἱκανός αὐταρκέστατος ἑαυτῷ
Legum allegor. i. 66 Mang. (Richter small vol. 1); De mutatione nominum i. 582
Mang. (Richter small vol. 3); De fortitudine ii. 377 Mang. (Richter small vol.
5). [2645] De mundi opificio i. 2 Mang. (Richter small vol. 1): ὁ τῶν ὅλων
νοῦς—εἰλικρινέστατος καὶ ἀκραιφνέστατος κρείττων τε ἢ ἀρετὴ καὶ κρείττων ἢ
ἐπιστήμη καὶ κρείττων ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ καλόν. [2646] Legum
allegoriae i. 50 Mang. (Richter small vol. 1): ἄποιος—ό θεός.—Ibid. i. 53: ὁ γὰρ
ἢ ποιότητα οἰόμενος ἔχειν τὸν θεὸν ἢ μὴ ἔνα εἶναι ἢ μὴ ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον ἢ
μὴ ἄτρεπτον ἑαυτὸν ἀδικεῖ οὐ θεόν.—Quod deus sit immutabilis i. 281 Mang.
(Richter small vol. 2): God must be withdrawn from all determination (quality)
(ἐκβιβάζειν—πάσης ποιότητος). [2647] Vita Mosis ii. 92 Mang. (Richter small vol.
4): Ὁ δὲ· Τὸ μὲν πρῶτον λέγε φησίν αὐτοῖς· Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὢν ἵνα μαθόντες διαφορὰν
ὄντος τε καὶ μὴ ὄντος προσαναδιδαχθῶσιν ὡς οὐδὲν ὄνομα ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ τὸ παράπαν
κυριολογεῖται ᾧ μόνῳ πρόσεστι τὸ εἶναι—Quod deus sit immutabilis i. 282 Mang.
(Richter small vol. 2): ὁ δʼ ἄρα οὐδὲ τῷ νῷ καταληπτός ὅτι μὴ κατὰ τὸ εἷναι
μόνον. Ὕπαρξις γάρ ἐσθʼ ὃ καταλαμβάνομεν αὐτοῦ τὸ δὲ χωρὶς ὑπάρξεως οὐδέν.—De
mutatione nominum i. 580 Mang. (Richter small vol. 3).—De somniis i. 655 Mang.
(Richter small vol. 3). [2648] Legum allegoriae i. 52 Mang. (Richter small vol.
1): τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ἐπιδεῆ καὶ ἔρημα καὶ κενὰ ὄντα πληρῶν καὶ περιέχων αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπʼ
οὐδενὸς ἄλλου περιεχόμενος ἅτε εἷς καὶ τὸ πᾶν αὐτὸς ὤν.—Ibid. i. 88. Mang.:
Πάντα γὰρ πεπλήρωκεν ὁ θεὸς καὶ διὰ πάντων διελήλυθεν καὶ κενὸν οὐδὲ ἔρημον
ἀπολέλοιπεν ἑαυτοῦ.—Ibid. i. 97 Mang.—De confusions linguarum i. 425 Mang.
(Richter small vol. 2).—De migratione Abrahami i. 466 Mang. (Richter small vol.
2).—De somniis i. 630 Mang. (Richter small vol. 3).—Gfrörer i. 123 sqq.—Dähne i.
282 sqq. [2649] Legum alleg. i. 44 Mang. (Richter small vol. 1): Παύεται γὰρ
οὐδέποτε ποιῶν ὁ θεὸς ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ἴδιον τὸ καίειν πυρὸς καὶ χιόνος τὸ ψύχειν οὕτω
καὶ θεοῦ τὸ ποιεῖν· καὶ πολύ γε μᾶλλον ὅσῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄπασιν ἀρχὴ τοῦ δρᾶν
ἀστίν. 2. The Intermediate Beings.[2650] God as the absolutely Perfect cannot
enter into direct contact with matter. All contact therewith would defile
Him.[2651] An acting therefore of God upon the world and in the world is
according to Philo only possible through the intervention of intermediate causes
of interposing powers who establish an intercourse between God and the world.
For the more precise definition of these intermediate beings four notions suited
to this purpose offered themselves to Philo; two belonging to the philosophical
two to the religious region. These were the Platonic doctrine of ideas the Stoic
doctrine of active causes the Jewish doctrine of angels and the Greek doctrine
of daemons. All these elements but chiefly the Stoic doctrine of powers were
used by Philo in constructing his peculiar doctrine of intermediate beings.
Before the creation of this world of the senses he teaches God created the
spiritual types of all things.[2652] These types or ideas must however be
conceived of as active causes as powers which bring disordered matter into
order.[2653] It is by means of these spiritual powers that God acts in the
world. They are His ministers and vicegerents the ambassadors and mediums
between God and things finite[2654] the λόγοι or partial powers of the universal
reason.[2655] By Moses they are called angels by the Greeks daemons.[2656] If
according to this they appear to be conceived of as independent hypostases nay
as personal beings other assertions again forbid us to take them for decidedly
such. It is expressly said that they exist only in the Divine thought.[2657]
They are designated as the infinite powers of the infinite God[2658] and thus
regarded as an inseparable portion of the Divine existence. But it would again
be a mistake on the ground of these assertions to deny definitely the
personification of the λόγοι or δυνάμεις. The truth is just this that Philo
conceived of them both as independent hypostases and as immanent determinations
of the Divine existence. And it is an apt remark of Zeller’s that this
contradiction is necessarily required by the premisses of Philo’s system. “He
combines both definitions without observing their contradiction nay he is unable
to observe it because otherwise the intermediary rôle assigned to the Divine
powers would be forfeited even that double nature by reason of which they are on
the one hand to be identical with God that a participation in the Deity may by
their means be possible to the finite and on the other hand different from Him
that the Deity notwithstanding this participation may remain apart from all
contact with the world.”[2659] [2650] Comp. Gfrörer i. 143 sqq. Dähne i. 161
sqq. 202 sqq. Zeller iii. 2 pp. 360-370. Keferstein’s above-named Monograph.
[2651] De victimas offerentibus ii. 261 Mang. (Richter small vol. 4): Ἐξ ἐκείνης
γὰρ [τῆς ὕλης] πάντʼ ἐγέννησεν ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἐφαπτόμενος αὐτός· οὐ γὰρ ἦν θέμις
ἀπείρου καὶ πεφυρμένης ὕλης ψαύειν τὸν ἴδμονα καὶ μακάριον. [2652] De mundi
opificio i. 4 Mang. (Richter small vol. 1): Προλαβὼν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἅτε θεὸς ὅτι
μίμημα καλὸν οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο καλοῦ δίχα παραδείγματος οὐδέ τι τῶν αἰσθητῶν
ἀνυπαίτιον ὃ μὴ πρὸς ἀρχέτυπον καὶ νοητὴν ἰδέαν ἀπεικονίσθη βουληθεὶς τὸν ὁρατὸν
τουτονὶ κόσμον δημιουργῆσαι προεξετύπου τὸν νοητὸν ἵνα χρώμενος ἀσωμάτῳ καὶ
θεοειδεστάτω παραδείγματι τὸν σωματικὸν τοῦτον ἀπεργάσηται πρεσβυτέρου νεώτερον
ἀπεικόνισμα τοσαῦτα περιέξοντα αἰσθητὰ γένη ὅσαπερ ἐν ἐκείνῳ νοητά. Comp. the
work De mundi opificio. [2653] De victimas offerentibus ii. 261 Mang. (Richter
small vol. 4): ταῖς ἀσωμάτοις δυνάμεσιν ὧν ἔτυμον ὄνομα αἱ ἰδέαι κατεχρήσατο
πρὸς τὸ γένος ἕκαστον τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν λαβεῖν μορφήν.—De monarchia ii. 218 sq.
Mang. (Richter small vol. 4). [2654] De Abrahamo ii. 17 sq. Mang. (Richter small
vol. 4): ἱεραὶ καὶ θεῖαι φύσεις ὑποδιάκονοι καὶ ὕπαρχοι τοῦ πρώτου θεοῦ.—De
somniis i. 642 Mang. (Richter small vol. 3). [2655] Legum alleg. i. 122 Mang.
(Richter small vol. 1): τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ λόγους αὐτοῦ.—De somniis i. 631 Mang.
(Richter 3): τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ λόγους ἐπικουρίας ἕνεκα τῶν φιλαρέτων ἀποστέλλει.—Ibid.
i. 640: ψυχαὶ δέ εἰσιν ἀθάνατοι οἱ λόγοι οὗτοι.—On the identity of the λόγοι
with the ideas see Heinze Lehre vom Logos p. 220. [2656] De somniis i. 638 Mang.
(Richter 3): ἀθανάτοις λόγοις οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους.—Ibid. i. 642: ταύτας
(viz. pure souls) δαίμονας μὲν οἱ ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι ὁ δὲ ἱερὸς λόγος ἀγγέλους
εἴωθε καλεῖν.—De gigantibus i. 263 Mang. (Richter 2): Οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι
δαίμονας ἀγγέλους Μωϋσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν· ψυχαὶ δέ εἰσι κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα
πετόμεναι. [2657] De mundi opificio i. 4 Mang. (Richter 1): As the ideal city
whose plan the artist sketches exists only in his mind τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον οὐδὲ ὁ
ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν κόσμος ἄλλον ἂν ἔχοι τόπον ἢ τὸν θεῖον λόγον τὸν ταῦτα
διακοσμήσαντα.—Ibid. i. 5 Mang.: Εἰ δέ τις ἐθελήσεις γυμνοτέροις χρήσασθαι τοῖς
ὀνόμασιν οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη
κοσμοποιοῦντος. [2658] De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini i. 173 Mang. (Richter 1):
ἀπερίγραφος γὰρ ὁ θεός ἀπερίγραφοι καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ. [2659] Philosophie der
Griechen iii. 2 p. 365. With this ambiguous view of the nature of the δυνάμεις
the question as to their origin must also necessarily remain undecided. It is
true that Philo frequently expresses himself in an emanistic sense. But yet he
never distinctly formulates the doctrine of emanation.[2660] The number of the
δυνάμεις is in itself unlimited.[2661] Yet Philo sometimes gives calculations
when comprising the individual powers under certain notions of species.[2662] He
mostly distinguishes two supreme powers: goodness and might[2663] which again
are combined and reconciled by the Divine Logos which so far as it is reckoned
among the powers at all is the chief of all the root from which the rest proceed
the most universal intermediary between God and the world that in which are
comprised all the operations of God.[2664] [2660] Comp. Zeller pp.
366-369.—Emanistic e.g. De profugis i. 575 Mang. (Richter 3): God is ἡ
πρεσβυτάτη πηγή. Καὶ μήποτʼ εἰκότως. Τὸν γὰρ σύμπαντα τοῦτον κόσμον
ὤμβρησε.—Also De somniis i. 688 Mang. (Richter 3). [2661] De sacrificiis Abelis
et Caini i. 173 Mang. (Richter 1): ἀπερίγραφοι αἱ δυνάμεις.—De confusione
linguarum i. 431 Mang. (Richter 2): Εἷς ὤν ὁ θεὸς ἀμυθήτους περὶ αὑτὸν ἔχει
δυνάμεις. [2662] In de profugis i. 560 Mang. (Richter 3) he counts in all six
viz. besides the θεῖος λόγος the five following: ἡ ποιητική ἡ βασιλική ἡ ἵλεως ἡ
νομοθετική … (the last is wanting). [2663] Ἀγαθότης and ἀρχή (De Cherubim i. 144
Mang. Richter 1; De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini i. 173 Mang. Richter 1)
εὐεργεσία and ἡγεμονία or ἡ χαριστική and ἡ βασιλική (both de somniis i. 645
Mang. Richter 3) ἡ εὐεργέτις and ἡ κολαστήριος (de victimas offerentibus ii. 258
Mang. Richter 4) also ἡ ποιητική and ἡ βασιλική (because God created the world
in consequence of His goodness so de Abrahamo ii. 19 Mang. Richter 4. Vita Mosis
ii. 150 Mang. Richter 4). [2664] De profugis i. 560 Mang. (Richter 3). Quaest.
in Exod. ii. 68 p. 514 sq. (Richter 7). Contrary to Zeller who attempts to
understand certain passages as saying that the Logos is to be conceived of not
as the root but as the product or result of the two supreme powers (p. 370); see
Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos p. 248 sqq. 3. The Logos.[2665] “By the Logos Philo
understands the power of God or the active Divine intelligence in general; he
designates it as the idea which comprises all other ideas the power which
comprises all powers in itself as the entirety of the supersensuous world or of
the Divine powers.”[2666] It is neither uncreated nor created after the manner
of finite things.[2667] It is the vicegerent and ambassador of God;[2668] the
angel or archangel which delivers to us the revelations of God;[2669] the
instrument by which God made the world.[2670] The Logos is thus identified with
the creative word of God.[2671] But not only is it the mediator for the
relations of God to the world but also for the relations of the world to God.
The Logos is the High Priest who makes intercession for the world to God.[2672]
But notwithstanding this apparently undoubted personification of the Logos what
has been said above of the Divine powers in general applies here also. “The
definitions which according to the presuppositions of our thought would require
the personality of the Logos are crossed in Philo by such as make it impossible
and the peculiarity of his mode of conception consists in his not perceiving the
contradiction involved in making the idea of the Logos oscillate obscurely
between personal and impersonal being. This peculiarity is equally misunderstood
when Philo’s Logos is regarded absolutely as a person separate from God and when
on the contrary it is supposed that it only denotes God under a definite
relation according to the aspect of His activity. According to Philo’s opinion
the Logos is both but for this very reason neither one nor the other
exclusively; and he does not perceive that it is impossible to combine these
definitions into one notion.”[2673] “But Philo cannot dispense with these
definitions. With him the Logos like all the Divine powers is only necessary
because the supreme God Himself can enter into no direct contact with the
finite; it must stand between the two and be the medium of their mutual
relation; and how can it be this unless it were different from both if it were
only a certain Divine property? In this case we should have again that direct
action of God upon finite things which Philo declares inadmissible. On the other
hand the Logos must now indeed be again identical with each of the opposites
which it was to reconcile it must likewise be a property of God as a power
operative in the world. Philo could not without contradiction succeed in
combining the two.”[2674] [2665] Comp. Gfrörer i. 168-326. Dähne i. 202 sqq.
Zeller iii. 2 pp. 370-386 and the above-named Monographs especially those of
Heinze and Soulier. [2666] Zeller iii. 2 p. 371. [2667] Quis rerum divinarum
heres. i. 501 sq. Mang. (Richter 3): οὔτε ἀγέννητος ὡς ὁ θεὸς ὤν οὔτε γεννητὸς
ὡς ὑμεῖς ἀλλὰ μέσος τῶν ἄκρων ἀμφοτέροις ὁμηρεύων. [2668] Quis rer. div. her.
l.c.: πρεσβευτὴς τοῦ ἡγεμόνος πρὸς τὸ ὑπήκοον. [2669] Leg. allegor. l. 122 Mang.
(Richter 1): τὸν ἄγγελον ὅς ἐστι λόγος.—De confusione linguarum i. 427 Mang.
(Richter 2): τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον τὸν ἄγγελον πρεσβύτατον ὡς ἀρχάγγελον
πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα.—De somniis i. 656 Mang. (Richter 3).—Quis rer. div. her.
i. 501 fin. (Richter 3).—Quaest. in Exod. ii. 13 p. 476 (Richter 7). [2670] Leg.
allegor. i. 106 Mang. fin. (Richter 1): Σκιὰ θεοῦ δὲ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστίν ᾧ
καθάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος ἐκοσμοποίει.—De Cherubim i. 162 Mang. (Richter 1):
Εὑρήσεις γὰρ αἴτιον μὲν αὐτοῦ [τοῦ κόσμου] τὸν θεὸν ὑφʼ οὗ γέγονεν· ὕλην δὲ τὰ
τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα ἐξ ὧν συνεκράθη· ὄργανον δὲ λόγον θεοῦ διʼ οὗ κατεσκευάσθη· τῆς
δὲ κατασκευῆς αἰτίαν τὴν ἀγαθότητα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. [2671] Leg. alleg. i. 47
Mang. (Richter 1). De sacrif. Abel. et Cain. i. 165 Mang. (Richter 1). Heinze
Die Lehre vom Logos p. 230. [2672] De gigantibus i. 269 Mang. fin. (Richter 2):
ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς λόγος ἐνδιατρίβειν ἀεὶ καὶ σχολάζειν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις δώμασι
δυνάμενος.—De migratione Abrahami i. 452 Mang. (Richter 2): τὸν ἀρχιερέα
λόγον.—De profugis i. 562 Mang. (Richter 3): λέγομεν γὰρ τὸν ἀρχιερέα οὐκ
ἄνθρωπον ἀλλα λόγον θεῖον εἶναι πάντων οὐχ ἑκουσίων μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκουσίων
ἀδικημάτων ἀμέτοχον.—Quis rer. div. her. i. 501 Mang. fin. (Richter 3): Ὁ δʼ
αὐτὸς ἰκέτης μέν ἐστι τοῦ θνητοῦ κηραίνοντος ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄφθαρτον.—Vita Mosis
ii. 155 Mang. (Richter 4): Ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ ἦν τὸν ἱερωμένον τῷ τοῦ κόσμου πατρὶ
παρακλήτῳ χρῆσθαι τελειοτάτῳ τὴν ἀρετὴν υἱῷ πρός τε ἀμνηστείαν ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ
χορηγίαν ἀφθονωτάτων ἀγαθῶν. [2673] Zeller iii. 2 p. 378. [2674] Zeller iii. 2
p. 380 sq. Philo was as it seems the first to postulate under the name of the
Logos such an intermediate being between God and the world.[2675] Points of
contact for his doctrine lay in both Jewish theology and Greek philosophy. In
the former it was chiefly the doctrine of the wisdom of God and in the second
place that of the Spirit and the Word of God which Philo took up. From the
Platonic philosophy it was the doctrine of ideas and of the soul of the world
which he utilized for his purpose. But it is the Stoic doctrine of the Deity as
the active reason of the world which is the nearest to his. “We need only to
strip off from this Stoic doctrine of the Logos its pantheistic element by
distinguishing the Logos from the Deity and its materialistic element by
distinguishing it from organized matter to have the Philonean Logos
complete.”[2676] [2675] In the Wisdom of Solomon the Divine word is certainly
once personified as elsewhere wisdom is. But this is merely a poetical
personification not an actual bypostatification. The author applies the term
Wisdom of God to represent the notion of an intermediary hypostasis so far as he
entertains it Comp. also Grimm on the passage. In the Targums the “word of God”
(Memra) certainly plays a rôle similar to that of the Logos in Philo. But these
were very probably already under his influence. [2676] Zeller iii. 2 p. 385. 4.
The creation and preservation of the world.[2677] All existence cannot however
the intermediate beings notwithstanding be traced back to God. For the evil the
imperfect can in no wise not even indirectly have its cause in God.[2678] It
originates from a second principle from matter (ὕλη or stoically οὐσία). This is
the formless lifeless unmoved unordered mass devoid of properties from which God
by means of the Logos and the divine powers formed the world.[2679] For only a
forming of the world and not creation in its proper sense is spoken of in Philo
since the origin of matter is not in God but it is placed as a second principle
beside Him. And the preservation of the world as well as its formation is
effected by means of the Logos and the Divine powers. Nay the former is in truth
but a continuation of the latter; and what we call the laws of nature are but
the totality of the regular Divine operations.[2680] [2677] Comp. Gfrörer i. 327
sqq. Dähne i. 170 sqq. 246 sqq. Zeller iii. 2 pp. 386-393. [2678] Comp. Zeller
iii. 3 p. 386 note 1. [2679] De mundi opificio i. 5 Mang. (Richter 1): Matter is
ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἄτακτος ἄποιος ἄψυχος ἑτεροποιότητος ἀναρμοστίας ἀσυμφωνίας
μεστή.—Quis rerum divinarum heres. i. 492 Mang. fin. (Richter 3): τήν τε ἄμορφον
καὶ ἄποιον τῶν ὅλων οὐσίαν.—De profugis i. 547 Mang. (Richter 3): τὴν ἄποιον καὶ
ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον οὐσίαν.—Ibid.: ἡ ἄποιος ὕλη.—De victimas offerentibus
ii. 261 Mang. (Richter 4): ἄμορφος ὕλη.—Ibid.: ἀπείρου καὶ πεφυρμένης ὕλης.—De
creations principum ii. 367 Mang. (Richter 5): Μηνύει δʼ ἡ τοῦ κόσμου γένεσίς τε
καὶ διοικησις. Τὰ γὰρ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι τάξιν ἐξ ἀταξίας καὶ ἐξ
ἀποίων ποιότητας καὶ ἐξ ἀνομοίων ὁμοιότητας καὶ ἐξ ἑτεροτήτων ταὐτότητας καὶ ἐξ
ἀκοινωνήτων καὶ ἀναρμόστων κοινωνίας καὶ ἁρμονίας καὶ ἐκ μὲν ἀνισότητος ἰσότητα
ἐκ δὲ σκότους θῶς ἐργασάμενος. Ἀεὶ γάρ ἐστιν ἐπιμελὲς αὐτῷ καὶ ταῖς εὐεργέτισιν
αὐτοῦ δυνάμεσι τὸ πλημμελὲς τῆς χείρονος οὐσίας μεταποιεῖν καὶ μεθαρμόζεσθαι
πρὸς τὴν ἀμείνω. [2680] Comp. Zeller iii. 2 p. 389 sq. 5. Anthropology.[2681] It
is in anthropology where Philo chiefly follows the Platonic doctrine that the
dualistic basis of his system comes most strongly to light. Philo here starts
from the assumption that the entire atmosphere is filled with souls. Of these it
is the angels or demons dwelling in its higher parts who are the mediums of
God’s intercourse with the world.[2682] Those on the contrary who remain nearer
to the earth are attracted by sense and descend into mortal bodies.[2683]
Consequently the soul of man is nothing else than one of those Divine powers of
those emanations of Deity which in their original state are called angels or
daemons. It is only the life-sustaining sensitive soul that originates by
generation and indeed from the aeriform elements of the seed; reason on the
contrary enters into man from without.[2684] The human πνεῦμα is thus an
emanation of Deity: God breathed His spirit into man.[2685]—The body as the
animal part of man is the source of all evil it is the prison to which the
spirit is banished[2686] the corpse which the soul drags about with it[2687] the
coffin or the grave from which it will first awake to true life.[2688] Sense as
such being evil sin is innate in man[2689] No one can keep himself free from it
even if he were to live but a day.[2690] [2681] Comp. Gfrörer i. 373-415. Dähne
i. 288-340. Zeller iii. 2 pp. 393-402. [2682] De somniis i. 642 Mang. (Richter
3). [2683] De gigantibus i. 263 sq. Mang. (Richter 2). [2684] De mundi opificio
i. 15 Mang. (Richter 1): Ἡ δὲ [ἡ κίνησις] οἰα τεχνίτης ἢ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν
ἀνεπίληπτος τέχνη ζωοπλαστεῖ τὴν μὲν ὑγρὰν οὐσίαν εἰς τὰ τοῦ σώματος μέλη καὶ
μέρη διανέμουσα τὴν δὲ πνευματικὴν εἰς τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεις τήν τε θρεπτικὴν
καὶ τὴν αἰσθητικήν. Τὴν γὰρ τοῦ λογισμοῦ τανῦν ὑπερθετέον διὰ τοὺς φάσκοντας
θύραθεν αὐτὸν ἐπεισιέναι θεῖον καὶ αΐδιον ὄντα. [2685] Quod deterius potiori
insidiatur i. 206 sq. Mang. (Richter 1).—De mundi opificio i. 32 Mang. (Richter
1).—De specialibus legibus ii. 356 Mang. (Richter 5).—Quis rerum divinarum
heres. i. 480 sq. 498 sq. Mang. (Richter 3). [2686] Δεσμωτήριον De ebrietate i.
372 fin. Mang. (Richter 2). Leg. allegor. i. 95 sub. fin. Mang. (Richter 1). De
migratione Abrahami i. 437 sub fin. Mang. (Richter 2). [2687] Νεκρὸν σῶμα Leg.
allegor. i. 100 sq. Mang. (Richter 1). De gigantibus i. 264 med. Mang. (Richter
2). Τὸν ψυχῆς ἔγγιστα οἶκον ὃν ἀπὸ γενέσεως ἄχρι τελευτῆς ἄχθος τοσοῦτον οὐκ
ἀποτίθεται νεκροφοροῦσα De Agricultura Noe i. 305 Mang. (Richter 2). [2688]
Λάρναξ ἢ σορός De migratione Abrahami i. 438 sub fin. Mang. (Richter 2).—σῆμα
Leg. allegor. i. 65 sub fin. Mang. (Richter 1). [2689] Vita Mosis ii. 157 Mang.
(Richter 4): παντὶ γεννητῷ καὶ ἂν σπουδαῖον ᾖ παρʼ ὅσον ἦλθεν εἰς γένεσιν
συμφυὲς τὸ ἁμαρτάνον ἐστίν. [2690] De mutatione nominum i. 585 Mang. (Richter
3): Τίς γὰρ ὡς ὁ Ἰώβ φησι καθαρὸς ἀπὸ ῥύπου καὶ ἂν μία ἡμέρα ἐστὶν ἡ ζωή (Job
14:4 sq.). 6. Ethic.[2691] According to these anthropologic assumptions it is
self-evident that the chief principle of ethic is the utmost possible
renunciation of sensuousness the extirpation of desire and of the passions.
Hence among philosophical systems the Stoic must be most of all congenial to
Philo in the matter of ethic. It is this that he chiefly embraces not only in
its fundamental thought of the mortification of the senses but also in single
statements as in the doctrine of the four cardinal virtues[2692] and of the four
passions.[2693] Like the Stoics he teaches that there is only one good
morality;[2694] like them he requires freedom from all passions[2695] and the
greatest possible simplicity of life;[2696] like them he also is a
cosmopolitan.[2697] But with all this affinity Philo’s ethic still essentially
differs from the Stoic. The Stoics refer man to his own strength; according to
Philo man as a sensuous being is incapable of liberating himself from
sensuousness: for this he needs the help of God. It is God who plants and
promotes the virtues in the soul of man. Only he who honours Him and yields
himself to His influence can attain to perfection.[2698] True morality is as
Plato teaches the imitation of the Deity.[2699] In this religious basis of ethic
Philo is very decidedly distinguished from the Stoics. Political activity and
practical morality in general have a value only so far as they are a necessary
medium for contending against evil.[2700] But knowledge also must subserve this
one object and hence ethic is the most important part of philosophy.[2701]
Nevertheless the purity of life attained by such self-knowledge is not the
ultimate and supreme object of human development. On the contrary the origin of
man being transcendental the object of his development is likewise
transcendental. As it was by falling away from God that he was entangled in this
life of sense so must he struggle up from it to the direct vision of God. This
object is attainable even in this earthly life. For the truly wise and virtuous
man is lifted above and out of himself and in such ecstasy beholds and
recognises Deity itself. His own consciousness sinks and disappears in the
Divine light; and the Spirit of God dwells in him and stirs him like the strings
of a musical instrument.[2702] He who has in this way attained to the vision of
the Divine has reached the highest degree of earthly happiness. Beyond it lies
only complete deliverance from this body that return of the soul to its original
incorporeal condition which is bestowed on those who have kept themselves free
from attachment to this sensuous body.[2703] [2691] Comp. Gfrörer i. 415 sqq.
Dähne i. 341-423. Zeller iii. 2 pp. 402-416. Frankel in the above-cited article.
Kähler Das Gewissen i. 1 (1878) p. 171 sqq. [2692] Φρόνησις σωφροσύνη ἀνδρία
δικαιοσύνη Leg. allegor. i. 56 Mang. (Richter 1) and frequently. [2693] Leg.
allegor. i. 114 sub fin. Mang. (Richter 1). [2694] Μόνον εἶναι τὸ καλὸν ἀγαθόν
De posteritate Caini i. 251 init. Mang. (Richter 2). [2695] Leg. allegor. i. 100
Mang. (Richter 1): Ὁ δὲ ὄφις ἡ ἡδονὴ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἐστὶ μοχθηρά. Διὰ τοῦτο ἐν μὲν
σπουδαίῳ οὐχ εὑρίσκεται τὸ παράπαν μόνος δὲ αὐτῆς ὀ φαῦλος ἀπολαύει.—Ibid. i.
113 init.: Μωϋσῆς δὲ ὅλον τὸν θυμὸν ἐκτέμνειν καὶ ἀποκόπτειν οἴεται δεῖν τῆς
ψυχῆς οὐ μετριοπάθειαν ἀλλὰ συνόλως ἀπάθειαν ἀγαπῶν. [2696] De somniis i.
639-665 Mang. (Richter 3).—Leg. allegor. i. 115 Mang. (Richter 1).—Quod deterius
poliori insidiatur i. 198 init. Mang. (Richter 1). [2697] See Zeller iii. 2 p.
404. [2698] Leg. allegor. i. 53 init. Mang. (Richter 1): πρέπει τῷ θεῷ φυτεύειν
καὶ οἰκοδομεῖν ἐν ψυχῇ τὰς ἀρετάς.—Ibid. i. 60: Ὅταν ἐκβῇ ὁ νοῦς ἑαυτοῦ καὶ
ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκῃ θεῷ ὥσπερ ὁ γέλως Ἰσαάκ τηνικαῦτα ὁμολογίαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν ὄντα
ποιεῖται. Ἕως δὲ αὑτὸν ὑποτίθηται ὡς αἰτιόν τινος μακρὰν ἀφέστηκε τοῦ παραχωρεῖν
θεῷ καὶ ὁμολογεῖν αὐτῷ. Καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι νοητέον ὅτι ἔργον
ἐστὶν οὐχὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀλλὰ τοῦ φαίνοντος αὐτῇ θεοῦ τὸ εὐχάριστον.—Ibid. i. 131:
αὐτὸς γὰρ [ὁ χύριος] πατήρ ἐστι τῆς τελείας φύσεως σπείρων ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς καὶ
γεννῶν τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν. [2699] De mundi opificio i. 35 init. Mang. (Richter
1).—De decalogo ii. 193 init. Mang. (Richter 4).—De caritate ii. 404 init. Mang.
(Richter 5).—De migratione Abrahami i. 456 med. 463 Mang. (Richter 2). [2700]
See Zeller iii. 2 p. 406 sq. [2701] De mutatione nominum i. 589 Mang. (Richter
3): καθάπερ δένδρωυ οὐδὲν ὄφελος εἰ μὴ καρπῶν οἰστικὰ γένοιτο τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ
τρόπον οὐδὲν φυσιολογίας εἰ μὴ μέλλοι κτῆσιν ἀρετῆς ἐνεγκεῖν κ.τ.λ.—De
agricultura Noe i. 302 Mang. (Richter 2). In both passages Philo compares
physics to the plants and trees; logic to the hedges and fences; ethic to the
fruits. He praises the Essence for exclusively occupying themselves with ethic
(Quod omnis probus liber ii. 458 Mang.). [2702] Philo thus addresses the soul in
Quis rerum divinarum heres. i. 482 Mang. (Richter 3): σαυτὴν ἀπόδραθι καὶ
ἔκστηθι σεαυτῆς καθάπερ οἱ κορυβανιῶντες καὶ κατεχόμενοι βακχευθεῖσα καὶ
θεοφορηθεῖσα κατά τινα προφητικον ἐπιθειασμόν. Ἐνθουσιώσης γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἔτι οὔσης
ἐν ἑαυτῇ διανοίας ἀλλʼ ἔρωτ οὐρανίῳ σεσοβημένης καὶ ἐκμεμηνυίας κ.τ.λ. Quis
rerum divinarum heres. i. 508 sqq. Mang. (Richter 3) especially i. 511 (where
Philo dilates at length upon the ecstatic state). [2703] De Abrahamo ii. 37
Mang. (Richter 4): Wisdom teaches τὸν θάνατον νομίζειν μὴ σβέσιν ψυχῆς ἀλλὰ
χωρισμὸν καὶ διάζευξιν ἀπὸ σώματος ὅθεν ἦλθεν ἀπιούσης. Ἦλθε δὲ ὡς ἐν τῇ
κοσμοποιΐᾳ δεδήλωται παρὰ θεοῦ.—Leg. allegor. i. 65 (Richter 1): Εὖ καὶ ὁ
Ἡράκλειτος κατὰ τοῦτο Μωϋσέως ἀκολουθήσας τῷ δόγματι· φησὶ γὰρ· “Ζῶμεν τὸν
ἐκείνων θάνατον τεθνήκαμεν δὲ τὸν ἐκείνων βίον” ὡς νῦν μὲν ὅτε ἐνζῶμεν
τεθνηκυίας τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ ὡς ἂν ἐν σήματι τῷ σώματι ἐντετυμβευμένης· εἰ δὲ
ἀποθάνοιμεν τῆς ψυχῆς ζώσης τὸν ἴδιον βίον καὶ ἀπηλλαγμένης κακοῦ καὶ νεκροῦ τοῦ
συνδέτου σώματος. For those who have not freed themselves from sense Philo has
to accept after the occurrence of natural death a transition to another body
that is a transmigration of souls. See Zeller iii. 2. 397 Philo’s influence upon
the two circles which he had chiefly in view viz. Judaism and heathenism was
impaired by the fact that from his time onward Jewish Hellenism in general
gradually lost in importance. On the one hand the Pharisaic tendency gained
strength in the Dispersion also on the other Hellenistic Judaism was in respect
of its influence upon heathen circles repressed nay altogether dissolved by
Christianity which was now in its prime. Hence Judaeo-Hellenistic philosophy had
gradually to give place to its stronger rival in both regions. Its influence was
nevertheless still considerable. Jewish Rabbis and heathen neo-Platonists were
more or less affected by it. Its strongest and most enduring influence was
however exercised in a direction which still lay outside Philo’s horizon upon
the development of Christian dogma. The New Testament already shows
unmistakeable traces of Philonean wisdom; and almost all the Greek Fathers of
the first century the apologists as well as the Alexandrians the Gnostics as
well as their adversaries and even the great Greek theologians of subsequent
centuries have some more some less either directly or indirectly consciously or
unconsciously drawn from Philo. But to follow out these traccs lies beyond the
province of this work.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/the-jewish-people-in-the-time-of-jesus-christ/
========================================================================