1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jews - Wikisource, the free online library

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jews - Wikisource, the free online library
Jump to content
From Wikisource
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
Jewett, Sarah Orne
1911
Encyclopædia Britannica
Volume 15
Jews
by
Stanley A. Cook
John H. A. Hart
and
Israel Abrahams
Jewsbury, Geraldine Endsor
sister projects
Wikipedia article
Wikidata item
See also
Jews
on
Wikipedia
; and our
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer
2040259
1911
Encyclopædia Britannica
Volume 15
— Jews
Stanley A. Cook
John H. A. Hart
and
Israel Abrahams
JEWS
(Heb.
Yĕhūdi
, man of Judah; Gr.
Ἰουδαῖοι
; Lat.
Judaei
), the general name for the Semitic people which inhabited
Palestine from early times, and is known in various connexions
as “the Hebrews,” “the Jews,” and “Israel” (see § 5 below).
Their history may be divided into three great periods: (1) That
covered by the Old Testament to the foundation of Judaism in
the Persian age, (2) that of the Greek and Roman domination
to the destruction of Jerusalem, and (3) that of the Diaspora or
Dispersion to the present day.
I.—Old Testament History
I.
The Land and the People.
—For the first two periods the
history of the Jews is mainly that of Palestine. It begins among
those peoples which occupied the area lying between the Nile
on the one side and the Tigris and the Euphrates on the other.
Surrounded by ancient seats of culture in Egypt and Babylonia,
by the mysterious deserts of Arabia, and by the highlands
of Asia Minor, Palestine, with Syria on the north, was the
high road of civilization, trade and warlike enterprise, and
the meeting-place of religions. Its small principalities were
entirely dominated by the great Powers, whose weakness or
acquiescence alone enabled them to rise above dependence or
vassalage. The land was traversed by old-established trade
routes and possessed important harbours on the Gulf of ʽAkaba
and on the Mediterranean coast, the latter exposing it to the
influence of the Levantine culture. It was “the physical centre
of those movements of history from which the world has
grown.” The portion of this district abutting upon the Mediterranean
may be divided into two main parts:—Syria (from the
Taurus to Hermon) and Palestine (southward to the desert
bordering upon Egypt). The latter is about 150 m. from
north to south (the proverbial “Dan to Beersheba”), with a
breadth varying from 25 to 80 m.,
i.e.
about 6040 sq. m.
This excludes the land east of the Jordan, on which see
Palestine
From time to time streams of migration swept into Palestine
and Syria. Semitic tribes wandered northwards from their home
in Arabia to seek sustenance in its more fertile fields, to plunder,
or to escape the pressure of tribes in the rear. The course leads
naturally into either Palestine or Babylonia, and, following the
Euphrates, northern Syria is eventually reached. Tribes also
moved down from the north: nomads, or offshoots from the
powerful states which stretch into Asia Minor. Such frequently
recurring movements introduced new blood. Tribes, chiefly of
pastoral habits, settled down among others who were so nearly
of their own type that a complete amalgamation could be
effected, and this without any marked modification of the
general characteristics of the earlier inhabitants. It is from
such a fusion as this that the ancestors of the Jews were
descended, and both the history and the genius of this people
can be properly understood only by taking into account the
physical features of their land and the characteristics of the
Semitic races in general (see
Palestine
Semitic Languages
).
2.
Society and Religion.
—The similarity uniting the peoples
of the East in respect of racial and social characteristics is
accompanied by a striking similarity of mental outlook which
has survived to modern times. Palestine, in spite of the numerous
vicissitudes to which it has been subjected, has not lost
its fundamental characteristics. The political changes involved
in the Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian or Persian conquests
surely affected it as little as the subsequent waves of Greek,
Roman and other European invasions. Even during the temporary
Hellenization in the second great period the character
of the people as a whole was untouched by the various external
influences which produced so great an effect on the upper classes.
When the foreign civilization perished, the old culture once more
came to the surface. Hence it is possible, by a comprehensive
comparative study of Eastern peoples, in both ancient and
modern times, to supplement and illustrate within certain
limits our direct knowledge of the early Jewish people, and
thus to understand more clearly those characteristics which were
peculiar to them, in relation to those which they shared with
other Oriental peoples.
Even before authentic history begins, the elements of religion
and society had already crystallized into a solid coherent structure
which was to persist without essential modification. Religion
was inseparable from ordinary life, and, like that of all
peoples who are dependent on the fruits of the earth, was a
nature-worship. The tie between deities and worshippers
was regarded as physical and entailed mutual obligations. The
study of the clan-group as an organization is as instructive
here as in other fields. The members of each group lived on
terms of equality, the families forming a society of worship
the rites of which were conducted by the head. Such groups
(each with its local deity) would combine for definite purposes
under the impulse of external needs, but owing to inevitable
internal jealousies and the incessant feuds among a people
averse from discipline and authority, the unions were not
necessarily lasting. The elders of these groups possessed some
influence, and tended to form an aristocracy, which took the
lead in social life, although their authority generally depended
merely upon custom. Individual leaders in times of stress
acquired a recognized supremacy, and, once a tribe outstripped
the rest, the opportunities for continued advance gave further
scope to their authority. “The interminable feuds of tribes,
conducted on the theory of blood-revenge,
. . .
can seldom
be durably healed without the intervention of a third party
who is called in as arbiter, and in this way an impartial and
wise power acquires of necessity a great and beneficent influence
over all around it” (W. R. Smith). In time, notwithstanding a
certain inherent individualism and impatience of control, veritable
despotisms arose in the Semitic world, although such
organizations were invariably liable to sudden collapse as the old
forms of life broke down with changing conditions.
3.
Early History.
—Already in the 15th century
B.C.
Palestine
was inhabited by a settled people whose language, thought and
religion were not radically different several hundred years later.
Small native princes ruled as vassals of Egypt which, after
expelling the Hyksos from its borders, had entered upon a series
of conquests as far as the Euphrates. Some centuries previously,
however, Babylonia had laid claim to the western states,
and the Babylonian (
i.e.
Assyrian) script and language were now
used, not merely in the diplomatic correspondence between
Egypt and Asia, but also for matters of private and everyday
life among the Palestinian princes themselves. To what extent
specific Babylonian influence showed itself in other directions
is not completely known. Canaan (Palestine and the south
Phoenician coast land) and Amor (Lebanon district and beyond)
were under the constant supervision of Egypt, and Egyptian
officials journeyed round to collect tribute, to attend to complaints,
and to assure themselves of the allegiance of the vassals.
The Amarna tablets and those more recently found at Taannek
(bibl. Taanach), together with the contemporary archaeological
evidence (from Lachish, Gezer, Megiddo, Jericho, &c.), represent
advanced conditions of life and culture, the precise chronological
limits of which cannot be determined with certainty. This
age, with its regular maritime intercourse between the Aegean
settlements, Phoenicia and the Delta, and with lines of caravans
connecting Babylonia, North Syria, Arabia and Egypt, presents
a remarkable picture of life and activity, in the centre of which
lies Palestine, with here and there Egyptian colonies and some
traces of Egyptian cults. The history of this, the “Amarna”
age, reveals a state of anarchy in Palestine for which the weakness
of Egypt and the downward pressure of north Syrian
peoples were responsible. Subdivided into a number of little
local principalities, Palestine was suffering both from internal
intrigues and from the designs of this northern power. It is
now that we find the restless Ḥabiru, a name which is commonly
identified with that of the “Hebrews” (
’ibrīm
). They offer
themselves where necessary to either party, and some at least
perhaps belonged to the settled population. The growing
prominence of the new northern group of “Hittite” states continued
to occupy the energies of Egypt, and when again we have
more external light upon Palestinian history, the
Hittites
q.v.
are found strongly entrenched in the land. But by the end of
the first quarter of the 13th century
B.C.
Egypt had recovered its
province (precise boundary uncertain), leaving its rivals in possession
of Syria. Towards the close of the 13th century the
Egyptian king Merneptah (Mineptah) records a successful campaign
in Palestine, and alludes to the defeat of Canaan, Ascalon,
Gezer, Yenuam (in Lebanon) and (the people or tribe) Israel.
Bodies of aliens from the Levantine coast had previously
threatened Egypt and Syria, and at the beginning of the 12th
century they formed a coalition on land and sea which taxed
all the resources of Rameses III. In the Purasati, apparently
the most influential of these peoples, may be recognized the origin
of the name “Philistine.” The Hittite power became weaker,
and the invaders, in spite of defeat, appear to have succeeded
in maintaining themselves on the sea coast. External history,
however, is very fragmentary just at the age when its evidence
would be most welcome. For a time the fate of Syria and Palestine
seems to have been no longer controlled by the great powers.
When the curtain rises again we enter upon the historical
traditions of the Old Testament.
4.
Biblical History
.—For the rest of the first period the Old
Testament forms the main source. It contains in fact the
history itself in two forms: (
) from the creation of man to
the fall of Judah (Genesis-2 Kings), which is supplemented and
continued further—(
) to the foundation of Judaism in the
5th century
B.C.
(Chronicles—Ezra-Nehemiah). In the light of
contemporary monuments, archaeological evidence, the progress
of scientific knowledge and the recognized methods of modern
historical criticism, the representation of the origin of mankind
and of the history of the Jews in the Old Testament can no longer
be implicitly accepted. Written by an Oriental people and
clothed in an Oriental dress, the Old Testament does not contain
objective records, but subjective history written and incorporated
for specific purposes. Like many Oriental works it is a compilation,
as may be illustrated from a comparison of Chronicles with
Samuel-Kings, and the representation of the past in the light of
the present (as exemplified in Chronicles) is a frequently recurring
phenomenon. The critical examination of the nature and
growth of this compilation has removed much that had formerly
caused insuperable difficulties and had quite unnecessarily been
made an integral or a relevant part of practical religion. On
the other hand, criticism has given a deeper meaning to the Old
Testament history, and has brought into relief the central
truths which really are vital; it may be said to have replaced
a divine account of man by man’s account of the divine.
Scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that the internal
features are best explained by the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.
This involves the view that the historical traditions are mainly
due to two characteristic though very complicated recensions,
one under the influence of the teaching of Deuteronomy (Joshua
to Kings, see § 20), the other, of a more priestly character
(akin to Leviticus), of somewhat later date (Genesis to Joshua,
with traces in Judges to Kings, see § 23). There are, of course,
numerous problems relating to the nature, limits and dates
of the two recensions, of the incorporated sources, and of other
sources (whether early or late) of independent origin; and here
there is naturally room for much divergence of opinion. Older
material (often of composite origin) has been used, not so much
for the purpose of providing historical information, as with
the object of showing the religious significance of past history;
and the series Joshua-Kings is actually included among the
“prophets” in Jewish reckoning (see
Midrash
). In general,
one may often observe that freedom which is characteristic of
early and unscientific historians. Thus one may note the
reshaping of older material to agree with later thought, the
building up of past periods from the records of other periods,
and a frequent loss of perspective. The historical traditions
are to be supplemented by the great body of prophetic, legal
and poetic literature which reveal contemporary conditions in
various internal literary, theological or sociological features.
The investigation of their true historical background and of the
trustworthiness of their external setting (
e.g.
titles of psalms,
dates and headings of prophecies) involves a criticism of the
historical traditions themselves, and thus the two major classes
of material must be constantly examined both separately and in
their bearing on one another. In a word, the study of biblical
history, which is dependent in the first instance upon the written
sources, demands constant attention to the text (which has
had an interesting history) and to the literary features; and it
requires a sympathetic acquaintance with Oriental life and
thought, both ancient and modern, an appreciation of the necessity
of employing the methods of scientific research, and (from
the theological side) a reasoned estimate of the dependence of
individual religious convictions upon the letter of the Old
Testament.
In view of the numerous articles in this work dealing with biblical
subjects,
the present sketch is limited to the outlines of the traditional
history; the religious aspect in its bearing upon biblical
theology (which is closely bound up with the traditions) is
handled separately under
Hebrew Religion
. The related literature
is enormous (see the bibliographies to the special articles); it
is indexed annually in
Orientalische Bibliographie
(Berlin), and is
usefully summarized in the
Theologische Jahresbericht
(Berlin). On
the development of the study of biblical history see C. A. Briggs,
Study of Holy Scripture
(1899), especially ch. xx. The first scientific
historical work was by H. Ewald,
Gesch. d. Volkes Israel
(1843; 3rd
ed., 1864–1868; Eng. trans., 1869–1883), popularized by Arthur
Penrhyn Stanley in his
Hist. of the Jewish Church
(1863–1879). The
works of J. Wellhausen (especially
Prolegomena to the Hist. of Israel
Eng. trans., 1885, also the brilliant article “Israel” in the 9th ed. of
the
Ency. Brit.
, 1879) were epoch-making; his position was interpreted
to English readers by W. Robertson Smith (
Old Test. in
Jewish Church
, 1881, 2nd ed., 1892;
Prophets of Israel
, 1882, 2nd
ed. by T. K. Cheyne, 1902). The historical (and related) works
of T. K. Cheyne, H. Graetz, H. Guthe, F. C. Kent, A. Kittel, W. H.
Kosters, A. Kuenen, C. Piepenbring, and especially B. Stade, although
varying greatly in standpoint, are among the most valuable
by recent scholars; H. P. Smith’s
Old Test. Hist.
(“International
Theological Library,” Edinburgh, 1903) is in many respects the
most serviceable and complete study; a modern and more critical
“Ewald” is a desideratum. For the works of numerous other
scholars who have furthered Old Testament research in the past it
must suffice to refer to the annotated list by
J. M. P.
Smith,
Books
for O.T. Study
(Chicago, 1908).
For the external history, E. Schrader,
Cuneiform Inscr. and the
Old Testament
(Eng. trans. by O. C. Whitehouse, 1885–1888) is still
helpful; among the less technical works are J. F. McCurdy,
History
Prophecy and the Monuments
; B. Paton,
Syria and Palestine
(1902);
G. Maspero,
Hist. ancienne
(6th ed., 1904); A. Jeremias,
Alte Test. im
Lichte d. Alten Orients
(2nd ed., 1906); and especially
Altoriental.
Texte u. Bilder zum Alten Test.
, ed. by H. Gressman, with A. Ungnad
and H. Ranke (1909). The most complete is that of Ed. Meyer,
Gesch. d. Alterthums
(2nd ed., 1907 sqq.). That of Jeremias follows
upon the lines of H. Winckler, whose works depart from the somewhat
narrow limits of purely “Israelite” histories, emphasize the
necessity of observing the characteristics of Oriental thought and
policy, and are invaluable for discriminating students. Winckler’s
own views are condensed in the 3rd edition—a re-writing—of
Schrader’s work (
Keilinschr. u. d. Alte Testament
, 1903), and, with an
instructive account of the history of “ancient nearer Asia,” in
H. F. Helmolt’s
World’s History
, iii. 1–252 (1903). All modern
histories of any value are necessarily compromises between the
biblical traditions and the results of recent investigation, and those
studies which appear to depart most widely from the biblical or
canonical representation often do greater justice to the evidence as
a whole than the slighter or more conservative and apologetic
reconstructions.
Scientific biblical historical study, nevertheless,
is still in a relatively backward condition; and although the labours
of scholars since Ewald constitute a distinct epoch, the trend of
research points to the recognition of the fact that the purely subjective
literary material requires a more historical treatment in the light
of our increasing knowledge of external and internal conditions in
the old Oriental world. But an inductive and deductive treatment,
both, comprehensive and in due proportion, does not as yet (1910)
exist, and awaits fuller external evidence.
5.
Traditions of Origin
.—The Old Testament preserves the
remains of an extensive literature, representing different standpoints,
which passed through several hands before it reached its
present form. Surrounded by ancient civilizations where writing
had long been known, and enjoying, as excavation has proved, a
considerable amount of material culture, Palestine could look
back upon a lengthy and stirring history which, however, has
rarely left its mark upon our records. Whatever ancient sources
may have been accessible, whatever trustworthy traditions were
in circulation, and whatever a knowledge of the ancient Oriental
world might lead one to expect, one is naturally restricted in
the first instance to those undated records which have survived
in the form which the last editors gave to them. The critical
investigation of these records is the indispensable prelude to
all serious biblical study, and hasty or sweeping deductions
from monumental or archaeological evidence, or versions compiled
promiscuously from materials of distinct origin, are alike
hazardous. A glimpse at Palestine in the latter half of the
second millennium
B.C.
(§ 3) prepares us for busy scenes and
active intercourse, but it is not a history of this kind which the
biblical historians themselves transmit. At an age when—on
literary-critical grounds—the Old Testament writings were
assuming their present form, it was possible to divide the immediately
preceding centuries into three distinct period. (
) The
first, that of the two rival kingdoms: Israel (Ephraim or Samaria)
in the northern half of Palestine, and Judah in the south. Then
) the former lost its independence towards the close of the 8th
century
B.C.
, when a number of its inhabitants were carried
away; and the latter shared the fate of exile at the beginning of
the 6th, but succeeded in making a fresh reconstruction some fifty
or sixty years later. Finally (
), in the so-called “post-exilic”
period, religion and life were reorganized under the influence of a
new spirit; relations with Samaria were broken off, and Judaism
took its definite character, perhaps about the middle or close
of the 5th century. Throughout these vicissitudes there were
important political and religious changes which render the study
of the composite sources a work of unique difficulty. In addition
to this it should be noticed that the term “Jew” (originally
Yehudi
), in spite of its wider application, means properly “man
of Judah,”
i.e.
of that small district which, with Jerusalem as
its capital, became the centre of Judaism. The favourite name
“Israel” with all its religious and national associations is somewhat
ambiguous in an historical sketch, since, although it is used
as opposed to Judah (
), it ultimately came to designate the true
nucleus of the worshippers of the national god Yahweh as opposed
to the Samaritans, the later inhabitants of Israelite territory
). A more general term is “Hebrew” (see
Hebrew Language
),
which, whether originally identical with the Ḥabiru or not (§ 3),
is used in contrast to foreigners, and this non-committal ethnic
deserves preference where precise distinction is unnecessary or
impossible.
The traditions which prevailed among the Hebrews concerning
their origin belong to a time when Judah and Israel were regarded
as a unit. Twelve divisions or tribes, of which Judah was one,
held together by a traditional sentiment, were traced back to
the sons of Jacob (otherwise known as Israel), the son of Isaac
and grandson of Abraham. Their names vary in origin and
probably also in point of age, and where they represent fixed
territorial limits, the districts so described were in some cases
certainly peopled by groups of non-Israelite ancestry. But as
tribal names they invited explanation, and of the many characteristic
traditions which were doubtless current a number have
been preserved, though not in any very early dress. Close
relationship was recognized with the Aramaeans, with Edom,
Moab and Ammon. This is characteristically expressed when
Esau, the ancestor of Edom, is represented as the brother of
Jacob, or when Moab and Ammon are the children of Lot, Abraham’s
nephew (see
Genealogy
Biblical
). Abraham, it was
believed, came from Harran (Carrhae), primarily from Babylonia,
and Jacob re-enters from Gilead in the north-east with his
Aramaean wives and concubines and their families (Benjamin
excepted). It is on this occasion that Jacob’s name is changed
to Israel. These traditions of migration and kinship are in themselves
entirely credible, but the detailed accounts of the ancestors
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as given in Genesis, are inherently
doubtful as regards both the internal conditions, which the (late)
chronological scheme ascribes to the first half of the second
millennium
B.C.
, and the general circumstances of the life of these
strangers in a foreign land. From a variety of independent
reasons one is forced to conclude that, whatever historical
elements they may contain, the stories of this remote past
represent the form which tradition had taken in a very much
later age.
Opinion is at variance regarding the patriarchal narratives as a
whole. To deny their historical character is to reject them as
trustworthy accounts of the age to which they are ascribed, and
even those scholars who claim that they are essentially historical
already go so far as to concede idealization and the possibility or
probability of later revision. The failure to apprehend historical
method has often led to the fallacious argument that the trustworthiness
of individual features justifies our accepting the whole,
or that the elimination of unhistorical elements will leave an historical
residuum. Here and frequently elsewhere in biblical history it is
necessary to allow that a genuine historical tradition may be clothed
in an unhistorical dress, but since many diverse motives are often
concentrated upon one narrative (
e.g.
Gen. xxxii. 22-32, xxxiv.,
xxxviii.), the work of internal historical criticism (in view of the
scantiness of the evidence) can rarely claim finality. The patriarchal
narratives themselves belong to the popular stock of tradition of
which only a portion has been preserved. Many of the elements lie
outside questions of time and place and are almost immemorial.
Some appear written for the first time in the book of Jubilees, in
“the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs” (both perhaps 2nd
century
B.C.
) and in later sources; and although in Genesis the
stories are now in a post-exilic setting (a stage earlier than Jubilees),
the older portions may well belong to the 7th or 6th cent. This
question, however, will rest upon those criteria alone which are of
true chronological validity (see further
Genesis
).
The story of the settlement of the national and tribal ancestors
in Palestine is interrupted by an account of the southward movement
of Jacob (or Israel) and his sons into a district under the
immediate influence of the kings of Egypt. After an interval
of uncertain duration we find in Exodus a numerous people
subjected to rigorous oppression. No longer individual sons of
Jacob or Israel, united tribes were led out by Moses and Aaron;
and, after a series of incidents extending over forty years, the
“children of Israel” invaded the land in which their ancestors
had lived. The traditions embodied in the books Exodus-Joshua
are considerably later than the apparent date of the
events themselves, and amid the diverse and often conflicting
data it is possible to recognize distinct groups due to some extent
to distinct historical conditions. The story of the “exodus” is
that of the religious birth of “Israel,” joined by covenant with
the national god Yahweh
whose aid in times of peril and need
proved his supremacy. In
Moses
q.v.
) was seen the founder of
Israel’s religion and laws; in
Aaron
q.v.
) the prototype of the
Israelite priesthood. Although it is difficult to determine the
true historical kernel, two features are most prominent in the
narratives which the post-exilic compiler has incorporated: the
revelation of Yahweh, and the movement into Palestine. Yahweh
had admittedly been the God of Israel’s ancestors, but his name
was only now made known (Exod. iii. 13 sqq., vi. 2 seq.), and this
conception of a new era in Yahweh’s relations with the people
is associated with the family of Moses and with small groups
from the south of Palestine which reappear in religious movements
in later history (see
Kenites
). Amid a great variety of
motives the prominence of Kadesh in south Palestine is to be
recognized, but it is uncertain what clans or tribes were at
Kadesh, and it is possible that traditions, originally confined to
those with whom the new conception of Yahweh is connected,
were subsequently adopted by others who came to regard themselves
as the worshippers of the only true Yahweh. At all
events, two quite distinct views seem to underlie the opening
books of the Old Testament. The one associates itself with the
ancestors of the Hebrews and has an ethnic character. The
other, part of the religious history of “Israel,” is essentially
bound up with the religious genius of the people, and is partly
connected with clans from the south of Palestine whose influence
appears in later times. Other factors in the literary growth of
the present narratives are not excluded (see further § 8, and
Exodus, The
).
6.
The Monarchy of Israel
.—The book of Joshua continues the
fortunes of the “children of Israel” and describes a successful
occupation of Palestine by the united tribes. This stands in
striking contrast to other records of the partial successes of
individual groups (Judg. i.). The former, however, is based
upon the account of victories by the Ephraimite Joshua over
confederations of petty kings to the south and north of central
Palestine, apparently the specific traditions of the people of
Ephraim describing from their standpoint the entire conquest
of Palestine.
10
The book of Judges represents a period of unrest
after the settlement of the people. External oppression and
internal rivalries rent the Israelites, and in the religious philosophy
of a later (Deuteronomic) age the period is represented as
one of alternate apostasy from and of penitent return to the
Yahweh of the “exodus.” Some vague recollection of known
historical events (§ 3 end) might be claimed among the traditions
ascribed to the closing centuries of the second millennium, but
the view that the prelude to the monarchy was an era when
individual leaders “judged” all Israel finds no support in the
older narratives, where the heroes of the age (whose correct
sequence is uncertain) enjoy only a local fame. The best
historical narratives belong to Israel and Gilead; Judah scarcely
appears, and in a relatively old poetical account of a great fight
of the united tribes against a northern adversary lies outside the
writer’s horizon or interest (Judg. v., see
Deborah
). Stories
of successful warfare and of temporary leaders (see
Abimelech
Ehud
Gideon
Jephthah
) form an introduction to the institution
of the Israelite monarchy, an epoch of supreme importance
in biblical history. The heroic figure who stands at the head
is Saul (“asked”), and two accounts of his rise are recorded.
(1) The Philistines, a foreign people whose presence in Palestine
has already been noticed, had oppressed Israel (cf.
Samson
) until
a brilliant victory was gained by the prophet Samuel, some
account of whose early history is recorded. He himself held
supreme sway over all Israel as the last of the “judges” until
compelled to accede to the popular demand for a king. The
young Saul was chosen by lot and gained unanimous recognition
by delivering Jabesh in Gilead from the Ammonites. (2) But
other traditions represent the people scattered and in hiding;
Israel is groaning under the Philistine yoke, and the unknown
Saul is raised up by Yahweh to save his people. This he accomplishes
with the help of his son Jonathan. The first account,
although now essential to the canonical history, clearly gives
a less authentic account of the change from the “judges” to the
monarchy, while the second is fragmentary and can hardly be
fitted into the present historical thread (see
Saul
). At all events
the first of a series of annalistic notices of the kings of Israel
ascribes to Saul conquests over the surrounding peoples to an
extent which implies that the district of Judah formed part of
his kingdom (1 Sam. xiv. 47 seq). His might is attested also by
the fine elegy (2 Sam. i. 19 sqq.) over the death of two great
Israelite heroes, Saul and Jonathan, knit together by mutual love,
inseparable in life and death, whose unhappy end after a career
of success was a national misfortune. Disaster had come upon
the north, and the plain of Jezreel saw the total defeat of the
king and the rout of his army. The court was hastily removed
across the Jordan to Mahanaim, where Saul’s son Ishbaal
(Ish-bosheth), thanks to his general Abner, recovered some of the
lost prestige. In circumstances which are not detailed, the
kingdom seems to have regained its strength, and Ishbaal is
credited with a reign of two years over Israel and Gilead (2 Sam.
ii. 8-10; contrast v. 11). But at this point the scanty annals are
suspended and the history of the age is given in more popular
sources. Both Israel and Judah had their own annals, brief
excerpts from which appear in the books of Samuel, Kings and
Chronicles, and they are supplemented by fuller narratives of distinct
and more popular origin. The writings are the result of a
continued literary process, and the Israelite national history has
come down to us through Judaean hands, with the result that much
of it has been coloured by late Judaean feeling. It is precisely
in Saul’s time that the account of the Judaean monarchy, or
perhaps of the monarchy from the Judaean standpoint, now
begins.
7.
The Monarchy of Judah
.—Certain traditions of Judah and
Jerusalem appear to have looked back upon a movement from
the south, traces of which underlie the present account of the
“exodus.” The land was full of “sons of Anak,” giants who had
terrified the scouts sent from Kadesh.
Caleb
q.v.
) alone had
distinguished himself by his fearlessness, and the clan Caleb
drove them out from Hebron in south Judah (Josh. xv. 14 sqq.;
cf. also xi. 21 seq.). David and his followers are found in the
south of Hebron, and as they advanced northwards they encountered
wondrous heroes between Gath and Jerusalem (2 Sam.
xxi. 15 sqq.; xxiii. 8 sqq.). After strenuous fighting the district
was cleared, and Jerusalem, taken by the sword, became the
capital. History saw in David the head of a lengthy line of
kings, the founder of the Judaean monarchy, the psalmist and
the priest-king who inaugurated religious institutions now
recognized to be of a distinctly later character. As a result of
this backward projection of later conceptions, the recovery of
the true historical nucleus is difficult. The prominence of Jerusalem,
the centre of post-exilic Judaism, necessarily invited
reflection. Israelite tradition had ascribed the conquest of
Jerusalem, Hebron and other cities of Judah to the Ephraimite
Joshua; Judaean tradition, on the other hand, relates the capture
of the sacred city from a strange and hostile people (2 Sam. v.).
The famous city, within easy reach of the southern desert and
central Palestine (to Hebron and to Samaria the distances are
about 18 and 35 miles respectively), had already entered into Palestinian
history in the “Amarna” age (§ 3). Anathoth, a few miles
to the north-east, points to the cult of the goddess Anath, the
near-lying Nob has suggested the name of the Babylonian Nebo,
and the neighbouring, though unidentified, Beth-Ninib of the
Amarna tablets may indicate the worship of a Babylonian war
and astral god (cf. the solar name Beth-Shemesh). Such was the
religious environment of the ancient city which was destined to
become the centre of Judaism. Judaean tradition dated the
sanctity of Jerusalem from the installation of the ark, a sacred
movable object which symbolized the presence of Yahweh. It
is associated with the half-nomad clans in the south of Palestine,
or with the wanderings of David and his own priest Abiathar;
it is ultimately placed within the newly captured city. Quite
another body of tradition associates it with the invasion of all
the tribes of Israel from beyond the Jordan (see
Ark
). To
combine the heterogeneous narratives and isolated statements
into a consecutive account is impossible; to ignore those which
conflict with the now predominating views would be unmethodical.
When the narratives describe the life of the young David
at the court of the first king of the northern kingdom, when the
scenes cover the district which he took with the sword, and when
the brave Saul is represented in an unfavourable light, one must
allow for the popular tendency to idealize great figures, and for
the Judaean origin of the compilation. To David is ascribed
the sovereignty over a united people. But the stages in his
progress are not clear. After being the popular favourite of
Israel in the little district of Benjamin, he was driven away by
the jealousy and animosity of Saul. Gradually strengthening
his position by alliance with Judaean clans, he became king at
Hebron at the time when Israel suffered defeat in the north.
His subsequent advance to the kingship over Judah and Israel
at Jerusalem is represented as due to the weak condition of
Israel, facilitated by the compliance of Abner; partly, also, to
the long-expressed wish of the Israelites that their old hero should
reign over them. Yet again, Saul had been chosen by Yahweh
to free his people from the Philistines; he had been rejected for
his sins, and had suffered continuously from this enemy; Israel
at his death was left in the unhappy state in which he had found
it; it was the Judaean David, the faithful servant of Yahweh,
who was now chosen to deliver Israel, and to the last the people
gratefully remembered their debt. David accomplished the
conquests of Saul but on a grander scale; “Saul hath slain his
thousands and David his tens of thousands” is the popular
couplet comparing the relative merits of the rival dynasts. A
series of campaigns against Edom, Moab, Ammon and the
Aramaean states, friendly relations with Hiram of Tyre, and
the recognition of his sovereignty by the king of Hamath
on the Orontes, combine to portray a monarchy which was the
ideal.
But in passing from the books of Samuel, with their many rich
and vivid narratives, to the books of Kings, we enter upon
another phase of literature; it is a different atmosphere, due to
the character of the material and the aims of other compilers
(see § 9 beginning). David, the conqueror, was followed by his
son Solomon, famous for his wealth, wisdom and piety, above all
for the magnificent Temple which he built at Jerusalem. Phoenician
artificers were enlisted for the purpose, and with Phoenician
sailors successful trading-journeys were regularly undertaken.
Commercial intercourse with Asia Minor, Arabia, Tarshish
(probably in Spain) and
Ophir
q.v.
) filled his coffers, and his
realm extended from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt.
Tradition depicts him as a worthy successor to his father, and
represents a state of luxury and riches impressive to all who were
familiar with the great Oriental courts. The commercial activity
of the king and the picture of intercourse and wealth are quite
in accordance with what is known of the ancient monarchies,
and could already be illustrated from the Amarna age. Judah
and Israel dwelt at ease, or held the superior position of military
officials, while the earlier inhabitants of the land were put to
forced labour. But another side of the picture shows the
domestic intrigues which darkened the last days of David. The
accession of Solomon had not been without bloodshed, and
Judah, together with David’s old general Joab and his faithful
priest Abiathar, were opposed to the son of a woman who had
been the wife of a Hittite warrior. The era of the Temple of
Jerusalem starts with a new régime, another captain of the army
and another priest. Nevertheless, the enmity of Judah is passed
over, and when the kingdom is divided for administrative purposes
into twelve districts, which ignore the tribal divisions,
the centre of David’s early power is exempt from the duty
of providing supplies (1 Kings iv.). Yet again, the approach of
the divided monarchy is foreshadowed. The employment of
Judaeans and Israelites for Solomon’s palatial buildings, and the
heavy taxation for the upkeep of a court which was the wonder
of the world, caused grave internal discontent. External relations,
too, were unsatisfactory. The Edomites, who had been
almost extirpated by David in the valley of Salt, south of the Dead
Sea, were now strong enough to seek revenge; and the powerful
kingdom of Damascus, whose foundation is ascribed to this
period, began to threaten Israel on the north and north-east.
These troubles, we learn, had affected all Solomon’s reign, and
even Hiram appears to have acquired a portion of Galilee. In
the approaching disruption writers saw the punishment for the
king’s apostasy, and they condemn the sanctuaries in Jerusalem
which he erected to the gods of his heathen wives. Nevertheless,
these places of cult remained some 300 years until almost the
close of the monarchy, when their destruction is attributed to
Josiah (§ 16). When at length Solomon died the opportunity
was at once seized to request from his son Rehoboam a more
generous treatment. The reply is memorable: “My little finger
is thicker than my father’s loins; my father chastised you with
whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” These words were
calculated to inflame a people whom history proves to have been
haughty and high-spirited, and the great Israel renounced its
union with the small district of Judah.
Jeroboam
q.v.
), once one
of Solomon’s officers, became king over the north, and thus the
history of the divided monarchy begins (about 930
B.C.
) with the
Israelite power on both sides of the Jordan and with Judah
extending southwards from a point a few miles north of Jerusalem.
8.
Problems of the Earliest History
.—Biblical history previous to
the separation of Judah and Israel holds a prominent place in current
ideas, since over two-fifths of the entire Old Testament deals with
these early ages. The historical sources for the crucial period, from
the separation to the fall of Jerusalem (586
B.C.
), occupy only about
one-twelfth, and even of this about one-third is spread over some
fifteen years (see below, § 11). From the flourishing days of the later
monarchy and onwards, different writers handled the early history
of their land from different standpoints. The feeling of national
unity between north and south would require historical treatment,
the existence of rival monarchies would demand an explanation.
But the surviving material is extremely uneven; vital events in
these centuries are treated with a slightness in striking contrast to
the relatively detailed evidence for the preceding period—evidence,
however, which is far from being contemporary. Where the
material is fuller, serious discrepancies are found; and where external
evidence is fortunately available, the independent character of the
biblical history is vividly illustrated. The varied traditions up to
this stage cannot be regarded as objective history. It is naturally
impossible to treat them from any modern standpoint as fiction;
they are honest even where they are most untrustworthy. But the
recovery of successive historical nuclei does not furnish a continuous
thread, and if one is to be guided by the historical context of events
the true background to each nucleus must be sought. The northern
kingdom cherished the institution of a monarchy, and in this, as in
all great political events, the prophets took part. The precise part
these figures play is often idealized and expresses the later views of
their prominence. It was only after a bitter experience that the
kingship was no longer regarded as a divine gift, and traditions have
been revised in order to illustrate the opposition to secular authority.
In this and in many other respects the records of the first monarchy
have been elaborated and now reveal traces of differing conceptions
of the events (see
Dan
David
Eli
Samuel
Saul
Solomon
).
The oldest narratives are not in their original contexts, and they
contain features which render it questionable whether a very trustworthy
recollection of the period was retained. Although the rise
of the Hebrew state, at an age when the great powers were quiescent
and when such a people as the Philistines is known to have appeared
upon the scene, is entirely intelligible, it is not improbable that
legends of Saul and David, the heroic founders of the two kingdoms,
have been put in a historical setting with the help of later historical
tradition. It is at least necessary to distinguish provisionally
between a possibly historical framework and narratives which may
be of later growth—between the general outlines which only external
evidence can test and details which cannot be tested and appear
isolated without any cause or devoid of any effect.
Many attempts have been made to present a satisfactory sketch
of the early history and to do justice to (
) the patriarchal narratives,
) the exodus from Egypt and the Israelite invasion, and (
) the
rise of the monarchy. As regards (
), external evidence has already
suggested to scholars that there were Israelites in Palestine before
the invasion; internal historical criticism is against the view that all
the tribes entered under Joshua; and in (
) there are traces of an
actual settlement in the land, entirely distinct from the cycle of
narratives which prepare the way for (
). The various reconstructions
and compromises by modern apologetic and critical writers
alike involve without exception an extremely free treatment of the
biblical sources and the rejection of many important and circumstantial
data.
11
On the one hand, a sweeping invasion of all the
tribes of Israel moved by a common zeal may, like the conquests of
Islam, have produced permanent results. According to this view
the enervating luxury of Palestinian culture almost destroyed
the lofty ideal monotheism inculcated in the desert, and after the
fall of the northern tribes (latter part of the 8th cent.) Judah is
naturally regarded as the sole heir. But such a conquest, and all
that it signifies, conflict both with external evidence (
e.g.
the results
of excavation), and with any careful inspection of the narratives
themselves. On the other hand, the reconstructions which allow a
gradual settlement (perhaps of distinct groups), and an intermingling
with the earlier inhabitants, certainly find support in biblical
evidence, and they have been ingeniously built up with the help of
tribal and other data (
e.g.
Gen. xxxiv., xxxviii.; Judg. i. ix.). But
they imply political, sociological and religious developments which
do not do justice either to the biblical evidence as a whole or to a
comprehensive survey of contemporary conditions.
12
Thus, one of
the important questions is the relation between those who had taken
part in the exodus and the invasion and those who had not. This
inquiry is further complicated by (
), where the history of Israel and
Judah, as related in Judges and 1 Samuel, has caused endless
perplexity. The traditions of the Ephraimite Joshua and of Saul
the first king of (north) Israel virtually treat Judah as part of
Israel and are related to the underlying representations in (
). But
the specific independent Judaean standpoint treats the unification
of the two divisions as the work of David who leaves the heritage
to Solomon. The varied narratives, now due to Judaean editors,
preserve distinct points of view, and it is extremely difficult to
unravel the threads and to determine their relative position in the
history. Finally, the consciousness that the people as a religious
body owed everything to the desert clans (
) (see § 5) subsequently
leaves its mark upon (north) Israelite history (§ 14), but has not the
profound significance which it has in the records of Judah and
Jerusalem. Without sufficient external and independent evidence
wherewith to interpret in the light of history the internal features
of the intricate narratives, any reconstruction would naturally be
hazardous, and all attempts must invariably be considered in the
light of the biblical evidence itself, the date of the Israelite exodus,
and the external conditions. Biblical criticism is concerned with a
composite (Judaean) history based upon other histories (partly of
non-Judaean origin), and the relation between native written
sources and external contemporary evidence (monumental and
archaeological) distinctly forbids any haphazard selection from
accessible sources. The true nature of this relation can be readily
observed in other fields (ancient Britain, Greece, Egypt, &c.),
where, however, the native documents and sources have not that
complexity which characterizes the composite biblical history. (For
the period under review, as it appears in the light of existing external
evidence, see
Palestine
History
.)
9.
The Rival Kingdoms
.—The Palestine of the Hebrews was
but part of a great area breathing the same atmosphere, and there
was little to distinguish Judah from Israel except when they were
distinct political entities. The history of the two kingdoms is
contained in Kings and the later and relatively less trustworthy
Chronicles, which deals with Judah alone. In the former a
separate history of the northern kingdom has been combined
with Judaean history by means of synchronisms in accordance
with a definite scheme. The 480 years from the foundation of the
temple of Jerusalem back to the date of the exodus (1 Kings vi. 1)
corresponds to the period forward to the return from the exile
(§ 20). This falls into three equal divisions, of which the first
ends with Jehoash’s temple-reforms and the second with Hezekiah’s
death. The kingdom of Israel lasts exactly half the time.
Of the 240 years from Jeroboam I., 80 elapse before the Syrian
wars in Ahab’s reign, these cover another 80; the famous king
Jeroboam II. reigns 40 years, and 40 years of decline bring the
kingdom to an end. These figures speak for themselves, and the
present chronology can be accepted only where it is independently
proved to be trustworthy (see further W. R. Smith,
Prophets of Israel
, pp. 144–149). Next, the Judaean compiler
regularly finds in Israel’s troubles the punishment for its schismatic
idolatry; nor does he spare Judah, but judges its kings by
a standard which agrees with the standpoint of Deuteronomy
and is scarcely earlier than the end of the 7th century
B.C.
(§§ 16, 20). But the history of (north) Israel had naturally its
own independent political backgrounds and the literary sources
contain the same internal features as the annals and prophetic
narratives which are already met with in 1 Samuel. Similarly
the thread of the Judaean annals in Kings is also found in
2 Samuel, although the supplementary narratives in Kings are not
so rich or varied as the more popular records in the preceding
books. The striking differences between Samuel and Kings are
due to differences in the writing of the history; independent
Israelite records having been incorporated with those of Judah
and supplemented (with revision) from the Judaean standpoint
(see
Chronicles
Kings
Samuel
).
The Judaean compiler, with his history of the two kingdoms,
looks back upon the time when each laid the foundation of its
subsequent fortunes. His small kingdom of Judah enjoyed an
unbroken dynasty which survived the most serious crises, a
temple which grew in splendour and wealth under royal patronage,
and a legitimate priesthood which owed its origin to
Zadok, the successful rival of David’s priest Abiathar. Israel,
on the other hand, had signed its death-warrant by the institution
of calf-cult, a cult which, however, was scarcely recognized
as contrary to the worship of Yahweh before the denunciations
of Hosea. The scantiness of political information and the distinctive
arrangement of material preclude the attempt to trace
the relative position of the two rivals. Judah had natural
connexions with Edom and southern Palestine; Israel was more
closely associated with Gilead and the Aramaeans of the north.
That Israel was the stronger may be suggested by the acquiescence
of Judah in the new situation. A diversion was caused
by Shishak’s invasion, but of this reappearance of Egypt after
nearly three centuries of inactivity little is preserved in biblical
history. Only the Temple records recall the spoliation of the
sanctuary of Jerusalem, and traditions of Jeroboam I. show
that Shishak’s prominence was well known.
13
Although both
kingdoms suffered, common misfortune did not throw them
together. On the contrary, the statement that there was continual
warfare is supplemented in Chronicles by the story of a
victory over Israel by Abijah the son of Rehoboam. Jeroboam’s
son Nadab perished in a conspiracy whilst besieging the Philistine
city of Gibbethon, and Baasha of (north) Israel seized the throne.
His reign is noteworthy for the entrance of Damascus into
Palestinian politics. Its natural fertility and its commanding
position at the meeting-place of trade-routes from every quarter
made it a dominant factor until its overthrow. In the absence
of its native records its relations with Palestine are not always
clear, but it may be supposed that amid varying political changes
it was able to play a double game. According to the annals,
incessant war prevailed between Baasha and Abijah’s successor,
Asa. It is understood that the former was in league with
Damascus, which had once been hostile to Solomon (1 Kings
xi. 24 seq.)—it is not stated upon whom Asa could rely. However,
Baasha at length seized Ramah about five miles north of
Jerusalem, and the very existence of Judah was threatened. Asa
utilized the treasure of the Temple and palace to induce the
Syrians to break off their relations with Baasha. These sent
troops to harry north Israel, and Baasha was compelled to retire.
Asa, it is evident, was too weak to achieve the remarkable victory
ascribed to him in 2 Chron. xiv. (see
Asa
). As for Baasha, his
short-lived dynasty resembles that of his predecessors. His son
Elah had reigned only two years (like Ishbaal and Nadab) when
he was slain in the midst of a drunken carousal by his captain
Zimri. Meanwhile the Israelite army was again besieging the
Philistines at Gibbethon, and the recurrence of these conflicts
points to a critical situation in a Danite locality in which Judah
itself (although ignored by the writers), must have been vitally
concerned. The army preferred their general Omri, and marching
upon Zimri at Tirzah burnt the palace over his head. A
fresh rival immediately appeared, the otherwise unknown Tibni,
son of Ginath. Israel was divided into two camps, until, on the
death of Tibni and his brother Joram, Omri became sole king
c.
887
B.C.
). The scanty details of these important events
must naturally be contrasted with the comparatively full
accounts of earlier Philistine wars and internal conflicts in
narratives which date from this or even a later age.
10.
The Dynasty of Omri
.—
Omri
q.v.
), the founder of one of
the greatest dynasties of Israel, was contemporary with the
revival of Tyre under Ithobaal, and the relationship between
the states is seen in the marriage of Omri’s son Ahab to Jezebel,
the priest-king’s daughter. His most notable recorded achievement
was the subjugation of Moab and the seizure of part of its
territory. The discovery of the inscription of a later king of
Moab
q.v.
) has proved that the east-Jordanic tribes were no
uncivilized or barbaric folk; material wealth, a considerable
religious and political organization, and the cultivation of
letters (as exemplified in the style of the inscription) portray
conditions which allow us to form some conception of life in
Israel itself. Moreover, Judah (now under Jehoshaphat) enjoyed
intimate relations with Israel during Omri’s dynasty, and the
traditions of intermarriage, and of co-operation in commerce and
war, imply what was practically a united Palestine. Alliance
with Phoenicia gave the impulse to extended intercourse; trading
expeditions were undertaken from the Gulf of Akaba, and Ahab
built himself a palace decorated with ivory. The cult of the Baal
of Tyre followed Jezebel to the royal city Samaria and even found
its way into Jerusalem. This, the natural result of matrimonial
and political alliance, already met with under Solomon, receives
the usual denunciation. The conflict between Yahweh and Baal
and the defeat of the latter are the characteristic notes of the
religious history of the period, and they leave their impression
upon the records, which are now more abundant. Although
little is preserved of Omri’s history, the fact that the northern
kingdom long continued to be called by the Assyrians after his
name is a significant indication of his great reputation. Assyria
14
was now making itself felt in the west for the first time since the
days of Tiglath-Pileser I. (
c.
1100
B.C.
), and external sources come
to our aid. Assur-nazir-pal III. had exacted tribute from north
Syria (
c.
870
B.C.
), and his successor Shalmaneser II., in the
course of a series of expeditions, succeeded in gaining the greater
part of that land. A defensive coalition was formed in which
the kings of Cilicia, Hamath, the Phoenician coast, Damascus
and Ammon, the Arabs of the Syrian desert, and “Ahabbu
Sirlai” were concerned. In the last, we must recognize the
Israelite Ahab. His own contribution of 10,000 men and 12,000
chariots perhaps included levies from Judah and Moab (cf. for the
number 1 Kings x. 26). In 854 the allies at least maintained
themselves at the battle of Karkar (perhaps Apamea to the north
of Hamath). In 849 and 846 other indecisive battles were fought,
but the precise constitution of the coalition is not recorded. In
842 Shalmaneser records a campaign against Hazael of Damascus;
no coalition is mentioned, although a battle was fought at Sanir
(Hermon, Deut. iii. 9), and the cities of Hauran to the south of
Damascus were spoiled. Tribute was received from Tyre and
Sidon; and Jehu, who was now king of Israel, sent his gifts of
gold, silver, &c., to the conqueror. The Assyrian inscription
(the so-called “Black Obelisk” now in the British Museum),
which records the submission of the petty kings, gives an interesting
representation of the humble Israelite emissaries with
their long fringed robes and strongly marked physiognomy (see
Costume
, fig. 9). Yet another expedition in 839 would seem to
show that Damascus was neither crushed nor helpless, but thenceforth
for a number of years Assyria was fully occupied elsewhere
and the west was left to itself. The value of this external evidence
for the history of Israel is enhanced by the fact that biblical
tradition associates the changes in the thrones of Israel and
Damascus with the work of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, but
handles the period without a single reference to the Assyrian
Empire. Ahab, it seems, had aroused popular resentment by
encroaching upon the rights of the people to their landed possessions;
had it not been for
Jezebel
q.v.
) the tragedy of Naboth
would not have occurred. The worship of Baal of Tyre roused
a small circle of zealots, and again the Phoenician marriage was
the cause of the evil. We read the history from the point of
view of prophets. Elijah of Gilead led the revolt. To one who
favoured simplicity of cult the new worship was a desecration of
Yahweh, and, braving the anger of the king and queen, he foreshadowed
their fate. Hostility towards the dynasty culminated
a few years later in a conspiracy which placed on the throne the
general Jehu, the son of one Jehoshaphat (or, otherwise, of
Nimshi). The work which Elijah began was completed by
Elisha, who supported Jehu and the new dynasty. A massacre
ensued in which the royal families of Israel and Judah perished.
While the extirpation of the cult of Baal was furthered in Israel
by Jonadab the Rechabite, it was the “people of the land” who
undertook a similar reform in Judah.
Jehu
q.v.
) became king
as the champion of the purer worship of Yahweh. The descendants
of the detested Phoenician marriage were rooted out, and
unless the close intercourse between Israel and Judah had been
suddenly broken, it would be supposed that the new king at
least laid claim to the south. The events form one of the
fundamental problems of biblical history.
11.
Damascus, Israel and Judah.
—The appearance of Assyria
in the Mediterranean coast-lands had produced the results
which inevitably follow when a great empire comes into contact
with minor states. It awakened fresh possibilities—successful
combination against a common foe, the sinking of petty rivalries,
the chance of gaining favour by a neutrality which was scarcely
benevolent. The alliances, counter-alliances and far-reaching
political combinations which spring up at every advance of the
greater powers are often perplexing in the absence of records of
the states concerned. Even the biblical traditions alone do not
always represent the same attitude, and our present sources preserve
the work of several hands. Hazael of Damascus, Jehu of
Israel and Elisha the prophet are the three men of the new age
linked together in the words of one writer as though commissioned
for like ends (1 Kings xix. 15–17). Hostility to Phoenicia (
i.e.
the Baal of Tyre) is as intelligible as a tendency to look to Aramaean
neighbours. Though Elisha sent to anoint Jehu as king,
he was none the less on most intimate terms with Bar-hadad
(Old. Test. Ben-hadad) of Damascus and recognized Hazael as
its future ruler. It is a natural assumption that Damascus
could still count upon Israel as an ally in 842; not until the withdrawal
of Assyria and the accession of Jehu did the situation
change. “In those days Yahweh began to cut short” (or,
altering the text, “to be angry with”) “Israel.” This brief
notice heralds the commencement of Hazael’s attack upon
Israelite territory east of the Jordan (2 Kings x. 32). The origin
of the outbreak is uncertain. It has been assumed that Israel
had withdrawn from the great coalition, that Jehu sent tribute
to Shalmaneser to obtain that monarch’s recognition, and that
Hazael consequently seized the first opportunity to retaliate.
Certain traditions, it is true, indicate that Israel had been at war
with the Aramaeans from before 854 to 842, and that Hazael
was attacking Gilead at the time when Jehu revolted; but in
the midst of these are other traditions of the close and friendly
relations between Israel and Damascus! With these perplexing
data the position of Judah is inextricably involved.
The special points which have to be noticed in the records for
this brief period (1 Kings xvii.–2 Kings xi.) concern both literary
and historical criticism.
15
A number of narratives illustrate the
work of the prophets, and sometimes purely political records appear
to have been used for the purpose (see
Elijah
Elisha
). If Elijah
is the prophet of the fall of Omri’s dynasty, Elisha is no less the
prophet of Jehu and his successors; and it is extremely probable
that his lifework was confined to the dynasty which he inaugurated.
16
In the present narratives, however, the stories in which he possesses
influence with king and court are placed before the rise of Jehu,
and some of them point to a state of hostility with Damascus before
he foresees the atrocities which Hazael will perpetrate. But Ahab’s
wars with Syria can with difficulty be reconciled with the Assyrian
evidence (see
Ahab
), and the narratives, largely anonymous, agree
in a singular manner with what is known of the serious conflicts
which, it is said, began in Jehu’s time. Moreover, the account of the
joint undertaking by Judah (under Jehoshaphat) and Israel against
Syria at Ramoth-Gilead at the time of Ahab’s death, and again
(under Ahaziah) when Jehoram was wounded, shortly before the
accession of Jehu, are historical doublets, and they can hardly
be harmonized either with the known events of 854 and 842 or with
the course of the intervening years. Further, all the traditions
point clearly to the very close union of Israel and Judah at this
period, a union which is apt to be obscured by the fact that the
annalistic summaries of each kingdom are mainly independent.
Thus we may contrast the favourable Judaean view of Jehoshaphat
with the condemnation passed upon Ahab and Jezebel, whose
daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. It is
noteworthy, also, that an Ahaziah and a Jehoram appear as kings of
Israel, and (in the reverse order) of Judah, and somewhat similar
incidents recur in the now separate histories of the two kingdoms.
The most striking is a great revolt in south Palestine. The alliance
between Jehoshaphat and Ahab doubtless continued when the latter
was succeeded by his son Ahaziah, and some disaster befell their
trading fleet in the Gulf of Akaba (1 Kings xxii. 48 seq.; 2 Chron. xx.
35–37). Next came the revolt of Moab (2 Kings i. 1), and Ahaziah,
after the briefest of reigns, was followed by Jehoram, whose Judaean
contemporary was Jehoshaphat (ch. iii.), or perhaps rather his own
namesake (i. 17). The popular story of Jehoram’s campaign against
Moab, with which Edom was probably allied (see
Moab
), hints at a
disastrous ending, and the Judaean annals, in their turn, record the
revolt of Edom and the Philistine Libnah (see
Philistines
), and allude
obscurely to a defeat of the Judaean Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 20–22).
Further details in 2 Chron. xxi.–xxii. 1 even record an invasion of
Philistines and Arabians (? Edomites), an attack upon Jerusalem,
the removal of the palace treasures and of all the royal sons with the
sole exception of Jehoahaz,
i.e.
Ahaziah (see
Jehoram
Jehoshaphat
).
Had the two kingdoms been under a single head, these
features might find an explanation, but it must be allowed that it is
extremely difficult to fit the general situation into our present
history, and to determine where the line is to be drawn between
trustworthy and untrustworthy details. Moreover, of the various
accounts of the massacre of the princes of Judah, the Judaean
ascribes it not to Jehu and the reforming party (2 Kings x. 13 seq.)
but to
Athaliah
q.v.
). Only the babe Jehoash was saved, and he
remained hidden in the Temple adjoining the palace itself. The
queen, Athaliah, despite the weak state of Judah after the revolt
in Philistia and Edom, actually appears to have maintained herself
for six years, until the priests slew her in a conspiracy, overthrew the
cult of Baal, and crowned the young child. It is a new source which
is here suddenly introduced, belonging apparently to a history of the
Temple; it throws no light upon the relations between Judah with
its priests and Israel with its prophets, the circumstances of the
regency under the priest Jehoiada are ignored, and the Temple reforms
occupy the first place in the compiler’s interest. The Judaean
annals then relate Hazael’s advance to Gath; the city was captured
and Jerusalem was saved only by using the Temple and palace
treasure as a bribe. On the other hand, Chronicles has a different
story with a novel prelude. Jehoash, it is said, turned away from
Yahweh after the death of Jehoiada and gave heed to the Judaean
nobles, “wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for their guilt,”
prophets were sent to bring them back but they turned a deaf ear.
The climax of iniquity was the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah.
Soon after, a small band of Syrians entered Judah, destroyed its
princes, and sent the spoil to the king of Damascus; the disaster is
regarded as a prompt retribution (2 Chron. xxiv.). The inferiority of
Chronicles as a historical source and its varied examples of “tendency-writing”
must be set against its possible access to traditions
as trustworthy as those in Kings.
17
In the present instance the
novel details cannot be lightly brushed aside. The position of
Judah at this period must be estimated (
) from the preceding
years of intimate relationship with Israel to the accession of Jehu, and
) from the calamity about half a century later when Jerusalem
was sacked by Israel. The Judaean narratives do not allow us to
fill the gap or to determine whether Judaean policy under the regent
Jehoiada would be friendly or hostile to Israel, or whether Judaean
nobles may have severed the earlier bond of union. If the latter
actually occurred, the hostility of the Israelite prophets is only to be
expected. But it is to be presumed that the punishment came from
Israel—the use of Syrian mercenaries not excluded—and if, instead
of using his treasure to ward off the invasion of Syria, Jehoash bribed
Damascus to break off relations with Israel, an alternative explanation
of the origin of the Aramaean wars may be found.
18
12.
The Aramaean Wars
.—If the records leave it uncertain (
whether Jehu (like Tyre and Sidon) sent tribute to Shalmaneser
as a sign of submission or, while severing relations with Hazael,
sought the favour of Assyria, and (
) whether Judah only escaped
Hazael’s vengeance by a timely bribe or, in freeing itself
from Israel, had bribed Hazael to create a diversion, it appears
that the southern kingdom suffered little in the disastrous wars
between Damascus and Israel. There were, indeed, internal
troubles, and Jehoash perished in a conspiracy. His son
Amaziah had some difficulty in gaining the kingdom and showed
unwonted leniency in sparing the children of his father’s murderers.
This was a departure from the customs of the age, and
was perhaps influenced less by generosity than by expediency.
Israel, on the other hand, was almost annihilated. The Syrians
seized Gilead, crossed over into Palestine, and occupied the land.
Jehu’s son Jehoahaz saw his army made “like the dust in threshing,”
and the desperate condition of the country recalls the
straits in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xiii. 6, 7, 19–22), and the days
before the great overthrow of the northern power as described
in Judges v. 6–8. The impression left by the horrors of the
age is clear from the allusions to the barbarities committed by
Damascus and its Ammonite allies upon Gilead (Amos i. 3, 13),
and in the account of the interview between Elisha and Hazael
(2 Kings viii. 12). Several of the situations can be more vividly
realized from the narratives of Syrian wars ascribed to the time
of Omri’s dynasty, even if these did not originally refer to the
later period. Under Joash, son of Jehoahaz, the tide turned.
Elisha was apparently the champion, and posterity told of his
exploits when Samaria was visited with the sword. Thrice
Joash smote the Syrians—in accordance with the last words of
the dying prophet—and Aphek in the Sharon plain, famous in
history for Israel’s disasters, now witnessed three victories.
The enemy under Hazael’s son Ben-hadad (properly Bar-hadad)
was driven out and Joash regained the territory which his father
had lost (2 Kings xiii. 25); it may reasonably be supposed that a
treaty was concluded (cf. 1 Kings xx. 34). But the peace does
not seem to have been popular. The story of the last scene in
Elisha’s life implies in Joash an easily contented disposition
which hindered him from completing his successes. Syria
had not been crushed, and the failure to utilize the opportunity
was an act of impolitic leniency for which Israel was bound to
suffer (2 Kings xiii. 19). Elisha’s indignation can be illustrated
by the denunciation passed upon an anonymous king by the
prophetic party on a similar occasion (1 Kings xx. 35–43).
At this stage it is necessary to notice the fresh invasion of Syria
by Hadad (Adad)-nirari, who besieged Mari, king of Damascus,
and exacted a heavy tribute (
c.
800
B.C.
). A diversion of this
kind may explain the Israelite victories; the subsequent withdrawal
of Assyria may have afforded the occasion for retaliation.
Those in Israel who remembered the previous war between
Assyria and Damascus would realize the recuperative power of
the latter, and would perceive the danger of the short-sighted
policy of Joash. It is interesting to find that Hadad-nirari
claims tribute from Tyre, Sidon and Beth-Omri (Israel), also
from Edom and Palaštu (Philistia). There are no signs of an
extensive coalition as in the days of Shalmaneser; Ammon is
probably included under Damascus; the position of Moab—which
had freed itself from Jehoram of Israel—can hardly be
calculated. But the absence of Judah is surprising. Both
Jehoash (of Judah) and his son Amaziah left behind them a great
name; and the latter was comparable only to David (2 Kings
xiv. 3). He defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt, and hence it
is conceivable that Amaziah’s kingdom extended over both Edom
and Philistia. A vaunting challenge to Joash (of Israel) gave
rise to one of the two fables that are preserved in the Old Testament
(Judg. ix. 8 sqq.; see
Abimelech
). It was followed by
a battle at Beth-shemesh; the scene would suggest that Philistia
also was involved. The result was the route of Judah, the capture
of Amaziah, the destruction of the northern wall of Jerusalem, the
sacking of the temple and palace, and the removal of hostages to
Samaria (2 Kings xiv. 12 sqq.). Only a few words are preserved,
but the details, when carefully weighed, are extremely significant.
This momentous event for the southern kingdom was scarcely
the outcome of a challenge to a trial of strength; it was rather the
sequel to a period of smouldering jealousy and hostility.
The Judaean records have obscured the history since the days of
Omri’s dynasty, when Israel and Judah were as one, when they
were moved by common aims and by a single reforming zeal, and
only Israel’s vengeance gives the measure of the injuries she had
received. That the Judaean compiler has not given fuller information
is not surprising; the wonder is that he should have given so
much. It is one of those epoch-making facts in the light of which
the course of the history of the preceding and following years
must be estimated. It is taken, strangely enough, from an Israelite
source, but the tone of the whole is quite dispassionate and objective.
It needs little reflection to perceive that the position of Jerusalem
and Judah was now hardly one of independence, and the conflicting
chronological notices betray the attempt to maintain intact the thread
of Judaean history. So, on the one hand, the year of the disaster
sees the death of the Israelite king, and Amaziah survives for fifteen
years, while, on the other, twenty-seven years elapse between the
battle and the accession of Uzziah, the next king of Judah.
19
The importance of the historical questions regarding relations
between Damascus, Israel and Judah is clear. The defeat of Syria
by Joash (of Israel) was not final. The decisive victories were
gained by Jeroboam II. He saved Israel from being blotted out,
and through his successes “the children of Israel dwelt in their tents
as of old” (2 Kings xiii. 5, xiv. 26 seq.). Syria must have resumed
warfare with redoubled energy, and a state of affairs is presupposed
which can be pictured with the help of narratives that deal
with similar historical situations. In particular, the overthrow
of Israel as foreshadowed in 1 Kings xxii. implies an Aramaean
invasion (cf.
vv.
17, 25), after a treaty (xx. 35 sqq.), although this
can scarcely be justified by the events which followed the death of
Ahab, in whose time they are now placed.
For the understanding of these great wars between Syria and
Israel (which the traditional chronology spreads over eighty years),
for the significance of the crushing defeats and inspiring victories,
and for the alternations of despair and hope, a careful study of all
the records of relations between Israel and the north is at least
instructive, and it is important to remember that, although the
present historical outlines are scanty and incomplete, some—if not
all—of the analogous descriptions in their present form are certainly
later than the second half of the 9th century
B.C.
, the period in which
these great events fall.
20
13.
Political Development.
—Under Jeroboam II. the borders
of Israel were restored, and in this political revival the prophets
again took part.
21
The defeat of Ben-hadad by the king of
Hamath and the quiescence of Assyria may have encouraged
Israelite ambitions, but until more is known of the campaigns
of Hadad-nirari and of Shalmaneser III. (against Damascus,
773
B.C.
) the situation cannot be safely gauged. Moab was
probably tributary; the position of Judah and Edom is involved
with the chronological problems. According to the Judaean
annals, the “people of Judah” set Azariah (Uzziah) upon his
father’s throne; and to his long reign of fifty-two years are
ascribed conquests over Philistia and Edom, the fortification of
Jerusalem and the reorganization of the army. As the relations
with Israel are not specified, the sequel to Amaziah’s defeat is a
matter for conjecture; although, when at the death of Jeroboam
Israel hastened to its end amid anarchy and dissension, it is
hardly likely that the southern kingdom was unmoved. All
that can be recognized from the biblical records, however, is
the period of internal prosperity which Israel and Judah enjoyed
under
Jeroboam
and
Uzziah
qq.v.
) respectively.
It is difficult to trace the biblical history century by century
as it reaches these last years of bitter conflict and of renewed
prosperity. The northern kingdom at the height of its power
included Judah, it extended its territory east of the Jordan
towards the north and the south, and maintained close relations
with Phoenicia and the Aramaean states. It had a national
history which left its impress upon the popular imagination,
and sundry fragments of tradition reveal the pride which the
patriot felt in the past. An original close connexion is felt with
the east of the Jordan and with Gilead; stories of invasion and
conquest express themselves in varied forms. In so far as internal
wealth and luxury presuppose the control of the trade-routes,
periodical alliances are implied in which Judah, willingly
or unwillingly, was included. But the Judaean records do not
allow us to trace its independent history with confidence, and
our estimate can scarcely base itself solely upon the accidental
fulness or scantiness of political details. In the subsequent
disasters of Israel (§ 15) we may perceive the growing supremacy
of Judah, and the Assyrian inscriptions clearly indicate the
dependence of Judaean politics upon its relations with Edom and
Arab tribes on the south-east and with Philistia on the west.
Whatever had been the effect of the movement of the Purasati
some centuries previously, the Philistines (
i.e.
the people of
Philistia) are now found in possession of a mature organization,
and the Assyrian evidence is of considerable value for an estimate
of the stories of conflict and covenant, of hostility and friendship,
which were current in south Palestine. The extension of the
term “Judah” (cf. that of “Israel” and “Samaria”) is involved
with the incorporation of non-Judaean elements. The
country for ten miles north of Jerusalem was the exposed and
highly debatable district ascribed to the young tribe of Benjamin
(the favourite “brother” of both Judah and Joseph; Gen.
xxxvii., xxxix. sqq.); the border-line between the rival kingdoms
oscillated, and consequently the political position of the smaller
and half-desert Judaean state depended upon the attitude of its
neighbours. It is possible that tradition is right in supposing
that “Judah went down from his brethren” (Gen. xxxviii. 1;
cf. Judg. i. 3). Its monarchy traced its origin to Hebron in
the south, and its growth is contemporary with a decline in
Israel (§ 7). It is at least probable that when Israel was supreme
an independent Judah would centre around a more southerly
site than Jerusalem. It is naturally uncertain how far the
traditions of David can be utilized; but they illustrate Judaean
situations when they depict intrigues with Israelite officials,
vassalage under Philistia, and friendly relations with Moab, or
when they suggest how enmity between Israel and Ammon
could be turned to useful account. Tradition, in fact, is
concentrated upon the rise of the Judaean dynasty under David,
but there are significant periods before the rise of both Jehoash
and Uzziah upon which the historical records maintain a
perplexing silence.
The Hebrews of Israel and Judah were, political history apart,
men of the same general stamp, with the same cult and custom;
for the study of religion and social usages, therefore, they can
be treated as a single people. The institution of the monarchy
was opposed to the simpler local forms of government, and a
military régime had distinct disadvantages (cf. 1 Sam. viii. 11–18).
The king stood at the head, as the court of final appeal, and upon
him and his officers depended the people’s welfare. A more intricate
social organization caused internal weakness, and Eastern
history shows with what rapidity peoples who have become
strong by discipline and moderation pass from the height of
their glory into extreme corruption and disintegration.
22
This
was Israel’s fate. Opposition to social abuses and enmity
towards religious innovations are regarded as the factors which
led to the overthrow of Omri’s dynasty by Jehu, and when
Israel seemed to be at the height of its glory under Jeroboam II.
warning voices again made themselves heard. The two factors
are inseparable, for in ancient times no sharp dividing-line was
drawn between religious and civic duties: righteousness and
equity, religious duty and national custom were one.
Elaborate legal enactments codified in Babylonia by the 20th
century
B.C.
find striking parallels in Hebrew, late Jewish (Talmudic),
Syrian and Mahommedan law, or in the unwritten usages of all ages;
for even where there were neither written laws nor duly instituted
lawgivers, there was no lawlessness, since custom and belief were,
and still are, almost inflexible. Various collections are preserved
in the Old Testament; they are attributed to the time of Moses the
lawgiver, who stands at the beginning of Israelite national and
religious history. But many of the laws were quite unsuitable
for the circumstances of his age, and the belief that a body of intricate
and even contradictory legislation was imposed suddenly upon a
people newly emerged from bondage in Egypt raises insurmountable
objections, and underestimates the fact that legal usage existed in
the earliest stages of society, and therefore in pre-Mosaic times.
The more important question is the date of the laws in their present
form and content. Collections of laws are found in Deuteronomy
and in exilic and post-exilic writings; groups of a relatively earlier
type are preserved in Exod. xxxiv. 14-26, xx. 23-xxiii., and (of another
stamp) in Lev. xvii.–xxvi. (now in post-exilic form). For a useful
conspectus of details, see J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby.
The Hexateuch
(vol. i., appendix); C. F. Kent,
Israel’s Laws and
Legal Enactments
(1907); and in general I. Benzinger, articles
“Government,” “Family” and “Law and Justice,”
Ency. Bib.
, and
G. B. Gray, “Law Literature,” ib. (the literary growth of legislation).
Reference may also be made, for illustrative material, to W. R.
Smith,
Kinship and Marriage
Religion of the Semites
; to E. Day,
Social Life of the Hebrews
; and, for some comparison of customary
usage in the Semitic field, to S. A. Cook,
Laws of Moses and Code of
Hammurabi
14.
Religion and the Prophets
.—The elements of the thought
and religion of the Hebrews do not sever them from their
neighbours; similar features of cult are met with elsewhere
under different names. Hebrew religious institutions can be
understood from the biblical evidence studied in the light of
comparative religion; and without going afield to Babylonia,
Assyria or Egypt, valuable data are furnished by the cults of
Phoenicia, Syria and Arabia, and these in turn can be illustrated
from excavation and from modern custom. Every religion has
its customary cult and ritual, its recognized times, places and
persons for the observance. Worship is simpler at the smaller
shrines than at the more famous temples; and, as the rulers are
the patrons of the religion and are brought into contact with
the religious personnel, the character of the social organization
leaves its mark upon those who hold religious and judicial functions
alike. The Hebrews shared the paradoxes of Orientals,
and religious enthusiasm and ecstasy were prominent features.
Seers and prophets of all kinds ranged from those who were
consulted for daily mundane affairs to those who revealed the
oracles in times of stress, from those who haunted local holy
sites to those high in royal favour, from the quiet domestic
communities to the austere mountain recluse. Among these
were to be found the most sordid opportunism and the most
heroic self-effacement, the crassest supernaturalism and—the
loftiest conceptions of practical morality. A development of
ideals and a growth of spirituality can be traced which render
the biblical writings with their series of prophecies a unique
phenomenon.
23
The prophets taught that the national existence
of the people was bound up with religious and social conditions;
they were in a sense the politicians of the age, and to
regard them simply as foretellers of the future is to limit their
sphere unduly. They took a keen interest in all the political
vicissitudes of the Oriental world. Men of all standards of
integrity, they were exposed to external influences, but whether
divided among themselves in their adherence to conflicting
parties, or isolated in their fierce denunciation of contemporary
abuses, they shared alike in the worship of Yahweh whose inspiration
they claimed. A recollection of the manifold forms which
religious life and thought have taken in Christendom or in Islam,
and the passions which are so easily engendered among opposing
sects, will prevent a one-sided estimate of the religious standpoints
which the writings betray; and to the recognition that
they represent lofty ideals it must be added that the great
prophets, like all great thinkers, were in advance of their age.
The prophets are thoroughly Oriental figures, and the interpretation
of their profound religious experiences requires a
particular sympathy which is not inherent in Western minds.
Their writings are to be understood in the light of their age and of
the conditions which gave birth to them. With few exceptions
they are preserved in fragmentary form, with additions and adjustments
which were necessary in order to make them applicable
to later conditions. When, as often, the great figures have been
made the spokesmen of the thought of subsequent generations,
the historical criticism of the prophecies becomes one of peculiar
difficulty.
24
According to the historical traditions it is precisely
in the age of Jeroboam II. and Uzziah that the first of the
extant prophecies begin (see
Amos
and
Hosea
). Here it is
enough to observe that the highly advanced doctrines of the distinctive
character of Yahweh, as ascribed to the 8th century
B.C.
presuppose a foundation and development. But the evidence
does not allow us to trace the earlier progress of the ideas.
Yahwism presents itself under a variety of aspects, and the
history of Israel’s relations to the God Yahweh (whose name is
not necessarily of Israelite origin) can hardly be disentangled
amid the complicated threads of the earlier history. The view
that the seeds of Yahwism were planted in the young Israelite
nation in the days of the “exodus” conflicts with the belief that
the worship of Yahweh began in the pre-Mosaic age. Nevertheless,
it implies that religion passed into a new stage through
the influence of Moses, and to this we find a relatively less complete
analogy in the specific north Israelite traditions of the
age of Jehu. The change from the dynasty of Omri to that of
Jehu has been treated by several hands, and the writers, in their
recognition of the introduction of a new tendency, have obscured
the fact that the cult of Yahweh had flourished even under such
a king as Ahab. While the influence of the great prophets
Elijah and Elisha is clearly visible, it is instructive to find that
the south, too, has its share in the inauguration of the new era.
At Horeb, the mount of God, was located the dramatic theophany
which heralded to Elijah the advent of the sword, and Jehu’s
supporter in his sanguinary measures belongs to the Rechabites,
a sect which felt itself to be the true worshipping community
of Yahweh and is closely associated with the Kenites, the kin
of Moses. It was at the holy well of Kadesh, in the sacred
mounts of Sinai and Horeb, and in the field of Edom that the
Yahweh of Moses was found, and scattered traces survive of a
definite belief in the entrance into Palestine of a movement
uncompromisingly devoted to the purer worship of Yahweh.
The course of the dynasty of Jehu—the reforms, the disastrous
Aramaean wars, and, at length, Yahweh’s “arrow of victory”—constituted
an epoch in the Israelite history, and it is regarded
as such.
25
The problem of the history of Yahwism depends essentially upon
the view adopted as to the date and origin of the biblical details
and their validity for the various historical and religious conditions
they presuppose. Yahwism is a religion which appears upon a soil
saturated with ideas and usages which find their parallel in extra-biblical
sources and in neighbouring lands. The problem cannot
be approached from modern preconceptions because there was much
associated with the worship of Yahweh which only gradually came
to be recognized as repugnant, and there was much in earlier ages
and in other lands which reflects an elevated and even complex
religious philosophy. In the south of the Sinaitic peninsula, remains
have been found of an elaborate half-Egyptian, half-Semitic cultus
(Petrie,
Researches in Sinai
, xiii.), and not only does Edom possess
some reputation for “wisdom,” but, where this district is concerned,
the old Arabian religion (whose historical connexion with Palestine
is still imperfectly known) claims some attention. The characteristic
denunciations of corruption and lifeless ritual in the writings
of the prophets and the emphasis which is laid upon purity and
simplicity of religious life are suggestive of the influence of the
nomadic spirit rather than of an internal evolution on Palestinian
soil. Desert pastoral life does not necessarily imply any intellectual
inferiority, and its religious conceptions, though susceptible of modification,
are not artificially moulded through the influence of other
civilizations. Nomadic life is recognized by Arabian writers themselves
as possessing a relative superiority, and its characteristic
purity of manner and its reaction against corruption and luxury
are not incompatible with a warlike spirit. If nomadism may be
recognized as one of the factors in the growth of Yahwism, there is
something to be said for the hypothesis which associates it with the
clans connected with the Levites (see E. Meyer,
Israeliten
, pp. 82
sqq.; B. Luther, ib. 138). It is, however, obvious that the influence
due to immigrants could be, and doubtless was, exerted at
more than one period (see §§ 18, 20; also
Hebrew Religion
Priest
).
15.
The Fall of the Israelite Monarchy.
—The prosperity of
Israel was its undoing. The disorders that hastened its end find
an analogy in the events of the more obscure period after the
death of the earlier Jeroboam. Only the briefest details are
given. Zechariah was slain after six months by Shallum ben
Jabesh in Ibleam; but the usurper fell a month later to
Menahem
q.v.
), who only after much bloodshed established his position.
Assyria again appeared upon the scene under Tiglath-pileser
IV. (745–728
B.C.
).
26
His approach was the signal for the
formation of a coalition, which was overthrown in 738. Among
those who paid tribute were Raṣun (the biblical Rezin) of
Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, the kings of Tyre, Byblos and
Hamath and the queen of Aribi (Arabia, the Syrian desert).
Israel was once more in league with Damascus and Phoenicia,
and the biblical records must be read in the light of political
history. Judah was probably holding aloof. Its king, Uzziah,
was a leper in his latter days, and his son and regent, Jotham,
claims notice for the circumstantial reference (2 Chron. xxvii.; cf.
xxvi. 8) to his subjugation of Ammon—the natural allies of Damascus—for
three years. Scarcely had Assyria withdrawn before
Menahem lost his life in a conspiracy, and Pekah with the help
of Gilead made himself king. The new movement was evidently
anti-Assyrian, and strenuous endeavours were made to present
a united front. It is suggestive to find Judah the centre
of attack.
27
Raṣun and Pekah directed their blows from the
north, Philistia threatened the west flank, and the Edomites
who drove out the Judaeans from Elath (on the Gulf of ‘Akaba)
were no doubt only taking their part in the concerted action.
A more critical situation could scarcely be imagined. The throne
of David was then occupied by the young Ahaz, Jotham’s son.
In this crisis we meet with
Isaiah
q.v.
), one of the finest of
Hebrew prophets. The disorganized state of Egypt and the uncertain
allegiance of the desert tribes left Judah without direct
aid; on the other hand, opposition to Assyria among the conflicting
interests of Palestine and Syria was rarely unanimous.
Either in the natural course of events—to preserve the unity of
his empire—or influenced by the rich presents of gold and silver
with which Ahaz accompanied his appeal for help, Tiglath-pileser
intervened with campaigns against Philistia (734
B.C.
) and
Damascus (733–732). Israel was punished by the ravaging
of the northern districts, and the king claims to have carried
away the people of “the house of Omri.” Pekah was slain and
one
Hoshea
q.v.
) was recognized as his successor. Assyrian
officers were placed in the land and Judah thus gained its
deliverance at the expense of Israel. But the proud Israelites
did not remain submissive for long; Damascus had indeed
fallen, but neither Philistia nor Edom had yet been crushed.
At this stage a new problem becomes urgent. A number of
petty peoples, of whom little definite is known, fringed Palestine
from the south of Judah and the Delta to the Syrian desert.
They belong to an area which merges itself in the west into Egypt,
and Egypt in fact had a hereditary claim upon it. Continued
intercourse between Egypt, Gaza and north Arabia is natural
in view of the trade-routes which connected them, and on several
occasions joint action on the part of Edomites (with allied
tribes) and the Philistines is recorded, or may be inferred. The
part played by Egypt proper in the ensuing anti-Assyrian
combinations is not clearly known; with a number of petty
dynasts fomenting discontent and revolt, there was an absence
of cohesion in that ancient empire previous to the rise of the
Ethiopian dynasty. Consequently the references to “Egypt”
(Heb.
Miṣrayim
, Ass.
Muṣri
) sometimes suggest that the geographical
term was really extended beyond the bounds of Egypt
proper towards those districts where Egyptian influence or domination
was or had been recognized (see further
Mizraim
).
When Israel began to recover its prosperity and regained
confidence, its policy halted between obedience to Assyria and
reliance upon this ambiguous “Egypt.” The situation is illustrated
in the writings of
Hosea
q.v.
). When at length Tiglath-pileser
died, in 727, the slumbering revolt became general; Israel
refused the usual tribute to its overlord, and definitely threw in
its lot with “Egypt.” In due course Samaria was besieged
for three years by Shalmaneser IV. The alliance with So
(Seveh, Sibi) of “Egypt,” upon whom hopes had been placed,
proved futile, and the forebodings of keen-sighted prophets were
justified. Although no evidence is at hand, it is probable that
Ahaz of Judah rendered service to Assyria by keeping the allies
in check; possible, also, that the former enemies of Jerusalem
had now been induced to turn against Samaria. The actual
capture of the Israelite capital is claimed by Sargon (722), who
removed 27,290 of its inhabitants and fifty chariots. Other
peoples were introduced, officers were placed in charge, and the
usual tribute re-imposed. Another revolt was planned in 720 in
which the province of Samaria joined with Hamath and Damascus,
with the Phoenician Arpad and Ṣimura, and with Gaza and
“Egypt.” Two battles, one at Karkar in the north, another at
Rapiḥ (Raphia) on the border of Egypt, sufficed to quell the
disturbance. The desert peoples who paid tribute on this
occasion still continued restless, and in 715 Sargon removed men
of Tamūd, Ibādid, Marsiman, Ḥayāpa, “the remote Arabs of
the desert,” and placed them in the land of Beth-Omri. Sargon’s
statement is significant for the internal history; but
unfortunately the biblical historians take no further interest
in the fortunes of the northern kingdom after the fall of Samaria,
and see in Judah the sole survivor of the Israelite tribes (see
2 Kings xvii. 7–23). Yet the situation in this neglected district
must continue to provoke inquiry.
16.
Judah and Assyria
.—Amid these changes Judah was intimately
connected with the south Palestinian peoples (see further
Philistines
). Ahaz had recognized the sovereignty of Assyria
and visited Tiglath-pileser at Damascus. The Temple records
describe the innovations he introduced on his return. Under his
son Hezekiah there were fresh disturbances in the southern states,
and anti-Assyrian intrigues began to take a more definite shape
among the Philistine cities. Ashdod openly revolted and found
support in Moab, Edom, Judah, and the still ambiguous “Egypt.”
This step may possibly be connected with the attempt of Marduk
(Merodach)-baladan in south Babylonia to form a league against
Assyria (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12); at all events Ashdod fell after a three
years’ siege (711) and for a time there was peace. But with the
death of Sargon in 705 there was another great outburst;
practically the whole of Palestine and Syria was in arms, and
the integrity of Sennacherib’s empire was threatened. In both
Judah and Philistia the anti-Assyrian party was not without
opposition, and those who adhered or favoured adherence to
the great power were justified by the result. The inevitable
lack of cohesion among the petty states weakened the national
cause. At Sennacherib’s approach, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab and
Edom submitted; Ekron, Ascalon, Lachish and Jerusalem held
out strenuously. The southern allies (with “Egypt”) were
defeated at Eltekeh (Josh. xix. 44). Hezekiah was besieged
and compelled to submit (701). The small kings who had
remained faithful were rewarded by an extension of their territories,
and Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza were enriched at Judah’s
expense. These events are related in Sennacherib’s inscription;
the biblical records preserve their own traditions (see
Hezekiah
).
If the impression left upon current thought can be estimated
from certain of the utterances of the court-prophet Isaiah and
the Judaean countryman
Micah
q.v.
), the light which these
throw upon internal conditions must also be used to gauge the
real extent of the religious changes ascribed to Hezekiah. A
brazen serpent, whose institution was attributed to Moses, had
not hitherto been considered out of place in the cult; its destruction
was perhaps the king’s most notable reform.
In the long reign of his son Manasseh later writers saw the
deathblow to the Judaean kingdom. Much is related of his
wickedness and enmity to the followers of Yahweh, but few
political details have come down. It is uncertain whether
Sennacherib invaded Judah again shortly before his death, nevertheless
the land was practically under the control of Assyria.
Both Esar-haddon (681–668) and Assur-bani-pal (668–
c.
626)
number among their tributaries Tyre, Ammon, Moab, Edom,
Ascalon, Gaza and Manasseh himself,
28
and cuneiform dockets
unearthed at Gezer suggest the presence of Assyrian garrisons
there (and no doubt also elsewhere) to ensure allegiance. The
situation was conducive to the spread of foreign customs, and
the condemnation passed upon Manasseh thus perhaps becomes
more significant. Precisely what form his worship took is a
matter of conjecture; but it is possible that the religion must
not be judged too strictly from the standpoint of the late compiler,
and that Manasseh merely assimilated the older Yahweh-worship
to new Assyrian forms.
29
Politics and religion, however,
were inseparable, and the supremacy of Assyria meant the
supremacy of the Assyrian pantheon.
If Judah was compelled to take part in the Assyrian campaigns
against Egypt, Arabia (the Syrian desert) and Tyre, this would
only be in accordance with a vassal’s duty. But when tradition
preserves some recollection of an offence for which Manasseh was
taken to Babylon to explain his conduct (2 Chron. xxxiii.), also
of the settling of foreign colonists in Samaria by Esar-haddon
(Ezra iv. 2), there is just a possibility that Judah made some
attempt to gain independence. According to Assur-bani-pal all
the western lands were inflamed by the revolt of his brother
Samas-sum-ukin. What part Judah took in the Transjordanic
disturbances, in which Moab fought invading Arabian tribes on
behalf of Assyria, is unknown (see
Moab
). Manasseh’s son Amon
fell in a court intrigue and “the people of the land,” after avenging
the murder, set up in his place the infant Josiah (637). The
circumstances imply a regency, but the records are silent upon
the outlook. The assumption that the decay of Assyria awoke
the national feeling of independence is perhaps justified by those
events which made the greatest impression upon the compiler,
and an account is given of Josiah’s religious reforms, based upon
a source apparently identical with that which described the work
of Jehoash. In an age when the oppression and corruption of the
ruling classes had been such that those who cherished the old
worship of Yahweh dared not confide in their most intimate companions
(Mic. vii. 5, 6), no social reform was possible; but now
the young Josiah, the popular choice, was upon the throne. A
roll, it is said, was found in the Temple, its contents struck
terror into the hearts of the priests and king, and it led to a
solemn covenant before Yahweh to observe the provisions of the
law-book which had been so opportunely recovered.
That the writer (2 Kings xxii. seq.) meant to describe the discovery
of Deuteronomy is evident from the events which followed; and this
identification of the roll, already made by Jerome, Chrysostom
and others, has been substantiated by modern literary criticism
since De Wette (1805). (See
Deuteronomy
Josiah
.) Some very
interesting parallels have been cited from Egyptian and Assyrian
records where religious texts, said to have been found in temples,
or oracles from the distant past, have come to light at the very time
when “the days were full.”
30
There is, however, no real proof for
the traditional antiquity of Deuteronomy. The book forms a very
distinctive landmark in the religious history by reason of its attitude
to cult and ritual (see
Hebrew Religion
, § 7). In particular
it is aimed against the worship at the numerous minor sanctuaries
and inculcates the sole pre-eminence of the one great sanctuary—the
Temple of Jerusalem. This centralization involved the removal of
the local priests and a modification of ritual and legal observance.
The fall of Samaria, Sennacherib’s devastation of Judah, and the
growth of Jerusalem as the capital, had tended to raise the position
of the Temple, although Israel itself, as also Judah, had famous
sanctuaries of its own. From the standpoint of the popular religion,
the removal of the local altars, like Hezekiah’s destruction of the
brazen serpent, would be an act of desecration, an iconoclasm which
can be partly appreciated from the sentiments of 2 Kings xviii. 22,
and partly also from the modern Wahhabite reformation (of the 19th
century). But the details and success of the reforms, when viewed
in the light of the testimony of contemporary prophets, are uncertain.
The book of Deuteronomy crystallizes a doctrine; it is the
codification of teaching which presupposes a carefully prepared soil.
The account of Josiah’s work, like that of Hezekiah, is written by one
of the Deuteronomic school: that is to say, the writer describes the
promulgation of the teaching under which he lives. It is part of
the scheme which runs through the book of Kings, and its apparent
object is to show that the Temple planned by David and founded by
Solomon ultimately gained its true position as the only sanctuary
of Yahweh to which his worshippers should repair. Accordingly,
in handling Josiah’s successors the writer no longer refers to the
high places. But if Josiah carried out the reforms ascribed to him
they were of no lasting effect. This is conclusively shown by the
writings of Jeremiah (xxv. 3–7, xxxvi. 2 seq.) and Ezekiel. Josiah
himself is praised for his justice, but faithless Judah is insincere
(Jer. iii. 10), and those who claim to possess Yahweh’s law are
denounced (viii. 8). If Israel could appear to be better than Judah
(iii. 11; Ezek. xvi., xxiii.), the religious revival was a practical failure,
and it was not until a century later that the opportunity again came
to put any new teaching into effect (§ 20). On the other hand,
the book of Deuteronomy has a characteristic social-religious side;
its humanity, philanthropy and charity are the distinctive features
of its laws, and Josiah’s reputation (Jer. xxii. 15 seq.) and the
circumstances in which he was chosen king may suggest that
he, like Jehoash (2 Kings xi. 17; cf. xxiii. 3), had entered into a
reciprocal covenant with a people who, as Micah’s writings would
indicate, had suffered grievous oppression and misery.
31
17.
The Fall of the Judaean Monarchy
.—In Josiah’s reign a
new era was beginning in the history of the world. Assyria was
rapidly decaying and Egypt had recovered from the blows of
Assur-bani-pal (to which the Hebrew prophet Nahum alludes,
iii. 8–10). Psammetichus (Psamtek) I., one of the ablest of
Egyptian rulers for many centuries, threw off the Assyrian yoke
with the help of troops from Asia Minor and employed these to
guard his eastern frontiers at Defneh. He also revived the old
trading-connexions between Egypt and Phoenicia. A Chaldean
prince, Nabopolassar, set himself up in Babylonia, and Assyria
was compelled to invoke the aid of the Aškuza. It was perhaps
after this that an inroad of
Scythians
q.v.
) occurred (
c.
626
B.C.
);
if it did not actually touch Judah, the advent of the people of
the north appears to have caused great alarm (Jer. iv.-vi.:
Zephaniah). Bethshean in Samaria has perhaps preserved in its
later (though temporary) name Scythopolis an echo of the invasion.
32
Later, Necho, son of Psammetichus, proposed to add
to Egypt some of the Assyrian provinces, and marched through
Palestine. Josiah at once interposed; it is uncertain whether, in
spite of the power of Egypt, he had hopes of extending his kingdom,
or whether the famous reformer was, like Manasseh, a vassal
of Assyria. The book of Kings gives the standpoint of a later
Judaean writer, but Josiah’s authority over a much larger area
than Judah alone is suggested by xxiii. 19 (part of an addition),
and by the references to the border at Riblah in Ezek. vi. 14,
xi. 10 seq. He was slain at Megiddo in 608, and Egypt, as in the
long-distant past, again held Palestine and Syria. The Judaeans
made Jehoahaz (or Shallum) their king, but the Pharaoh banished
him to Egypt three months later and appointed his brother
Jehoiakim. Shortly afterwards Nineveh fell, and with it the
empire which had dominated the fortunes of Palestine for over
two centuries (see § 10). Nabonidus (Nabunaid) king of Babylonia
(556
B.C.
) saw in the disaster the vengeance of the gods for
the sacrilege of Sennacherib; the Hebrew prophets, for their
part, exulted over Yahweh’s far-reaching judgment. The newly
formed Chaldean power at once recognized in Necho a dangerous
rival and Nabopolassar sent his son Nebuchadrezzar, who overthrew
the Egyptian forces at Carchemish (605). The battle was
the turning-point of the age, and with it the succession of the new
Chaldean or Babylonian kingdom was assured. But the relations
between Egypt and Judah were not broken off. The course
of events is not clear, but
Jehoiakim
q.v.
) at all events was inclined
to rely upon Egypt. He died just as Nebuchadrezzar,
seeing his warnings disregarded, was preparing to lay siege to
Jerusalem. His young son Jehoiachin surrendered after a
three months’ reign, with his mother and the court; they were
taken away to Babylonia, together with a number of the artisan
class (596). Jehoiakim’s brother, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, was
set in his place under an oath of allegiance, which he broke, preferring
Hophra the new king of Egypt. A few years later the
second siege took place. It began on the tenth day of the tenth
month, January 587. The looked-for intervention of Egypt was
unavailing, although a temporary raising of the siege inspired wild
hopes. Desertion, pestilence and famine added to the usual
horrors of a siege, and at length on the ninth day of the fourth
month 586, a breach was made in the walls. Zedekiah fled
towards the Jordan valley but was seized and taken to Nebuchadrezzar
at Riblah (45 m. south of Hamath). His sons were slain
before his eyes, and he himself was blinded and carried off to
Babylon after a reign of eleven years. The Babylonian Nebuzaradan
was sent to take vengeance upon the rebellious city, and
on the seventh day of the fifth month 586
B.C.
Jerusalem was
destroyed. The Temple, palace and city buildings were burned,
the walls broken down, the chief priest Seraiah, the second priest
Zephaniah, and other leaders were put to death, and a large body
of people was again carried away. The disaster became the
great epoch-making event for Jewish history and literature.
Throughout these stormy years the prophet
Jeremiah
q.v.
) had
realized that Judah’s only hope lay in submission to Babylonia.
Stigmatized as a traitor, scorned and even imprisoned, he had not
ceased to utter his warnings to deaf ears, although Zedekiah
himself was perhaps open to persuasion. Now the penalty had
been paid, and the Babylonians, whose policy was less destructive
than that of Assyria, contented themselves with appointing as
governor a certain Gedaliah. The new centre was Mizpah, a
commanding eminence and sanctuary, about 5 m. N.W. of
Jerusalem; and here Gedaliah issued an appeal to the people to
be loyal to Babylonia and to resume their former peaceful occupations.
The land had not been devastated, and many gladly
returned from their hiding-places in Moab, Edom and Ammon.
But discontented survivors of the royal family under Ishmael
intrigued with Baalis, king of Ammon. The plot resulted in
the murder of Gedaliah and an unsuccessful attempt to carry off
various princesses and officials who had been left in the governor’s
care. This new confusion and a natural fear of Babylonia’s
vengeance led many to feel that their only safety lay in flight to
Egypt, and, although warned by Jeremiah that even there the
sword would find them, they fled south and took refuge in
Tahpanhes (
Daphnae
q.v.
), afterwards forming small settlements
in other parts of Egypt. But the thread of the history
is broken, and apart from an allusion to the favour shown to
the captive Jehoiachin (with which the books of Jeremiah and
Kings conclude), there is a gap in the records, and subsequent
events are viewed from a new standpoint (§ 20).
The last few years of the Judaean kingdom present several difficult
problems.
) That there was some fluctuation of tradition is evident in the
case of Jehoiakim, with whose quiet end (2 Kings xxiv. 6 [see also
Lucian]; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8 [Septuagint]) contrast the fate foreshadowed
in Jer. xxii. 18 seq., xxxvi. 30 (cf. Jos.
Ant.
x. 6, 2 seq.).
The tradition of his captivity (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6; Dan. i. 2) has
apparently confused him with Jehoiachin, and the latter’s reign is
so brief that some overlapping is conceivable. Moreover, the
prophecy in Jer. xxxiv. 5 that Zedekiah would die in peace is not
borne out by the history, nor does Josiah’s fate agree with the
promise in 2 Kings xxii. 20. There is also an evident relation between
the pairs: Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah
e.g.
length of reigns), and the difficulty felt in regard to the second
and third is obvious in the attempts of the Jewish historian Josephus
to provide a compromise. The contemporary prophecies ascribed
to Jeremiah and Ezekiel require careful examination in this connexion,
partly as regards their traditional background (especially
the headings and setting), and partly for their contents, the details of
which sometimes do not admit of a literal interpretation in accordance
with our present historical material (cf. Ezek. xix. 3–9, where
the two brothers carried off to Egypt and Babylon respectively would
seem to be Jehoahaz and his nephew Jehoiachin).
) Some fluctuation is obvious in the number, dates and extent
of the deportations. Jer. lii. 28–30 gives a total of 4600 persons,
in contrast to 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16 (the numbers are not inclusive),
and reckons three deportations in the 7th (? 17th), 18th and 23rd
years of Nebuchadrezzar. Only the second is specifically said to be
from Jerusalem (the remaining are of Judaeans), and the last has
been plausibly connected with the murder of Gedaliah, an interval
of five years being assumed. For this twenty-third year Josephus
Ant.
x. 9, 7) gives an invasion of Egypt and an attack upon Ammon,
Moab and Palestine (see
Nebuchadrezzar
).
) That the exile lasted seventy years (? from 586
B.C.
to the completion
of the second temple) is the view of the canonical history
(2 Chron. xxxvi. 21; Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10; Zech. i. 12; cf. Tyre,
Isa. xxiii. 15), but it is usually reckoned from the first deportation,
which was looked upon as of greater significance than the second
(Jer. xxiv. xxix.), and it may be a round number. Another difficulty
is the interpretation of the 40 years in Ezek. iv. 6 (cf. Egypt, xxix. 11),
and the 390 in
v.
5 (Septuagint 150 or 190; 130 in Jos. x. 9, 7 end).
A period of fifty years is allowed by the chronological scheme
(1 Kings vi. 1; cf. Jos.
c.
Ap.
i. 21), and the late book of Baruch (vi. 3)
even speaks of seven generations. Varying chronological schemes
may have been current and some weight must be laid upon the
remarkable vagueness of the historical information in later
writings (see
Daniel
).
) The attitude of the neighbouring peoples constitutes another serious
problem (cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 2 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5, where Lucian’s
recension and the Septuagint respectively add the Samaritans!), in
view of the circumstances of Gedaliah’s appointment (Jer. xl. 11, see
above) as contrasted with the frequent prophecies against Ammon,
Moab and Edom which seem to be contemporary (see
Edom
Moab
).
) Finally, the recurrence of similar historical situations in Judaean
history must be considered. The period under review, with its relations
between Judah and Egypt, can be illustrated by prophecies
ascribed to a similar situation in the time of Hezekiah. But the
destruction of Jerusalem is not quite unique, and somewhat later
we meet with indirect evidence for at least one similar disaster upon
which the records are silent. There are a number of apparently
related passages which, however, on internal grounds, are unsuitable
to the present period, and when they show independent signs of a
later date (in their present form), there is a very strong probability
that they refer to such subsequent disasters. The scantiness of
historical tradition makes a final solution impossible, but the study
of these years has an important bearing on the history of the later
Judaean state, which has been characteristically treated from the
standpoint of exiles who returned from Babylonia and regard themselves
as the kernel of “Israel.” From this point of view, the
desire to intensify the denudation of Palestine and the fate of its
remnant, and to look to the Babylonian exiles for the future, can
probably be recognized in the writings attributed to contemporary
prophets.
33
18.
Internal Conditions and the Exile
.—Many of the exiles
accepted their lot and settled down in Babylonia (cf. Jer. xxix.
4–7); Jewish colonies, too, were being founded in Egypt. The
agriculturists and herdsmen who had been left in Palestine
formed, as always, the staple population, and it is impossible to
imagine either Judah or Israel as denuded of its inhabitants.
The down-trodden peasants were left in peace to divide the land
among them, and new conditions arose as they took over the
ownerless estates. But the old continuity was not entirely
broken; there was a return to earlier conditions, and life moved
more freely in its wonted channels. The fall of the monarchy
involved a reversion to a pre-monarchical state. It had scarcely
been otherwise in Israel. The Israelites who had been carried
off by the Assyrians were also removed from the cult of the land
(cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Ruth i. 15 seq.). It is possible that some had
escaped by taking timely refuge among their brethren in Judah;
indeed, if national tradition availed, there were doubtless times
when Judah cast its eye upon the land with which it had been
so intimately connected. It would certainly be unwise to draw a
sharp boundary line between the two districts; kings of Judah
could be tempted to restore the kingdom of their traditional
founder, or Assyria might be complaisant towards a faithful
Judaean vassal. The character of the Assyrian domination over
Israel must not be misunderstood; the regular payment of
tribute and the provision of troops were the main requirements,
and the position of the masses underwent little change if an
Assyrian governor took the place of an unpopular native ruler.
The two sections of the Hebrews who had had so much in
common were scarcely severed by a border-line only a few miles
to the north of Jerusalem. But Israel after the fall of Samaria
is artificially excluded from the Judaean horizon, and lies as a
foreign land, although Judah itself had suffered from the intrusion
of foreigners in the preceding centuries of war and turmoil,
and strangers had settled in her midst, had formed part of the
royal guard, or had even served as janissaries (§ 15, end).
Samaria had experienced several changes in its original
population,
34
and an instructive story tells how the colonists,
in their ignorance of the religion of their new home, incurred the
divine wrath.
Cujus regio ejus religio
—settlement upon a new
soil involved dependence upon its god, and accordingly priests
were sent to instruct the Samaritans in the fear of Yahweh.
Thenceforth they continued the worship of the Israelite Yahweh
along with their own native cults (2 Kings xvii. 24–28, 33).
Their descendants claimed participation in the privileges of
the Judaeans (cf. Jer. xli. 5), and must have identified themselves
with the old stock (Ezra iv. 2). Whatever recollection they
preserved of their origin and of the circumstances of their entry
would be retold from a new standpoint; the ethnological traditions
would gain a new meaning; the assimilation would in
time become complete. In view of subsequent events it would
be difficult to find a more interesting subject of inquiry than
the internal religious and sociological conditions in Samaria at
this age.
To the prophets the religious position was lower in Judah
than in Samaria, whose iniquities were less grievous (Jer. iii.
11 seq., xxiii. 11 sqq.; Ezek. xvi. 51). The greater prevalence
of heathen elements in Jerusalem, as detailed in the reforms of
Josiah or in the writings of the prophets (cf. Ezek. viii.), would
at least suggest that the destruction of the state was not entirely
a disaster. To this catastrophe may be due the fragmentary
character of old Judaean historical traditions. Moreover, the
land was purified when it became divorced from the practices
of a luxurious court and lost many of its worst inhabitants.
In Israel as in Judah the political disasters not only meant
a shifting of population, they also brought into prominence
the old popular and non-official religion, the character
of which is not to be condemned because of the attitude of
lofty prophets in advance of their age. When there were sects
like the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), when the Judaean fields could
produce a Micah or a Zephaniah, and when Israel no doubt
had men who inherited the spirit of a Hosea, the nature of the
underlying conditions can be more justly appreciated. The
writings of the prophets were cherished, not only in the unfavourable
atmosphere of courts (see Jer. xxxvi., 21 sqq.), but
also in the circles of their followers (Isa. viii. 16). In the quiet
smaller sanctuaries the old-time beliefs were maintained, and the
priests, often perhaps of the older native stock (cf. 2 Kings
xvii. 28 and above), were the recognized guardians of the religious
cults. The old stories of earlier days encircle places which,
though denounced for their corruption, were not regarded as
illegitimate, and in the form in which the dim traditions of the
past are now preserved they reveal an attempt to purify popular
belief and thought. In the domestic circles of prophetic
communities the part played by their great heads in history
did not suffer in the telling, and it is probable that some part
at least of the extant history of the Israelite kingdom passed
through the hands of men whose interest lay in the pre-eminence
of their seers and their beneficent deeds on behalf of these small
communities. This interest and the popular tone of the history
may be combined with the fact that the literature does not take
us into the midst of that world of activity in which the events
unfolded themselves.
Although the records preserve complete silence upon the period
now under review, it is necessary to free oneself from the narrow outlook
of the later Judaean compilers. It is a gratuitous assumption
that the history of (north) Israel ceased with the fall of Samaria or
that Judah then took over Israelite literature and inherited the old
Israelite spirit: the question of the preservation of earlier writings
is of historical importance. It is true that the situation in Israel
or Samaria continues obscure, but a careful study of literary productions,
evidently not earlier than the 7th century
B.C.
, reveals a
particular loftiness of conception and a tendency which finds its
parallels in Hosea and approximates the peculiar characteristics
of the Deuteronomic school of thought. But the history which the
Judaean writers have handed down is influenced by the later hostility
between Judah and Samaria. The traditional bond between the
north and south which nothing could efface (cf. Jos.
Ant.
, xi. 8, 6) has
been carried back to the earliest ages; yet the present period, after
the age of rival kingdoms, Judah and Israel, and before the foundation
of Judaism, is that in which the historical background for the
inclusion of Judah among the “sons” of Israel is equally suitable
(§§ 5, 20, end). The circumstances favoured a closer alliance
between the people of Palestine, and a greater prominence of the
old holy places (Hebron, Bethel, Shechem, &c.), of which the ruined
Jerusalem would not be one, and the existing condition of Judah
and Israel from internal and non-political points of view—not their
condition in the pre-monarchical ages—is the more crucial problem
in biblical history.
35
19.
Persian Period.
36
—The course of events from the middle
of the 6th century
B.C.
to the close of the Persian period is
lamentably obscure, although much indirect evidence indicates
that this age holds the key to the growth of written biblical
history. It was an age of literary activity which manifested
itself, not in contemporary historical records—only a few of
which have survived—but rather in the special treatment of
previously existing sources. The problems are of unusual
intricacy and additional light is needed from external evidence.
It will be convenient to turn to this first. Scarcely 40 years
after the destruction of Jerusalem, a new power appeared in the
east in the person of Cyrus the Great. Babylon speedily fell
(539
B.C.
) and a fresh era opened. To the petty states this meant
only a change of masters; they now became part of one of the
largest empires of antiquity. The prophets who had marked
in the past the advent of Assyrians and Chaldeans now fixed
their eyes upon the advance of Cyrus, confident that the fall
of Babylon would bring the restoration of their fortunes. Cyrus
was hailed as the divinely appointed saviour, the anointed one
of Yahweh. The poetic imagery in which the prophets clothed
the doom of Babylon, like the romantic account of Herodotus
(i. 191), falls short of the simple contemporary account of Cyrus
himself. He did not fulfil the detailed predictions, and the
events did not reach the ideals of Hebrew writers; but these
anticipations may have influenced the form which the Jewish
traditions subsequently took. Nevertheless, if Cyrus was not
originally a Persian and was not a worshipper of Yahweh
(Isa. xli. 25), he was at least tolerant towards subject races and
their religions, and the persistent traditions unmistakably point
to the honour in which his memory was held. Throughout the
Persian supremacy Palestine was necessarily influenced by
the course of events in Phoenicia and Egypt (with which
intercourse was continual), and some light may thus be indirectly
thrown on its otherwise obscure political history. Thus,
when Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, made his great expedition
against Egypt, with the fleets of Phoenicia and Cyprus and
with the camels of the Arabians, it is highly probable that
Palestine itself was concerned. Also, the revolt which broke
out in the Persian provinces at this juncture may have extended
to Palestine; although the usurper Darius encountered his most
serious opposition in the north and north-east of his empire. An
outburst of Jewish religious feeling is dated in the second year
of Darius (520), but whether Judah was making a bold bid for
independence or had received special favour for abstaining
from the above revolts, external evidence alone can decide.
Towards the close of the reign of Darius there was a fresh revolt
in Egypt; it was quelled by Xerxes (485–465), who did not
imitate the religious tolerance of his predecessors. Artaxerxes I.
Longimanus (465–425), attracts attention because the famous
Jewish reformers Ezra and Nehemiah flourished under a king
of this name. Other revolts occurred in Egypt, and for these
and also for the rebellion of the Persian satrap Megabyzos
c.
448–447), independent evidence for the position of Judah is
needed, since a catastrophe apparently befell the unfortunate
state before Nehemiah appears upon the scene. Little is known
of the mild and indolent Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (404–359).
With the growing weakness of the Persian empire Egypt reasserted
its independence for a time. In the reign of Artaxerxes III.
Ochus (359–338), Egypt, Phoenicia and Cyprus were in revolt;
the rising was quelled without mercy, and the details of
the vengeance are valuable for the possible fate of Palestine
itself. The Jewish historian Josephus (
Ant.
xi. 7) records
the enslavement of the Jews, the pollution of the Temple by a
certain Bagoses (see
Bagoas
), and a seven years’ punishment.
Other late sources narrate the destruction of Jericho and a
deportation of the Jews to Babylonia and to Hyrcania (on the
Caspian Sea). The evidence for the catastrophes under
Artaxerxes I. and III. (see
Artaxerxes
), exclusively contained
in biblical and in external tradition respectively, is of particular
importance, since several biblical passages refer to disasters
similar to those of 586 but presuppose different conditions and are
apparently of later origin.
37
The murder of Artaxerxes III. by
Bagoses gave a set-back to the revival of the Persian Empire.
Under Darius Codomannus (336–330) the advancing Greek
power brought matters to a head, and at the battle of Issus
in 333 Alexander settled its fate. The overthrow of Tyre
and Gaza secured the possession of the coast and the Jewish
state entered upon the Greek period. (See § 25.)
During these two centuries the Jews in Palestine had been only
one of an aggregate of subject peoples enjoying internal freedom
provided in return for a regular tribute. They lived in comparative
quietude; although Herodotus knows the Palestinian coast he does
not mention the Jews. The earlier Persian kings acknowledged
the various religions of the petty peoples; they were also patrons of
their temples and would take care to preserve an ancient right of
asylum or the privileges of long-established cults.
38
Cyrus on entering
Babylon had even restored the gods to the cities to which they
belonged.
39
Consequently much interest attaches to the evidence
which illustrates the environment of the Jews during this period.
Those who had been scattered from Palestine lived in small colonies,
sometimes mingling and intermarrying with the natives, sometimes
strictly preserving their own individuality. Some took root in the
strange lands, and, as later popular stories indicate, evidently reached
high positions; others, retaining a more vivid tradition of the land
of their fathers, cherished the ideal of a restored Jerusalem. Excavation
at
Nippur
q.v.
) in Babylonia has brought to light numerous
contract tablets of the 5th century
B.C.
with Hebrew proper names
(Haggai, Hanani, Gedaliah, &c.). Papyri from Elephantine in
Upper Egypt, of the same age, proceed from Jewish families
who carry on a flourishing business, live among Egyptians and
Persians, and take their oaths in courts of law in the name of the god
“Yahu,” the “God of Heaven,” whose temple dated from the last
Egyptian kings. Indeed, it was claimed that Cambyses had left
the sanctuary unharmed but had destroyed the temples of the
Egyptians. In Elephantine, as in Nippur, the legal usages show
that similar elements of Babylonio-Assyrian culture prevailed, and
the evidence from two such widely separated fields is instructive
for conditions in Palestine itself.
40
20.
The Restoration of Judah.
—The biblical history for the
Persian period is contained in a new source—the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah, whose standpoint and period are that of
Chronicles, with which they are closely joined. After a brief
description of the fall of Jerusalem the “seventy years” of
the exile are passed over, and we are plunged into a history of
the return (2 Chron. xxxvi.; Ezra i.). Although Palestine had not
been depopulated, and many of the exiled Jews remained in
Persia, the standpoint is that of those who returned from
Babylon. Settled in and around Jerusalem, they look upon
themselves as the sole community, the true Israel, even as it was
believed that once before Israel entered and developed independently
in the land of its ancestors. They look back from the
age when half-suppressed hostility with Samaria had broken
out, and when an exclusive Judaism had been formed. The
interest of the writers is as usual in the religious history; they
were indifferent to, or perhaps rather ignorant of, the strict
order of events. Their narratives can be partially supplemented
from other sources (Haggai; Zechariah i.–viii.; Isa. xl.–lxvi.;
Malachi), but a consecutive sketch is impossible.
41
In 561
B.C.
the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin, had received
special marks of favour from Nebuchadrezzar’s son Amil-marduk.
So little is known of this act of recognition that
its significance can only be conjectured. A little later Tyre
received as its king Merbaal (555–552) who had been fetched from
Babylonia. Babylonia was politically unsettled, the representative
of the Davidic dynasty had descendants; if Babylon
was assured of the allegiance of Judah further acts of clemency
may well have followed. But the later recension of Judaean
history—our sole source—entirely ignores the elevation of
Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxv. 27 sqq.; Jer. lii. 31–34), and proceeds
at once to the first year of Cyrus, who proclaims as his divine
mission the rebuilding of the Temple (538). The Judaean
Sheshbazzar (a corruption of some Babylonian name) brought
back the Temple vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had carried
away and prepared to undertake the work at the expense of
the royal purse. An immense body of exiles is said to have
returned at this time to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, who was
of Davidic descent, and the priest Jeshua or Joshua, the
grandson of the murdered Seraiah (Ezra i.–iii.; v. 13–vi. 5).
When these refused the proffered help of the people of Samaria,
men of the same faith as themselves (iv. 2), their troubles began,
and the Samaritans retaliated by preventing the rebuilding. The
next historical notice is dated in the second year of Darius (520)
when two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, came forward to
kindle the Judaeans to new efforts, and in spite of opposition
the work went steadily onwards, thanks to the favour of Darius,
until the Temple was completed four years later (Ezra v. 2, vi. 13
sqq.). On the other hand, from the independent writings
ascribed to these prophets, it appears that no considerable body
of exiles could have returned—it is still an event of the future
(Zech. ii. 7, vi. 15); little, if anything, had been done to the
Temple (Hag. ii. 15); and Zerubbabel is the one to take in
hand and complete the great undertaking (Zech. iv. 9). The
prophets address themselves to men living in comfortable
abodes with olive-fields and vineyards, suffering from bad seasons
and agricultural depression, and though the country is unsettled
there is no reference to any active opposition on the
part of Samaritans. So far from drawing any lesson from
the brilliant event in the reign of Cyrus, the prophets imply
that Yahweh’s wrath is still upon the unfortunate city and that
Persia is still the oppressor. Consequently, although small
bodies of individuals no doubt came back to Judah from time
to time, and some special mark of favour may have been shown
by Cyrus, the opinion has gained ground since the early arguments
of E. Schrader (
Stud. u. Krit.
, 1867, pp. 460–504), that the compiler’s
representation of the history is untrustworthy. His main
object is to make the new Israel, the post-exilic community at
Jerusalem, continuous, as a society, with the old Israel.
42
Greater
weight must be laid upon the independent evidence of the
prophetical writings, and the objection that Palestine could not
have produced the religious fervency of Haggai or Zechariah
without an initial impulse from Babylonia begs the question.
Unfortunately the internal conditions in the 6th century
B.C.
can be only indirectly estimated (§ 18), and the political position
must remain for the present quite uncertain. In Zerubbabel
the people beheld once more a ruler of the Davidic race. The
new temple heralded a new future; the mournful fasts commemorative
of Jerusalem’s disasters would become feasts;
Yahweh had left the Temple at the fall of Jerusalem, but had now
returned to sanctify it with his presence; the city had purged
its iniquity and was fit once more to become the central sanctuary.
So Haggai sees in Zerubbabel the representative of the
ideal kingdom, the trusted and highly favoured minister who was
the signet-ring upon Yahweh’s hand (contrast Hag. ii. 24 with Jer.
xxii. 23). Zechariah, in his turn, proclaims the overthrow of
all difficulties in the path of the new king, who shall rule in
glory supported by the priest (Zech. vi.). What political
aspirations were revived, what other writers were inspired by
these momentous events are questions of inference.
A work which inculcates the dependence of the state upon the
purity of its ruler is the unfinished book of Kings with its history
of the Davidic dynasty and the Temple. Its ideals culminate in
Josiah (§ 16, end), and there is a strong presumption that it is
intended to impress upon the new era the lessons drawn from the
past. Its treatment of the monarchy is only part of a great and now
highly complicated literary undertaking (traceable in the books
Joshua to Kings), inspired with the thought and coloured by
language characteristic of Deuteronomy (especially the secondary
portions), which forms the necessary introduction. Whatever
reforms Josiah actually accomplished, the restoration afforded the
opportunity of bringing the Deuteronomic teaching into action;
though it is more probable that Deuteronomy itself in the main is
not much earlier than the second half of the 6th century
B.C.
43
It
shows a strong nationalist feeling which is not restricted to Judah
alone, but comprises a greater Israel from Kadesh in Naphtali in
the north to Hebron in the south, and even extends beyond the
Jordan. Distinctive non-Judaean features are included, as in the
Samaritan liturgical office (Deut. xxvii. 14–26), and the evidence for
the conclusion that traditions originally of (north) Israelite interest
were taken over and adapted to the later standpoint of Judah and
Jerusalem (viz. in the Deuteronomic book of Kings) independently
confirms the inferences drawn from Deuteronomy itself. The absence
of direct testimony can be partially supplied by later events
which presuppose the break-up of no inconsiderable state, and imply
relations with Samaria which had been by no means so unfriendly
as the historians represent. A common ground for Judaism and
Samaritanism is obvious, and it is in this obscure age that it is to be
sought. But the curtain is raised for too brief an interval to allow
of more than a passing glimpse at the restoration of Judaean fortunes;
not until the time of Nehemiah, about 140 years after the
fall of Jerusalem, does the historical material become less imperfect.
Upon this blank period before the foundation of Judaism (§§ 21,
23) much light is also thrown by another body of evidence. It has
long been recognized that 1 Chron. ii. and iv. represent a Judah
composed mainly of groups which had moved up from the south
(Hebron) to the vicinity of Jerusalem. It includes Caleb and Jerahmeel,
Kenite or Rechabite families, scribes, &c., and these, as
“sons” of Hezron, claim some relationship with Gilead. The names
point generally to an affinity with south Palestine and north Arabia
(Edom, Midian, &c.; see especially the lists in Gen. xxxvi.), and
suggest that certain members of a closely related collection of
groups had separated from the main body and were ultimately
enrolled as Israelites. It is also recognized by many scholars that
in the present account of the exodus there are indications of the
original prominence of traditions of Kadesh, and also of a journey
northwards in which Caleb, Kenites and others took part (§ 5). On
these and on other grounds besides, it has long been felt that south
Palestine, with its north Arabian connexions, is of real importance in
biblical research, and for many years efforts have been made to
determine the true significance of the evidence. The usual tendency
has been to regard it in the light of the criticism of early Israelite
history, which demands some reconstruction (§ 8), and to discern
distinct tribal movements previous to the union of Judah and Israel
under David. On the other hand, the elaborate theory of T. K.
Cheyne involves the view that a history dealing with the south
actually underlies our sources and can be recovered by emendation
of the text. Against the former is the fact that although certain
groups are ultimately found in Judah (Judg. i.), the evidence for
the movement—a conquest north of Kadesh, almost at the gate of
the promised land—explicitly mentions Israel; and against the latter
the evidence again shows that this representation has been deliberately
subordinated to the entrance of Israel from beyond the Jordan.
44
In either case the history of separate sections of people may have
been extended to Israel as a whole, but there is no evidence for any
adequate reconstruction. Yet the presence of distinct representations
of the history may be recognized, and since the Judaean
compilers of the Old Testament have incorporated non-Judaean
sources (
e.g.
the history of the northern monarchy), it is obvious
that, apart from indigenous Judaean tradition, the southern groups
which were ultimately enrolled in Judah would possess their own
stock of oral and written lore. Hence it is noteworthy that the late
editor of Judges has given the first place to Othniel, a Kenizzite,
and therefore of Edomite affinity, though subsequently reckoned
as a Judaean (Judg i. 13, iii. 9; cf. Gen. xxxvi. 11; 1 Chron. iv. 13).
Of Kenite interest is the position of Cain, ancestor of heroes of culture
and of the worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 17 sqq.). One fragmentary
source alludes to a journey to the Midianite or Kenite father-in-law
of Moses with the
Ark
q.v.
); another knows of its movements with
David and the priest Abiathar (a name closely related to Jether or
Jethro; cf. also 1 Chron. iv. 17). Distinctively Calebite are the
stories of the eponym who, fearless of the “giants” of Palestine,
gained striking divine promises (Num. xiv. 11–24); Caleb’s overthrow
of the Hebronite giants finds a parallel in David’s conflicts before
the capture of Jerusalem, and may be associated with the belief that
these primitive giants once filled the land (Josh. xi. 21 seq.; see § 7,
and
David
Samuel, Books of
). Calebite, too, are Hebron and its
patron Abraham, and both increase in prominence in the patriarchal
narratives, where, moreover, an important body of tradition can have
emanated only from outside Israel and Judah (see
Genesis
).
Although Judah was always closely connected with the south, these
“southern” features (once clearly more extensive and complete)
are found in the Deuteronomic and priestly compilations, and their
presence in the historical records can hardly be severed from the
prominence of “southern” families in the vicinity of Jerusalem,
some time after the fall of Jerusalem. The background in 1 Chron. ii.
presupposes the desolation after that disaster, and some traces of
these families are found in Nehemiah’s time; and while the traditions
know of a separation from Edom (viz. stories of Jacob and his
“brother” Esau), elsewhere Edom is frequently denounced for
unbrotherly conduct in connexion with some disaster which befell
Jerusalem, apparently long after 586
B.C.
(see § 22).
45
The true
inwardness of this movement, its extent and its history, can hardly
be recovered at present, but it is noteworthy that the evidence
generally involves the Levites, an ecclesiastical body which underwent
an extremely intricate development. To a certain extent it
would seem that even as
Chronicles
q.v.
) has passed through the
hands of one who was keenly interested in the Temple service, so
the other historical books have been shaped not only by the late
priestly writers (symbolized in literary criticism by P), but also by
rather earlier writers, also of priestly sympathies, but of “southern”
or half-Edomite affinity. This is independently suggested by the
contents and vicissitudes of the purely ecclesiastical traditions.
46
Recent criticism goes to show that there is a very considerable
body of biblical material, more important for its attitude to the
history than for its historical accuracy, the true meaning of which
cannot as yet be clearly perceived. It raises many serious problems
which concentrate upon that age which is of the greatest importance
for the biblical and theological student. The perplexing relation
between the admittedly late compilations and the actual course
of the early history becomes still more intricate when one
observes such a feature as the late interest in the Israelite tribes. No
doubt there is much that is purely artificial and untrustworthy in
the late (post-exilic) representations of these divisions, but it is
almost incredible that the historical foundation for their early
career is severed from the written sources by centuries of warfare,
immigration and other disturbing factors. On the one hand,
conservative scholars insist upon the close material relation between
the constituent sources; critical scholars, on the other hand, while
recognizing much that is relatively untrustworthy, refrain from
departing from the general outlines of the canonical history more
than is absolutely necessary. Hence the various reconstructions
of the earlier history, with all their inherent weaknesses. But
historical criticism is faced with the established literary conclusions
which, it should be noticed, place the Deuteronomic and priestly
compilations posterior to the great changes at and after the fall of
the northern monarchy, and, to some extent, contemporary with
the equally serious changes in Judah. There were catastrophes
detrimental to the preservation of older literary records, and vicissitudes
which, if they have not left their mark on contemporary
history—which is singularly blank—may be traced on the representations
of the past. There are external historical circumstances
and internal literary features which unite to show that the application
of the literary hypotheses of the Old Testament to the course of
Israelite history is still incomplete, and they warn us that the
intrinsic value of religious and didactic writings should not depend
upon the accuracy of their history.
47
Future research may not be
able to solve the problems which arise in the study of the period now
under discussion; it is the more necessary, therefore, that all efforts
should be tested in the light of purely external evidence (see further
§ 24; and
Palestine
History
).
21.
Nehemiah and Ezra
.—There is another remarkable gap in
the historical traditions between the time of Zerubbabel and
the reign of Artaxerxes I. In obscure circumstances the
enthusiastic hopes have melted away, the Davidic scion has disappeared,
and Jerusalem has been the victim of another disaster.
The country is under Persian officials, the nobles and priests form
the local government, and the ground is being prepared for the
erection of a hierocracy. It is the work of rebuilding and reorganization,
of social and of religious reforms, which we encounter
in the last pages of biblical history, and in the records of
Ezra and Nehemiah we stand in Jerusalem in the very centre of
epoch-making events. Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes
at Susa, plunged in grief at the news of the desolation of Jerusalem,
obtained permission from the king to rebuild the ruins. Provided
with an escort and with the right to obtain supplies of wood for
the buildings, he returned to the city of his fathers’ sepulchres
(the allusion may suggest his royal ancestry). His zeal is represented
in a twofold aspect. Having satisfied himself of the
extent of the ruins, he aroused the people to the necessity of
fortifying and repopulating the city, and a vivid account is given
in his name of the many dangers which beset the rebuilding of
the walls. Sanballat of Horon, Tobiah the Ammonite, and
Gashmu the Arabian (? Edomite) unceasingly opposed him.
Tobiah and his son Johanan were related by marriage to Judaean
secular and priestly families, and active intrigues resulted, in
which nobles and prophets took their part. It was insinuated
that Nehemiah had his prophets to proclaim that Judah had again
its own king; it was even suggested that he was intending to rebel
against Persia! Nehemiah naturally gives us only his version,
and the attitude of Haggai and Zechariah to Zerubbabel may
illustrate the feeling of his partisans. But Tobiah and Johanan
themselves were worshippers of Yahweh (as their names also
show), and consequently, with prophets taking different sides
and with the Samaritan claims summarily repudiated (Neh. ii.
20; cf. Ezra iv. 3), all the facts cannot be gathered from the
narratives. Nevertheless the undaunted Judaean pressed on
unmoved by the threatening letters which were sent around,
and succeeded in completing the walls within fifty-two days.
48
In the next place, Nehemiah appears as governor of the small
district of Judah and Benjamin. Famine, the avarice of the rich,
and the necessity of providing tribute had brought the humbler
classes to the lowest straits. Some had mortgaged their houses,
fields and vineyards to buy corn; others had borrowed to pay
the taxes, and had sold their children to their richer brethren to
repay the debt. Nehemiah was faced with old abuses, and
vehemently contrasted the harshness of the nobles with the
generosity of the exiles who would redeem their poor countrymen
from slavery. He himself had always refrained from exacting
the usual provision which other governors had claimed; indeed,
he had readily entertained over 150 officials and dependants at
his table, apart from casual refugees (Neh. v.). We hear something
of a twelve-years’ governorship and of a second visit, but
the evidence does not enable us to determine the sequence (xiii. 6).
Neh. v. is placed in the middle of the building of the walls in
fifty-two days; the other reforms during the second visit are
closely connected with the dedication of the walls and with the
events which immediately follow his first arrival when he had
come to rebuild the city. Nehemiah also turns his attention to
religious abuses. The sabbath, once a festival, had become
more strictly observed, and when he found the busy agriculturists
and traders (some of them from Tyre) pursuing their usual
labours on that day, he pointed to the disasters which had
resulted in the past from such profanation, and immediately took
measures to put down the evil (Neh. xiii. 18; cf. Jer. xvii. 20 sqq.;
Ezek. xx. 13–24; Isa. lvi. 2, 6; lviii. 13). Moreover, the maintenance
of the Temple servants called for supervision; the customary
allowances had not been paid to the Levites who had come to
Jerusalem after the smaller shrines had been put down, and they
had now forsaken the city. His last acts were the most conspicuous
of all. Some of the Jews had married women of Ashdod,
Ammon and Moab, and the impetuous governor indignantly
adjured them to desist from a practice which was the historic
cause of national sin. Even members of the priestly families had
intermarried with Tobiah and Sanballat; the former had his own
chamber in the precincts of the Temple, the daughter of the latter
was the wife of a son of Joiada the son of the high priest Eliashib.
Again Nehemiah’s wrath was kindled. Tobiah was cast out, the
offending priest expelled, and a general purging followed, in
which all the foreign element was removed. With this Nehemiah
brings the account of his reforms to a conclusion, and the words
“Remember me, O my God, for good” (xiii. 31) are not meaningless.
The incidents can be supplemented from Josephus.
According to this writer (
Ant.
xi. 7, 2), a certain Manasseh, the
brother of Jaddua and grandson of Joiada, refused to divorce his
wife, the daughter of Sanballat. For this he was driven out,
and, taking refuge with the Samaritans, founded a rival temple
and priesthood upon Mt Gerizim, to which repaired other
priests and Levites who had been guilty of mixed marriages.
There is little doubt that Josephus refers to the same events;
but there is considerable confusion in his history of the
Persian age, and when he places the schism and the foundation
of the new Temple in the time of Alexander the Great (after
the obscure disasters of the reign of Artaxerxes III.), it is
usually supposed that he is a century too late.
49
At all events,
there is now a complete rupture with Samaria, and thus, in the
concluding chapter of the last of the historical books of the Old
Testament, Judah maintains its claim to the heritage of Israel
and rejects the right of the Samaritans to the title
50
(see § 5).
In this separation of the Judaeans from religious and social
intercourse with their neighbours, the work of
Ezra
q.v.
) requires
notice. The story of this scribe (now combined with the
memoirs of Nehemiah) crystallizes the new movement inaugurated
after a return of exiles from Babylonia. The age can also
be illustrated from Isa. lvi.-lxvi. and
Malachi
q.v.
). There was
a poor and weak Jerusalem, its Temple stood in need of renovation,
its temple-service was mean, its priests unworthy of their office.
On the one side was the grinding poverty of the poor; on the
other the abuses of the governors. There were two leading
religious parties: one of oppressive formalists, exclusive, strict
and ritualistic; the other, more cosmopolitan, extended a freer
welcome to strangers, and tolerated the popular elements and
the superstitious cults which are vividly depicted (Isa. lxv. seq.).
But the former gained the day, and, realizing that the only hope
of maintaining a pure worship of Yahweh lay in a forcible isolation
from foreign influence, its adherents were prepared to take
measures to ensure the religious independence of their assembly.
It is related that Ezra, the scribe and priest, returned to Jerusalem
with priests and Levites, lay exiles, and a store of vessels for the
Temple. He was commissioned to inquire into the religious condition
of the land and to disseminate the teaching of the Law to
which he had devoted himself (Ezra vii.). On his arrival the
people were gathered together, and in due course he read the
“book of the Law of Moses” daily for seven days (Neh. viii.).
They entered into an agreement to obey its teaching, undertaking
in particular to avoid marriages with foreigners (x. 28 sqq.). A
special account is given of this reform (Ezra ix. seq.) and the
description of Ezra’s horror at the prevalence of intermarriage,
which threatened to destroy the distinctive character of the
community, sufficiently indicates the attitude of the stricter
party. The true seed of Israel separated themselves from all
foreigners (not, however, without some opposition) and formed
an exclusively religious body or “congregation.” Dreams of
political freedom gave place to hopes of religious independence,
and “Israel” became a church, the foundation of which it sought
in the desert of Sinai a thousand years before.
22.
Post-exilic History.
—The biblical history for the period in
the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is exceptionally obscure, and it
is doubtful how far the traditions can be trusted before we reach
the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii. sqq., Neh.). The records belonging
to this reign represent four different stages: (
) The Samaritans reported
that the Jews who had returned from the king to Jerusalem
were rebuilding the city and completing its walls, an act calculated
to endanger the integrity of the province. Artaxerxes accordingly
instructed them to stop the work until he should give the necessary
decree, and this was done by force (Ezra iv. 7–23, undated; 1 Esdras
ii. 16 sqq. mentions a building of the Temple!). (
) It was in the
7th year (
i.e.
458
B.C.
) that Ezra returned with a small body of exiles
to promulgate the new laws he had brought and to set the Temple
service in order.
51
Fortified with remarkable powers, some of
which far exceed the known tolerance of Persian kings, he began
wide-sweeping marriage reforms; but the record ceases abruptly
(vii.–x.). (
) In the 20th year (445
B.C.
) Nehemiah returned with
permission to rebuild the walls, the citadel and the governor’s house
(Neh. ii. 5, 8; see § 21 above). But (
), whilst as governor he
accomplishes various needed reforms, there is much confusion in
the present narratives, due partly to the resumption of Ezra’s labours
after an interval of twelve years, and partly to the closely related
events of Nehemiah’s activity in which room must be found for
his twelve-years’ governorship and a second visit. The internal
literary and historical questions are extremely intricate, and the
necessity for some reconstruction is very generally felt (for preliminary
details, see
Ezra and Nehemiah
). The disaster which aroused
Nehemiah’s grief was scarcely the fall of Jerusalem in 586
B.C.
but a more recent one, and it has been conjectured that it followed
the work of Ezra (in
above). On the other hand, a place can
hardly be found for the history of Ezra before the appearance of
Nehemiah; he moves in a settled and peaceful community such as
Nehemiah had helped to form, his reforms appear to be more mature
and schematic than those of Nehemiah; and, whilst Josephus handles
the two separately, giving Ezra the priority, many recent scholars
incline to place Nehemiah’s first visit before the arrival of Ezra.
52
That later tradition should give the pre-eminence to the priestly
reforms of Ezra is in every way natural, but it has been found
extremely difficult to combine the two in any reconstruction of the
period. Next, since there are three distinct sources, for (
) above,
and for the work of Nehemiah and of Ezra, implicit reliance cannot
be placed upon the present sequence of narratives. Thus (
), with
its allusion to a further decree, forms a plausible prelude to the return
of either Ezra (vii. 13) or Nehemiah (i. 3, ii. 3); and if it is surprising
that the Samaritans and other opponents, who had previously
waited to address Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 14 sqq., v. 5, 17), should now
interfere when Nehemiah was armed with a royal mandate (Neh.
ii. 7–9), it is very difficult not to conclude that the royal permits,
as now detailed, have been coloured by Jewish patriotism and
the history by enmity to Samaria. Finally, the situation in the
independent and undated record (
) points to a return, a rebuilding
(apparently after some previous destruction), and some interference.
This agrees substantially with the independent records of Nehemiah,
and unless we assume two disasters not widely separated in date—viz.
those presupposed in (
) and (
)—the record in (
), may refer
to that stage in the history where the other source describes the
intrigues of the Samaritans and the letters sent by Tobiah (cf.
Tabeel in Ezra iv. 7) to frighten Nehemiah (Neh. vi. 19).
53
Their
insinuations that Nehemiah was seeking to be ruler and their representations
to Artaxerxes would be enough to alarm the king (cf.
Neh. vi. 5–9, 19, and Ezra iv. 15 seq., 20 seq.), and it may possibly be
gathered that Nehemiah at once departed to justify himself (Neh.
vii. 2, xiii. 4, 6). Nevertheless, since the narratives are no longer in
their original form or sequence, it is impossible to trace the successive
steps of the sequel; although if the royal favour was endorsed
(cf. the account ascribed to the time of Darius, Ezra v. seq.), Nehemiah’s
position as a reformer would be more secure.
Although there was a stock of tradition for the post-exilic age
(cf. Daniel, Esther, 1 Esdras, Josephus), the historical narratives
are of the scantiest and vaguest until the time of Artaxerxes, when
the account of a return (Ezra iv. 12), which otherwise is quite ignored,
appears to have been used for the times of Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.)
and subsequently of Cyrus (Ezra i.–iii.). Moreover, although general
opinion identifies our Artaxerxes with the first of that name, certain
features suggest that there has been some confusion with the
traditions of the time of Artaxerxes II. and III. (§ 19). But the
problems are admittedly complicated, and since one is necessarily
dependent upon scanty narratives arranged and rearranged by later
hands in accordance with their own historical theories, it is difficult
to lay stress upon internal evidence which appears to be conclusive
for this or that reconstruction.
54
The main facts, however, are clear.
Jerusalem had suffered some serious catastrophe before Nehemiah’s
return; a body of exiles returned, and in spite of interference the
work of rebuilding was completed; through their influence the
Judaean community underwent reorganization, and separated itself
from its so-called heathen neighbours. How many years elapsed
from beginning to end can hardly be said. Tradition concentrated
upon Ezra and his age many events and changes of fundamental
importance. The canonical history has allowed only one great
destruction of Jerusalem, and the disaster of 586
B.C.
became the
type for similar disasters, but how many there were criticism can
scarcely decide.
55
Allusions to Judah’s sufferings at the hands of
Edom, Moab and Ammon often imply conditions which are not
applicable to 586. A definite series knows of an invasion and occupation
by
Edom
q.v.
end), a people with whom Judah, as the genealogies
show, had once been intimately connected. The unfriendliness
of the “brother” people, which added so much to the bitterness
of Judah, although associated with the events of 586 (so especially
1 Esdras iv. 45), probably belongs to a much later date.
56
The tradition
that Edomites burned the Temple and occupied part of Judah (ib.
vv.
45, 50) is partially confirmed by Ezek. xxxv. 5, 10, xxxvi. 5;
Ps. cxxxvii. 7; but the assumption that Darius, as in 1 Esdras, helped
the Jews against them can with difficulty be maintained. The interesting
conjecture that the second Temple suffered another disaster
in the obscure gap which follows the time of Zerubbabel has been
urged, after Isa. lxiii. 7–lxiv. 12, by Kuenen (afterwards withdrawn)
and by Sellin, and can be independently confirmed. In the records
of Nehemiah the ruins of the city are extensive (ii. 8, 17, iii.; cf.
Ecclus. xlix. 13), and the tradition that Nehemiah rebuilt this Temple
(Jos.
Ant.
xi. 5, 6; 2 Macc. i. 18) is supported (
) by the explicit
references to the rebuilding of the Temple in the reign of Artaxerxes
(1 Esdras ii. 18, not in Ezra iv. 12; but both in a context relating to
the history of the Temple), and (
) by the otherwise inaccurate statement
that the Temple was finished according to the decree of “Cyrus,
Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Ezra vi. 14).
The untrustworthy account of the return in the time of Cyrus (Ezra
i. sqq.) or Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.; probably the older form) is
curiously indebted to material which seems to have belonged to the
history of the work of Nehemiah (cf. Ezra ii. with Neh. vii.), and
the important return in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 12) seems
to be connected with other references to some new settlement (Neh.
xi. 20, 23, 25, especially xii. 29). The independent testimony of the
names in Neh. iii. is against any previous large return from Babylon,
and clearly illustrates the strength of the groups of “southern”
origin whose presence is only to be expected (p. 285). Moreover,
the late compiler of 1 Chronicles distinguishes a Judah composed
almost wholly of “southern” groups (1 Chron. ii. and iv.) from a
subsequent stage when the first inhabitants of Jerusalem correspond
in the main to the new population after Nehemiah had repaired the
ruins (1 Chron. ix. and Neh. xi.). Consequently, underlying the
canonical form of post-exilic history, one may perhaps recognize
some fresh disaster, after the completion of Zerubbabel’s temple,
when Judah suffered grievously at the hands of its Edomite brethren
(in Malachi, date uncertain, vengeance has at last been taken);
Nehemiah restored the city, and the traditions of the exiles who
returned at this period have been thrown back and focussed upon the
work of Zerubbabel. The criticism of the history of Nehemiah,
which leads to this conjecture, suggests also that if Nehemiah repulsed
the Samaritan claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv. 3, where the building of the
Temple is concerned) and refused a compromise (vi. 2), it is extremely
unlikely that Samaria had hitherto been seriously hostile; see also
C. C. Torrey,
Ezra Studies
, pp. 321–333.
Biblical
history ends with the triumph of the Judaean community,
the true “Israel,” the right to which title is found in the distant
past. The Judaean view pervades the present sources, and whilst
its David and Solomon ruled over a united land, the separation
under Jeroboam is viewed as one of calf-worshipping northern tribes
from Jerusalem with its one central temple and the legitimate
priesthood of the Zadokites. It is from this narrower standpoint of
an exclusive and confined Judah (and Benjamin) that the traditions
as incorporated in the late recensions gain fresh force, and in Israel’s
renunciation of the Judaean yoke the later hostility between the
two may be read between the lines. The history in Kings was not
finally settled until a very late date, as is evident from the important
variations in the Septuagint, and it is especially in the description
of the time of Solomon and the disruption that there continued to
be considerable fluctuations.
57
The book has no finale and the sudden
break may not be accidental. It is replaced by Chronicles, which,
confining itself to Judaean history from a later standpoint (after
the Persian age), includes new characteristic traditions wherein some
recollection of more recent events may be recognized. Thus, the
south Judaean or south Palestinian element shows itself in Judaean
genealogies and lists; there are circumstantial stories of the rehabilitation
of the Temple and the reorganization of cultus; there are
fuller traditions of inroads upon Judah by southern peoples and
their allies. There is also a more definite subordination of the royal
authority to the priesthood (so too in the writings of
Ezekiel
q.v.
);
and the stories of punishment inflicted upon kings who dared to
contend against the priests (Jehoash, Uzziah) point to a conflict of
authority, a hint of which is already found in the reconciliation of
Zerubbabel and the priest Joshua in a passage ascribed to Zechariah
(ch. vi.).
23.
Post-exilic Judaism
.—With Nehemiah and Ezra we enter
upon the era in which a new impulse gave to Jewish life and
thought that form which became the characteristic orthodox
Judaism. It was not a new religion that took root; older tendencies
were diverted into new paths, the existing material was
shaped to new ends. Judah was now a religious community
whose representative was the high priest of Jerusalem. Instead
of sacerdotal kings, there were royal priests, anointed with oil,
arrayed with kingly insignia, claiming the usual royal dues in
addition to the customary rights of the priests. With his priests
and Levites, and with the chiefs and nobles of the Jewish
families, the high priest directs this small state, and his death
marks an epoch as truly as did that of the monarchs in the past.
This hierarchical government, which can find no foundation
in the Hebrew monarchy, is the forerunner of the
Sanhedrin
q.v.
); it is an institution which, however inaugurated, set
its stamp upon the narratives which have survived. Laws were
recast in accordance with the requirements of the time, with the
result that, by the side of usages evidently of very great antiquity,
details now appear which were previously unknown or
wholly unsuitable. The age, which the scanty historical traditions
themselves represent as one of supreme importance for
the history of the Jews, once seemed devoid of interest, and it
is entirely through the laborious scholarship of the 19th century
that it now begins to reveal its profound significance. The
Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, that the hierarchical law in its
complete form in the Pentateuch stands at the close and not at
the beginning of biblical history, that this mature Judaism
was the fruit of the 5th century
B.C.
and not a divinely appointed
institution at the exodus (nearly ten centuries previously), has
won the recognition of almost all Old Testament scholars. It
has been substantiated by numerous subsidiary investigations
in diverse departments, from different standpoints, and under
various aspects, and can be replaced only by one which shall
more adequately explain the literary and historical evidence
(see further, p. 289).
The post-exilic priestly spirit represents a tendency which is
absent from the Judaean Deuteronomic book of Kings but is
fully mature in the later, and to some extent parallel, book
of
Chronicles
q.v.
). The “priestly” traditions of the creation
and of the patriarchs mark a very distinct advance upon the
earlier narratives, and appear in a further developed form in
the still later book of Jubilees, or “Little Genesis,” where they
are used to demonstrate the pre-Mosaic antiquity of the priestly
or Levitical institutions. There is also an unmistakable development
in the laws; and the priestly legislation, though ahead
of both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, not to mention still earlier
usage, not only continues to undergo continual internal modification,
but finds a further distinct development, in the way of
definition and interpretation, outside the Old Testament—in
the
Talmud
q.v.
). Upon the characteristics of the post-exilic
priestly writings we need not dwell.
58
Though one may often be
repelled by their lifelessness, their lack of spontaneity and the
externalization of the ritual, it must be recognized that they
placed a strict monotheism upon a legal basis. “It was a
necessity that Judaism should incrust itself in this manner;
without those hard and ossified forms the preservation of its
essential elements would have proved impossible. At a time
when all nationalities, and at the same time all bonds of religion
and national customs, were beginning to be broken up in the
seeming cosmos and real chaos of the Graeco-Roman Empire,
the Jews stood out like a rock in the midst of the ocean.
When the natural conditions of independent nationality all
failed them, they nevertheless artificially maintained it with an
energy truly marvellous, and thereby preserved for themselves,
and at the same time for the whole world, an eternal good.”
59
If one is apt to acquire too narrow a view of Jewish legalism,
the whole experience of subsequent history, through the heroic
age of the
Maccabees
q.v.
) and onwards, only proves that the
minuteness of ritual procedure could not cramp the heart.
Besides, this was only one of the aspects of Jewish literary
activity. The work represented in Nehemiah and Ezra, and put
into action by the supporters of an exclusive Judaism, certainly
won the day, and their hands have left their impress upon the
historical traditions. But Yahwism, like Islam, had its sects
and tendencies, and the opponents to the stricter ritualism always
had followers. Whatever the predominant party might think
of foreign marriages, the tradition of the half-Moabite origin
of David serves, in the beautiful idyll of
Ruth
q.v.
), to suggest
the debt which Judah and Jerusalem owed to one at least
of its neighbours. Again, although some may have desired
a self-contained community opposed to the heathen neighbours
of Jerusalem, the story of Jonah implicitly contends
against the attempt of Judaism to close its doors. The conflicting
tendencies were incompatible, but Judaism retained the
incompatibilities within its limits, and the two tendencies,
prophetical and priestly, continue, the former finding its further
development in Christianity.
60
The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis (§ 4) does not pretend to be complete
in all its details and it is independent of its application to the
historical criticism of the Old Testament. No alternative hypothesis
prevails, mere desultory criticism of the internal intricacies
being quite inadequate. Maintaining that the position of the
Pentateuch alone explains the books which follow, conservative
writers concede that it is composite, has had some literary history,
and has suffered some revision in the post-exilic age. Their concessions
continue to become ever more significant, and all that
follows from them should be carefully noticed by those who are
impressed by their arguments. They identify with Deuteronomy the
law-roll which explains the noteworthy reforms of Josiah (§ 16);
but since it is naturally admitted that religious conditions had
become quite inconsistent with Mosaism, the conservative view
implies that the “long-lost” Deuteronomy must have differed
profoundly from any known Mosaic writings to which earlier pious
kings and prophets had presumably adhered. Similarly, the “book
of the Law of Moses,” brought from Babylon by Ezra (Ezra vii.;
Neh. viii.), clearly contained much of which the people were ignorant,
and conservative writers, who oppose the theory that a new Law was
then introduced, emphasize (
) the previous existence of legislation
(to prove that Ezra’s book was not entirely a novelty), and (
) the
gross wickedness in Judah (as illustrated by the prophets) from the
time of Josiah to the strenuous efforts of the reformers on behalf
of the most fundamental principles of the national religion. This
again simply means that the Mosaism of Ezra or Nehemiah must
have differed essentially from the priestly teaching prior to their
arrival. The arguments of conservative writers involve concessions
which, though often overlooked by their readers, are very detrimental
to the position they endeavour to support, and the objections
they bring against the theory of the introduction of new law-books
(under a Josiah or an Ezra) apply with equal force to the promulgation
of Mosaic teaching which had been admittedly ignored or
forgotten. Their arguments have most weight, however, when
they show the hazardous character of reconstructions which rely
upon the trustworthiness of the historical narratives. What book
Ezra really brought from Babylon is uncertain; the writer, it seems,
is merely narrating the introduction of the Law ascribed to Moses,
even as a predecessor has recounted the discovery of the Book of
the Law, the Deuteronomic code subsequently included in the
Pentateuch.
The importance which the biblical writers attach to the return
from Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes forms a starting-point for
several interesting inquiries. Thus, in any estimate of the influence
of Babylonia upon the Old Testament, it is obviously necessary to
ask whether certain features (
) are of true Babylonian origin, or
) merely find parallels or analogies in its stores of literature; whether
the indebtedness goes back to very early times or to the age of the
Assyrian domination or to the exiles who now returned. Again,
there were priestly and other families—some originally of “southern”
origin—already settled around Jerusalem, and questions inevitably
arise concerning their relation to the new-comers and the literary
vicissitudes which gave us the Old Testament in its present form.
To this age we may ascribe the literature of the Priestly writers
(symbolized by P), which differs markedly from the other sources.
Yet it is clear from the book of Genesis alone that in the age of
Priestly writers and compilers there were other phases of thought.
Popular stories with many features of popular religion were current.
They could be, and indeed had been made more edifying; but the
very noteworthy conservatism of even the last compiler or editor,
in contrast to the re-shaping and re-writing of the material in the
book of Jubilees, indicates that the Priestly spirit was not that of
the whole community. But through the Priestly hands the Old
Testament history passed, and their standpoint colours its records.
This is especially true of the history of the exilic and post-exilic
periods, where the effort is made to preserve the continuity of Israel
and the Israelite community (Chronicles—Ezra—Nehemiah). The
bitterness aroused by the ardent and to some extent unjust zeal of
the reforming element can only be conjectured. The traditions
reveal a tendency to legitimate new circumstances. Priesthoods,
whose traditions connect them with the south, are subordinated;
the ecclesiastical records are re-shaped or re-adjusted; and a picture
is presented of hierarchical jealousies and rivalries which (it was
thought) were settled once and for all in the days of the exodus from
Egypt. Many features gain in significance as the account of the
Exodus, the foundation of Israel, is read in the light of the age when,
after the advent of a new element from Babylonia, the Pentateuch
assumed its present shape; it must suffice to mention the supremacy
of the Aaronite priests and the glorification of uncompromising
hostility to foreign marriages.
61
The most “unhistorical” tradition
has some significance for the development of thought or of history-writing,
and thus its internal features are ultimately of historical
value. Only from an exhaustive comparison of controlling data
can the scattered hints be collected and classified. There is much
that is suggestive, for example, in the relation between the “post-exilic”
additions to the prophecies and their immediately earlier
form; or in the singular prominence of the Judaean family of Perez
(its elevation over Zerah, a half-Edomite family, Gen. xxxviii.; its
connexion with the Davidic dynasty, Ruth iv.; its position as head
of all the Judaean sub-divisions, 1 Chron. ii. 5 sqq.); or in the late
insertion of local tradition encircling Jerusalem; or in the perplexing
attitude of the histories towards the district of Benjamin and its
famous sanctuary of Bethel (only about 10 m. north of Jerusalem).
Although these and other phenomena cannot yet be safely placed
in a historical frame, the methodical labours of past scholars have
shed much light upon the obscurities of the exilic and post-exilic
ages, and one must await the more comprehensive study of the
two or three centuries which are of the first importance for biblical
history and theology.
24.
Old Testament History and External Evidence.
—Thus the Old
Testament, the history of the Jews during the first great period,
describes the relation of the Hebrews to surrounding peoples, the
superiority of Judah over the faithless (north) Israelite tribes, and
the reorganization of the Jewish community in and around Jerusalem
at the arrival of Ezra with the Book of the Law. The whole gives
an impression of unity, which is designed, and is to be expected in a
compilation. But closer examination reveals remarkable gaps and
irreconcilable historical standpoints. For all serious biblical study,
the stages in the growth of the written traditions and the historical
circumstances which they imply, must inevitably be carefully
considered, and upon the result depends, directly or indirectly,
almost every subject of Old Testament investigation. Yet it is
impossible to recover with confidence or completeness the development
of Hebrew history from the pages of the Old Testament alone.
The keen interest taken by the great prophets in the world around
them is not prominent in the national records; political history has
been subordinated, and the Palestine which modern discovery is
revealing is not conspicuous in the didactic narratives. To external
evidence one must look, therefore, for that which did not fall
within the scope or the horizon of the religious historians. They
do not give us the records of the age of the Babylonian monarch
Khammurabi (perhaps Amraphel, Gen. xiv.), of the Egyptian
conquests in the XVIIIth and following dynasties, or of the period
illustrated by the Amarna tablets (§ 3). They treat with almost
unique fullness a few years in the middle of the 9th century
B.C.
, but
ignore Assyria; yet only the Assyrian inscriptions explain the political
situation (§ 10 seq.), and were it not for them the true significance
of the 8th–7th centuries could scarcely be realized (§ 15 seq.). It
would be erroneous to confuse the extant sources with the historical
material which might or must have been accessible, or to assume
that the antiquity of the elements of history proves or presupposes
the antiquity of the records themselves, or even to deny the presence
of some historical kernel merely on account of unhistorical elements
or the late dress in which the events are now clothed. External
research constantly justifies the cautious attitude which has its
logical basis in the internal conflicting character of the written
traditions or in their divergence from ascertained facts; at the same
time it has clearly shown that the internal study of the Old Testament
has its limits. Hence, in the absence of more complete external
evidence one is obliged to recognize the limitations of Old Testament
historical criticism, even though this recognition means that positive
reconstructions are more precarious than negative conclusions.
The naïve impression that each period of history was handled by
some more or less contemporary authority is not confirmed by a
criticism which confines itself strictly to the literary evidence. An
interest in the past is not necessarily confined to any one age, and
the critical view that the biblical history has been compiled from
relatively late standpoints finds support in the still later treatment
of the events—in Chronicles as contrasted with Samuel—Kings or
in Jubilees as contrasted with Genesis.
62
It is instructive to observe
in Egypt the form which old traditions have taken in Manetho
(Maspero,
Rec. de travaux
, xxvii., 1905, l. 22 seq.); cf. also the late
story of Rameses II. and the Hittites (J. H. Breasted,
Anc. Rec. of
Egypt
, iii. 189 seq.); while in Babylonia one may note the didactic
treatment, after the age of Cyrus, of the events of the time of Khammurabi
(A. H. Sayce,
Proc. Soc. Biblical Archaeol.
, 1907, pp. 13 sqq.).
The links which unite the traditional heroes with Babylonia
e.g.
Abraham, Ezra), Mesopotamia (
e.g.
Jacob), Egypt (
e.g.
Joseph,
Jeroboam), Midian (
e.g.
Moses, Jethro), &c., like the intimate
relationship between Israel and surrounding lands, have a significance
in the light of recent research. Israel can no longer be isolated from
the politics, culture, folk-lore, thought and religion of western Asia
and Egypt. Biblical, or rather Palestinian, thought has been brought
into the world of ancient Oriental life, and this life, in spite of the
various forms in which it has from time to time been shaped, still
rules in the East. This has far-reaching consequences for the
traditional attitude to Israelite history and religion. Research is
seriously complicated by the growing stores of material, which
unfortunately are often utilized without attention to the principles
of the various departments of knowledge or aspects of study. The
complexity of modern knowledge and the interrelation of its different
branches are often insufficiently realized, and that by writers who
differ widely in the application of such material as they use to
their particular views of the manifold problems of the Old Testament.
It has been easy to confuse the study of the Old Testament in its
relation to modern religious needs with the technical scientific
study of the much edited remains of the literature of a small part
of the ancient East. If there was once a tendency to isolate the
Old Testament and ignore comparative research, it is now sometimes
found possible to exaggerate its general agreement with Oriental
history, life and thought. Difficulties have been found in the supernatural
or marvellous stories which would be taken as a matter of
course by contemporary readers, and efforts are often made to
recover historical facts or to adapt the records to modern theology
without sufficient attention to the historical data as a whole or
to their religious environment. The preliminary preparation for
research of any value becomes yearly more exacting.
Many traces of myth, legend and “primitive” thought survive in
the Old Testament, and on the most cautious estimate they presuppose
a vitality which is not a little astonishing. But they are
now softened and often bereft of their earlier significance, and it is
this and their divergence from common Oriental thought which make
Old Testament thought so profound and unique. The process finds
its normal development in later and non-biblical literature; but one
can recognize earlier, cruder and less distinctive stages, and, as
surely as writings reflect the mentality of an author or of his age, the
peculiar characteristics of the extant sources, viewed in the light of
a comprehensive survey of Palestinian and surrounding culture,
demand a reasonable explanation. The differences between the
form of the written history and the conditions which prevailed have
impressed themselves variously upon modern writers, and efforts
have been made to recover from the Old Testament earlier forms
more in accordance with the external evidence. It may be doubted,
however, whether the material is sufficient for such restoration or
reconstruction.
63
In the Old Testament we have the outcome of
specific developments, and the stage at which we see each element
of tradition or belief is not always isolated or final (cf. Kings and
Chronicles). The early myths, legends and traditions which can be
traced differ profoundly from the canonical history, and the gap is
wider than that between the latter and the subsequent apocalyptical
and pseudepigraphical literature.
Where it is possible to make legitimate and unambiguous comparisons,
the ethical and spiritual superiority of Old Testament
thought has been convincingly demonstrated, and to the re-shaping
and re-writing of the older history and the older traditions the Old
Testament owes its permanent value. While the history of the great
area between the Nile and the Tigris irresistibly emphasizes the
insignificance of Palestine, this land’s achievements for humanity
grow the more remarkable as research tells more of its environment.
Although the light thrown upon ancient conditions of life
and thought has destroyed much that sometimes seems vital for
the Old Testament, it has brought into relief a more permanent and
indisputable appreciation of its significance, and it is gradually
dispelling that pseudo-scientific literalism which would fetter the
greatest of ancient Oriental writings with an insistence upon the
verity of historical facts. Not internal criticism, but the incontestable
results of objective observation have shown once and for
all that the relationship between the biblical account of the earliest
history (Gen. i.–xi.) and its value either as an authentic record
(which requires unprejudiced examination)
or
as a religious document
(which remains untouched) is typical. If, as seems probable, the
continued methodical investigation, which is demanded by the
advance of modern knowledge, becomes more drastic in its results,
it will recognize ever more clearly that there were certain unique
influences in the history of Palestine which cannot be explained by
purely historical research. The change from Palestinian polytheism
to the pre-eminence of Yahweh and the gradual development of
ethical monotheism are
facts
which external evidence continues to
emphasize, which biblical criticism must investigate as completely
as possible. And if the work of criticism has brought a fuller
appreciation of the value of these facts, the debt which is owed to
the Jews is enhanced when one proceeds to realize the immense
difficulties against which those who transmitted the Old Testament
had to contend in the period of Greek domination. The growth of
the Old Testament into its present form, and its preservation despite
hostile forces, are the two remarkable phenomena which most arrest
the attention of the historian; it is for the theologian to interpret
their bearing upon the history of religious thought.
S. A. C.
II.—Greek Domination
25.
Alexander the Great
.—The second great period of the
history of the Jews begins with the conquest of Asia by Alexander
the Great, disciple of Aristotle, king of Macedon and captain-general
of the Greeks. It ends with the destruction of Jerusalem
by the armies of the Roman Empire, which was, like
Alexander, at once the masterful pupil and the docile patron
of Hellenism. The destruction of Jerusalem might be regarded
as an event of merely domestic importance; for the Roman
cosmopolitan it was only the removal of the titular metropolis
of a national and an Oriental religion. But, since a derivative
of that religion has come to be a power in the world at large, this
event has to be regarded in a different light. The destruction
of Jerusalem in
A.D.
70 concludes the period of four centuries,
during which the Jews as a nation were in contact with the
Greeks and exposed to the influence of Hellenism, not wholly of
their own will nor yet against it. Whether the master of the
provinces, in which there were Jews, be an Alexander, a Ptolemy,
a Seleucid or a Roman, the force by which he rules is the force
of Greek culture. These four centuries are the Greek period of
Jewish history.
The ancient historians, who together cover this period, are
strangely indifferent to the importance of the Jews, upon which
Josephus is at pains to insist. When Alexander invaded the
interior of the Eastern world, which had hitherto remained
inviolable, he came as the champion of Hellenism. His death
prevented the achievement of his designs; but he had broken
down the barrier, he had planted the seed of the Greek’s influence
in the four quarters of the Persian Empire. His successors,
the Diadochi, carried on his work, but Antiochus Epiphanes was
the first who deliberately took in hand to deal with the Jews.
Daniel (viii. 8) describes the interval between Alexander and
Antiochus thus: “The he-goat (the king of Greece) did very
greatly: and when he was strong the great horn (Alexander) was
broken; and instead of it came up four other ones—four kingdoms
shall stand up out of his nation but not with his power.
And out of one of them came forth a little horn (Antiochus
Epiphanes) which waxed exceeding great towards the south
(Egypt) and towards the East (Babylon) and towards the
beauteous land (the land of Israel).” The insignificance of the
Jewish community in Palestine was their salvation. The reforms
of Nehemiah were directed towards the establishment of
a religious community at Jerusalem, in which the rigour of the
law should be observed. As a part of the Persian Empire the
community was obscure and unimportant. But the race whose
chief sanctuary it guarded and maintained was the heir of great
traditions and ideals. In Egypt, moreover, in Babylon and in
Persia individual Jews had responded to the influences of their
environment and won the respect of the aliens whom they
despised. The law which they cherished as their standard and
guide kept them united and conscious of their unity. And the
individuals, who acquired power or wisdom among those outside
Palestine shed a reflected glory upon the nation and its Temple.
In connexion with Alexander’s march through Palestine Josephus
gives a tradition of his visit to Jerusalem. In Arrian’s narrative
of Alexander’s exploits, whose fame had already faded before the
greater glory of Rome, there is no mention of the visit or the city or
the Jews. Only Tyre and Gaza barred the way to Egypt. He
took, presumably, the coast-road in order to establish and retain
his command of the sea. The rest of Palestine, which is called
Coele-Syria, made its submission and furnished supplies. Seven
days after the capture of Gaza Alexander was at Pelusium.
According to the tradition which Josephus has preserved the high
priest refused to transfer his allegiance and Alexander marched
against Jerusalem after the capture of Gaza. The high priest
dressed in his robes went out to meet him, and at the sight Alexander
remembered a dream, in which such a man had appeared to him
as the appointed leader of his expedition. So the danger was
averted: Alexander offered sacrifice and was shown the prophecy
of Daniel, which spoke of him. It is alleged, further, that at this
time certain Jews who could not refrain from intermarriage with
the heathen set up a temple on Mt Gerizim and became the Samaritan
schism (§ 21 above). The combination is certainly artificial and
not historical. But it has a value of its own inasmuch as it illustrates
the permanent tendencies which mould the history of the
Jews. It is true that Alexander was subject to dreams and visited
shrines in order to assure himself or his followers of victory. But it
is not clear that he had such need of the Jews or such regard for the
Temple of Jerusalem that he should turn aside on his way to Egypt
for such a purpose.
However this may be, Alexander’s tutor had been in Asia and had
met a Jew there, if his disciple Clearchus of Soli is to be trusted.
“The man,” Aristotle says, “was by race a Jew out of Coele-Syria.
His people are descendants of the Indian philosophers. It is reported
that philosophers are called Calani among the Indians and
Jews among the Syrians. The Jews take their name from their
place of abode, which is called Judaea. The name of their city is
very difficult; they call it Hierusaleme. This man, then, having
been a guest in many homes and having come down gradually from
the highlands to the sea-coast, was Hellenic not only in speech but
also in soul. And as we were staying in Asia at the time, the man
cast up at the same place and interviewed us and other scholars,
making trial of their wisdom. But inasmuch as he had come to
be at home with many cultured persons he imparted more than he
got.” The date of this interview is probably determined by the
fact that Aristotle visited his friend Hermias, tyrant of Atarneus,
in 347–345
B.C.
There is no reason to doubt the probability or even
the accuracy of the narrative. Megasthenes also describes the Jews
as the philosophers of Syria and couples them with the Brahmins
of India. This hellenized Jew who descended from the hills to the
coast is a figure typical of the period.
26.
The Ptolemies
.—After the death of Alexander Palestine
fell in the end to Ptolemy (301
B.C.
) and remained an Egyptian
province until 198
B.C.
For a century the Jews in Palestine and
in Alexandria had no history—or none that Josephus knew.
But two individuals exemplify the different attitudes which
the nation adopted towards its new environment and its wider
opportunities, Joseph the tax-farmer and Jesus the sage.
The wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (Sirach) is contained in the book
commonly called
Ecclesiasticus
q.v.
). At a time when men were
attracted by the wisdom and science of the Greeks, he taught that
all wisdom came from Yahweh who had chosen Israel to receive it
in trust. He discouraged inquiries into the nature and purpose
of things: it was enough for him that Yahweh had created and
ruled the universe. If a man had leisure to be wise—and this is
not for many—he should study the Scriptures which had come
down, and so become a scribe. For the scribe, as for the man at
the plough-tail, the Law was the rule of life. All, however much
or little preoccupied with worldly business, must fear God, from
whom come good things and evil, life, death, poverty and riches.
It was not for men to meddle with secrets which are beyond human
intelligence. Enough that the individual did his duty in the state
of life in which he was set and left behind him a good name at his
death. The race survives—“the days of Israel are unnumbered.”
Every member of the congregation of Israel must labour, as God
has appointed, at some handicraft or profession to provide for his
home. It is his sacred duty and his private interest to beget
children and to train them to take his place. The scholar is apt to
pity the smith, the potter, the carpenter and the farmer: with better
reason he is apt to condemn the trader who becomes absorbed in
greed of gain and so deserts the way of righteousness and fair dealing.
As a teacher Jesus gave his own services freely. For the soldier
he had no commendation. There were physicians who understood
the use of herbs, and must be rewarded when their help was invited.
But, whatever means each head of a family adopted to get a livelihood,
he must pay the priest’s dues. The centre of the life of Israel
was the Temple, over which the high priest presided and which was
inhabited by Yahweh, the God of Israel. The scribe could train the
individual in morals and in manners; but the high priest was the
ruler of the nation.
As ruler of the nation the high priest paid its tribute to Egypt, its
overlord. But Josephus reports of one Onias that for avarice he
withheld it. The sequel shows how a Jew might rise to power in
the civil service of the Egyptian Empire and yet remain a hero to
some of the Jews—provided that he did not intermarry with a
Gentile. For Joseph, the son of Tobiah and nephew of Onias, went
to court and secured the taxes of Palestine, when they were put up
to auction. As tax-farmer he oppressed the non-Jewish cities and
so won the admiration of Josephus.
But while such men went out into the world and brought back
wealth of one kind or another to Palestine, other Jews were
content to make their homes in foreign parts. At Alexandria
in particular Alexander provided for a Jewish colony which soon
became Hellenic enough in speech to require a translation of
the Law. It is probable that, as in Palestine an Aramaic paraphrase
of the Hebrew text was found to be necessary, so in
Alexandria the Septuagint grew up gradually, as need arose.
The legendary tradition which even Philo accepts gives it a
formal nativity, a royal patron and inspired authors. From
the text which Philo uses, it is probable that the translation had
been transmitted in writing; and his legend probably fixes the
date of the commencement of the undertaking for the reign of
Ptolemy Lagus.
The apology for the necessary defects of a translation put forward
by the translator of
Ecclesiasticus
in his Prologue shows that the
work was carried on beyond the limits of the Law. Apparently it
was in progress at the time of his coming to Egypt in the reign of
Ptolemy Euergetes I. or II. He seems to regard this body of
literature as the answer to the charge that the Jews had contributed
nothing useful for human life. Once translated into Greek, the
Scriptures became a bond of union for the Jews of the dispersion
and were at least capable of being used as an instrument for the
conversion of the world to Judaism. So far as the latter function
is concerned Philo confesses that the Law in his day shared the obscurity
of the people, and seems to imply that the proselytes adopted
little more than the monotheistic principle and the observance of the
Sabbath. According to Juvenal the sons of such proselytes were
apt to go farther and to substitute the Jewish Law for the Roman—
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges;
Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt ius
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moyses.
27.
The Seleucids
.—Toward the end of the 3rd century the
Palestinian Jews became involved in the struggle between
Egypt and Syria. In Jerusalem there were partisans of both
the combatants. The more orthodox or conservative Jews
preferred the tolerant rule of the Ptolemies: the rest, who chafed
at the isolation of the nation, looked to the Seleucids, who
inherited Alexander’s ideal of a united empire based on a
universal adoption of Hellenism. At this point Josephus cites
the testimony of Polybius:—“Scopas, the general of Ptolemy,
advanced into the highlands and subdued the nation of the Jews
in the winter. After the defeat of Scopas, Antiochus gained
Batanaea and Samaria and Abila and Gadara, and a little later
those of the Jews who live round the Temple called Jerusalem
adhered to him.” From this it appears that the pro-Syrian
faction of the Jews had been strong and active enough to bring
an Egyptian army upon them (199–198
B.C.
). Josephus adds
that an Egyptian garrison was left in Jerusalem. This act of
oppression presumably strengthened the Syrian faction of the
Jews and led to the transference of the nation’s allegiance.
The language of Polybius suggests that he was acquainted with
other Jewish communities and with the fame of the Temple: in
his view they are not an organized state. They were not even
a pawn in the game which Antiochus proposed to play with Rome
for the possession of Greece and Asia Minor. His defeat left the
resources of his kingdom exhausted and its extent diminished;
and so the Jews became important to his successors for the sake
of their wealth and their position on the frontier. To pay his
debt to Rome he was compelled to resort to extraordinary
methods of raising money; he actually met his death (187
B.C.
) in
an attempt to loot the temple of Elymais.
The pro-Syrian faction of the Palestinian Jews found their
opportunity in this emergency and informed the governor of
Coele-Syria that the treasury in Jerusalem contained untold
sums of money. Heliodorus, prime minister of Seleucus
Philopator, who succeeded Antiochus, arrived at Jerusalem
in his progress through Coele-Syria and Phoenicia and declared
the treasure confiscate to the royal exchequer. According to
the Jewish legend Heliodorus was attacked when he entered the
Temple by a horse with a terrible rider and by two young men.
He was scourged and only escaped with his life at the intercession
of Onias the high priest, who had pleaded with him
vainly that the treasure included the deposits of widows and
orphans and also some belonging to Hyrcanus, “a man in very
high position.” Onias was accused by his enemies of having
given the information which led to this outrage and when, relying
upon the support of the provincial governor, they proceeded
to attempt assassination, he fled to Antioch and appealed to the
king.
When Seleucus was assassinated by Heliodorus, Antiochus
IV., his brother, who had been chief magistrate at Athens, came
back secretly “to seize the kingdom by guile” (Dan. xi. 21 seq.).
On his accession he appointed Jesus, the brother of Onias, to the
high-priesthood, and sanctioned his proposals for the conversion
of Jerusalem into a Greek city. The high priest changed his
name to Jason and made a gymnasium near the citadel. The
principle of separation was abandoned. The priests deserted
the Temple for the palaestra and the young nobles wore the Greek
cap. The Jews of Jerusalem were enrolled as citizens of Antioch.
Jason sent money for a sacrifice to Heracles at Tyre; and the
only recorded opposition to his policy came from his envoys,
who pleaded that the money might be applied to naval expenditure.
Thus Jason stripped the high-priesthood of its sacred
character and did what he could to stamp out Judaism.
Menelaus supplanted Jason, obtaining his appointment from
the king by the promise of a larger contribution. In order to
secure his position, he contrived the murder of Onias, who had
taken sanctuary at Daphne. This outrage, coupled with his
appropriation of temple vessels, which he used as bribes, raised
against Menelaus the senate and the people of Jerusalem. His
brother and deputy was killed in a serious riot, and an accusation
was laid against Menelaus before Antiochus. At the inquiry
he bought his acquittal from a courtier and his accusers were
executed. Antiochus required peace in Jerusalem and probably
regarded Onias as the representative of the pro-Egyptian faction,
the allies of his enemy.
During his second Egyptian campaign a rumour came that
Antiochus was dead, and Jason made a raid upon Jerusalem.
Menelaus held the citadel and Jason was unable to establish
himself in the city. The people were presumably out of sympathy
with Hellenizers, whether they belonged to the house of
Onias or that of Tobiah. When Antiochus finally evacuated
Egypt in obedience to the decree of Rome, he thought that
Judaea was in revolt. Though Jason had fled, it was necessary
to storm the city; the drastic measures which Menelaus advised
seem to indicate that the poorer classes had been roused to
defend the Temple from further sacrilege. A massacre took place,
and Antiochus braved the anger of Yahweh by entering and
pillaging the Temple with impunity. The author of 2 Maccabees
infers from his success that the nation had forfeited all right to
divine protection for the time (2 Macc. v. 18–20).
The policy which Antiochus thus inaugurated he carried on
rigorously and systematically. His whole kingdom was to be
unified; Judaism was an eccentricity and as such doomed to
extinction. The Temple of Jerusalem was made over to Zeus
Olympius: the temple of Gerizim to Zeus Xenius. All the
religious rites of Judaism were proscribed and the neighbouring
Greek cities were requested to enforce the prohibition upon their
Jewish citizens. Jerusalem was occupied by an army which
took advantage of the Sabbath and proceeded to suppress its
observance. An Athenian came to be the missionary of Hellenism
and to direct its ceremonies, which were established by force
up and down the country.
28.
The Maccabees.
—Jerusalem and Gerizim were purged and
converted to the state religion with some ease. Elsewhere, as
there, some conformed and some became martyrs for the faith.
And the passive resistance of those who refused to conform at
length gave rise to active opposition. “The king’s officers
who were enforcing the apostasy came into the city of Modein
to sacrifice, and many of Israel went over to them, but Mattathias
. . .
slew a Jew who came to sacrifice and the king’s
officer and pulled down the altar” (1 Macc. ii. 15 sqq.). Whether
led by this Mattathias or not, certain Jews fled into the wilderness
and found a leader in Judas Maccabaeus his reputed son,
the first of the five Asmonean (Hasmonean) brethren. The
warfare which followed was like that which Saul and David
waged against the Philistines. Antiochus was occupied with
his Parthian campaign and trusted that the Hellenized Jews
would maintain their ascendancy with the aid of the provincial
troops. In his last illness he wrote to express his confidence in
their loyalty. But the rebels collected adherents from the
villages; and, when they resolved to violate the sabbath to the
extent of resisting attack, they were joined by the company of
the Assideans (Hasidim). Such a breach of the sabbath was
necessary if the whole Law was to survive at all in Palestine.
But the transgression is enough to explain the disfavour into
which the Maccabees seem to fall in the judgment of later
Judaism, as, in that judgment, it is enough to account for the
instability of their dynasty. Unstable as it was, their dynasty
was soon established. In the country-side of Judaea, Judaism—and
no longer Hellenism—was propagated by force. Apollonius,
the commander of the Syrian garrison in Jerusalem, and
Seron the commander of the army in Syria, came in turn against
Judas and his bands and were defeated. The revolt thus became
important enough to engage the attention of the governor of
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, if not of Lysias the regent himself.
Nicanor was despatched with a large army to put down the
rebels and to pay the tribute due to Rome by selling them as
slaves. Judas was at Emmaus; “the men of the citadel”
guided a detachment of the Syrian troops to his encampment by
night. The rebels escaped in time, but not into the hills, as
their enemies surmised. At dawn they made an unexpected
attack upon the main body and routed it. Next year (165
B.C.
Lysias himself entered the Idumaean country and laid siege
to the fortress of Bethsura. Judas gathered what men he could
and joined battle. The siege was raised, more probably in
consequence of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes than because
Judas had gained any real victory. The proscription of the
Jewish religion was withdrawn and the Temple restored to them.
But it was Menelaus who was sent by the king “to encourage”
(2 Macc. xi. 32) the Jews, and in the official letters no reference
is made to Judas. Such hints as these indicate the impossibility
of recovering a complete picture of the Jews during the sovereignty
of the Greeks, which the Talmudists regard as the dark
age, best left in oblivion.
Judas entered Jerusalem, the citadel of which was still occupied
by a Syrian garrison, and the Temple was re-dedicated on the
25th of Kislev (164
B.C.
). So “the Pious” achieved the object
for which presumably they took up arms. The re-establishment
of Judaism, which alone of current religions was intolerant of
a rival, seems to have excited the jealousy of their neighbours
who had embraced the Greek way of life. The hellenizers had
not lost all hope of converting the nation and were indisposed
to acquiesce in the concordat. Judas and his zealots were thus
able to maintain their prominence and gradually to increase
their power. At Joppa, for example, the Jewish settlers—two
hundred in all—“were invited to go into boats provided in accordance
with the common decree of the city.” They accepted
the invitation and were drowned. Judas avenged them by
burning the harbour and the shipping, and set to work to bring
into Judaea all such communities of Jews who had kept themselves
separate from their heathen neighbours. In this way he
became strong enough to deal with the apostates of Judaea.
In 163 Lysias led another expedition against these disturbers
of the king’s peace and defeated Judas at Bethzachariah. But
while the forces were besieging Bethzur and the fortress on
Mount Zion, a pretender arose in Antioch, and Lysias was compelled
to come to terms—and now with Judas. The Jewish
refugees had turned the balance, and so Judas became strategus
of Judaea, whilst Menelaus was put to death.
In 162 Demetrius escaped from Rome and got possession of
the kingdom of Syria. Jakim, whose name outside religion was
Alcimus, waited upon the new king on behalf of the loyal Jews
who had hellenized. He himself was qualified to be the legitimate
head of a united state, for he was of the tribe of Aaron.
Judas and the Asmoneans were usurpers, who owed their title
to Lysias. So Alcimus-Jakim was made high priest and Bacchides
brought an army to instal him in his office. The Assideans
made their submission at once. Judas had won for them
religious freedom: but the Temple required a descendant of
Aaron for priest and he was come. But his first act was to seize
and slay sixty of them: so it was clear to Judas at any rate, if
not also to the Assideans who survived, that political independence
was necessary if the religion was to be secure. In
face of his active opposition Alcimus could not maintain himself
without the support of Bacchides and was forced to retire to
Antioch. In response to his complaints Nicanor was appointed
governor of Judaea with power to treat with Judas. It appears
that the two became friends at first, but fresh orders from
Antioch made Nicanor guilty of treachery in the eyes of
Judas’s partisans. Warned by the change of his friend’s
manner Judas fled. Nicanor threatened to destroy the Temple
if the priests would not deliver Judas into his hands. Soon it
came to his knowledge that Judas was in Samaria, whither he
followed him on a sabbath with Jews pressed into his service.
The day was known afterwards as Nicanor’s day, for he was found
dead on the field (Capharsalama) by the victorious followers of
Judas (13th of Adar, March 161
B.C.
). After this victory Judas
made an alliance with the people of Rome, who had no love
for Demetrius his enemy, nor any intention of putting their
professions of friendship into practice. Bacchides and Alcimus
returned meanwhile into the land of Judah; at Elasa “Judas
fell and the rest fled” (1 Macc. ix. 18). Bacchides occupied
Judaea and made a chain of forts. Jonathan, who succeeded
his brother Judas, was captain of a band of fugitive outlaws.
But on the death of Alcimus Bacchides retired and Jonathan
with his followers settled down beyond the range of the Syrian
garrisons. The Hellenizers still enjoyed the royal favour and
Jonathan made no attempt to dispossess them. After an interval
of two years they tried to capture him and failed. This
failure seems to have convinced Bacchides that it would be well
to recognize Jonathan and to secure a balance of parties. In
158 Jonathan began to rule as a judge in Michmash and he
destroyed the godless out of Israel—so far, that is, as his power
extended. In 153 Alexander Balas withdrew Jonathan from
his allegiance to Demetrius by the offer of the high-priesthood.
He had already made Jerusalem his capital and fortified the
Temple mount: the Syrian garrisons had already been withdrawn
with the exception of those of the Akra and Bethzur. In 147
Jonathan repaid his benefactor by destroying the army of the
governor of Coele-Syria, who had espoused the cause of Demetrius.
The fugitives took sanctuary in the temple of Dagon at
Azotus. “But Jonathan burned the temple of Dagon and those
who fled into it.” After the death of Balas he laid siege to the
Akra; and “the apostates, who hated their own nation,” appealed
to Demetrius. Jonathan was summoned to Antioch,
made his peace and apparently relinquished his attempt in
return for the addition of three Samaritan districts to his territory.
Later, when the people of Antioch rose against the king,
Jonathan despatched a force of 3000 men who played a notable
part in the merciless suppression of the insurrection. 1 Maccabees
credits them with 100,000 victims. Trypho, the regent of
Antiochus VI., put even greater political power into the hands of
Jonathan and his brother Simon, but finally seized Jonathan on
the pretext of a conference. Simon was thus left to consolidate
what had been won in Palestine for the Jews and the family
whose head he had become. The weakness of the king enabled
him to demand and to secure immunity from taxation. The
Jewish aristocracy became peers of the Seleucid kingdom.
Simon was declared high priest: Rome and Sparta rejoiced in
the elevation of their friend and ally. In the hundred and
seventieth year (142
B.C.
) the yoke of the heathen was taken
away from Israel and the people began to date their legal
documents “in the first year of Simon the great high priest and
commander and leader of the Jews.” The popular verdict
received official and formal sanction. Simon was declared by
the Jews and the priests their governor and high priest for ever,
until there should arise a faithful prophet. The garrison of the
Akra had been starved by a close blockade into submission, and
beyond the boundaries of Judaea “he took Joppa for a haven
and made himself master of Gazara and Bethsura.”
29.
John Hyrcanus and the Sadducees.
—But in 138
B.C.
Antiochus Sidetes entered Seleucia and required the submission
of all the petty states, which had taken advantage of the weakness
of preceding kings. From Simon he demanded an indemnity
of 1000 talents for his oppression and invasion of non-Jewish
territory: Simon offered 100 talents. At length Antiochus
appeared to enforce his demand in 134. Simon was dead
(135
B.C.
) and John Hyrcanus had succeeded his father. The
Jewish forces were driven back upon Jerusalem and the city was
closely invested. At the feast of tabernacles of 132 Hyrcanus
requested and Antiochus granted a week’s truce. The only
hope of the Jews lay in the clemency of their victorious suzerain,
and it did not fail them. Some of his advisers urged the demolition
of the nation on the ground of their exclusiveness, but he
sent a sacrifice and won thereby the name of “Pious.” In
subsequent negotiations he accepted the disarmament of the
besieged and a tribute as conditions of peace, and in response
to their entreaty left Jerusalem without a garrison. When he
went on his last disastrous campaign, Hyrcanus led a Jewish
contingent to join his army, partly perhaps a troop of mercenaries
(for Hyrcanus was the first of the Jewish kings to hire mercenaries,
with the treasure found in David’s tomb). After his death
Hyrcanus took advantage of the general confusion to extend
Jewish territory with the countenance of Rome. He destroyed
the temple of Gerizim and compelled the Idumaeans to submit
to circumcision and embrace the laws of the Jews on pain of
deportation.
In Jerusalem and in the country, in Alexandria, Egypt and
Cyprus, the Jews were prosperous (Jos.
Ant.
xiii. 284). This
prosperity and the apparent security of Judaism led to a breach
between Hyrcanus and his spiritual directors, the Pharisees.
His lineage was (in the opinion of one of them at least) of doubtful
purity; and so it was his duty to lay down the high-priesthood
and be content to rule the nation. That one man should hold
both offices was indeed against the example of Moses, and could
only be admitted as a temporary concession to necessity.
Hyrcanus could not entertain the proposal that he should resign
the sacred office to which he owed much of his authority. The
allegation about his mother was false: the Pharisee who retailed
it was guilty of no small offence. A Sadducean friend advised
Hyrcanus to ask the whole body of the Pharisees to prescribe the
penalty. Their leniency, which was notorious, alienated the
king or probably furnished him with a pretext for breaking
with them. The Pharisees were troublesome counsellors and
doubtful allies for an ambitious prince. They were all-powerful
with the people, but Hyrcanus with his mercenaries was independent
of the people, and the wealthy belonged to the sect of
the Sadducees. The suppression of the Pharisaic ordinances
and the punishment of those who observed them led to some
disturbance. But Hyrcanus “was judged worthy of the three
great privileges, the rule of the nation, the high-priestly dignity,
and prophecy.” This verdict suggests that the Sadducees,
with whom he allied himself, had learned to affect some show of
Judaism in Judaea. If the poor were ardent nationalists who
would not intermingle with the Greeks, the rich had long outgrown
and now could humour such prejudices; and the title
of their party was capable of recalling at any rate the sound of
the national ideal of righteousness,
i.e.
Sadaqah
The successor of Hyrcanus (d. 105) was Judas Aristobulus,
“the friend of the Greeks,” who first assumed the title of king.
According to Strabo he was a courteous man and in many ways
useful to the Jews. His great achievement was the conquest
of a part of Ituraea, which he added to Judaea and whose inhabitants
he compelled to accept Judaism.
The Sadducean nobility continued in power under his brother
and successor Alexander Jannaeus (103–78); and the breach
between the king and the mass of the people widened. But
Salome Alexandra, his brother’s widow, who released him from
prison on the death of her husband and married him, was connected
with the Pharisees through her brother Simon ben Shetach.
If his influence or theirs dictated her policy, there is no evidence of
any objection to the union of the secular power with the high-priesthood.
The party may have thought that Jannaeus was
likely to bring the dynasty to an end. His first action was to
besiege Ptolemais. Its citizens appealed to Ptolemy Lathyrus,
who had been driven from the throne of Egypt by his mother
Cleopatra and was reigning in Cyprus. Alexander raised the
siege, made peace with Ptolemy and secretly sent to Cleopatra
for help against her son. The result of this double-dealing was
that his army was destroyed by Ptolemy, who advanced into
Egypt leaving Palestine at the mercy of Cleopatra. But Cleopatra’s
generals were Jews and by their protests prevented her
from annexing it. Being thus freed from fear on the side of
Ptolemy, Alexander continued his desultory campaigns across
the Jordan and on the coast without any apparent policy and
with indifferent success. Finally, when he officiated as high
priest at the feast of tabernacles he roused the fury of the
people by a derisive breach of the Pharisaic ritual. They cried
out that he was unworthy of his office, and pelted him with the
citrons which they were carrying as the Law prescribed. Alexander
summoned his mercenaries, and 6000 Jews were killed
before he set out on his disastrous campaign against an Arabian
king. He returned a fugitive to find the nation in armed rebellion.
After six years of civil war he appealed to them to
state the conditions under which they would lay aside their
hostility. They replied by demanding his death and called in
the Syrians. But when the Syrians chased him into the mountains,
6000 Jews went over to him and, with their aid, he put
down the rebellion. Eight hundred Jews who had held a fortress
against him were crucified; 8000 Pharisees fled to Egypt and
remained there. Offering an ineffectual resistance to the passage
of the Syrian troops, Alexander was driven back by Aretas,
king of Arabia, against whom they had marched. His later
years brought him small victories over isolated cities.
On his deathbed it is said that Alexander advised his wife
to reverse this policy and rely upon the Pharisees. According
to the Talmud, he warned her “to fear neither the Pharisees
nor their opponents but the hypocrites who do the deed of Zimri
and claim the reward of Phinehas:” the warning indicates his
justification of his policy in the matter of the crucifixions. In
any case the Pharisees were predominant under Alexandra,
who became queen (78–69) under her husband’s will. Hyrcanus
her elder son was only high priest, as the stricter Pharisees
required. All the Pharisaic ordinances which Hyrcanus had
abolished were reaffirmed as binding. Simon ben Shatach
stood beside the queen: the exiles were restored and among
them his great colleague Jehudah ben Tabai. The great saying
of each of these rabbis is concerned with the duties of a judge;
the selection does justice to the importance of the Sanhedrin,
which was filled with Pharisees. The legal reforms which they
introduced tended for the most part to mercy, but the Talmud
refers to one case which is an exception: false witnesses were
condemned to suffer the penalty due to their victim, even if he
escaped. This ruling may be interpreted as part of a campaign
directed against the counsellors of Alexander or as an instance
of their general principle that intention is equivalent to commission
in the eye of the Law. The queen interposed to prevent
the execution of those who had counselled the crucifixion of the
rebels and permitted them to withdraw with her younger son
Aristobulus to the fortresses outside Jerusalem. Against their
natural desire for revenge may be set the fact that the Pharisees
did much to improve the status of women among the Jews.
On the death of Alexandra (69
B.C.
) Aristobulus disputed the
succession of Hyrcanus. When their forces met at Jericho,
Hyrcanus, finding that the bulk of his following deserted to
Aristobulus, fled with those who remained to the tower Antonia
and seized Aristobulus’s wife and children as hostages for his
own safety. Having this advantage, he was able to abdicate
in favour of Aristobulus and to retire into private life. But he
was not able to save his friends, who were also the enemies of
the reigning king. In fear of reprisals Antipas (or Antipater),
the Idumaean, his counsellor, played on the fears of Hyrcanus
and persuaded him to buy the aid of the Nabataean Arabs with
promises. Aristobulus could not withstand the army of Aretas:
he was driven back upon Jerusalem and there besieged. The
Jews deserted to the victorious Hyrcanus: only the priests
remained loyal to their accepted king; many fled to Egypt.
30.
The Romans and the Idumaeans.
—At this point the power
of Rome appeared upon the scene in the person of M. Aemilius
Scaurus (stepson of Sulla) who had been sent into Syria by
Pompey (65
B.C.
). Both brothers appealed to this new tribunal
and Aristobulus bought a verdict in his favour. The siege was
raised. Aretas retired from Judaea; and Aristobulus pursued
the retreating army. But, when Pompey himself arrived at
Damascus, Antipater, who pulled the strings and exploited the
claims of Hyrcanus, realized that Rome and not the Arabs, who
were cowed by the threats of Scaurus, was the ruler of the East.
To Rome, therefore, he must pay his court. Others shared this
conviction: Strabo speaks of embassies from Egypt and Judaea
bearing presents—one deposited in the temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus bore the inscription of Alexander, the king of the
Jews. From Judaea there were three embassies pleading, for
Aristobulus, for Hyrcanus, and for the nation, who would have
no king at all but their God.
Pompey deferred his decision until he should have inquired
into the state of the Nabataeans, who had shown themselves
to be capable of dominating the Jews in the absence of the
Roman army. In the interval Aristobulus provoked him by his
display of a certain impatience. The people had no responsible
head, of whom Rome could take cognisance: so Pompey decided
in favour of Hyrcanus and humoured the people by recognizing
him, not as king, but as high priest. Antipater remained secure,
in power if not in place. The Roman supremacy was established:
the Jews were once more one of the subject states of Syria, now
a Roman province. Their national aspirations had received
a contemptuous acknowledgment, when their Temple had been
desecrated by the entry of a foreign conqueror.
Aristobulus himself had less resolution than his partisans.
When he repented of his attempted resistance and treated with
Pompey for peace, his followers threw themselves into Jerusalem,
and, when the faction of Hyrcanus resolved to open the
gates, into the Temple. There they held out for three months,
succumbing finally because in obedience to the Law (as interpreted
since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes) they would only
defend themselves from actual assault upon the sabbath day.
The Romans profited by this inaction to push on the siege-works,
without provoking resistance by actual assaults until the
very end. Pompey finally took the stronghold by choosing
the day of the fast, when the Jews abstain from all work, that is
the sabbath (Strabo). Dio Cassius calls it the day of Cronos.
On this bloody sabbath the priests showed a devotion to their
worship which matched the inaction of the fighting men. Though
they saw the enemy advancing upon them sword in hand they
remained at worship untroubled and were slaughtered as they
poured libation and burned incense, for they put their own
safety second to the service of God. And there were Jews among
the murderers of the 12,000 Jews who fell.
The Jews of Palestine thus became once more a subject state,
stripped of their conquests and confined to their own borders.
Aristobulus and his children were conveyed to Rome to grace
their conqueror’s triumphal procession. But his son Alexander
escaped during the journey, gathered some force, and overran
Judaea. The Pharisees decided that they could not take action
on either side, since the elder son of Alexandra was directed
by the Idumaean Antipater; and the people had an affection for
such Asmonean princes as dared to challenge the Roman domination
of their ancestral kingdom. The civil war was renewed;
but Aulus Gabinius, the proconsul, soon crushed the pretender
and set up an aristocracy in Judaea with Hyrcanus as guardian
of the Temple. The country was divided into five districts with
five synods; and Josephus asserts that the people welcomed
the change from the monarchy. In spite of this, Aristobulus
(56
B.C.
) and Alexander (55
B.C.
) found loyalists to follow them
in their successive raids. But Antipater found supplies for the
army of Gabinius, who, despite Egyptian and Parthian distractions,
restored order according to the will of Antipater. M.
Crassus, who succeeded him, plundered the Temple of its gold
and the treasure (54
B.C.
) which the Jews of the dispersion had
contributed for its maintenance. It is said that Eleazar, the
priest who guarded the treasure, offered Crassus the golden
beam as ransom for the whole, knowing, what no one else knew,
that it was mainly composed of wood. So Crassus departed to
Parthia and died. When the Parthians, elated by their victory
over Crassus (53
B.C.
) advanced upon Syria, Cassius opposed
them. Some of the Jews, presumably the partisans of Aristobulus,
were ready to co-operate with the Parthians. At any rate
Antipater was ready to aid Cassius with advice; Taricheae was
taken and 30,000 Jews were sold into slavery (51
B.C.
). In
spite of this vigorous coercion Cassius came to terms with
Alexander, before he returned to the Euphrates to hold it
against the Parthians.
Two years later Julius Caesar made himself master of Rome
and despatched the captive Aristobulus with two legions to
win Judaea (49
B.C.
). But Pompey’s partisans were beforehand
with him: he was taken off by poison and got not so much as a
burial in his fatherland. At the same time his son Alexander
was beheaded at Antioch by Pompey’s order as an enemy of
Rome. After the defeat and death of Pompey (48
B.C.
) Antipater
transferred his allegiance to Caesar and demonstrated its value
during Caesar’s Egyptian campaign. He carried with him the
Arabs and the princes of Syria, and through Hyrcanus he was
able to transform the hostility of the Egyptian Jews into active
friendliness. These services, which incidentally illustrate the
solidarity and unity of the Jewish nation and the respect of the
communities of the dispersion for the metropolis, were recognized
and rewarded. Before his assassination in 44
B.C.
Julius
Caesar had confirmed Hyrcanus in the high-priesthood and added
the title of ethnarch. Antipater had been made a Roman
citizen and procurator of the reunited Judaea. Further, as
confederates of the senate and people of Rome, the Jews had
received accession of territory, including the port of Joppa and,
with other material privileges, the right of observing their
religious customs not only in Palestine but also in Alexandria
and elsewhere. Idumaean or Philistine of Ascalon, Antipater
had displayed the capacity of his adoptive or adopted nation for
his own profit and theirs. And when Caesar died Suetonius
notes that he was mourned by foreign nations, especially by the
Jews (
Caes.
84).
In the midst of all this civil strife the Pharisees and all who
were preoccupied with religion found it almost impossible to
discern what they should do to please God. The people whom
they directed were called out to fight, at the bidding of an alien,
for this and that foreigner who seemed most powerful and most
likely to succeed. In Palestine few could command leisure for
meditation; as for opportunities of effective intervention in
affairs, they had none, it would seem, once Alexander was
dead.
There is a story of a priest named Onias preserved both by
Josephus and in the Talmud, which throws some light upon the indecision
of the religious in the period just reviewed. When Aretas
intervened in the interest of Hyrcanus and defeated Aristobulus,
the usurper of his brother’s inheritance, the people accepted the
verdict of battle, sided with the victor’s client, and joined in the
siege of Jerusalem. The most reputable of the Jews fled to Egypt;
but Onias, a righteous man and dear to God, who had hidden himself,
was discovered by the besiegers. He had a name for power in prayer;
for once in a drought he prayed for rain and God had heard his prayer.
His captors now required of him that he should put a curse upon
Aristobulus and his faction. On compulsion he stood in their midst
and said: “O God, king of the universe, since these who stand with
me are thy people and the besieged are thy priests, I pray thee that
thou hearken not to those against these, nor accomplish what
these entreat against those.” So he prayed—and the wicked Jews
stoned him.
Unrighteous Jews were in the ascendant. There were only
Asmonean princes, degenerate and barely titular sons of Levi, to
serve as judges of Israel—and they were at feud and both relied upon
foreign aid. The righteous could only flee or hide, and so wait
dreaming of the mercy of God past and to come. As yet our authorities
do not permit us to follow them to Egypt with any certainty,
but the
Psalms of Solomon
express the mind of one who survived
to see Pompey the Great brought low. Although Pompey had
spared the temple treasure, he was the embodiment of the power of
Rome, which was not always so considerately exercised. And so
the psalmist exults in his death and dishonour (Ps. ii.): he prayed
that the pride of the dragon might be humbled and God shewed him
the dead body lying upon the waves—and there was none to bury it.
As one of those who fear the Lord in truth and in patience, he looks
forward to the punishment of all sinners who oppress the righteous
and profane the sanctuary. For the sins of the rulers God had
rejected his people; but the remnant could not but inherit the promises,
which belong to the chosen people. For the Lord is faithful unto
those who walk in the righteousness of his commandments (xiv. 1):
in the exercise of their freewill and with God’s help they will attain
salvation. As God’s servant, Pompey destroyed their rulers and every
wise councillor: soon the righteous and sinless king of David’s house
shall reign over them and over all the nations (xvii.).
31.
Herod the Great.
—After the departure of Caesar, Antipater
warned the adherents of Hyrcanus against taking part in any
revolutionary attempts, and his son Herod, who, in spite of his
youth, had been appointed governor of Galilee, dealt summarily
with Hezekiah, the robber captain who was overrunning the
adjacent part of Syria. The gratitude of the Syrians brought
him to the knowledge of Sextus Caesar the governor of Syria;
but his action inspired the chief men of the Jews with apprehension.
Complaint was made to Hyrcanus that Herod had
violated the law which prohibited the execution of even an evil
man, unless he had been first condemned to death by the Sanhedrin.
At the same time the mothers of the murdered men
came to the Temple to demand vengeance. So Herod was
summoned to stand his trial. He came in answer to the summons—but
attended by a bodyguard and protected by the word of
Sextus. Of all the Sanhedrin only Sameas “a righteous man
and therefore superior to fear” dared to speak. Being a Pharisee
he faced the facts of Herod’s power and warned the tribunal
of the event, just as later he counselled the people to receive
him, saying that for their sins they could not escape him. Herod
put his own profit above the Law, acting after his kind, and he
also was God’s instrument. The effect of the speech was to
goad the Sanhedrin into condemning Herod: Hyrcanus postponed
their decision and persuaded him to flee. Sextus Caesar
made him lieutenant-governor of Coele Syria, and only his
father restrained him from returning to wreak his revenge
upon Hyrcanus.
It is to be remembered that, in this and all narratives of the life
of Herod, Josephus was dependent upon the history of Herod’s
client, Nicolaus of Damascus, and was himself a supporter of law and
order. The action of the Sanhedrin and the presence of the women
suppliants in the Temple suggest, if they do not prove, that this
Hezekiah who harassed the Syrians was a Jewish patriot, who could
not acquiesce and wait with Sameas.
Malichus also, the murderer or reputed murderer of Antipater,
appears to have been a partisan of Hyrcanus, who had
a zeal for Judaism. When Cassius demanded a tribute of
700 talents from Palestine, Antipater set Herod, Phasael and
this Malichus, his enemy, to collect it. Herod thought it imprudent
to secure the favour of Rome by the sufferings of others.
But some cities defaulted, and they were apparently among those
assigned to Malichus. If he had been lenient for their sakes or
in the hope of damaging Antipater, he was disappointed; for
Cassius sold four cities into slavery and Hyrcanus made up the
deficit. Soon after this (43
B.C.
) Malichus succeeded, it is said,
in poisoning Antipater as he dined with Hyrcanus, and was assassinated
by Herod’s bravoes.
After the departure of Cassius, Antipater being dead, there
was confusion in Judaea. Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus,
made a raid and was with difficulty repulsed by Herod. The
prince of Tyre occupied part of Galilee. When Antony assumed
the dominion of the East after the defeat of Cassius at Philippi,
an embassy of the Jews, amongst other embassies, approached
him in Bithynia and accused the sons of Antipater as usurpers
of the power which rightly belonged to Hyrcanus. Another
approached him at Antioch. But Hyrcanus was well content
to forgo the title to political power, which he could not exercise
in practice, and Antony had been a friend of Antipater. So
Herod and Phasael continued to be virtually kings of the Jews:
Antony’s court required large remittances and Palestine was not
exempt.
In 40
B.C.
Antony was absent in Egypt or Italy; and the
Parthians swept down upon Syria with Antigonus in their train.
Hyrcanus and Phasael were trapped: Herod fled by way of
Egypt to Rome. Hyrcanus, who was Antigonus’ only rival, was
mutilated and carried to Parthia. So he could no more be
high priest, and his life was spared only at the intercession of
the Parthian Jews, who had a regard for the Asmonean prince.
Thus Antigonus succeeded his uncle as “King Antigonus” in
the Greek and “Mattathiah the high priest” in the Hebrew by
grace of the Parthians.
The senate of Rome under the influence of Antony and
Octavian ratified the claims of Herod, and after some delay lent
him the armed force necessary to make them good. In the hope
of healing the breach, which his success could only aggravate,
and for love, he took to wife Mariamne, grandniece of Hyrcanus.
Galilee was pacified, Jerusalem taken and Antigonus beheaded
by the Romans. From this point to the end of the period the
Jews were dependents of Rome, free to attend to their own
affairs, so long as they paid taxes to the subordinate rulers,
Herodian or Roman, whom they detested equally. If some
from time to time dared to hope for political independence their
futility was demonstrated. One by one the descendants of the
Asmoneans were removed. The national hope was relegated to
an indefinite future and to another sphere. At any rate the
Jews were free to worship their God and to study his law: their
religion was recognized by the state and indeed established.
This development of Judaism was eminently to the mind of
the rulers; and Herod did much to encourage it. More and
more it became identified with the synagogue, in which the
Law was expounded: more and more it became a matter for
the individual and his private life. This was so even in Palestine—the
land which the Jews hoped to possess—and in Jerusalem
itself, the holy city, in which the Temple stood. Herod had
put down Jewish rebels and Herod appointed the high priests.
In his appointments he was careful to avoid or to suppress
any person who, being popular, might legitimize a rebellion by
heading it. The Pharisees, who regarded his rule as an inevitable
penalty for the sins of the people, he encouraged. Pollio the
Pharisee and Sameas his disciple were in special honour with
him, Josephus says, when he re-entered Jerusalem and put to
death the leaders of the faction of Antigonus. How well their
teaching served his purpose is shown by the sayings of two
rabbis who, if not identical with these Pharisees, belong to their
period and their party. Shemaiah said, “Love work and hate
lordship and make not thyself known to the government.”
Abtalion said, “Ye wise, be guarded in your words: perchance
ye may incur the debt of exile.” Precepts such as these could
hardly fall to effect some modification of the reckless zeal of
the Galileans in the pupils of the synagogue. Many if not all
of the professed rabbis had travelled outside Palestine: some
were even members of the dispersion, like Hillel the Babylonian,
who with Shammai forms the second of the pairs. Through
them the experience of the dispersion was brought to bear upon
the Palestinian Jews. Herod’s nominees were not the men to
extend the prestige of the high-priesthood at the expense of
these rabbis: even in Jerusalem the synagogue became of more
importance than the Temple. Hillel also inculcated the duty of
making converts to Judaism. He said, “Be of the disciples of
Aaron, loving peace, and pursuing peace, loving mankind and
bringing them nigh to the Law.” But even he reckoned the
books of Daniel and Esther as canonical, and these were
dangerous food for men who did not realize the full power of
Rome.
So long as Herod lived there was no insurrection. Formally
he was an orthodox Jew and set his face against intermarriage
with the uncircumcised. He was also ready and able to protect
the Jews of the dispersion. But that ability was largely due to
his whole-hearted Hellenism, which was shown by the Greek
cities which he founded in Palestine and the buildings he erected
in Jerusalem. In its material embodiments Greek civilization
became as much a part of Jewish life in Palestine as it was in
Alexandria or Antioch; and herein the rabbis could not follow
him.
When all the Jewish people swore to be loyal to Caesar and
the king’s policy, the Pharisees—above 6000—refused to swear.
The king imposed a fine upon them, and the wife of Pheroras—Herod’s
brother—paid it on their behalf. In return for her
kindness, being entrusted with foreknowledge by the visitation
of God, they prophesied that God had decreed an end of rule for
Herod and his line and that the sovereignty devolved upon her
and Pheroras and their children.
From the sequel it appears that the prophecy was uttered by
one Pharisee only, and that it was in no way endorsed by the
party. When it came to the ears of the king he slew the most
responsible of the Pharisees and every member of his household
who accepted what the Pharisee said. An explanation of this
unwarrantable generalization may be found in the fact that the
incident is derived from a source which was unfavourable to the
Pharisees: they are described as a Jewish section of men who
pretend to set great store by the exactitude of the ancestral
tradition and the laws in which the deity delights—as dominant
over women-folk—and as sudden and quick in quarrel.
Towards the end of Herod’s life two rabbis attempted to uphold
by physical force the cardinal dogma of Judaism, which
prohibited the use of images. Their action is intelligible enough.
Herod was stricken with an incurable disease. He had sinned
against the Law; and at last God had punished him. At last
the law-abiding Jews might and must assert the majesty of the
outraged Law. The most conspicuous of the many symbols and
signs of his transgression was the golden eagle which he had
placed over the great gate of the Temple; its destruction was
the obvious means to adopt for the quickening and assertion
of Jewish principles.
By their labours in the education of the youth of the nation,
these rabbis, Judas and Matthias, had endeared themselves to
the populace and had gained influence over their disciples. A
report that Herod was dead co-operated with their exhortations
to send the iconoclasts to their appointed work. And so they
went to earn the rewards of their practical piety from the Law.
If they died, death was inevitable, the rabbis said, and no better
death would they ever find. Moreover, their children and kindred
would benefit by the good name and fame belonging to those who
died for the Law. Such is the account which Josephus gives
in the
Antiquities
; in the
Jewish War
he represents the rabbis
and their disciples as looking forward to greater happiness for
themselves after such a death. But Herod was not dead yet, and
the instigators and the agents of this sacrilege were burned
alive.
32.
The Settlement of Augustus.
—On the death of Herod in 4
B.C.
Archelaus kept open house for mourners as the Jewish custom,
which reduced many Jews to beggary, prescribed. The people
petitioned for the punishment of those who were responsible for
the execution of Matthias and his associates and for the removal of
the high priest. Archelaus temporized; the loyalty of the people
no longer constituted a valid title to the throne; his succession
must first be sanctioned by Augustus. Before he departed to
Rome on this errand, which was itself an insult to the nation,
there were riots in Jerusalem at the Passover which he needed
all his soldiery to put down. When he presented himself before
the emperor—apart from rival claimants of his own family—there
was an embassy from the Jewish people who prayed to
be rid of a monarchy and rulers such as Herod. As part of
the Roman province of Syria and under its governors they
would prove that they were not really disaffected and rebellious.
During the absence of Archelaus, who would—the Jews feared—prove
his legitimacy by emulating his father’s ferocity, and to
whom their ambassadors preferred Antipas, the Jews of Palestine
gave the lie to their protestations of loyalty and peaceableness. At
the Passover the pilgrims attacked the Roman troops. After
hard fighting the procurator, whose cruelty provoked the attack,
captured the Temple and robbed the treasury. On this the
insurgents were joined by some of Herod’s army and besieged the
Romans in Herod’s palace. Elsewhere the occasion tempted
many to play at being king—Judas, son of Hezekiah, in Galilee;
Simon, one of the king’s slaves, in Peraea. Most notable of all
perhaps was the shepherd Athronges, who assumed the pomp of
royalty and employed his four brothers as captains and satraps in
the war which he waged upon Romans and king’s men alike—not
even Jews escaped him unless they brought him contributions.
Order was restored by Varus the governor of Syria in a campaign
which Josephus describes as the most important war between that
of Pompey and that of Vespasian.
At length Augustus summoned the representatives of the nation
and Nicholaus of Damascus, who spoke for Archelaus, to plead
before him in the temple of Apollo. Augustus apportioned
Herod’s dominions among his sons in accordance with the provisions
of his latest will. Archelaus received the lion’s share:
for ten years he was ethnarch of Idumaea, Judaea and Samaria,
with a yearly revenue of 600 talents. Antipas became tetrarch
of Galilee and Peraea, with a revenue of 200 talents. Philip,
who had been left in charge of Palestine pending the decision
and had won the respect of Varus, became tetrarch of Batanaea,
Trachonitis and Auranitis, with 100 talents. His subjects
included only a sprinkling of Jews. Up to his death (
A.D.
34) he
did nothing to forfeit the favour of Rome. His coins bore the
heads of Augustus and Tiberius, and his government was worthy
of the best Roman traditions—he succeeded where proconsuls
had failed. His capital was Caesarea Philippi, where Pan had
been worshipped from ancient times, and where Augustus had a
temple built by Herod the Great.
33.
Archelaus
.—Augustus had counselled Archelaus to deal
gently with his subjects. But there was an outstanding feud
between him and them; and his first act as ethnarch was to
remove the high priest on the ground of his sympathy with the
rebels. In violation of the Law he married a brother’s widow,
who had already borne children, and in general he showed himself
so fierce and tyrannical that the Jews joined with the Samaritans
to accuse him before the emperor. Archelaus was summoned
to Rome and banished to Gaul; his territory was entrusted to a
series of procurators (
A.D.
6–41), among whom was an apostate
Jew, but none with any pretension even to a semi-legitimate
authority. Each procurator represented not David but Caesar.
The Sanhedrin had its police and powers to safeguard the Jewish
religion; but the procurator had the appointment of the high
priests, and no capital sentence could be executed without his
sanction.
34.
The Procurators
.—So the Jews of Judaea obtained the
settlement for which they had pleaded at the death of Herod;
and some of them began to regret it at once. The first procurator
Coponius was accompanied by P. Sulpicius Quirinius,
legate of Syria, who came to organize the new Roman province.
As a necessary preliminary a census (
A.D.
6–7) was taken after
the Roman method, which did not conform to the Jewish Law.
The people were affronted, but for the most part acquiesced,
under the influence of Joazar the high priest. But Judas the
Galilean, with a Pharisee named Sadduc (Sadduk), endeavoured
to incite them to rebellion in the name of religion. The result of
this alliance between a revolutionary and a Pharisee was the
formation of the party of Zealots, whose influence—according
to Josephus—brought about the great revolt and so led to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70. So far as this influence extended,
the Jewish community was threatened with the danger
of suicide, and the distinction drawn by Josephus between the
Pharisees and the Zealots is a valid one. Not all Pharisees were
prepared to take such action, in order that Israel might
“tread on the neck of the eagle” (as is said in
The Assumption of
Moses
). So long as the Law was not deliberately outraged and
so long as the worship was established, most of the religious
leaders of the Jews were content to wait.
It seems that the Zealots made more headway in Galilee than
in Judaea—so much so that the terms Galilean and Zealot are
practically interchangeable. In Galilee the Jews predominated
over the heathen and their ruler Herod Antipas had some sort
of claim upon their allegiance. His marriage with the daughter
of the Arabian king Aretas (which was at any rate in accordance
with the general policy of Augustus) seems to have preserved his
territory from the incursions of her people, so long as he remained
faithful to her. He conciliated his subjects by his deference
to the observances of Judaism, and—the case is probably
typical of his policy—he joined in protesting, when Pilate set
up a votive shield in the palace of Herod within the sacred city.
He seems to have served Tiberius as an official scrutineer of
the imperial officials and he commemorated his devotion by
the foundation of the city of Tiberias. But he repudiated the
daughter of Aretas in order to marry Herodias and so set the
Arabians against him. Disaster overtook his forces (
A.D.
36)
and Tiberius, his patron, died before the Roman power was
brought in full strength to his aid. Caligula was not predisposed
to favour the favourites of Tiberius; and Antipas, having
petitioned him for the title of king at the instigation of Herodias,
was banished from his tetrarchy and (apparently) was
put to death in 39.
Antipas is chiefly known to history in connexion with John the
Baptist, who reproached him publicly for his marriage with
Herodias. According to the earliest authority, he seems to
have imprisoned John to save him from the vengeance of
Herodias. But—whatever his motive—Antipas certainly consented
to John’s death. If the Fourth Gospel is to be
trusted, John had already recognized and acclaimed Jesus of
Nazareth as the Messiah for whom the Jews were looking. By
common consent of Christendom, John was the forerunner of the
founder of the Christian Church. It was, therefore, during the
reign of Antipas, and partly if not wholly within his territory,
that the Gospel was first preached by the rabbi or prophet whom
Christendom came to regard as the one true Christ, the Messiah
of the Jews. Josephus’ history of the Jews contains accounts
of John the Baptist and Jesus, the authenticity of which has
been called in question for plausible but not entirely convincing
reasons. However this may be, the Jews who believed Jesus to
be the Christ play no great part in the history of the Jews before
70, as we know it. Many religious teachers and many revolutionaries
were crucified within this period; and the early
Christians were outwardly distinguished from other Jews only
by their scrupulous observance of religious duties.
The crucifixion of Jesus was sanctioned by Pontius Pilate,
who was procurator of Judaea
A.D.
26–36. Of the Jews under
his predecessors little enough is known. Speaking generally,
they seem to have avoided giving offence to their subjects. But
Pilate so conducted affairs as to attract the attention not only
of Josephus but also of Philo, who represents for us the Jewish
community of Alexandria. Pilate inaugurated his term of
office by ordering his troops to enter Jerusalem at night and to
take their standards with them. There were standards and
standards in the Roman armies: those which bore the image of
the emperor, and therefore constituted a breach of the Jewish
Law, had hitherto been kept aloof from the holy city. On
learning of this, the Jews repaired to Caesarea and besought
Pilate to remove these offensive images. Pilate refused; and,
when they persisted in their petition for six days, he surrounded
them with soldiers and threatened them with instant death.
They protested that they would rather die than dare to transgress
the wisdom of the laws; and Pilate yielded. But he proceeded
to expend the temple treasure upon an aqueduct for Jerusalem;
and some of the Jews regarded the devotion of sacred money to
the service of man as a desecration. Pilate came up to Jerusalem
and dispersed the petitioners by means of disguised soldiers
armed with clubs. So the revolt was put down, but the excessive
zeal of the soldiers and Pilate’s obstinate adherence to his
policy widened the breach between Rome and the stricter Jews.
But the death of Sejanus in 31 set Tiberius free from prejudice
against the Jews; and, when Pilate put up the votive shields in
Herod’s palace at Jerusalem, the four sons of Herod came forward
in defence of Jewish principles and he was ordered to remove
them. In 35 he dispersed a number of Samaritans, who had
assembled near Mt Gerizim at the bidding of an impostor, in
order to see the temple vessels buried there by Moses. Complaint
was made to Vitellius, then legate of Syria, and Pilate was sent
to Rome to answer for his shedding of innocent blood. At the
passover of 36 Vitellius came to Jerusalem and pacified the Jews
by two concessions: he remitted the taxes on fruit sold in the
city, and he restored to their custody the high priest’s vestments,
which Herod Archelaus and the Romans had kept in the tower
Antonia. The vestments had been stored there since the time
of the first high priest named Hyrcanus, and Herod had taken
them over along with the tower, thinking that his possession of
them would deter the Jews from rebellion against his rule. At
the same time Vitellius vindicated the Roman supremacy by
degrading Caiaphas from the high-priesthood, and appointing a
son of Annas in his place. The motive for this change does not
appear, and we are equally ignorant of the cause which prompted
his transference of the priesthood from his nominee to another
son of Annas in 37. But it is quite clear that Vitellius was concerned
to reconcile the Jews to the authority of Rome. When
he marched against Aretas, his army with their standards did
not enter Judaea at all; but he himself went up to Jerusalem for
the feast and, on receipt of the news that Tiberius was dead,
administered to the Jews the oath of allegiance to Caligula.
35.
Caligula and Agrippa I
.—The accession of Caligula (
A.D.
37–41) was hailed by his subjects generally as the beginning of
the Golden Age. The Jews in particular had a friend at court.
Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the Great, was an avowed
partisan of the new emperor and had paid penalty for a premature
avowal of his preference. But Caligula’s favour, though
lavished upon Agrippa, was not available for pious Jews. His
foible was omnipotence, and he aped the gods of Greece in turn.
In the provinces and even in Italy his subjects were ready to
acknowledge his divinity—with the sole exception of the Jews.
So we learn something of the Palestinian Jews and more of the
Jewish community in Alexandria. The great world (as we know
it) took small note of Judaism even when Jews converted its
women to their faith; but now the Jews as a nation refused to
bow before the present god of the civilized world. The new
Catholicism was promulgated by authority and accepted with
deference. Only the Jews protested: they had a notion of the
deity which Caligula at all events did not fulfil.
The people of Alexandria seized the opportunity for an attack
upon the Jews. Images of Caligula were set up in the synagogues,
an edict deprived the Jews of their rights as citizens,
and finally the governor authorized the mob to sack the Jewish
quarter, as if it had been a conquered city (38). Jewesses were
forced to eat pork and the elders were scourged in the theatre.
But Agrippa had influence with the emperor and secured the
degradation of the governor. The people and the Jews remained
in a state of civil war, until each side sent an embassy
(40) to wait upon the emperor. The Jewish embassy was
headed by Philo, who has described its fortunes in a tract dealing
with the divine punishment of the persecutors. Their opponents
also had secured a friend at court and seem to have prevented any
effective measure of redress. While the matter was still pending,
news arrived that the emperor had commanded Publius Petronius,
the governor of Syria, to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem.
On the intervention of Agrippa the order was countermanded,
and the assassination of the emperor (41) effectually
stopped the desecration.
36.
Claudius and the Procurators
.—Claudius, the new emperor,
restored the civic rights of the Alexandrian Jews and made
Agrippa I. king over all the territories of Herod the Great. So
there was once more a king of Judaea, and a king who observed
the tradition of the Pharisees and protected the Jewish religion.
There is a tradition in the Talmud which illustrates his popularity.
As he was reading the Law at the feast of tabernacles he burst
into tears at the words “Thou mayest not set a stranger over
thee which is not thy brother”; and the people cried out,
“Fear not, Agrippa; thou art our brother.” The fact that he
began to build a wall round Jerusalem may be taken as further
proof of his patriotism. But the fact that he summoned five
vassal-kings of the empire to a conference at Tiberias suggests
rather a policy of self-aggrandisement. Both projects were
prohibited by the emperor on the intervention of the legate.
In 44 he died. The Christian records treat his death as an act
of divine vengeance upon the persecutor of the Christian Church.
The Jews prayed for his recovery and lamented him. The
Gentile soldiers exulted in the downfall of his dynasty, which
they signalized after their own fashion. Claudius intended that
Agrippa’s young son should succeed to the kingdom; but he was
overruled by his advisers, and Judaea was taken over once more
by Roman procurators. The success of Agrippa’s brief reign
had revived the hopes of the Jewish nationalists, and concessions
only retarded the inevitable insurrection.
Cuspius Fadus, the first of these procurators, purged the
land of bandits. He also attempted to regain for the Romans
the custody of the high priest’s vestments; but the Jews appealed
to the emperor against the revival of this advertisement of their
servitude. The emperor granted the petition, which indeed the
procurator had permitted them to make, and further transferred
the nomination of the high priest and the supervision of the
temple from the procurator to Agrippa’s brother, Herod of
Chalcis. But these concessions did not satisfy the hopes of the
people. During the government of Fadus, Theudas, who claimed
to be a prophet and whom Josephus describes as a wizard, persuaded
a large number to take up their possessions and follow him
to the Jordan, saying that he would cleave the river asunder
with a word of command and so provide them with an easy
crossing. A squadron of cavalry despatched by Fadus took them
alive, cut off the head of Theudas and brought it to Jerusalem.
Under the second procurator Tiberius Alexander, an apostate
Jew of Alexandria, nephew of Philo, the Jews suffered from a
great famine and were relieved by the queen of Adiabene, a
proselyte to Judaism, who purchased corn from Egypt. The
famine was perhaps interpreted by the Zealots as a punishment
for their acquiescence in the rule of an apostate. At any rate
Alexander crucified two sons of Simon the Galilean, who had
headed a revolt in the time of the census. They had presumably
followed the example of their father.
Under Ventidius Cumanus (48–52) the mutual hatred of Jews
and Romans, Samaritans and Jews, found vent in insults and
bloodshed. At the passover, on the fourth day of the feast, a
soldier mounting guard at the porches of the Temple provoked an
uproar, which ended in a massacre, by indecent exposure of his
person. Some of the rebels intercepted a slave of the emperor
on the high-road near the city and robbed him of his possessions.
Troops were sent to pacify the country, and in one village a
soldier found a copy of Moses’ laws and tore it up in public with
jeers and blasphemies. At this the Jews flocked to Caesarea,
and were only restrained from a second outbreak by the execution
of the soldier. Finally, the Samaritans attacked certain Galileans
who were (as the custom was) travelling through Samaria
to Jerusalem for the passover. Cumanus was bribed and refused
to avenge the death of the Jews who were killed. So the Galileans
with some of the lower classes of “the Jews” allied themselves
with a “robber” and burned some of the Samaritan
villages. Cumanus armed the Samaritans, and, with them and
his own troops, defeated these Jewish marauders. The leading
men of Jerusalem prevailed upon the rebels who survived the
defeat to disperse. But the quarrel was referred first to the
legate of Syria and then to the emperor. The emperor was still
disposed to conciliate the Jews; and, at the instance of Agrippa,
son of Agrippa I., Cumanus was banished.
37.
Felix and the Revolutionaries
.—Under Antonius Felix
(52–60) the revolutionary movement grew and spread. The
country, Josephus says, was full of “robbers” and “wizards.”
The high priest was murdered in the Temple by pilgrims who
carried daggers under their cloaks. Wizards and impostors persuaded
the multitude to follow them into the desert, and an
Egyptian, claiming to be a prophet, led his followers to the Mount
of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall at his command. Such
deceivers, according to Josephus, did no less than the murderers
to destroy the happiness of the city. Their hands were cleaner
but their thoughts were more impious, for they pretended to
divine inspiration.
Felix the procurator—a king, as Tacitus says, in power and
in mind a slave—tried in vain to put down the revolutionaries.
The “chief-robber” Eleazar, who had plundered the country for
twenty years, was caught and sent to Rome; countless robbers of
less note were crucified. But this severity cemented the alliance
of religious fanatics with the physical-force party and induced
the ordinary citizens to join them, in spite of the punishments
which they received when captured. Agrippa II. received a
kingdom—first Chalcis, and then the tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanias—but, though he had the oversight of the Temple and
the nomination of the high priest, and enjoyed a reputation for
knowledge of Jewish customs and questions, he was unable to
check the growing power of the Zealots. His sister Drusilla had
broken the Law by her marriage with Felix; and his own notorious
relations with his sister Berenice, and his coins which bore the
images of the emperors, were an open affront to the conscience
of Judaism. When Felix was recalled by Nero in 60 the nation
was divided against itself, the Gentiles within its gates were
watching for their opportunity, and the chief priests robbed the
lower priests with a high hand.
In Caesarea there had been for some time trouble between the
Jewish and the Syrian inhabitants. The Jews claimed that the
city was theirs, because King Herod had founded it. The Syrians
admitted the fact, but insisted that it was a city for Greeks,
as its temples and statues proved. Their rivalry led to street-fighting:
the Jews had the advantage in respect of wealth and
bodily strength, but the Greek party had the assistance of the
soldiers who were stationed there. On one occasion Felix sent
troops against the victorious Jews; but neither this nor the scourge
and the prison, to which the leaders of both factions had been
consigned, deterred them. The quarrel was therefore referred to
the emperor Nero, who finally gave his decision in favour of the
Syrians or Greeks. The result of this decision was that the
synagogue at Caesarea was insulted on a Sabbath and the Jews
left the city taking their books of the Law with them. So—Josephus
says—the war began in the twelfth year of the reign of
Nero (
A.D.
66).
38.
Festus, Albinus and Florus
.—Meanwhile the procurators
who succeeded Felix—Porcius Festus (60–62), Albinus (62–64)
and Gessius Florus (64–66)—had in their several ways brought
the bulk of the nation into line with the more violent of the Jews
of Caesarea. Festus found Judaea infested with robbers and
the Sicarii, who mingled with the crowds at the feasts and
stabbed their enemies with the daggers (
sicae
) from which their
name was derived. He also, had to deal with a wizard, who deceived
many by promising them salvation and release from evils,
if they would follow him into the desert. His attempts to crush
all such disturbers of the peace were cut short by his death in
his second year of office.
In the interval which elapsed before the arrival of Albinus,
Ananus son of Annas was made high priest by Agrippa. With
the apparent intention of restoring order in Jerusalem, he
assembled the Sanhedrin, and being, as a Sadducee, cruel in the
matter of penalties, secured the condemnation of certain lawbreakers
to death by stoning. For this he was deposed by
Agrippa. Albinus fostered and turned to his profit the struggles
of priests with priests and of Zealots with their enemies. The
general release of prisoners, with which he celebrated his impending
recall, is typical of his policy. Meanwhile Agrippa gave the
Levites the right to wear the linen robe of the priests and sanctioned
the use of the temple treasure to provide work—the paving
of the city with white stones—for the workmen who had finished
the Temple (64) and now stood idle. But everything pointed to
the destruction of the city, which one Jesus had prophesied at
the feast of tabernacles in 62. The Zealots’ zeal for the Law and
the Temple was flouted by their pro-Roman king.
By comparison with Florus, Albinus was, in the opinion of
Josephus, a benefactor. When the news of the troubles at
Caesarea reached Jerusalem, it became known also that Florus
had seized seventeen talents of the temple treasure (66). At this
the patience of the Jews was exhausted. The sacrilege, as they
considered it, may have been an attempt to recover arrears of
tribute; but they were convinced that Florus was providing for
himself and not for Caesar. The revolutionaries went about
among the excited people with baskets, begging coppers for their
destitute and miserable governor. Stung by this insult, he
neglected the fire of war which had been lighted at Caesarea, and
hastened to Jerusalem. His soldiers sacked the upper city and
killed 630 persons—men, women and children. Berenice, who
was fulfilling a Nazarite vow, interposed in vain. Florus
actually dared to scourge and crucify Jews who belonged to the
Roman order of knights. For the moment the Jews were cowed,
and next day they went submissively to greet the troops coming
from Caesarea. Their greetings were unanswered, and they cried
out against Florus. On this the soldiers drew their swords and
drove the people into the city; but, once inside the city, the
people stood at bay and succeeded in establishing themselves
upon the temple-hill. Florus withdrew with all his troops,
except one cohort, to Caesarea. The Jews laid complaint against
him, and he complained against the Jews before the governor
of Syria, Cestius Gallus, who sent an officer to inquire into the
matter. Agrippa, who had hurried from Alexandria, entered
Jerusalem with the governor’s emissary. So long as he counselled
submission to the overwhelming power of Rome the people
complied, but when he spoke of obedience to Florus he was compelled
to fly. The rulers, who desired peace, and upon whom
Florus had laid the duty of restoring peace, asked him for troops;
but the civil war ended in their complete discomfiture. The
rebels abode by their decision to stop the daily sacrifice for the
emperor; Agrippa’s troops capitulated and marched out unhurt;
and the Romans, who surrendered on the same condition and
laid down their arms, were massacred. As if to emphasize the
spirit and purpose of the rebellion, one and only one of the
Roman soldiers was spared, because he promised to become a
Jew even to the extent of circumcision.
39.
Josephus and the Zealots
.—Simultaneously with this
massacre the citizens of Caesarea slaughtered the Jews who still
remained there; and throughout Syria Jews effected—and
suffered—reprisals. At length the governor of Syria approached
the centre of the disturbance in Jerusalem, but retreated after
burning down a suburb. In the course of his retreat he was
attacked by the Jews and fled to Antioch, leaving them his
engines of war. Some prominent Jews fled from Jerusalem—as
from a sinking ship—to join him and carried the news to the
emperor. The rest of the pro-Roman party were forced or
persuaded to join the rebels and prepared for war on a grander
scale. Generals were selected by the Sanhedrin from the aristocracy,
who had tried to keep the peace and still hoped to make
terms with Rome. Ananus the high priest, their leader, remained
in command at Jerusalem; Galilee, where the first attack
was to be expected, was entrusted to Josephus, the historian
of the war. The revolutionary leaders, who had already taken
the field, were superseded.
Josephus set himself to make an army of the inhabitants of
Galilee, many of whom had no wish to fight, and to strengthen
the strongholds. His organization of local government and his
efforts to maintain law and order brought him into collision
with the Zealots and especially with John of Giscala, one of their
leaders. The people, whom he had tried to conciliate, were
roused against him; John sent assassins and finally procured an
order from Jerusalem for his recall. In spite of all this Josephus
held his ground and by force or craft put down those who resisted
his authority.
In the spring of 67 Vespasian, who had been appointed by
Nero to crush the rebellion, advanced from his winter quarters
at Antioch. The inhabitants of Sepphoris—whom Josephus
had judged to be so eager for the war that he left them to build
their wall for themselves—received a Roman garrison at their
own request. Joined by Titus, Vespasian advanced into Galilee
with three legions and the auxiliary troops supplied by Agrippa
and other petty kings. Before his advance the army of Josephus
fled. Josephus with a few stalwarts took refuge in Tiberias, and
sent a letter to Jerusalem asking that he should be relieved of his
command or supplied with an adequate force to continue the war.
Hearing that Vespasian was preparing to besiege Jotapata,
a strong fortress in the hills, which was held by other fugitives,
Josephus entered it just before the road approaching it was made
passable for the Roman horse and foot. A deserter announced
his arrival to Vespasian, who rejoiced (Josephus says) that the
cleverest of his enemies had thus voluntarily imprisoned himself.
After some six weeks’ siege the place was stormed, and its
exhausted garrison were killed or enslaved. Josephus, whose
pretences had postponed the final assault, hid in a cave with
forty men. His companions refused to permit him to surrender
and were resolved to die. At his suggestion they cast lots, and
the first man was killed by the second and so on, until all were
dead except Josephus and (perhaps) one other. So Josephus
saved them from the sin of suicide and gave himself up to the
Romans. He had prophesied that the place would be taken—as
it was—on the forty-seventh day, and now he prophesied that
both Vespasian and his son Titus would reign over all mankind.
The prophecy saved his life, though many desired his death, and
the rumour of it produced general mourning in Jerusalem. By
the end of the year (67) Galilee was in the hands of Vespasian,
and John of Giscala had fled. Agrippa celebrated the conquest
at Caesarea Philippi with festivities which lasted twenty days.
In accordance with ancient custom Jerusalem welcomed the
fugitive Zealots. The result was civil war and famine. Ananus
incited the people against these robbers, who arrested, imprisoned
and murdered prominent friends of Rome, and arrogated to themselves
the right of selecting the high priest by lot. The Zealots
took refuge in the Temple and summoned the Idumaeans to their
aid. Under cover of a storm, they opened the city-gates to their
allies and proceeded to murder Ananus the high priest, and,
against the verdict of a formal tribunal, Zacharias the son of
Baruch in the midst of the Temple. The Idumaeans left, but
John of Giscala remained master of Jerusalem.
40.
The Fall of Jerusalem
.—Vespasian left the rivals to consume
one another and occupied his army with the subjugation of the
country. When he had isolated the capital and was preparing
to besiege it, the news of Nero’s death reached him at Caesarea.
For a year (June 68-June 69) he held his hand and watched
events, until the robber-bands of Simon Bar-Giora (son of the
proselyte) required his attention. But, before Vespasian took
action to stop his raids, Simon had been invited to Jerusalem in
the hope that he would act as a counterpoise to the tyrant John.
And so, when Vespasian was proclaimed emperor in fulfilment of
Josephus’ prophecy, and deputed the command to Titus, there
were three rivals at war in Jerusalem—Eleazar, Simon and John.
The temple sacrifices were still offered and worshippers were
admitted; but John’s catapults were busy, and priest and
worshippers at the altar were killed, because Eleazar’s party
occupied the inner courts of the Temple. A few days before the
passover of 70 Titus advanced upon Jerusalem, but the civil
war went on. When Eleazar opened the temple-gates to admit
those who wished to worship God, John of Giscala introduced
some of his own men, fully armed under their garments, and so
got possession of the Temple. Titus pressed the attack, and the
two factions joined hands at last to repel it. In spite of their
desperate sallies, Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall, and its
people, whose numbers were increased by those who had come up
for the passover, were hemmed in to starve. The famine affected
all alike—the populace, who desired peace, and the Zealots, who
were determined to fight to the end. At last John of Giscala portioned
out the sacred wine and oil, saying that they who fought
for the Temple might fearlessly use its stores for their sustenance.
Steadily the Romans forced their way through wall after wall,
until the Jews were driven back to the Temple and the daily
sacrifices came to an end on the 17th of July for lack of men.
Once more Josephus appealed in vain to John and his followers to
cease from desecrating and endangering the Temple. The siege
proceeded and the temple-gates were burned. According to
Josephus, Titus decided to spare the Temple, but—whether
this was so or not—on the 10th of August it was fired by a
soldier after a sortie of the Jews had been repelled. The legions
set up their standards in the temple-court and hailed Titus as
imperator.
Some of the Zealots escaped with John and Simon to the
upper city and held it for another month. But Titus had already
earned the triumph which he celebrated at Rome in 71. The
Jews, wherever they might be, continued to pay the temple-tax;
but now it was devoted to Jupiter Capitolinus. The Romans had
taken their holy place, and the Law was all that was left to them.
41.
From
A.D.
70
to
A.D.
135.—The destruction of the Temple
carried with it the destruction of the priesthood and all its power.
The priests existed to offer sacrifices, and by the Law no sacrifice
could be offered except at the Temple of Jerusalem. Thenceforward
the remnant of the Jews who survived the fiery ordeal formed a
church rather than a nation or a state, and the Pharisees exercised
an unchallenged supremacy. With the Temple and its Sadducean
high priests perished the Sanhedrin in which the Sadducees had
competed with the Pharisees for predominance. The Sicarii or
Zealots who had appealed to the arm of flesh were exterminated.
Only the teachers of the Law survived to direct the nation and to
teach those who remained loyal Jews, how they should render to
Caesar what belonged to Caesar, and to God what belonged to God.
Here and there hot-headed Zealots rose up to repeat the errors and
the disasters of their predecessors. But their fate only served to
deepen the impression already stamped upon the general mind of
the nation. The Temple was gone, but they had the Law. Already
the Jews of the Dispersion had learned to supplement the Temple by
the synagogue, and even the Jews of Jerusalem had not been free
to spend their lives in the worship of the Temple. There were still,
as always, rites which were independent of the place and of the
priest; there had been a time when the Temple did not exist. So
Judaism survived once more the destruction of its central sanctuary.
When Jerusalem was taken, the Sicarii still continued to hold
three strongholds: one—Masada—for three years. But the commander
of Masada realized at length that there was no hope of
escaping captivity except by death, and urged his comrades to
anticipate their fate. Each man slew his wife and children; ten
men were selected by lot to slay the rest; one man slew the nine
executioners, fired the palace and fell upon his sword. When the
place was stormed the garrison consisted of two old women and five
children who had concealed themselves in caves. So Vespasian
obtained possession of Palestine—the country which Nero had given
him—and for a time it was purged of revolutionaries. Early
Christian writers assert that he proceeded to search out and to
execute all descendants of David who might conceivably come
forward as claimants of the vacant throne.
In Egypt and in Cyrene fugitive Zealots endeavoured to continue
their rebellion against the emperor, but there also with disastrous
results. The doors of the Temple in Egypt were closed, and its sacrifices
which had been offered for 243 years were prohibited. Soon
afterwards this temple also was destroyed. Apart from these local
outbreaks, the Jews throughout the empire remained loyal citizens
and were not molested. The general hope of the nation was not
necessarily bound up with the house of David, and its realization
was not incompatible with the yoke of Rome. They still looked for
a true prophet, and meanwhile they had their rabbis.
Under
Johanan ben Zaccai
q.v.
) the Pharisees established themselves
at Jamnia. A new Sanhedrin was formed there under the
presidency of a ruler, who received yearly dues from all Jewish
communities. The scribes through the synagogues preserved the
national spirit and directed it towards the religious life which was
prescribed by Scripture. The traditions of the elders were tested
and gradually harmonized in their essentials. The canon of Scripture
was decided in accordance with the touchstone of the Pentateuch.
Israel had retired to their tents to study their Bible.
Under Vespasian and Titus the Jews enjoyed freedom of conscience
and equal political rights with non-Jewish subjects of Rome.
But Domitian, according to pagan historians, bore hardly on them.
The temple-tax was strictly exacted; Jews who lived the Jewish life
without openly confessing their religion and Jews who concealed
their nationality were brought before the magistrates. Proselytes
to Judaism were condemned either to death or to forfeiture of
their property. Indeed it would seem that Domitian instituted a
persecution of the Jews, to which Nerva his successor put an end.
Towards the end of Trajan’s reign (114–117) the Jews of Egypt and
Cyrene rose against their Greek neighbours and set up a king. The
rebellion spread to Cyprus; and when Trajan advanced from
Mesopotamia into Parthia the Jews of Mesopotamia revolted.
The massacres they perpetrated were avenged in kind and all the
insurrections were quelled when Hadrian succeeded Trajan.
In 132 the Jews of Palestine rebelled again. Hadrian had forbidden
circumcision as illegal mutilation: he had also replaced
Jerusalem by a city of his own, Aelia Capitolina, and the temple of
Yahweh by a temple of Jupiter. Apart from these bitter provocations—the
prohibition of the sign of the covenant and the desecration
of the sacred place—the Jews had a leader who was recognized as
Messiah by the rabbi Aqiba. Though the majority of the rabbis
looked for no such deliverer and refused to admit his claims,
Barcochebas
q.v.
) drew the people after him to struggle for their national
independence. For three years and a half he held his own and issued
coins in the name of Simon, which commemorate the liberation of
Jerusalem. Some attempt was apparently made to rebuild the
Temple; and the Jews of the Dispersion, who had perhaps been
won over by Aqiba, supported the rebellion. Indeed even Gentiles
helped them, so that the whole world (Dio Cassius says) was stirred.
Hadrian sent his best generals against the rebels, and at length they
were driven from Jerusalem to Bethar (135). The Jews were forbidden
to enter the new city of Jerusalem on pain of death.
Bibliography.
—The most comprehensive of modern books dealing
with the period is Emil Schürer,
Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi
(3 vols., Leipzig, 1901 foll.). Exception
has been taken to a certain lack of sympathy with the Jews, especially
the rabbis, which has been detected in the author. But at least
the book remains an indispensable storehouse of references to ancient
and modern authorities. An earlier edition was translated into
English under the title
History of the Jewish People
(Edinburgh,
1890, 1891). Of shorter histories, D. A. Schlatter’s
Geschichte
Israel’s von Alexander dem Grossen bis Hadrian
(2nd ed., 1906)
is perhaps the least dependent upon Schürer and attempts more
than others to interpret the fragmentary evidence available. Dr
R. H. Charles has done much by his editions to restore to their
proper prominence in connexion with Jewish history the
Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs
The Book of Jubilees
Enoch
, &c. But
Schürer gives a complete bibliography to which it must suffice to
refer. For the Sanhedrin see
Synedrium
J. H. A. H.
III.—From the Dispersion to Modern Times
42.
The Later Empire
.—With the failure in 135 of the attempt
led by Barcochebas to free Judaea from Roman domination a new
era begins in the history of the Jews. The direct consequence of
the failure was the annihilation of political nationality. Large
numbers fell in the actual fighting. Dio Cassius puts the total at
the incredible figure of 580,000, besides the incalculable number
who succumbed to famine, disease and fire (Dio-Xiphilin lxix.
11–15). Jerusalem was rebuilt by Hadrian, orders to this effect
being given during the emperor’s first journey through Syria in
130, the date of his foundations at Gaza, Tiberias and Petra
(Reinach,
Textes relatifs au Judaïsme
, p. 198). The new city
was named Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of
Jehovah there arose another temple dedicated to Jupiter. To
Eusebius the erection of a temple of Venus over the sepulchre
of Christ was an act of mockery against the Christian religion.
Rome had been roused to unwonted fury, and the truculence of
the rebels was matched by the cruelty of their masters. The
holy city was barred against the Jews; they were excluded,
under pain of death, from approaching within view of the
walls. Hadrian’s policy in this respect was matched later on
by the edict of the caliph Omar (
c.
638), who, like his Roman
prototype, prevented the Jews from settling in the capital of
their ancient country. The death of Hadrian and the accession
of Antoninus Pius (138), however, gave the dispersed people
of Palestine a breathing-space. Roman law was by no means
intolerant to the Jews. Under the constitution of Caracalla
(198–217) all inhabitants of the Roman empire enjoyed the civil
rights of the
Cives Romani
(Scherer,
Die Rechtsverhältnisse der
Juden
, p. 10).
Moreover, a spiritual revival mitigated the crushing effects of
material ruin. The synagogue had become a firmly established
institution, and the personal and social life of the masses
had come under the control of communal law. The dialectic
of the school proved stronger to preserve than the edge of the
sword to destroy. Pharisaic Judaism, put to the severest test
to which a religious system has ever been subject, showed itself
able to control and idealize life in all its phases. Whatever
question may be possible as to the force or character of Pharisaism
in the time of Christ, there can be no doubt that it
became both all-pervading and ennobling among the successors of
Aqiba
q.v.
), himself one of the martyrs to Hadrian’s severity.
Little more than half a century after the overthrow of the Jewish
nationality, the Mishnah was practically completed, and by this
code of rabbinic law—and law is here a term which includes
the social, moral and religious as well as the ritual and legal
phases of human activity—the Jewish people were organized
into a community, living more or less autonomously under the
Sanhedrin or
Synedrium
q.v.
) and its officials.
Judah the prince, the patriarch or
nāsī
who edited the Mishnah,
died early in the 3rd century. With him the importance of
the Palestinian patriarchate attained its zenith. Gamaliel II.
of Jamnia (Jabne Yebneh) had been raised to this dignity a
century before, and, as members of the house of Hillel and thus
descendants of David, the patriarchs enjoyed almost royal
authority. Their functions were political rather than religious,
though their influence was by no means purely secular.
They were often on terms of intimate friendship with the
emperors, who scarcely interfered with their jurisdiction.
As late as Theodosius I. (379–395) the internal affairs of the
Jews were formally committed to the patriarchs, and Honorius
(404) authorized the collection of the patriarch’s tax (
aurum
coronarium
), by which a revenue was raised from the Jews of the
diaspora. Under Theodosius II. (408–450) the patriarchate
was finally abolished after a régime of three centuries and a half
(Graetz,
History of the Jews
, Eng. trans. vol. ii. ch. xxii.), though
ironically enough the last holder of the office had been for a time
elevated by the emperor to the rank of prefect. The real
turning-point had been reached earlier, when Christianity became
the state religion under Constantine I. in 312.
Religion under the Christian emperors became a significant source
of discrimination in legal status, and non-conformity might reach
so far as to produce complete loss of rights. The laws concerning
the Jews had a repressive and preventive object: the repression of
Judaism and the prevention of inroads of Jewish influences into the
state religion. The Jews were thrust into a position of isolation,
and the Code of Theodosius and other authorities characterize the
Jews as a lower order of depraved beings (
inferiores
and
perversi
),
their community as a godless, dangerous sect (
secta nefaria, feralis
),
their religion a superstition, their assemblies for religious worship a
blasphemy (
sacrilegi coetus
) and a contagion (Scherer,
op. cit.
pp.
11–12). Yet Judaism under Roman Christian law was a lawful
religion (
religio licita
), Valentinian I. (364–375) forbade the quartering
of soldiers in the synagogues, Theodosius I. prohibited interference
with the synagogue worship (“Judaeorum sectam nulla lege
prohibitam satis constat”), and in 412 a special edict of protection
was issued. But the admission of Christians into the Jewish fold
was punished by confiscation of goods (357), the erection of new
synagogues was arrested by Theodosius II. (439) under penalty of a
heavy fine, Jews were forbidden to hold Christian slaves under pain
of death (423). A similar penalty attached to intermarriage between
Jews and Christians, and an attempt was made to nullify all Jewish
marriages which were not celebrated in accordance with Roman law.
But Justinian (527–565) was the first to interfere directly in the
religious institutions of the Jewish people. In 553 he interdicted
the use of the Talmud (which had then not long been completed),
and the Byzantine emperors of the 8th and 9th centuries passed
even more intolerant regulations. As regards civil law, Jews were
at first allowed to settle disputes between Jew and Jew before their
own courts, but Justinian denied to them and to heretics the right
to appear as witnesses in the public courts against orthodox Christians.
To Constantine V. (911–959) goes back the Jewish form of
oath which in its later development required the Jew to gird himself
with thorns; stand in water; and, holding the scroll of the
Torah in his hand, invoke upon his person the leprosy of Naaman,
the curse of Eli and the fate of Korah’s sons should he perjure himself.
This was the original of all the medieval forms of oath
more judaico
which still prevailed in many European lands till the 19th century,
and are even now maintained by some of the Rumanian courts.
Jews were by the law of Honorius excluded from the army, from
public offices and dignities (418), from acting as advocates (425);
only the curial offices were open to them. Justinian gave the
finishing touch by proclaiming in 537 the Jews absolutely ineligible
for any honour whatsoever (“honore fruantur nullo”).
43.
Judaism in Babylonia
.—The Jews themselves were during
this period engaged in building up a system of isolation on their
own side, but they treated Roman law with greater hospitality
than it meted out to them. The Talmud shows the influence of
that law in many points, and may justly be compared to it as a
monument of codification based on great principles. The Palestinian
Talmud was completed in the 4th century, but the better
known and more influential version was compiled in Babylonia
about 500. The land which, a millennium before, had been
a prison for the Jewish exiles was now their asylum of refuge.
For a long time it formed their second fatherland. Here, far
more than on Palestinian soil, was built the enduring edifice of
rabbinism. The population of the southern part of Mesopotamia—the
strip of land enclosed between the Tigris and the Euphrates—was,
according to Graetz, mainly Jewish; while the district
extending for about 70 m. on the east of the Euphrates, from
Nehardea in the north to Sura in the south, became a new
Palestine with Nehardea for its Jerusalem. The Babylonian
Jews were practically independent, and the exilarch (
resh-galutha
or prince of the captivity was an official who ruled
the community as a vassal of the Persian throne. The exilarch
claimed, like the Palestinian patriarch, descent from the royal
house of David, and exercised most of the functions of
government. Babylonia had risen into supreme importance
for Jewish life at about the time when the Mishnah was completed.
The great rabbinic academies at Sura and Nehardea,
the former of which retained something of its dominant rôle
till the 11th century, had been founded, Sura by
Abba Arika
q.v.
) (
c.
219), but Nehardea, the more ancient seat of the
two, famous in the 3rd century for its association with Abba
Arika’s renowned contemporary Samuel, lost its Jewish importance
in the age of Mahomet.
To
Samuel of Nehardea
q.v.
) belongs the honour of formulating
the principle which made it possible for Jews to live under
alien laws. Jeremiah had admonished his exiled brothers:
“Seek ye the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be
carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in
the peace thereof shall ye have peace” (Jer. xxix. 7). It was
now necessary to go farther, and the rabbis proclaimed a
principle which was as influential with the synagogue as “Give
unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” became with the Church.
“The law of the government is law” (
Baba Qama
113 b.), said
Samuel, and ever since it has been a religious duty for the
Jews to obey and accommodate themselves as far as possible
to the laws of the country in which they are settled or reside.
In 259 Odenathus, the Palmyrene adventurer whose memory has
been eclipsed by that of his wife Zenobia, laid Nehardea waste
for the time being, and in its neighbourhood arose the academy
of Pumbedita (Pombeditha) which became a new focus for the
intellectual life of Israel in Babylonia. These academies were
organized on both scholastic and popular lines; their constitution
was democratic. An outstanding feature was the
Kallah
assemblage twice a year (in Elul at the close of the
summer, and in Adar at the end of the winter), when there
were gathered together vast numbers of outside students of
the most heterogeneous character as regards both age and
attainments. Questions received from various quarters were
discussed and the final decision of the
Kallah
was signed by the
Resh-Kallah
or president of the general assembly, who was only
second in rank to the
Resh-Metibta
, or president of the scholastic
sessions. Thus the Babylonian academies combined the functions
of specialist law-schools, universities and popular parliaments.
They were a unique product of rabbinism; and the
authors of the system were also the compilers of its literary
expression, the Talmud.
44.
Judaism in Islam.
—Another force now appears on the
scene. The new religion inaugurated by Mahomet differed
in its theory from the Roman Catholic Church. The Church,
it is true, in council after council, passed decisions unfriendly
to the Jews. From the synod at Elvira in the 4th century this
process began, and it was continued in the West-Gothic Church
legislation, in the Lateran councils (especially the fourth in
1215), and in the council of Trent (1563). The anti-social
tendency of these councils expressed itself in the infliction
of the badge, in the compulsory domicile of Jews within ghettos,
and in the erection of formidable barriers against all intercourse
between church and synagogue. The protective instinct was
responsible for much of this interference with the natural
impulse of men of various creeds towards mutual esteem and
forbearance. The church, it was conceived, needed defence
against the synagogue at all hazards, and the fear that the latter
would influence and dominate the former was never absent from
the minds of medieval ecclesiastics. But though this defensive
zeal led to active persecution, still in theory Judaism was a
tolerated religion wherever the Church had sway, and many papal
bulls of a friendly character were issued throughout the middle
ages (Scherer, p. 32 seq.).
Islam, on the other hand, had no theoretic place in its scheme
for tolerated religions; its principle was fundamentally intolerant.
Where the mosque was erected, there was no room
for church or synagogue. The caliph Omar initiated in the
7th century a code which required Christians and Jews to wear
peculiar dress, denied them the right to hold state offices or to
possess land, inflicted a poll-tax on them, and while forbidding
them to enter mosques, refused them the permission to build
new places of worship for themselves. Again and again these
ordinances were repeated in subsequent ages, and intolerance
for infidels is still a distinct feature of Mahommedan law. But
Islam has often shown itself milder in fact than in theory,
for its laws were made to be broken. The medieval Jews on
the whole lived, under the crescent, a fuller and freer life than
was possible to them under the cross. Mahommedan Babylonia
(Persia) was the home of the gaonate (see
Gaon
), the central
authority of religious Judaism, whose power transcended that
of the secular exilarchate, for it influenced the synagogue far and
wide, while the exilarchate was local. The gaonate enjoyed a
practical tolerance remarkable when contrasted with the letter
of Islamic law. And as the Bagdad caliphate tended to become
more and more supreme in Islam, so the gaonate too shared in
this increased influence. Not even the Qaraite schism was able
to break the power of the geonim. But the dispersion of the
Jews was proceeding in directions which carried masses from the
Asiatic inland to the Mediterranean coasts and to Europe.
45.
In Medieval Europe: Spain.
—This dispersion of the Jews
had begun in the Hellenistic period, but it was after the Barcochebas
war that it assumed great dimensions in Europe. There
were Jews in the Byzantine empire, in Rome, in France and
Spain at very early periods, but it is with the Arab conquest of
Spain that the Jews of Europe began to rival in culture and importance
their brethren of the Persian gaonate. Before this date
the Jews had been learning the rôle they afterwards filled, that
of the chief promoters of international commerce. Already
under Charlemagne this development is noticeable; in his
generous treatment of the Jews this Christian emperor stood in
marked contrast to his contemporary the caliph Harun al-Rashid,
who persecuted Jews and Christians with equal vigour. But by
the 10th century Judaism had received from Islam something
more than persecution. It caught the contagion of poetry,
philosophy and science.
64
The schismatic Qaraites initiated or
rather necessitated a new Hebrew philology, which later on
produced Qimḥi, the gaon Saadiah founded a Jewish philosophy,
the statesman Ḥasdai introduced a new Jewish culture—and
all this under Mahommedan rule. It is in Spain that above all
the new spirit manifested itself. The distinctive feature of
the Spanish-Jewish culture was its comprehensiveness. Literature
and affairs, science and statecraft, poetry and medicine,
these various expressions of human nature and activity were so
harmoniously balanced that they might be found in the possession
of one and the same individual. The Jews of Spain attained
to high places in the service of the state from the time of the
Moorish conquest in 711. From Hasdai ibn Shaprut in the
10th century and Samuel the nagid in the 11th the line of
Jewish scholar-statesmen continued till we reach Isaac Abrabanel
in 1492, the date of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. This
last-named event synchronized with the discovery of America;
Columbus being accompanied by at least one Jewish navigator.
While the Spanish period of Jewish history was thus brilliant
from the point of view of public service, it was equally notable
on the literary side. Hebrew religious poetry was revived for
synagogue hymnology, and, partly in imitation of Arabian models,
a secular Hebrew poetry was developed in metre and rhyme.
The new Hebrew
Piyut
found its first important exponent in
Kalir, who was not a Spaniard. But it is to Spain that we must
look for the best of the medieval poets of the synagogue,
greatest among them being Ibn Gabirol and Halevi. So, too,
the greatest Jew of the middle ages, Maimonides, was a Spaniard.
In him culminates the Jewish expression of the Spanish-Moorish
culture; his writings had an influence on European scholasticism
and contributed significant elements to the philosophy of
Spinoza. But the reconquest of Andalusia by the Christians
associated towards the end of the 15th century with the
establishment of the Inquisition, introduced a spirit of intolerance
which led to the expulsion of the Jews and Moors. The
consequences of this blow were momentous; it may be said to
inaugurate the ghetto period. In Spain Jewish life had participated
in the general life, but the expulsion—while it dispersed
the Spanish Jews in Poland, Turkey, Italy and France, and
thus in the end contributed to the Jewish emancipation at the
French Revolution—for the time drove the Jews within their
own confines and barred them from the outside world.
65
46.
In France
Germany
England
Italy
.—In the meantime
Jewish life had been elsewhere subjected to other influences
which produced a result at once narrower and deeper. Under
Charlemagne, the Jews, who had begun to settle in Gaul in
the time of Caesar, were more than tolerated. They were
allowed to hold land and were encouraged to become—what their
ubiquity qualified them to be—the merchant princes of Europe.
The reign of Louis the Pious (814–840) was, as Graetz puts it,
“a golden era for the Jews of his kingdom, such as they had
never enjoyed, and were destined never again to enjoy in
Europe”—prior, that is, to the age of Mendelssohn. In Germany
at the same period the feudal system debarred the Jews from
holding land, and though there was as yet no material persecution
they suffered moral injury by being driven exclusively into
finance and trade. Nor was there any widening of the general
horizon such as was witnessed in Spain. The Jewries of France
and Germany were thus thrown upon their own cultural resources.
They rose to the occasion. In Mainz there settled in
the 10th century Gershom, the “light of the exile,” who, about
1000, published his ordinance forbidding polygamy in Jewish
law as it had long been forbidden in Jewish practice. This
ordinance may be regarded as the beginning of the Synodal
government of Judaism, which was a marked feature of medieval
life in the synagogues of northern and central Europe from
the 12th century. Soon after Gershom’s death, Rashi (1040–1106)
founded at Troyes a new school of learning. If Maimonides
represented Judaism on its rational side, Rashi was the
expression of its traditions.
French Judaism was thus in a sense more human if less
humane than the Spanish variety; the latter produced
thinkers, statesmen, poets and scientists; the former, men
with whom the Talmud was a passion, men of robuster because
of more naïve and concentrated piety. In Spain and North Africa
persecution created that strange and significant phenomenon
Maranism or crypto-Judaism, a public acceptance of Islam or
Christianity combined with a private fidelity to the rites of
Judaism. But in England, France and Germany persecution
altogether failed to shake the courage of the Jews, and martyrdom
was borne in preference to ostensible apostasy. The
crusades subjected the Jews to this ordeal. The evil was
wrought, not by the regular armies of the cross who were inspired
by noble ideals, but by the undisciplined mobs which, for
the sake of plunder, associated themselves with the genuine
enthusiasts. In 1096 massacres of Jews occurred in many cities of
the Rhineland. During the second crusade (1145–1147) Bernard
of Clairvaux heroically protested against similar inhumanities.
The third crusade, famous for the participation of Richard I.,
was the occasion for bloody riots in England, especially in
York, where 150 Jews immolated themselves to escape baptism.
Economically and socially the crusades had disastrous effects
upon the Jews (see J. Jacobs,
Jewish Encyclopedia
, iv. 379).
Socially they suffered by the outburst of religious animosity.
One of the worst forms taken by this ill-will was the oft-revived
myth of
ritual murder
q.v.
), and later on when the Black
Death devastated Europe (1348–1349) the Jews were the victims
of an odious charge of well-poisoning. Economically the results
were also injurious. “Before the crusades the Jews had practically
a monopoly of trade in Eastern products, but the
closer connexion between Europe and the East brought about
by the crusades raised up a class of merchant traders among the
Christians, and from this time onwards restrictions on the sale
of goods by Jews became frequent” (
op. cit.
). After the second
crusade the German Jews fell into the class of
servi camerae
which at first only implied that they enjoyed the immunity of
imperial servants, but afterwards made of them slaves and
pariahs. At the personal whim of rulers, whether royal or of
lower rank, the Jews were expelled from states and principalities
and were reduced to a condition of precarious uncertainty
as to what the morrow might bring forth. Pope Innocent III.
gave strong impetus to the repression of the Jews, especially
by ordaining the wearing of a badge. Popular animosity was
kindled by the enforced participation of the Jews in public
disputations. In 1306 Philip IV. expelled the Jews from
France, nine years later Louis X. recalled them for a period of
twelve years. Such vicissitudes were the ordinary lot of the
Jews for several centuries, and it was their own inner life—the
pure life of the home, the idealism of the synagogue, and the
belief in ultimate Messianic redemption—that saved them from
utter demoralization and despair. Curiously enough in Italy—and
particularly in Rome—the external conditions were better.
The popes themselves, within their own immediate jurisdiction,
were often far more tolerant than their bulls issued for foreign
communities, and Torquemada was less an expression than
a distortion of the papal policy. In the early 14th century,
the age of Dante, the new spirit of the Renaissance made Italian
rulers the patrons of art and literature, and the Jews to some
extent shared in this gracious change. Robert of Aragon—vicar-general
of the papal states—in particular encouraged the
Jews and supported them in their literary and scientific ambitions.
Small coteries of Jewish minor poets and philosophers
were formed, and men like Kalonymos and Immanuel—Dante’s
friend—shared the versatility and culture of Italy. But in
Germany there was no echo of this brighter note. Persecution
was elevated into a system, a poll-tax was exacted, and the
rabble was allowed (notably in 1336–1337) to give full vent to
its fury. Following on this came the Black Death with its
terrible consequences in Germany; even in Poland, where the
Jews had previously enjoyed considerable rights, extensive
massacres took place.
In effect the Jews became outlaws, but their presence being
often financially necessary, certain officials were permitted to
“hold Jews,” who were liable to all forms of arbitrary treatment,
on the side of their “owners.” The Jews had been among the
first to appreciate the commercial advantages of permitting the
loan of money on interest, but it was the policy of the Church
that drove the Jews into money-lending as a characteristic
trade. Restrictions on their occupations were everywhere
common, and as the Church forbade Christians to engage in
usury, this was the only trade open to the Jews. The excessive
demands made upon the Jews forbade a fair rate of interest.
“The Jews were unwilling sponges by means of which a large
part of the subjects’ wealth found its way into the royal exchequer”
(Abrahams,
Jewish Life in the Middle Ages
, ch. xii.).
Hence, though this procedure made the Jews intensely obnoxious
to the peoples, they became all the more necessary to the rulers.
A favourite form of tolerance was to grant a permit to the Jews
to remain in the state for a limited term of years; their continuance
beyond the specified time was illegal and they were
therefore subject to sudden banishment. Thus a second expulsion
of the Jews of France occurred in 1394. Early in the 15th
century
John Hus
—under the inspiration of
Wycliffe
—initiated
at Prague the revolt against the Roman Catholic Church. The
Jews suffered in the persecution that followed, and in 1420 all
the Austrian Jews were thrown into prison. Martin V. published
a favourable bull, but it was ineffectual. The darkest days
were nigh. Pope Eugenius (1442) issued a fiercely intolerant
missive; the Franciscan John of Capistrano moved the masses
to activity by his eloquent denunciations; even Casimir IV.
revoked the privileges of the Jews in Poland, when the Turkish
capture of Constantinople (1453) offered a new asylum for the
hunted Jews of Europe. But in Europe itself the catastrophe
was not arrested. The Inquisition in Spain led to the expulsion
of the Jews (1492), and this event involved not only the latter
but the whole of the Jewish people. “The Jews everywhere
felt as if the temple had again been destroyed” (Graetz).
Nevertheless, the result was not all evil. If fugitives are for
the next half-century to be met with in all parts of Europe,
yet, especially in the Levant, there grew up thriving Jewish
communities often founded by Spanish refugees. Such incidents
as the rise of
Joseph Nasi
q.v.
) to high position under the
Turkish government as duke of Naxos mark the coming change.
The reformation as such had no favourable influence on Jewish
fortunes in Christian Europe, though the championship of the
cause of toleration by Reuchlin had considerable value. But
the age of the
ghetto
q.v.
) had set in too firmly for immediate
amelioration to be possible. It is to Holland and to the 17th
century that we must turn for the first real steps towards Jewish
emancipation.
47.
Period of Emancipation.
—The ghetto, which had prevailed
more or less rigorously for a long period, was not formally prescribed
by the papacy until the beginning of the 16th century.
The same century was not ended before the prospect of liberty
dawned on the Jews. Holland from the moment that it joined the
union of Utrecht (1579) deliberately set its face against religious
persecution (
Jewish Encyclopedia
, i. 537). Maranos, fleeing to
the Netherlands, were welcomed; the immigrants were wealthy,
enterprising and cultured. Many Jews, who had been compelled
to conceal their faith, now came into the open. By the middle
of the 17th century the Jews of Holland had become of such
importance that Charles II. of England (then in exile) entered
into negotiations with the Amsterdam Jews (1656). In that
same year the Amsterdam community was faced by a serious
problem in connexion with Spinoza. They brought themselves
into notoriety by excommunicating the philosopher—an act
of weak self-defence on the part of men who had themselves but
recently been admitted to the country, and were timorous of
the suspicion that they shared Spinoza’s then execrated views.
It is more than a mere coincidence that this step was taken during
the absence in England of one of the ablest and most notable of
the Amsterdam rabbis. At the time,
Menasseh ben Israel
q.v.
was in London, on a mission to Cromwell. The Jews had been
expelled from England by Edward I., after a sojourn in the
country of rather more than two centuries, during which they
had been the licensed and oppressed money-lenders of the
realm, and had—through the special exchequer of the Jews—been
used by the sovereign as a means of extorting a revenue
from his subjects. In the 17th century a considerable number
of Jews had made a home in the English colonies, where from the
first they enjoyed practically equal rights with the Christian
settlers. Cromwell, upon the inconclusive termination of the
conference summoned in 1655 at Whitehall to consider the
Jewish question, tacitly assented to the return of the Jews to
this country, and at the restoration his action was confirmed.
The English Jews “gradually substituted for the personal
protection of the crown, the sympathy and confidence of the
nation” (L. Wolf,
Menasseh ben Israel’s Mission to Cromwell
p. lxxv.). The city of London was the first to be converted to
the new attitude. “The wealth they brought into the country,
and their fruitful commercial activity, especially in the colonial
trade, soon revealed them as an indispensable element of the
prosperity of the city. As early as 1668, Sir Josiah Child, the
millionaire governor of the East India company, pleaded for
their naturalization on the score of their commercial utility.
For the same reason the city found itself compelled at first to
connive at their illegal representation on ’Change, and then to
violate its own rules by permitting them to act as brokers without
previously taking up the freedom. At this period they controlled
more of the foreign and colonial trade than all the other
alien merchants in London put together. The momentum of
their commercial enterprise and stalwart patriotism proved
irresistible. From the exchange to the city council chamber,
thence to the aldermanic court, and eventually to the mayoralty
itself, were inevitable stages of an emancipation to which their
large interests in the city and their high character entitled them.
Finally the city of London—not only as the converted champion
of religious liberty but as the convinced apologist of the Jews—sent
Baron Lionel de Rothschild to knock at the door of the
unconverted House of Commons as parliamentary representative
of the first city in the world” (Wolf,
loc. cit.
).
The pioneers of this emancipation in Holland and England
were Sephardic (or Spanish) Jews—descendants of the Spanish
exiles. In the meantime the Ashkenazic (or German) Jews had
been working out their own salvation. The chief effects of the
change were not felt till the 18th century. In England emancipation
was of democratic origin and concerned itself with
practical questions. On the Continent, the movement was more
aristocratic and theoretical; it was part of the intellectual
renaissance which found its most striking expression in the
principles of the French Revolution. Throughout Europe the
18th century was less an era of stagnation than of transition.
The condition of the European Jews seems, on a superficial
examination, abject enough. But, excluded though they were
from most trades and occupations, confined to special quarters
of the city, disabled from sharing most of the amenities of life,
the Jews nevertheless were gradually making their escape from
the ghetto and from the moral degeneration which it had caused.
Some ghettos (as in Moravia) were actually not founded till the
18th century, but the careful observer can perceive clearly that
at that period the ghetto was a doomed institution. In the
“dark ages” Jews enjoyed neither rights nor privileges; in
the 18th century they were still without rights but they had
privileges. A grotesque feature of the time in Germany and
Austria was the class of court Jews, such as the Oppenheims,
the personal favourites of rulers and mostly their victims when
their usefulness had ended. These men often rendered great
services to their fellow-Jews, and one of the results was the
growth in Jewish society of an aristocracy of wealth, where
previously there had been an aristocracy of learning. Even
more important was another privileged class—that of the
Schutz-Jude
(protected Jew). Where there were no rights,
privileges had to be bought. While the court Jews were the
favourites of kings, the protected Jews were the protégés of
town councils. Corruption is the frequent concomitant of
privilege, and thus the town councils often connived for a price
at the presence in their midst of Jews whose admission was
illegal. Many Jews found it possible to evade laws of domicile
by residing in one place and trading in another. Nor could
they be effectually excluded from the fairs, the great markets
of the 18th century. The Sephardic Jews in all these respects
occupied a superior position, and they merited the partiality
shown to them. Their personal dignity and the vast range of
their colonial enterprises were in striking contrast to the retail
traffic of the Ashkenazim and their degenerate bearing and
speech. Peddling had been forced on the latter by the action
of the gilds which were still powerful in the 18th century on the
Continent. Another cause may be sought in the Cossack
assaults on the Jews at an earlier period. Crowds of wanderers
were to be met on every road; Germany, Holland and Italy were
full of Jews who, pack on shoulder, were seeking a precarious livelihood
at a time when peddling was neither lucrative nor safe.
But underneath all this were signs of a great change. The
18th century has a goodly tale of Jewish artists in metal-work,
makers of pottery, and (wherever the gilds permitted it) artisans
and wholesale manufacturers of many important commodities.
The last attempts at exclusion were irritating enough; but they
differed from the earlier persecution. Such strange enactments
as the
Familianten-Gesetz
, which prohibited more than one
member of a family from marrying, broke up families by forcing
the men to emigrate. In 1781 Dohm pointed to the fact that a
Jewish father could seldom hope to enjoy the happiness of living
with his children. In that very year, however, Joseph II.
initiated in Austria a new era for the Jews. This Austrian
reformation was so typical of other changes elsewhere, and so
expressive of the previous disabilities of the Jews, that, even in
this rapid summary, space must be spared for some of the
details supplied by Graetz. “By this new departure (19th of
October 1781) the Jews were permitted to learn handicrafts,
arts and sciences, and with certain restrictions to devote themselves
to agriculture. The doors of the universities and academies,
hitherto closed to them, were thrown open. . . . An
ordinance of November 2 enjoined that the Jews were everywhere
considered fellow-men, and all excesses against them were
to be avoided. The Leibzoll (body-tax) was also abolished, in
addition to the special law-taxes, the passport duty, the night-duty
and all
similar
imposts which had stamped the Jews
as outcast, for they were now (Dec. 19) to have equal
rights with the Christian inhabitants.” The Jews were not,
indeed, granted complete citizenship, and their residence and
public worship in Vienna and other Austrian cities were circumscribed
and even penalized. “But Joseph II. annulled a number
of vexatious, restrictive regulations, such as the compulsory
wearing of beards, the prohibition against going out in the
forenoon on Sundays or holidays, or frequenting public pleasure
resorts. The emperor even permitted Jewish wholesale merchants,
notables and their sons, to wear swords (January 2,
1782), and especially insisted that Christians should behave in a
friendly manner towards Jews.”
48.
The Mendelssohn Movement
.—This notable beginning to
the removal of “the ignominy of a thousand years” was
causally connected with the career of
Moses Mendelssohn
(1729–1786;
q.v.
). He found on both sides an unreadiness for approximation:
the Jews had sunk into apathy and degeneration, the
Christians were still moved by hereditary antipathy. The
failure of the hopes entertained of
Sabbatai Zebi
q.v.
) had
plunged the Jewries of the world into despair. This Smyrnan
pretender not only proclaimed himself Messiah (
c.
1650) but he
was accepted in that rôle by vast numbers of his brethren. At
the moment when Spinoza was publishing a system which is
still a dominating note of modern philosophy, this other son of
Israel was capturing the very heart of Jewry. His miracles
were reported and eagerly believed everywhere; “from Poland,
Hamburg and Amsterdam treasures poured into his court; in the
Levant young men and maidens prophesied before him; the
Persian Jews refused to till the fields. ‘We shall pay no more
taxes,’ they said, ‘our Messiah is come.’” The expectation
that he would lead Israel in triumph to the Holy Land was
doomed to end in disappointment. Sabbatai lacked one quality
without which enthusiasm is ineffective; he failed to believe in
himself. At the critical moment he embraced Islam to escape
death, and though he was still believed in by many—it was not
Sabbatai himself but a phantom resemblance that had assumed
the turban!—his meteoric career did but colour the sky of the
Jews with deeper blackness. Despite all this, one must not fall
into the easy error of exaggerating the degeneration into which
the Jewries of the world fell from the middle of the 17th till the
middle of the 18th century. For Judaism had organized itself;
the
Shulḥan aruch
of
Joseph Qaro
q.v.
), printed in 1564 within
a decade of its completion, though not accepted without demur,
was nevertheless widely admitted as the code of Jewish life. If
in more recent times progress in Judaism has implied more or
less of revolt against the rigors and fetters of Qaro’s code, yet
for 250 years it was a powerful safeguard against demoralization
and stagnation. No community living in full accordance with
that code could fail to reach a high moral and intellectual level.
It is truer to say that on the whole the Jews began at this period
to abandon as hopeless the attempt to find a place for themselves
in the general life of their country. Perhaps they even ceased
to desire it. Their children were taught without any regard to
outside conditions, they spoke and wrote a jargon, and their
whole training, both by what it included and by what it excluded,
tended to produce isolation from their neighbours. Moses
Mendelssohn, both by his career and by his propaganda, for
ever put an end to these conditions; he more than any other man.
Born in the ghetto of Dessau, he was not of the ghetto. At the
age of fourteen he found his way to Berlin, where Frederick the
Great, inspired by the spirit of Voltaire, held the maxim that
“to oppress the Jews never brought prosperity to any government.”
Mendelssohn became a warm friend of Lessing, the
hero of whose drama
Nathan the Wise
was drawn from the Dessau
Jew. Mendelssohn’s
Phaedo
, on the immortality of the soul,
brought the author into immediate fame, and the simple home
of the “Jewish Plato” was sought by many of the leaders of
Gentile society in Berlin. Mendelssohn’s translation of the
Pentateuch into German with a new commentary by himself
and others introduced the Jews to more modern ways of thinking.
Two results emanated from Mendelssohn’s work. A new school
of scientific study of Judaism emerged, to be dignified by the
names of
Leopold Zunz
q.v.
),
H. Graetz
q.v.
) and many
others. On the other hand Mendelssohn by his pragmatic
conception of religion (specially in his
Jerusalem
) weakened the
belief of certain minds in the absolute truth of Judaism, and thus
his own grandchildren (including the famous musician Felix
Mendelssohn-Bartholdy) as well as later Heine, Börne, Gans and
Neander, embraced Christianity. Within Judaism itself two
parties were formed, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and as
time went on these tendencies definitely organized themselves.
Holdheim
q.v.
) and
Geiger
q.v.
) led the reform movement in
Germany and at the present day the effects of the movement are
widely felt in America on the Liberal side and on the opposite
side in the work of the neo-orthodox school founded by
S. R.
Hirsch
q.v.
). Modern seminaries were established first in
Breslau by
Zacharias Fränkel
q.v.
) and later in other cities.
Brilliant results accrued from all this participation in the general
life of Germany. Jews, engaged in all the professions and pursuits
of the age, came to the front in many branches of public
life, claiming such names as Riesser (d. 1863) and Lasker in
politics, Auerbach in literature, Rubinstein and Joachim in
music, Traube in medicine, and Lazarus in psychology. Especially
famous have been the Jewish linguists, pre-eminent among
them Theodor Benfey (1809–1881), the pioneer of modern
comparative philology; and the Greek scholar and critic Jakob
Bernays (1824–1881).
49.
Effect of the French Revolution
.—In close relation to the
German progress in Mendelssohn’s age, events had been progressing
in France, where the Revolution did much to improve
the Jewish condition, thanks largely to the influence of Mirabeau.
In 1807 Napoleon convoked a Jewish assembly in Paris. Though
the decisions of this body had no binding force on the Jews
generally, yet in some important particulars its decrees represent
principles widely adopted by the Jewish community. They
proclaim the acceptance of the spirit of Mendelssohn’s reconciliation
of the Jews to modern life. They assert the citizenship
and patriotism of Jews, their determination to accommodate
themselves to the present as far as they could while retaining
loyalty to the past. They declare their readiness to adapt the
law of the synagogue to the law of the land, as for instance in
the question of marriage and divorce. No Jew, they decided,
may perform the ceremony of marriage unless civil formalities
have been fulfilled; and divorce is allowed to the Jews only if and
so far as it is confirmatory of a legal divorce pronounced by the
civil law of the land. The French assembly did not succeed in
obtaining formal assent to these decisions (except from Frankfort
and Holland), but they gained the practical adhesion of the
majority of Western and American Jews. Napoleon, after the
report of the assembly, established the consistorial system which
remained in force, with its central consistory in the capital,
until the recent separation of church and state. Many French
Jews acquired fame, among them the ministers Crémieux (1796–1879),
Fould, Gondchaux and Raynal; the archaeologists and
philologians Oppert, Halévy, Munk, the Derenbourgs, Darmesteters
and Reinachs; the musicians Halévy, Waldteufel and
Meyerbeer; the authors and dramatists Catulle Mendès and
A. d’Ennery, and many others, among them several distinguished
occupants of civil and military offices.
50.
Modern Italy
.—Similar developments occurred in other
countries, though it becomes impossible to treat the history of
the Jews, from this time onwards, in general outline. We must
direct our attention to the most important countries in such
detail as space permits. And first as to Italy, where the Jews
in a special degree have identified themselves with the national
life. The revolutions of 1848, which greatly affected the position
of the Jews in several parts of Europe, brought considerable
gain to the Jews of Italy. During the war against Austria in
the year named, Isaac Pesaro Marogonato was finance minister
in Venice. Previously to this date the Jews were still confined
to the ghetto, but in 1859, in the Italy united under Victor
Emanuel II., the Jews obtained complete rights, a privilege
which was extended also to Rome itself in 1870. The Italian
Jews devoted themselves with ardour to the service of the state.
Isaac Artom was Cavour’s secretary, L’ Olper a counsellor of
Mazzini. “The names of the Jewish soldiers who died in the
cause of Italian liberty were placed along with those of their
Christian fellow soldiers on the monuments erected in their
honour” (
Jewish Encyclopedia
, vii. 10). More recently men
like Wollemberg, Ottolenghi and Luzzatti rose to high positions
as ministers of state. Most noted of recent Jewish scholars in
Italy was
S. D. Luzzatto
q.v.
).
51.
Austria
.—From Italy we may turn to the country which
so much influenced Italian politics, Austria, which had founded
the system of “Court Jews” in 1518, had expelled the Jews
from Vienna as late as 1670, when the synagogue of that city
was converted into a church. But economic laws are often too
strong for civil vagaries or sectarian fanaticism, and as the
commerce of Austria suffered by the absence of the Jews, it was
impossible to exclude the latter from the fairs in the provinces
or
from the markets of the capital. As has been pointed out
above, certain protected Jews were permitted to reside in places
where the expulsion of the Jews had been decreed. But Maria
Theresa (1740–1780) was distinguished for her enmity to the
Jews, and in 1744 made a futile attempt to secure their expulsion
from Bohemia. “In 1760 she issued an order that all unbearded
Jews should wear a yellow badge on their left arm” (
Jewish
Encyclopedia
, ii. 330). The most petty limitations of Jewish
commercial activity continued; thus at about this period the
community of Prague, in a petition, “complain that they are
not permitted to buy victuals in the market before a certain
hour, vegetables not before 9 and cattle not before 11 o’clock;
to buy fish is sometimes altogether prohibited; Jewish druggists
are not permitted to buy victuals at the same time with
Christians” (
op. cit.
). So, too, with taxation. It was exorbitant
and vexatious. To pay for rendering inoperative the
banishment edict of 1744, the Jews were taxed 3,000,000 florins
annually for ten years. In the same year it was decreed that
the Jews should pay “a special tax of 40,000 florins for the right
to import their citrons for the feast of booths.” Nevertheless,
Joseph II. (1780–1790) inaugurated a new era for the Jews of
his empire. Soon after his accession he abolished the distinctive
Jewish dress, abrogated the poll-tax, admitted the Jews to
military service and their children to the public schools, and in
general opened the era of emancipation by the
Toleranzpatent
of 1782. This enlightened policy was not continued by the
successors of Joseph II. Under Francis II. (1792–1835) economic
and social restrictions were numerous. Agriculture was
again barred; indeed the Vienna congress of 1815 practically
restored the old discriminations against the Jews. As time
went on, a more progressive policy intervened, the special form
of Jewish oath was abolished in 1846, and in 1848, as a result
of the revolutionary movement in which Jews played an active
part, legislation took a more liberal turn. Francis Joseph I.
ascended the throne in that year, and though the constitution
of 1849 recognized the principle of religious liberty, an era of
reaction supervened, especially when “the concordat of 1855
delivered Austria altogether into the hands of the clericals.”
But the day of medieval intolerance had passed, and in 1867 the
new constitution “abolished all disabilities on the ground of
religious differences,” though anti-Semitic manipulation of the
law by administrative authority has led to many instances of
intolerance. Many Jews have been members of the Reichsrath,
some have risen to the rank of general in the army, and Austrian
Jews have contributed their quota to learning, the arts and
literature. Löw, Jellinek, Kaufmann, as scholars in the Jewish
field; as poets and novelists, Kompert, Franzos, L. A. Frankl;
the pianist Moscheles, the dramatist Mosenthal, and the actor
Sonnenthal, the mathematician Spitzer and the chess-player
Steinitz are some of the most prominent names. The law of
1890 makes it “compulsory for every Jew to be a member of
the congregation of the district in which he resides, and so gives
to every congregation the right to tax the individual members”
op. cit.
). A similar obligation prevails in parts of Germany.
A Jew can avoid the communal tax only by formally declaring
himself as outside the Jewish community. The Jews of Hungary
shared with their brethren in Austria the same alternations of
expulsion and recall. By the law “De Judaeis” passed by the
Diet in 1791 the Jews were accorded protection, but half a century
passed before their tolerated condition was regularized. The
“toleration-tax” was abolished in 1846. During the revolutionary
outbreak of 1848, the Jews suffered severely in Hungary,
but as many as 20,000 Jews are said to have joined the army.
Kossuth succeeded in granting them temporary emancipation,
but the suppression of the War of Independence led to an era of
royal autocracy which, while it advanced Jewish culture by
enforcing the establishment of modern schools, retarded the
obtaining of civic and political rights. As in Austria, so in
Hungary, these rights were granted by the constitution of 1867.
But one step remained. The Hungarian Jews did not consider
themselves fully emancipated until the Synagogue was “duly
recognized as one of the legally acknowledged religions of the
country.” This recognition was granted by the law of 1895–1896.
In the words of Büchler (
Jewish Encyclopedia
, vi. 503): “Since
their emancipation the Jews have taken an active part in the
political, industrial, scientific and artistic life of Hungary. In
all these fields they have achieved prominence. They have also
founded great religious institutions. Their progress has not been
arrested even by anti-Semitism, which first developed in 1883 at
the time of the Tisza-Eslar accusation of ritual murder.”
52.
Other European Countries
.—According to M. Caimi the
present Jewish communities of Greece are divisible into five
groups: (1) Arta (Epirus); (2) Chalcis (Euboea); (3) Athens
(Attica); (4) Volo, Larissa and Trikala (Thessaly); and (5) Corfu
and Zante (Ionian Islands). The Greek constitution admits no
religious disabilities, but anti-Semitic riots in Corfu and Zante in
1891 caused much distress and emigration. In Spain there has
been of late a more liberal attitude towards the Jews, and there
is a small congregation (without a public synagogue) in Madrid.
In 1858 the edict of expulsion was repealed. Portugal, on the
other hand, having abolished the Inquisition in 1821, has since
1826 allowed Jews freedom of religion, and there are synagogues
in Lisbon and Faro. In Holland the Jews were admitted to
political liberty in 1796. At present more than half of the Dutch
Jews are concentrated in Amsterdam, being largely engaged in
the diamond and tobacco trades. Among famous names of
recent times foremost stands that of the artist Josef Israels. In
1675 was consecrated in Amsterdam the synagogue which is still
the most noted Jewish edifice in Europe. Belgium granted full
freedom to the Jews in 1815, and the community has since 1808
been organized on the state consistorial system, which till
recently also prevailed in France. It was not till 1874 that full
religious equality was granted to the Jews of Switzerland. But
there has been considerable interference (ostensibly on humanitarian
grounds) with the Jewish method of slaughtering animals
for food (
Sheḥitah
) and the method was prohibited by a referendum
in 1893. In the same year a similar enactment was
passed in Saxony, and the subject is a favourite one with
anti-Semites, who have enlisted on their side some scientific authorities,
though the bulk of expert opinion is in favor of
Sheḥitah
(see Dembo,
Das Schlachten
, 1894). In Sweden the Jews have all
the rights which are open to non-Lutherans; they cannot become
members of the council of state. In Norway there is a small
Jewish settlement (especially in Christiania) who are engaged
in industrial pursuits and enjoy complete liberty. Denmark
has for long been distinguished for its liberal policy towards the
Jews. Since 1814 the latter have been eligible as magistrates,
and in 1849 full equality was formally ratified. Many Copenhagen
Jews achieved distinction as manufacturers, merchants
and bankers, and among famous Jewish men of letters may be
specially named Georg Brandes.
The story of the Jews in Russia and Rumania remains a black
spot on the European record. In Russia the Jews are more
numerous and more harshly treated than in any other part of
the world. In the remotest past Jews were settled in much of
the territory now included in Russia, but they are still treated
as aliens. They are restricted to the pale of settlement which
was first established in 1791. The pale now includes fifteen
governments, and under the May laws of 1892 the congestion of
the Jewish population, the denial of free movement, and the
exclusion from the general rights of citizens were rendered more
oppressive than ever before. The right to leave the pale is indeed
granted to merchants of the first gild, to those possessed of
certain educational diplomas, to veteran soldiers and to certain
classes of skilled artisans. But these concessions are unfavourably
interpreted and much extortion results. Despite a huge
emigration of Jews from Russia, the congestion within the pale
is the cause of terrible destitution and misery. Fierce massacres
occurred in Nizhniy-Novgorod in 1882, and in Kishinev in 1903.
Many other pogroms have occurred, and the condition of the
Jews has been reduced to one of abject poverty and despair.
Much was hoped from the duma, but this body has proved
bitterly opposed to the Jewish claim for liberty. Yet in spite
of these disabilities there are amongst the Russian Jews many
enterprising contractors, skilful doctors, and successful lawyers
and scientists. In Rumania, despite the Berlin Treaty, the Jews
are treated as aliens, and but a small number have been naturalized.
They are excluded from most of the professions and are
hampered in every direction.
53.
Oriental Countries
.—In the Orient the condition of the
Jews has been much improved by the activity of Western
organizations, of which something is said in a later paragraph.
Modern schools have been set up in many places, and Palestine
has been the scene of a notable educational and agricultural
revival, while technical schools—such as the agricultural college
near Jaffa and the schools of the alliance and the more recent
Bezalel in Jerusalem—have been established. Turkey has always
on the whole tolerated the Jews, and much is hoped from the
new régime. In Morocco the Jews, who until late in the 19th
century were often persecuted, are still confined to a
mellah
(separate quarter), but at the coast-towns there are prosperous
Jewish communities mostly engaged in commerce. In other
parts of the same continent, in Egypt and in South Africa, many
Jews have settled, participating in all industrial and financial
pursuits. Recently a mission has been sent to the Falashas of
Abyssinia, and much interest has been felt in such outlying
branches of the Jewish people as the Black Jews of Cochin and
the Bene Israel community of Bombay. In Persia Jews are
often the victims of popular outbursts as well as of official extortion,
but there are fairly prosperous communities at Bushire,
Isfahan, Teheran and Kashan (in Shiraz they are in low estate).
The recent advent of constitutional government may improve
the condition of the Jews.
54.
The United Kingdom
.—The general course of Jewish
history in England has been indicated above. The Jews came
to England at least as early as the Norman Conquest; they were
expelled from Bury St Edmunds in 1190, after the massacres at
the coronation of Richard I.; they were required to wear badges
in 1218. At the end of the 12th century was established the
“exchequer of the Jews,” which chiefly dealt with suits concerning
money-lending, and arranged a “continual flow of money
from the Jews to the royal treasury,” and a so-called “parliament
of the Jews” was summoned in 1241; in 1275 was enacted
the statute
de Judaismo
which, among other things, permitted
the Jews to hold land. But this concession was illusory, and as
the statute prevented Jews from engaging in finance—the only
occupation which had been open to them—it was a prelude to
their expulsion in 1290. There were few Jews in England from
that date till the Commonwealth, but Jews settled in the American
colonies earlier in the 17th century, and rendered considerable
services in the advancement of English commerce. The Whitehall
conference of 1655 marks a change in the status of the Jews
in England itself, for though no definite results emerged it was
clearly defined by the judges that there was no legal obstacle to
the return of the Jews. Charles II. in 1664 continued Cromwell’s
tolerant policy. No serious attempt towards the emancipation
of the Jews was made till the Naturalization Act of 1753, which
was, however, immediately repealed. Jews no longer attached
to the Synagogue, such as the Herschels and Disraelis, attained
to fame. In 1830 the first Jewish emancipation bill was brought
in by Robert Grant, but it was not till the legislation of 1858–1860
that Jews obtained full parliamentary rights. In other
directions progress was more rapid. The office of sheriff was
thrown open to Jews in 1835 (Moses Montefiore, sheriff of London
was knighted in 1837); Sir I. L. Goldsmid was made a baronet
in 1841, Baron Lionel de Rothschild was elected to Parliament in
1847 (though he was unable to take his seat), Alderman (Sir
David) Salomons became lord mayor of London in 1855 and
Francis Goldsmid was made a Q.C. in 1858. In 1873 Sir George
Jessel was made a judge, and Lord Rothschild took his seat in the
House of Lords as the first Jewish peer in 1886. A fair proportion
of Jews have been elected to the House of Commons, and
Mr Herbert Samuel rose to cabinet rank in 1909. Sir Matthew
Nathan has been governor of Hong-Kong and Natal, and among
Jewish statesmen in the colonies Sir Julius Vogel and V. L.
Solomon have been prime ministers (
Hyamson
A History of the
Jews in England
, p. 342). It is unnecessary to remark that in
the British colonies the Jews everywhere enjoy full citizenship.
In fact, the colonies emancipated the Jews earlier than did the
mother country. Jews were settled in Canada from the time
of Wolfe, and a congregation was founded at Montreal in 1768,
and since 1832 Jews have been entitled to sit in the Canadian
parliament. There are some thriving Jewish agricultural colonies
in the same dominion. In Australia the Jews from the first were
welcomed on perfectly equal terms. The oldest congregation
is that of Sydney (1817); the Melbourne community dates from
1844. Reverting to incidents in England itself, in 1870 the
abolition of university tests removed all restrictions on Jews at
Oxford and Cambridge, and both universities have since elected
Jews to professorships and other posts of honour. The communal
organization of English Jewry is somewhat inchoate. In 1841
an independent reform congregation was founded, and the
Spanish and Portuguese Jews have always maintained their
separate existence with a Ḥaham as the ecclesiastical head. In
1870 was founded the United Synagogue, which is a metropolitan
organization, and the same remark applies to the more recent
Federation of Synagogues. The chief rabbi, who is the ecclesiastical
head of the United Synagogue, has also a certain amount
of authority over the provincial and colonial Jewries, but this
is nominal rather than real. The provincial Jewries, however,
participate in the election of the chief rabbi. At the end of 1909
was held the first conference of Jewish ministers in London, and
from this is expected some more systematic organization of
scattered communities. Anglo-Jewry is rich, however, in charitable,
educational and literary institutions; chief among these
respectively may be named the Jewish board of guardians
(1859), the Jews’ college (1855), and the Jewish historical society
(1893). Besides the distinctions already noted, English Jews
have risen to note in theology (C. G. Montefiore), in literature
(Israel Zangwill and Alfred Sutro), in art (S. Hart, R.A., and
S. J. Solomon, R.A.) in music (Julius Benedict and Frederick
Hymen Cowen). More than 1000 English and colonial Jews
participated as active combatants in the South African War.
The immigration of Jews from Russia was mainly responsible
for the ineffective yet oppressive Aliens Act of 1905. (Full
accounts of Anglo-Jewish institutions are given in the
Jewish
Year-Book
published annually since 1895.)
55.
The American Continent
.—Closely parallel with the progress
of the Jews in England has been their steady advancement in
America. Jews made their way to America early in the 16th
century, settling in Brazil prior to the Dutch occupation. Under
Dutch rule they enjoyed full civil rights. In Mexico and Peru
they fell under the ban of the Inquisition. In Surinam the Jews
were treated as British subjects; in Barbadoes, Jamaica and New
York they are found as early as the first half of the 17th century.
During the War of Independence the Jews of America took a
prominent part on both sides, for under the British rule many
had risen to wealth and high social position. After the Declaration
of Independence, Jews are found all over America, where they
have long enjoyed complete emancipation, and have enormously
increased in numbers, owing particularly to immigration from
Russia. The American Jews bore their share in the Civil War
(7038 Jews were in the two armies), and have always identified
themselves closely with national movements such as the emancipation
of Cuba. They have attained to high rank in all
branches of the public service, and have shown most splendid
instances of far-sighted and generous philanthropy. Within the
Synagogue the reform movement began in 1825, and soon won
many successes, the central conference of American rabbis and
Union College (1875) at Cincinnati being the instruments of this
progress. At the present time orthodox Judaism is also again
acquiring its due position and the Jewish theological seminary
of America was founded for this purpose. In 1908 an organization,
inclusive of various religious sections, was founded under
the description “the Jewish community of New York.” There
have been four Jewish members of the United States senate, and
about 30 of the national House of Representatives. Besides
filling many diplomatic offices, a Jew (O. S. Straus) has been a
member of the cabinet. Many Jews have filled professorial
chairs at the universities, others have been judges, and in art,
literature (there is a notable Jewish publication society), industry
and commerce have rendered considerable services to national
culture and prosperity. American universities have owed much
to Jewish generosity, a foremost benefactor of these (as of many
other American institutions) being Jacob Schiff. Such institutions
as the Gratz and Dropsie colleges are further indications
of the splendid activity of American Jews in the educational
field. The Jews of America have also taken a foremost place
in the succour of their oppressed brethren in Russia and other
parts of the world. (Full accounts of American Jewish institutions
are given in the
American Jewish Year-Book
, published
annually since 1899.)
56.
Anti-Semitism
.—It is saddening to be compelled to close
this record with the statement that the progress of the European
Jews received a serious check by the rise of modern anti-Semitism
in the last quarter of the 19th century. While in Russia
this took the form of actual massacre, in Germany and Austria
it assumed the shape of social and civic ostracism. In Germany
Jews are still rarely admitted to the rank of officers in the army,
university posts are very difficult of access, Judaism and its
doctrines are denounced in medieval language, and a tone of
hostility prevails in many public utterances. In Austria, as in
Germany, anti-Semitism is a factor in the parliamentary elections.
The legend of
ritual murder
q.v.
) has been revived, and every
obstacle is placed in the way of the free intercourse of Jews with
their Christian fellow-citizens. In France Edouard Adolphe
Drumont led the way to a similar animosity, and the popular
fury was fanned by the Dreyfus case. It is generally felt, however,
that this recrudescence of anti-Semitism is a passing phase
in the history of culture (see
Anti-Semitism
).
57.
The Zionist Movement
.—The Zionist movement (see
Zionism
), founded in 1895 by
Theodor Herzl
q.v.
) was in a sense
the outcome of anti-Semitism. Its object was the foundation
of a Jewish state in Palestine, but though it aroused much
interest it failed to attract the majority of the emancipated Jews,
and the movement has of late been transforming itself into a
mere effort at colonization. Most Jews not only confidently believe
that their own future lies in progressive development
within
the various nationalities of the world, but they also hope that
a similar consummation is in store for the as yet unemancipated
branches of Israel. Hence the Jews are in no sense internationally
organized. The influence of the happier communities has
been exercised on behalf of those in a worse position by individuals
such as Sir
Moses Montefiore
q.v.
) rather than by societies
or leagues. From time to time incidents arise which appeal to
the Jewish sympathies everywhere and joint action ensues.
Such incidents were the Damascus charge of ritual murder (1840),
the forcible baptism of the Italian child Mortara (1858), and the
Russian pogroms at various dates. But all attempts at an
international union of Jews, even in view of such emergencies
as these, have failed. Each country has its own local organization
for dealing with Jewish questions. In France the Alliance
Israélite (founded in 1860), in England the Anglo-Jewish Association
(founded in 1871), in Germany the Hilfsverein der deutschen
Juden, and in Austria the Israelitische Allianz zu Wien (founded
1872), in America the American Jewish Committee (founded 1906),
and similar organizations in other countries deal only incidentally
with political affairs. They are concerned mainly with the
education of Jews in the Orient, and the establishment of colonies
and technical institutions.
Baron Hirsch
q.v.
) founded the
Jewish colonial association, which has undertaken vast colonizing
and educational enterprises, especially in Argentina, and more
recently the Jewish territorial organization has been started to
found a home for the oppressed Jews of Russia. All these
institutions are performing a great regenerative work, and the
tribulations and disappointments of the last decades of the 19th
century were not all loss. The gain consisted in the rousing of
the Jewish consciousness to more virile efforts towards a double
end, to succour the persecuted and ennoble the ideals of the
emancipated.
58.
Statistics
.—Owing to the absence of a religious census in
several important countries, the Jewish population of the world can
only be given by inferential estimate. The following approximate
figures are taken from the
American Jewish Year-Book
for 1909–1910
and are based on similar estimates in the English
Jewish Year-Book
the
Jewish Encyclopedia
, Nossig’s
Jüdische Statistik
and the
Reports
of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. According to these estimates
the total Jewish population of the world in the year named was
approximately 11,500,000. Of this total there were in the British
Empire about 380,000 Jews (British Isles 240,000, London accounts
for 150,000 of these; Canada and British Columbia 60,000; India
18,000; South Africa 40,000). The largest Jewish populations were
those of Russia (5,215,000), Austria-Hungary (2,084,000), United
States of America (1,777,000), Germany (607,000, of whom 409,000
were in Prussia), Turkey (463,000, of whom some 78,000 resided in
Palestine), Rumania (250,000), Morocco (109,000) and Holland
(106,000). Others of the more important totals are: France 95,000
(besides Algeria 63,000 and Tunis 62,000); Italy 52,000; Persia
49,000; Egypt 39,000; Bulgaria 36,000; Argentine Republic 30,000;
Tripoli 19,000; Turkestan and Afghanistan 14,000; Switzerland and
Belgium each 12,000; Mexico 9000; Greece 8000; Servia 6000;
Sweden and Cuba each 4000; Denmark 3500; Brazil and Abyssinia
(Falashas) each 3000; Spain and Portugal 2500; China and Japan
2000. There are also Jews in Curaçoa, Surinam, Luxemburg,
Norway, Peru, Crete and Venezuela; but in none of these does the
Jewish population much exceed 1000.
Bibliography
.—
H. Graetz
Geschichte der Juden
(11 vols., 1853–1875;
several subsequent editions of separate volumes; Eng. trans.
5 vols., 1891–1892); the works of L. Zunz;
Jewish Encyclopedia
passim
; publications of Jewish societies, such as
Études Juives
Jewish historical societies of England and America, German historical
commission, Julius Barasch society (Rumania), Societas Litteraria
Hungarico-Judaica, the Viennese communal publications, and many
others to which may be added the 20 vols. of the
Jewish Quarterly
Review
; Scherer,
Rechtsverhältnisse der Juden
(1901); M. Güdemann
Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden
(1880, &c.);
A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
Israel among the Nations
(1895); I. Abrahams,
Jewish Life in the Middle Ages
(1896); G. F. Abbott,
Israel in Europe
(1905); G. Caro,
Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden
(1908); M. Philippson,
Neueste Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes
(1907, &c.); Nossig,
Jüdische
Statistik
(1903); and such special works as H. Gross,
Gallia Judaica
(1897), &c.
I. A.
On the homogeneity of the population, see further, W. R. Smith,
Religion of the Semites
(2nd ed., chaps, i.-iii.); T. Nöldeke,
Sketches
from Eastern History
, pp. 1-20 (on “Some Characteristics of the
Semitic Race”); and especially E. Meyer,
Gesch. d. Altertums
(2nd ed.,
i. §§ 330, sqq.). For the relation between the geographical characteristics
and the political history, see G. A. Smith,
Historical Geography
of the Holy Land
For fuller information on this section see
Palestine
History
and the related portions of
Babylonia and Assyria
Egypt
Hittites
Syria
Or
land
Israel, W. Spiegelberg,
Orient. Lit. Zeit.
xi. (1908), cols.
403–405.
It is useful to compare the critical study of the
Koran
q.v.
),
where, however, the investigation of its various “revelations” is
simpler than that of the biblical “prophecies” on account of the
greater wealth of independent historical tradition. See also G. B.
Gray,
Contemporary Review
(July 1907); A. A. Bevan,
Cambridge
Biblical Essays
(ed. Swete, 1909), pp. 1-19.
See primarily
Bible
Old Testament
; the articles on the contents
and literary structure of the several books; the various biographical,
topographical and ethnical articles, and the separate
treatment of the more important subjects (
e.g.
Levites
Prophet
Sacrifice
).
On the bearing of external evidence upon the internal biblical
records, see especially S. R. Driver’s essay in Hogarth’s
Authority
and Archaeology
; cf. also A. A. Bevan,
Critical Review
(1897, p. 406
sqq., 1898, pp. 131 sqq.); G. B. Gray,
Expositor
, May 1898; W. G.
Jordan,
Bib. Crit. and Modern Thought
(1909), pp. 42 sqq.
For the sections which follow the present writer may be permitted
to refer to his introductory contributions in the
Expositor
(June, 1906; “The Criticism of the O.T.”); the
Jewish Quarterly
Review
(July 1905–January 1907 =
Critical Notes on O.T. History
especially sections vii.–ix.); July and October 1907, April 1908;
Amer. Journ. Theol.
(July 1909, “Simeon and Levi: the Problem
of the Old Testament”); and Swete’s
Cambridge Bib. Essays
pp. 54–89 (“The Present Stage of O.T. Research”).
On the name see
Jehovah
Tetragrammaton
The story of Joseph has distinctive internal features of its own,
and appears to be from an independent cycle, which has been used
to form a connecting link between the Settlement and the Exodus;
see also Ed. Meyer,
Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme
(1906),
pp. 228, 433; B. Luther, ibid. pp. 108 seq., 142 sqq. Neither of the
poems in Deut. xxxii. seq. alludes to an escape from Egypt; Israel
is merely a desert tribe inspired to settle in Palestine. Apparently
even the older accounts of the exodus are not of very great antiquity;
according to Jeremiah ii. 2, 7 (cf. Hos. ii. 15) some traditions
of the wilderness must have represented Israel in a very favourable
light; for the “canonical” view, see Ezekiel xvi., xx., xxiii.
The capture of central Palestine itself is not recorded; according
to its own traditions the district had been seized by Jacob
(Gen. xlviii. 22; cf. the late form of the tradition in Jubilees xxxiv.).
This conception of a conquering hero is entirely distinct from the
narratives of the descent of Jacob into Egypt, &c. (see Meyer and
Luther,
op. cit.
pp. 110, 227 seq., 415, 433).
This is especially true of the various ingenious attempts to combine
the invasion of the Israelites with the movements of the Ḥabiru
in the Amarna period (§ 3).
Cf. Winckler,
Keil. u. das Alte Test.
p. 212 seq.; also his “Der alte
Orient und die Geschichtsforschung” in
Mitteilungen der Vorderasiat.
Gesellschaft
(Berlin, 1906) and
Religionsgeschichtlicher u. gesch. Orient
(Leipzig, 1906); A. Jeremias,
Alte Test.
(p. 464 seq.); B. Baentsch,
Altorient. u. Israel. Monotheismus
(pp. 53, 79, 105, &c.); also
Theolog.
Lit. Blatt
(1907) No. 19. On the reconstructions of the tribal
history, see especially T. K. Cheyne,
Ency. Bib.
art. “Tribes.” The
most suggestive study of the pre-monarchical narratives is that of
E. Meyer and B. Luther (above; see the former’s criticisms on the
reconstructions, pp. 50, 251 sqq., 422, n. 1 and
passim
).
2 Chron. xii. 8, which is independent of the chronicler’s artificial
treatment of his material, apparently points to some tradition of
Egyptian suzerainty.
See for chronology,
Babylonia and Assyria
, §§ v. and viii.
See
Jew. Quart. Rev.
(1908), pp. 597–630. The independent
Israelite traditions which here become more numerous have points
of contact with those of Saul in 1 Samuel, and the relation is highly
suggestive for the study of their growth, as also for the perspective
of the various writers.
See W. R. Smith (after Kuenen),
Ency. Bib.
, col. 2670; also
W. E. Addis, ib., 1276, the commentaries of Benzinger (p. 130) and
Kittel (pp. 153 seq.) on Kings; J. S. Strachan, Hastings’s
Dict. Bible
i. 694; G. A. Smith,
Hist. Geog. of Holy Land
, p. 582; König and
Hirsch,
Jew. Ency.
v. 137 seq. (“legend . . . as indifferent to accuracy
in dates as it is to definiteness of places and names”); W. R. Harper,
Amos and Hosea
, p. xli. seq. (“the lack of chronological order . . . the
result is to create a wrong impression of Elisha’s career”).
The bearing of this displacement upon the literary and historical
criticism of the narratives has never been worked out.
Careful examination shows that no a priori distinction can
be drawn between “trustworthy” books of Kings and “untrustworthy
books” of Chronicles. Although the latter have special late
and unreliable features, they agree with the former in presenting the
same general trend of past history. The “canonical” history in
Kings is further embellished in Chronicles, but the gulf between them
is not so profound as that between the former and the underlying
and half-suppressed historical traditions which can still be
recognized. (See also
Palestine
History
.)
For the former (2 Kings xii. 17 seq.) cf. Hezekiah and Sennacherib
(xviii. 13–15), and for the latter, cf. Asa and Baasha
(1 Kings xv. 18–20; above).
It is possible that Hadad-nirari’s inscription refers to conditions
in the latter part of his reign (812–783
B.C.
), when Judah apparently
was no longer independent and when Jeroboam II. was king of
Israel. The accession of the latter has been placed between 785 and
782. It is now known, also, that Ben-hadad and a small coalition
were defeated by the king of Hamath; but the bearing of this upon
Israelite history is uncertain.
Cf. generally, 1 Sam. iv., xxxi.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; 1 Kings xx., xxii.;
2 Kings vi. 8–vii. 20; also Judges v. (see
Deborah
).
Special mention is made of Jonah, a prophet of Zebulun in
(north) Israel (2 Kings xiv. 25). Nothing is known of him, unless
the very late prophetical writing with the account of his visit to
Nineveh rests upon some old tradition, which, however, can scarcely
be recovered (see
Jonah
).
This is philosophically handled by the Arabian historian Ibn
Khaldūn, whose Prolegomena is well worthy of attention; see De
Slane,
Not. et extraits
, vols. xix.–xxi., with Von Kremer’s criticisms
in the
Sitz. d. Kais. Akad.
of Vienna (vol. xciii., 1879); cf. also
R. Flint,
History of the Philosophy of History
, i. 157 sqq.
Cf. J. G. Frazer,
Adonis, Attis, Osiris
(1907), p. 67: “Prophecy
of the Hebrew type has not been limited to Israel; it is indeed a
phenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence; in many lands and
in many ages the wild, whirling words of frenzied men and women
have been accepted as the utterances of an in-dwelling deity. What
does distinguish Hebrew prophecy from all others is that the genius
of a few members of the profession wrested this vulgar but powerful
instrument from baser uses, and by wielding it in the interest of a
high morality rendered a service of incalculable value to humanity.
That is indeed the glory of Israel. . . .”
The use which was made in Apocalyptic literature of the traditions
of Moses, Isaiah and others finds its analogy within the Old
Testament itself; cf. the relation between the present late prophecies
of Jonah and the unknown prophet of the time of Jeroboam II.
(see § 13, note 5). To condemn re-shaping or adaptation of this nature
from a modern Western standpoint is to misunderstand entirely
the Oriental mind and Oriental usage.
The condemnation passed upon the impetuous and fiery zeal
of the adherents of the new movement (cf. Hos. i. 4), like the remarkable
vicissitudes in the traditions of
Moses
Aaron
and the
Levites
qq.v.
), represents changing situations of real significance, whose true
place in the history can with difficulty be recovered.
Formerly thought to be the third of the name.
Perhaps Judah had come to an understanding with Tiglath-pileser
(H. M. Haydn,
Journ. Bib. Lit.
, xxviii. 1909, pp. 182-199);
see
Uzziah
The fact that these lists are of the kings of the “land Ḥatti”
would suggest that the term “Hittite” had been extended to
Palestine.
So K. Budde,
Rel. of Israel to Exile
, pp. 165–167. For an
attempt to recover the character of the cults, see W. Erbt,
Hebräer
(Leipzig, 1906), pp. 150 sqq.
See G. Maspero,
Gesch. d. morgenländ. Völker
(1877), p. 446;
E. Naville,
Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol.
(1907), pp. 232 sqq., and T. K.
Cheyne,
Decline and Fall of Judah
(1908), p. 13, with references.
[The genuineness of such discoveries is naturally a matter for historical
criticism to decide. Thus the discovery of Numa’s laws in
Rome (Livy xl. 29), upon which undue weight has sometimes been
laid (see Klostermann,
Der Pentateuch
(1906), pp. 155 sqq., was not
accepted as genuine by the senate (who had the laws destroyed),
and probably not by Pliny himself. Only the later antiquaries
clung to the belief in their trustworthiness.—(
Communicated.
)]
Both kings came to the throne after a conspiracy aimed at
existing abuses, and other parallels can be found (see
Kings
).
But see N. Schmidt,
Ency. Bib.
, “Scythians,” § 1.
So also one can now compare the estimate taken of the Jews in
Egypt in Jer. xliv. with the actual religious conditions which are
known to have prevailed later at Elephantine, where a small Jewish
colony worshipped Yahu (Yahweh) at their own temple (see E.
Sachau, “Drei aram. Papyrusurkunde,” in the
Abhandlungen
of
the Prussian Academy, Berlin, 1907).
Sargon had removed Babylonians into the land of Hatti (Syria
and Palestine), and in 715
B.C.
among the colonists were tribes apparently
of desert origin (Tamud, Hayapa, &c.); other settlements are
ascribed to Esar-haddon and perhaps Assur-bani-pal (Ezra iv. 2, 10).
See for the evidence, A. E. Cowley,
Ency. Bib.
, col. 4257; J. A.
Montgomery,
The Samaritans
, pp. 46–57 (Philadelphia, 1907).
The growing recognition that the land was not depopulated after
586 is of fundamental significance for the criticism of “exilic”
and “post-exilic” history. G. A. Smith thus sums up a discussion
of the extent of the deportations: “. . . A large majority
of the Jewish people remained on the land. This conclusion may
startle us with our generally received notions of the whole nation as
exiled. But there are facts which support it” (
Jerusalem
, ii. 268).
On the place of Palestine in Persian history see
Persia
History,
ancient
, especially § 5 ii.; also
Artaxerxes
Cambyses
Cyrus
Darius
, &c.
The evidence for Artaxerxes III., accepted by Ewald and others
(see W. R. Smith,
Old Testament in Jewish Church
, p. 438 seq.; W.
Judeich,
Kleinasiat. Stud.
, p. 170; T. K. Cheyne,
Ency. Bib.
, col.
2202; F. C. Kent,
Hist.
[1899], pp. 230 sqq.) has however been questioned
by Willrich,
Judaica
, 35–39 (see Cheyne,
Ency. Bib.
, col.
3941). The account of Josephus (above) raises several difficulties,
especially the identity of Bagoses. It has been supposed that he has
placed the record too late, and that this Bagoses is the Judaean
governor who flourished about 408
B.C.
(See p. 286, n. 3.)
Thus a decree of Darius I. takes the part of his subjects against
the excessive zeal of the official Gadatas, and grants freedom of
taxation and exemption from forced labour to those connected with a
temple of Apollo in Asia Minor (
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
xiii. 529; E. Meyer,
Entstehung des Judenthums
, p. 19 seq.; cf. id.
Forschungen
, ii. 497).
In addition to this, the Egyptian story of the priest Uza-hor
at the court of Cambyses and Darius reflects a policy of religious
tolerance which illustrates the biblical account of Ezra and Nehemiah
(Brugsch,
Gesch. Aeg.
pp. 784 sqq.; see Cheyne,
Jew. Relig. Life after
the Exile
, pp. 40–43).
From Têma in north Arabia, also, there is monumental evidence
of the 5th century
B.C.
for Babylonian and Assyrian influence upon
the language, cult and art. For Nippur, see
Bab. Exped. of Univ. of
Pennsylvania
, series A., vol. ix. (1898), by H. V. Hilprecht; for
Elephantine, the Mond papyri, A. H. Sayce and A. E. Cowley,
Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan
(1906), and those cited above
(p. 282, n. 1). For the Jewish colonies in general, see H. Guthe,
Ency.
Bib.
, art. “Dispersion” (with references); also below, § 25 sqq.
See
Ezra and Nehemiah
with bibliographical references,
also T. K. Cheyne,
Introd. to Isaiah
(1895);
Jew. Religious Life
after the Exile
(1898); E. Sellin,
Stud. z. Entstehungsgesch. d. jüd.
Gemeinde
(1901); R. H. Kennett in Swete’s
Cambridge Biblical
Essays
(pp. 92 sqq.); G. Jahn,
Die Bücher Esra u. Nehemja
(1909);
and C. C. Torrey,
Ezra Studies
(1910).
There is an obvious effort to preserve the continuity of tradition
) in Ezra ii. which gives a list of families who returned from exile
each to its own city, and (
) in the return of the holy vessels in the
time of Cyrus (contrast 1 Esdras iv. 43 seq.), a view which, in spite
of Dan. i. 2, v. 2 seq., conflicts with 2 Kings xxiv. 13 and xxv. 13
(see, however, v. 14). That attempts have been made to adjust
contradictory representations is suggested by the prophecy ascribed
to Jeremiah (xxvii. 16 sqq.) where the restoration of the holy vessels
finds no place in the shorter text of the Septuagint (see W. R.
Smith,
Old Test. and Jew. Church
, pp. 104 sqq.).
The view that Deuteronomy is later than the 7th century has
been suggested by M. Vernes,
Nouvelle hypothèse sur la comp. et
l’origine du Deut.
(1887); Havet,
Christian. et ses origines
(1878);
Horst, in
Rev. de l’hist. des relig.
, 1888; and more recently by E. Day,
Journ. Bib. Lit.
(1902), pp. 202 sqq.; and R. H. Kennett,
Journ.
Theol. Stud.
(1906), pp. 486 sqq. The strongest counter-arguments
(see W. E. Addis,
Doc. of Hexat.
ii. 2–9) rely upon the historical
trustworthiness of 2 Kings xxii. seq. Weighty reasons are brought
also by conservative writers against the theory that Deuteronomy
dates from or about the age of Josiah, and their objections to the
“discovery” of a new law-roll apply equally to the “re-discovery”
and promulgation of an old and authentic code.
See, for Cheyne’s view, his
Decline and Fall of Judah. Introduction
(1908). The former tendency has many supporters; see, among
recent writers, N. Schmidt,
Hibbert Journal
(1908), pp. 322 sqq.; C. F.
Burney,
Journ. Theol. Stud.
(1908), pp. 321 sqq.; O. A. Toffteen,
The Historic Exodus
(1909), pp. 120 sqq.; especially Meyer and
Luther,
Die Israeliten
, pp. 442–440, &c. For the early recognition of
the evidence in question, see J. Wellhausen,
De gentibus et familiis
Judaeis
(Göttingen, 1870);
Prolegomena
(Eng. trans.), pp. 216 sqq.,
342 sqq., and 441–443 (from art. “
Israel
,” § 2,
Ency. Brit.
9th ed.);
also A. Kuenen,
Relig. of Israel
(i. 135 seq., 176–182); W. R. Smith,
Prophets of Israel
, pp. 28 seq., 379.
For the prominence of the “southern” element in Judah see
E. Meyer,
Entstehung d. Judenthums
(1896), pp. 119, 147, 167, 177,
183 n. 1;
Israeliten
, pp. 352 n. 5, 402, 429 seq.
See § 23 end, and
Levites
. When Edom is renowned for wisdom
and a small Judaean family boasts of sages whose names have
south Palestinian affinity (1 Chron. ii. 6), and when such names as
Korah, Heman, Ethan and Obed-edom, are associated with psalmody,
there is no inherent improbability in the conjecture that the “southern”
families settled around Jerusalem may have left their mark in
other parts of the Old Testament. It is another question whether
such literature can be identified (for Cheyne’s views, see
Ency. Bib.
“Prophetic Literature,” “Psalms,” and his recent studies).
One may recall, in this connexion, Caxton’s very interesting
prologue to Malory’s
Morte d’Arthur
and his remarks on the permanent
value of the “histories” of this British hero. [Cf. also
Horace,
Ep.
1. ii. and R. Browning, “Development.”]
It is noteworthy that Josephus, who has his own representation
of the post-exilic age, allows two years and four months for the
work (
Ant.
xi. 5, 8).
The papyri from Elephantine (p. 282, n. 1, above) mention as
contemporaries the Jerusalem priest Johanan (cf. the son of Joiada
and father of Jaddua, Neh. xii. 22), Bagohi (Bagoas), governor of
Judah, and Delaiah and Shelemiah sons of Sanballat (408–407
B.C.
They ignore any strained relations between Samaria and Judah,
and Delaiah and Bagohi unite in granting permission to the Jewish
colony to rebuild their place of worship. If this fixes the date of
Sanballat and Nehemiah in the time of the first Artaxerxes, the
probability of confusion in the later written sources is enhanced
by the recurrence of identical names of kings, priests, &c., in the
history.
The Samaritans, for their part, claimed the traditions of their
land and called themselves the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim and
Manasseh. But they were ready to deny their kinship with the
Jews when the latter were in adversity, and could have replied to the
tradition that they were foreigners with a
tu quoque
(Josephus,
Ant.
ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6; xii. 5, 5) (see
Samaritans
).
The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath
may possibly have some deeper meaning (
e.g.
some recent revolt,
Ezra vii. 23).
It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl,
Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters,
Marquart, Torrey, and Wildeboer.
C. F. Kent,
Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives
(1905), p. 358 seq.
The objections against this very probable view undervalue Ezra iv.
7–23 and overlook the serious intricacies in the book of Nehemiah.
There are three inquiries: (
) the critical value of 1 Esdras,
) the character of the different representations of post-exilic internal
and external history, and (
) the recovery of the historical facts.
To start with the last before considering (
) and (
) would be futile.
For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have
been ascribed such passages as Isa. lxiii. 7–lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv., lxxiv.,
lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see also
Lamentations
). In their present
form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and, if the
evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong
to the history preceding Nehemiah’s return, provided the internal
features do not stand in the way (
e.g.
prior or posterior to the formation
of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the book of
Baruch (named after Jeremiah’s scribe) is now recognized to be considerably
later (probably after the destruction of Jerusalem
A.D.
70),
it will be seen that the recurrence of similar causes leads to a similarity
in the contemporary literary productions (with a reshaping of
earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon delicate
points of detail and not upon the apparently obvious historical
elements.
See H. Winckler,
Keil. u. Alte Test.
, 295, and Kennett,
Journ.
Theol. Stud.
(1906), p. 487;
Camb. Bib. Essays
, p. 117. The Chaldeans
alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.); Edom was friendly
or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The proposal to read
“Edomites” for “Syrians” in the list of bands which troubled
Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is not supported by the contemporary
reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.
It is at least a coincidence that the prophet who took the part
of Tobiah and Sanballat against Nehemiah (vi. 10 seq.) bears the same
name as the one who advised Rehoboam to acquiesce in the disruption
(1 Kings xii. 21–24), or announced the divine selection of Jeroboam
(ib. v. 24, Septuagint only).
See
Hebrew Religion
, § 8 seq., and the relevant portions of the
histories of Israel.
J. Wellhausen
, art. “
Israel
,”
Ency. Brit.
9th ed., vol. xiii. p. 419;
or his
Prolegomena
, pp. 497 seq.
An instructive account of Judaism in the early post-exilic age
on critical lines (from the Jewish standpoint) is given by C. G.
Montefiore,
Hibbert Lectures
(1892), pp. 355 sqq.; cf. also the sketch
by I. Abrahams,
Judaism
(1907).
Cf. the story of Phinehas, Num. xxv. 6 sqq.; on Gen. xxxiv., see
Simeon
. Apropos of hostility towards Samaria, it is singular that
the term of reproach, “Cutheans,” applied to the Samaritans is
derived from Cutha, the famous seat of the god Nergal, only some
25 m. N.E. of Babylon itself (see above, p. 286, n. 4).
The various tendencies which can be observed in the later
pseudepigraphical and apocalyptical writings are of considerable
value in any consideration of the development of thought illustrated
in the Old Testament itself.
Reference may be made to H. Winckler,
Gesch. Israels
, ii. (1900);
W. Erbt,
Die Hebräer
(1906); and T. K. Cheyne,
Traditions and
Beliefs of Ancient Israel
(1907).
On the writers mentioned below see articles
s.v.
For the importance of the Portuguese Jews, see
Portugal
History
Retrieved from "
Category
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica articles about races and tribes
Hidden categories:
Subpages
Pages with override contributor
Headers applying DefaultSort key
Pages using smallrefs with font-size
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jews
Add topic