HOME CHAT NAB PRAYERS FORUMS COMMUNITY RCIA MAGAZINE CATECHISM LINKS CONTACT
 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC SAINTS INDEX  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC DICTIONARY  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Home
 
Bible
 
Catechism
 
Chat
 
Catholic Encyclopedia
 
Church Fathers
 
Classics Library
 
Church Documents
 
Discussion
 
Mysticism
 
Prayer
 
Prayer Requests
 
RCIA
 
Vocations
 
Ray of Hope
 
Saints
 
Social Doctrine
 
Links
 
Contact
 







A History Of The Jewish People In The Time Of Jesus Christ: Two Divisions In Five Volumes

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

IN the fullness of time the Christian religion sprang out of Judaism; as a fact, indeed, of divine revelation, but also inseparably joined by innumerable threads with the previous thousand years of Israel’s history. No incident in the gospel story, no word in the preaching of Jesus Christ, is intelligible apart from its setting in Jewish history, and without a clear understanding of that world of thought-distinction of the Jewish people.

Thus it becomes the bounden duty of Christian theologians to examine into and describe that realm of thought and history in which the universal religion of Christ grew up. Nor is it enough to know simply that older literature which has been collected together in the canon of the Old Testament. On the contrary, the gospel of Jesus Christ is much more closely connected with its immediately contemporary surroundings, and the tendencies of thought prevailing in that particular age. The recognition of this has already led many investigators to devote special attention to the History of the Times of Jesus Christ. Besides such scholars as have continued the history of Israel in a comprehensive manner down to the period of Christ and His apostles, Schneckenburger and Hausrath, in particular, have treated separately of that era under the title, History of New Testament Times. The present work, too, in its first edition, was published under that designation. Though the name is now abandoned on account of its indefiniteness, the purpose and scope of the work remain practically the same. The task, however, which we set before us is more limited than that proposed by Schneckenburger and Hausrath. While Schneckenburger undertakes to describe the condition of the Jewish and Gentile world in the times of Christ, and Hausrath even adds to that the history of primitive Christianity, we shall here attempt to set forth only the History of the Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ, for this alone in the strict and proper sense constitutes the presupposition of the earliest history of Christianity.

The predominance of Pharisaism is that which most distinctly characterized this period. The legalistic tendency inaugurated by Ezra had now assumed dimensions far beyond anything contemplated by its originator. No longer did it suffice to insist upon obedience to the commandments of the scripture Thora. These divine precepts were broken down into an innumerable series of minute and vexatious particulars, the observance of which was enforced as a sacred duty, and even made a condition of salvation. And this exaggerated legalism had obtained such an absolute ascendency over the minds of the people, that all other tendencies were put entirely in the background.

This Pharisaic tendency had its origin in conflicts of the Maccabean age. During the course of those national struggles the legalistic party not only obtained the victory over those favourably inclined toward Greek learning and customs, but also secured the entire confidence of the people, so that they were encouraged to put forth claims of the most extravagant and immoderate description. The scribes were now the rulers of the people. No other intellectual or political force was sufficiently strong to counteract their influence in any appreciable degree.—The battles of the Maccabean age, however, were also epoch-making in the political history of the Jews. By them was the foundation laid for the construction) of an independent Jewish commonwealth, and for its emancipation from the dominion of the Seleucidae. This deliverance was wholly effected in consequence of the Syrian empire. Judea became an independent state under native princes, and continued in this position until conquered by the Romans.—On the ground, therefore, of spiritual development and political history, we are justified in beginning our exposition with the history of the Maccabean age.

In determining also the point at which we should close our investigations, a glance at the spiritual as well as the political history will lead to the same result. Political independence was in some measure preserved under the domination of the Romans. In place of the priestly dynasty of the Maccabees, the new order of the Herodians made its appearance. After this line of rulers had been set aside by the Romans, Palestine was for a long period governed by a series of imperial procurators. But even under them there was still a native aristocratic senate, the so-called Sanhedrim, which exercised most of the functions of government. It was not until the time of Nero and Vespasian that all political independence was taken from the Jewish people in consequence of the great revolt which they had endeavoured to carry out. The complete abolition of all Jewish national freedom was finally effected on the suppression of the outbreak under Hadrian.—And just as the concluding of our inquiry with the age of Hadrian recommends itself on outward or political grounds, so also it will be found to correspond to the course of the spiritual development of the people. For it was just during the reign of Hadrian that the Jewish scholars for the first time committed to writing the hitherto only really communicated traditional law, and in this way laid the foundation of the Talmudical code. With the age of Hadrian, therefore, a new epoch begins also for the intellectual and spiritual development of the people, the Talmudic, in which no longer the Thora of Moses, but the Talmud, forms the basis of all juristic discussion. All the same, this, too, is the period in which Pharisaism, in consequence of the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth, becomes a purely spiritual and moral power, without, however, thereby losing, but rather gaining in its influence over the people. For with the overthrow of the temple the Sadducean priesthood was also set aside, and in the Dispersion the lax and inconsistent Hellenistic Judaism could not permanently maintain itself over against the strict and consistent Judaism of the Pharisees.

The state of the sources of information at our disposal makes it impossible for us to follow step by step the inner development of the people in connection with each particular institution that comes under consideration. We are therefore under the necessity of appending to the outline of the political history a description of the inner condition of the people in a separate division. The political history falls into two main periods: the period of independence, and the period of the Roman domination. In reference to the internal conditions, the following points should be kept prominently in mind.

We shall have to describe, first of all, the general character of the culture prevailing throughout Palestine, with a particularly careful account of the spread of Hellenism on the confines of the Jewish territory and within that territory itself (§ 22). Then, as supplementary to the political history, the church constitution of the Gentile communities of Palestine as well as of the Jewish people must be explained, which belongs to the inner or spiritual history, inasmuch as it brings into consideration the self-administration of the communities in contradistinction to the political schemes and undertakings of the whole land. The exposition of the Jewish communal constitution gives the opportunity also to add the history of the Sanhedrim and of the Jewish high priest (§ 23). The two chief factors in the internal development, however, are, on the one hand, the priesthood and the temple services (§ 24), and, on the other hand, the institution of Scribism (§ 25). Inasmuch as the priests occupying prominent and official positions during the Greek era were more absorbed by worldly and political than by religious interests, those who were still zealous for the law now formed themselves into an opposition party under the leadership of the scribes. The party of the Sadducees grouped themselves around the official priests, while around the scribes gathered the party of the Pharisees (§ 26). The erection of schools and synagogues served to preserve and spread the knowledge of the law among all classes of the people (§ 27). In order to give a general view of the results to which the efforts of the scribes and Pharisees led, we have sought in another section to describe life under the law (§ 28). Zeal for the law, however, has its nerve-centre in the Messianic hope. For the gracious reward of God, which one regards himself as being made worthy of receiving by a life in accordance with the law, is thought of pre-eminently as one that lies in the future and is heavenly (§ 29). Zeal for the law and the Messianic hope are therefore the two centres around which the life of the Israelite moves. Then, after the exposition of the inner conditions of the everyday Palestinian Judaism in its main features has been concluded by a description of those two powerful tendencies just mentioned, it remains for us to glance at the Jewish monastic institution of the Essenes (§ 30), and at the much more influential, and even for the early history of Christianity much more important, Judaism of the Dispersion (§ 31). Finally, we have to show from what remains of the Jewish literature of our period how, in spite of the predominance of Pharisaism, the intellectual interests and spiritual struggles of Judaism spread out in various directions. This is seen even in the Palestinian literature (§ 32), but in a still higher degree in the Hellenistic literature (§ 33); and last of all, though really belonging to this group just named, the Jewish philosopher Philo, on account of his very peculiar importance, may have his writings and his speculation treated of in a distinct section (§ 34).

PRIDEAUX, The Old and New Testament connected in the history of the Jews and neighbouring nations from the declension of the kingdom of Israel and Judah to the time of Christ. 2 vols. London 1716–1718. 10th ed. 1749.—This once celebrated work, which appeared both in German and in French translations, though necessarily inadequate, may still be referred to on many points with advantage.

EWALD, History of Israel. 8 vols. London 1867–1886. Vol. v. The History of Ezra and of the Hagiocracy in Israel to the time of Christ. Vol. vi. The Life and Times of Christ. Vol. vii. The Apostolic Age. Vol. viii. The Post-Apostolic Age.—In these volumes the history of Christ and the Apostles is connected with the history of the people of Israel.

HAUSRATH, History of New Testament Times: The Time of Jesus. 2 vols. London 1878.—This work treats not only of the Jewish history of the period, but also of the life of Jesus; while later volumes, not yet translated, discuss the history of primitive Christianity, and introduce many details of Roman history.

RAPHALL, Post-Biblical History of the Jews from the close of the Old Testament, about the year 420, till the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70. 2 vols. London 1856.

MILMAN, The History of the Jews from the earliest period down to modern times. 3 vols. 3rd ed. London 1863.—The first volume closes with the suppression of Jewish worship by Antiochus Epiphanes; the second continues the history from the appearance of Mattathias down to the third century of the Christian era.

JOST, History of the Jews from the Maccabees to the present day. New York 1848.—From the rationalistic standpoint of Reform-Judaism.

STANLEY, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. Third series: From the Captivity to the Christian Era. London 1876.

REDFORD, Four Centuries of Silence; or, from Malachi to Christ London 1885.

STAPFER, Palestine in the Time of Christ. London 1886.—More archaeological than historical. A “series of studies on the social and religious life of the Jews in the first century,” using as sources the New Testament, the writings of Josephus, and the Talmud.

KEIM, History of Jesus of Nazareth. 6 vols. London 1873–1884.—In the first volumes this work deals with the history of Herod and the Roman Procurators, and with the state of the Jews generally during that period.

WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels. London 1864.

DÖLLINGER, The Gentile and the Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ. 2 vols. London 1862.—The exposition here given of Judaism is much shorter than that given of Heathenism. In the discussion of the state of the heathen world the special value of this work lies.

PRESSENSÉ, The Ancient World and Christianity. London 1888.—Confined to an examination of the pagan religion and the state of the heathen world in the times of Christ.

LECHLER, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Edin. 1886. Vol. i. pp. 67–87, Relation of Jewish Christians to the Israelite People; pp. 144–160, Relation of Jewish Christians with non-Christians.

SCHNECKENBURGER, Vorlesungen über Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Edited from his MS. by Löhlein. Frankfort 1862.

HOLTZMANN, Judenthum und Christenthum in Zeitalter der apokryphischen und neutestamentlichen Literatur. Also under the title, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, by Weber and Holtzmann. 2 vols. 1867.—Extends from the time of Alexander the Great to Hadrian, after the manner of Ewald, but considerably shorter, connecting the history of primitive Christianity with the history of the Jewish people.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel von Anbeginn bis zur Eroberung Masada’s im J. 72 nach Chr. 2 vols. Leipzig 1869.—Treats of the later history from the time of Alexander the Great with comparative fulness.

WELLHAUSEN, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer. A contribution to the inner history of Judaism. Greifswald 1874.—This short monograph gives more information about the inner history of Judaism during our period than many an extensive work.

REUSS, Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften alten Testaments. 1881.—Properly only a history of the literature; it gives this in connection with the history of the people.

SEINECKE, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vol. ii. From the Exile to the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 1884.

HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. From the completion of the Second Temple down to the Deposition of Simon Maccabee from the Priesthood and Government. 2 vols. Nordhausen 1855.—The first volume treats of the political history from the completion of the Second Temple down to B.C. 135; the second volume gives the inner history of the same period.

JOST, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten. 3 Bde. 1857–1859.—Gives a history of the inner development of Judaism from the exile to the present day. The first volume reaches to the destruction of Jerusalem.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Bd. iii–xi. 1853–1870.—Deals with period from B.C. 160 to A.D. 1848. Bd. iii. 3 Aufl. 1878 appeared also under the title: Geschichte der Juden von dem Tode Juda Makkabi’s bis zum Untergang des jüdischen Staates. Bd. iv. 2 Aufl. 1866 appeared also under the title: Geschichte der Juden vom Untergang des jüdischen Staates bis zum Abschluss des Talmud.—Bd. i. ii., the latter in two divisions, appeared later, 1874–1876. The second division of the second volume goes from the Babylonian exile to the death of Judas Maccabaeus.

GEIGER, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums. 1857.—Seeks particularly to show how the inner development of Judaism in the postexilian period has been peculiarly influential upon the formation of the Old Testament text.

GEIGER, Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte. Bd. i.–iii. 1864–1871.—Describes only the main features of the inner development of Judaism. Vol. i. carries the history down to the destruction of the Second Temple; vol. ii. down to the end of the twelfth century; vol. iii. to the end of the sixteenth century. The concluding vol. iv. has not yet appeared.—Compare also: Innere Geschichte der zweiten Tempelperiode und deren Behandlung (Jüd. Zeitschrift für Wissensch. und Leben, 1868, pp. 247–277).

SALVADOR, Histoire de la domination Romaine en Judée et de la ruine do Jérusalem. 2 vols. Paris 1847. Also in German under the title: Salvador, Geschichte der Römerherrschaft in Judäa und der Zerstörung Jerusalems. 2 Bde. 1847.—Treats of the period from Pompey to the destruction of Jerusalem; but gives almost nothing beyond a bare reproduction of documents.

WIESELER, Beiträge zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte (Studien und Kritiken, 1875, pp. 516–556). Compare also: Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangelischen Geschichte. 1869.

HIMFEL, Politische und religiöse Zustände des Judenthums in den letzten Jahrhunderten vor Chr. In Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1858, pp. 63–85.

BAUMGARTEN, Der nationaljüdische Hintergrund der neutestamentlichen Geschichte nach Josephus. In Jahrbb. für Deutsche Theologie, 1864–1865.—In four divisions: I. The Literary Character of Josephus, 1864, pp. 616–648. II. The Idumean-Roman Rule in Judea, 1865, pp. 605–635. III. Last Struggle and Defeat of the Jewish Nation, 1865, pp. 636–668. IV. Outlines of the Effects produced on one another by the last Struggles of the Jewish Nation on the one hand, and the New Testament history on the other, 1865, pp. 668–693.

DERENBOURG, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine, d’après les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. P. I. Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu’ à Adrien. Paris 1867.—Does not give a history of the people of Israel during the period named, but only a collection of rabbinical traditions relating to that history.

BOST, L’Époque des Maccabées, histoire du peuple juif depuis le retour de l’exil jusqu’ à la destruction de Jérusalem. Strassbourg 1862.

LEDRAIN, Histoire d’Israël. 2 vols. Paris 1879–1882.—Treats most fully of the Graeco-Roman Age.

DE SAULCY, Histoire des Machabées ou princes de la dynastie asmonéenne. Paris 1880.

CHAMPAGNY, Rome et de la Judée au temps de la chute de Neron. From A.D. 66 to A.D. 72. 2 vols. Paris 1865.

LOOMAN, Geschiedenis der Israëliten van de babylonische ballingschap tot op de komst van den Heere Jezus Christus. Meteen aanhangsel, inhoudende de geschiedenis der Israëliten van den dood van Herodes 1 tot op de verwoesting van Jeruzalem. Amsterdam 1867.

On Jewish doctrines and customs during the times of Christ:—

DRUMMOND, The Jewish Messiah. A critical history of the Messianic idea among the Jews from the rise of the Maccabees to the closing of the Talmud. London 1877.

STANTON, The Jewish and Christian Messiah: a Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. Edinburgh 1886.

VITRINGA, The Synagogue and the Church. Condensed from the original work, De Synagoga vetere, of A.D. 1726. London 1842.

REVILLE, A Manual of Religious Instruction. London. Pt. i. ch. v., Judaism, pp. 52–73.

KUENEN, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State. 3 vols. London 1881–1882.

HARTMANN, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen. Hamburg 1831.—Seeks to show how the Old Testament was treated and expounded in the time of Christ, and in this connection discusses very thoroughly the Sanhedrim and the Synagogue.

GFROERER, Das Jahrhundert des Heils. 2 vols. Stuttgart 1838. Also under the title: Geschichte des Urchristenthums. Bd. i. ii.—Gives a systematic view of Judaism in the time of Christ.

LUTTERBECK, Die Neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe oder Untersuchungen üs Zeitalter der Religionswende, die Vorstufen des Christenthums und die erste Gestaltung desselben. 2 vols. 1852. The first volume treats chiefly of the religious condition of Judaism in the time of Christ.

NOACK, Der Ursprung des Christenthums. Seine vorbereitenden Grundlegungen und sein Eintritt in die Welt. 2 vols. 1857.—The first volume treats of preparatory circumstances and conditions, but in a very superficial manner.

LANGEN, Das Judentlum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi. 1866.—Gives, like Gfroerer, a systematic description of the Jewish theology in the time of Christ, but is distinguished from Gfroerer by declining to use as sources the later Jewish literature of the Talmud and Midrashim.

WEBER, System der altsynagogalen palästinisehen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud dargestellt. Edited after the author’s death by Delitzsch and Schnedermann. Leipzig 1880.—A good independent account, drawn from the sources of Jewish theology in the Talmudic Age.

NICOLAS, Des doctrines religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère chrétienne. Paris 1860.

REVILLE, Le peuple juif et le judaïsme au temps de la formation du Talmud (Revue des Deux Mondes, 1867, Nov. number, pp. 104–137). Also Le judaïsme depuis la captivité de Babylone, d’après Kuenen (in the same Review, 1872, March, pp. 114–141).

STAPFER, Les idées religieuses en Palastine à l’époque de Jésus-Christ. 2nd ed. Paris 1878.

Contributions to the Jewish history of our period will be found in the following Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias, and Magazines:—

SMITH, Dictionary of the Bible, comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history. 3 vols. London 1860–1863. The American edition, New York 1871, in 4 vols., by Hackett & Abbot, is considerably enlarged and improved.

FAIRBAIRN, Imperial Bible Dictionary, historical, biographical, geographical, and doctrinal. 2 vols. London 1864–1866.

KITTO, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, 3rd ed., re-edited and recast by Dr. W. Lindsay Alexander. 3 vols. London 1869–1876.

SCHAFF-HERZOG, A Religious Encyclopaedia; or Dictionary of biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology. 3 vols. Edinburgh 1884. A condensed reproduction of the great work of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck, in 18 vols. Leipzig 1877–1888.

M’CLINTOCK and STRONG, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theology and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York 1866 ff.

RIEHM, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Alterthums füldete Bibelleser. 2 vols. 1874–1884.

WINER, Biblisches Realwörterbuch. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig 1847–1848.

SCHENKEL, Bibel-Lexikon. Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch fütliche und Gemeindeglieder. 5 vols. Leipzig 1869–1875.

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie fül und Talmud. Division I. Biblical Articles, 1870. Division II. Talmudical Articles, 1883.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY, editüed by Abrahams and Montefiore, London; begun in 1888, “devoted to the interests of Jewish literature and theology, history and religion.”

WISSENSCHAFTLICHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR JÜDISCHE THEOLOGIE, edited by Geiger. 6 vols. 1835–1848.

DER ORIENT, Berichte, Studien und Kritiken für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur. Together with “Literaturblatt des Oriente,” edited by Fürst. 12 vols. 1840–1851.

ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR DIE RELIGIÖSEN INTERESSEN DES JUDENTHUMS, edited by Frankel. 3 vols. 1844–1846.

MONATSSCHRIFT FÜR GESCHICHTE UND WISSENSCHAFT DES JUDENTHUMS, edited from 1851 to 1868 by Frankel; from 1869 by Grätz.

JÜDISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR WISSENSCHAFT UND LEBEN, edited by Geiger. 11 vols. 1862–1875.

JAHRBÜCHER FÜR JÜDISCHE GESCHICHTE UND LITERATUR, edited by Brüll, vol. i. 1874, vol. ii. 1876, vol. iii. 1877, vol. iv. 1879, vols. v. and vi. 1883, vol vii. 1885, vol. viii. 1887.

MAGAZIN FÜR DIE WISSENSCHAFT DES JUDENTHUMS, edited by Berliner and Hoffmann, beginning in 1876.

REVUE DES ETUDES JUIVES, Quarterly publication of the Société des études juives. Paris 1880 sqq.

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

A rich collection of older monographs on Biblical and Jewish Archaeology was made by Ugolini in his Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrum, in 34 folio vols., Venice 1744–1769. The shorter handbooks treat for the most part either of the whole range of “Antiquities,” or of particular departments, such as the religious worship of the civil law and constitution. The material of Archaeology is also dealt with in the various Biblical Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias. Finally, expositions of Jewish institutions and usages in post-Talmudic times afford supplementary details.

A very complete list of the older literature is given by Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2. 118–207. Lists of the more recent literature are given in Winer, Handbuch der theol. Literatur, i. 133 ff.; Rüetschi in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 608 f.

KEIL, Manual of Biblical Archaeology. 2 vols. Edinburgh 1887–1888.

EWALD, The Antiquities of Israel. London 1876.

JAHN, Biblical Antiquities. 3rd ed. Oxford 1836.

MICHAELIS, Commentaries on the Law of Moses. 4 vols. London 1814.

RELAND, Antiquitates sacrae veterum Hebraeorum. Utrecht 1708, Jena 1713.—Notas adj. Eb. Rau, Herborn 1743.—A. Blasio Ugolino amplissimo commentario illustratae, in Ugolini Thes. t. ii. 1744.—Edited, with the notes by Rau and Ugolini, by Vogel. Halle 1769.

IKEN, Antiquitates hebr. secundum triplicem Judaeorum statum, ecclesiasticum politicum et oeconomicum. Bremen 1730.

WAEHNER, Antiquitates Ebraeorum de Israeliticae gentis origine, fatis, rebus sacris civilibus et domesticis. 2 vols. Göttingen 1743.

CARPZOV, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatum sacri codicis. Frankfort 1748. Properly a reprint of an older work: Goodwin’s “Aaron and Moses” of 1616, but with notes which in extent and importance far exceed the original text.

DE WETTE, Lehrbuch der hebrisch-jdischen Archäologie nebst einem Grundriss der hebräisch-jüdischen Geschichte, new ed. by Räbiger. Leipzig 1864.

SAALSCHÜTZ, Das Mosaische Recht, nebst den vervollständigenden Talmudisch-Rabbinischen Bestimmungen. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Berlin 1853.—Also by same author, Archaeologie der Hebräer. 2 vols. Königsberg 1855–1856.

SCHOLZ, Die heiligen Alterthümer des Volkes Israel. In 2 parts. Regensburg 1868.

HANEBERG, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel. Munich 1869.

SCHEGG, Biblische Archaeologie, edited by Wirthmüller. Freiburg 1887.

BODENSCHATZ, Kirchliche Verfassung der heutigen Juden, sonderlich derer in Deutschland. 4 vols. 1748–1749.

SCHRÖDER, Satzungen und Gebräuche des talmudisch-rabbinischen Judenthums. Bremen 1851.

The exploration of the Holy Land has been conducted during the present century with such energy that it is difficult out of the enormous literature to select the works that are most important. We distinguish among these two classes—1. Comprehensive treatises by authors who have not been themselves upon the scene, but who work up the materials brought them; and 2. The researches carried on in the land itself. Under the former category there are two great works which stand out from all the rest in the rich abundance of their materials, Reland presenting the older material, and Ritter the more recent. These two works will long be indispensable to the student. A convenient handbook is that of Raumer, of which, however, we have no more recent edition than that of 1860. Among treatises that embody original research, mention should be made, first of all, of the American Robinson’s epoch-making work, which furnished a profusion of new and important facts. Still more completely and systematically has the French scholar Guérin explored and described the whole of the country west of the Jordan from place to place. Both of these writers, along with a communication of the results of their research, give a very full account of the historical associations. The Memoirs, which accompany by way of explanation the large English map, deal simply with the Palestine of the present day. The topography of Jerusalem forms a science by itself.—Two magazines, an English and a German, are devoted to the recording of the more recent discoveries.—Among historical atlases which show clearly the political history from step to step, that of Menke is to be specially recommended. In the department of map-drawing, all earlier productions have been put in the shade by the great English map, in twenty-six sheets, produced on the spot by the Palestine Exploration Society during the years 1872–1877, according to exact topographical measurement of the country west of the Jordan. The English have also supplied the best groundwork for a topography of Jerusalem. In the years 1864–1865 Sir Charles Wilson made a topographical survey of Jerusalem, and in the years 1867–1870 the English Palestine Exploration Society conducted the most thorough excavations and measurements on the site of the temple, to which the labours of the Germans could only contribute some further details.

A complete list of the older Palestinian literature is to be found in Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2. 70–118. A good survey of that literature down to 1840 is given in Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, iii., Appendix A, pp. 1–28.—An oppressively complete list of Palestinian literature is given in Tobler, Bibliographia geographica Palaestinae, Leipzig 1867. A yet fuller catalogue of the earlier travellers’ accounts down to the tenth century after Christ than is given there, may be found in Tobler’s Bibliographia geographica Palaestinae ab anno CCCXXXIII. usque ad annum, M. Dresdae, 1875 (reprinted as a separate monograph from Petzholdt’s Neue Anzeiger für Bibliographie und Bibliothekwissenschaft, 1875).—Continuations of and additions to Tobler’s work have been made by Ph. Wolff in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1868 and 1872; Röhricht and Meisner, Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem heiligen Lande, Berlin 1880, pp. 541–648; and Socin and Jacob in their yearly summaries and reviews, in the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Bd. i–ix., by Socin; later volumes by Jacob.—A sketch and review of the literature is also given by F. W. Schultz, in article “Palästina,” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. Bd. xi. (1883) pp. 800–804.

1. Treatises Presenting Results

RELAND, Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata. Utrecht 1714.

RITTER, The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula. 4 vols. Edin. 1866. This is a translation of portions of Die Erdkunde im Verhältniss zur Natur und zur Geschichte des Menschen, 2nd ed., greatly enlarged and partly rewritten. Parts xiv.–xvii. Berlin 1848–1855. Of this work Part xiv. (1848) treats of the Sinai Peninsula; xv. 1 (1850), of the Great Depression of the Jordan Valley, the Course and the Region of the Jordan; xv. 2 (1851), of the country west of the Jordan and the Dead Sea (Perea); xvi. (1852), of Judea, Samaria, Galilee; xvii. 1 (1854), of Phoenicia, Lebanon, and the mountain lands of Northern Syria; xvi. 2 (1855), the Course of the Orontes in the flat country of Northern Syria with the Amanus Range.

PORTER, Holy Land, Syria, Palestine, Peninsula of Sinai, Edom, Syrian Deserts, Petra, Damascus, and Palmyra; with Maps and Plans. In Murray’s Handbook Series.

SOCIN, Traveller’s Handbook to Palestine and Syria. In Baedeker’s Series. London 1876.

HENDERSON, Handbook on Palestine. Edin. [1886].

RAUMER, Palästina. 4th ed. Leipzig 1860.

QUANDT, Judäa und die Nachbarschaft im Jahrhundert vor und nach der Geburt Christi. Gütersloh 1873.—Short, but independent.

BOETTGER, Topographisch-historisches Lexicon zu den Schriften des Josephus. Leipzig 1879.—Collects all the material out of Josephus.

NEUBAUER, La géographie du Talmud. Paris 1868.—Gathers together material from rabbinical literature, but by no means in a complete or thorough way.

In the Dictionaries of Smith, Fairbairn, Kitto, M’Clintock and Strong, Winer, Schenkel, Riehm, place-names occurring in the Bible are dealt with.

2. Records of Original Research

ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia Petrea. A journal of travels in the year 1838 by E. Robinson and E. Smith, undertaken in reference to biblical geography. 3 vols. London 1841. Also: Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent Regions. A journal of travels in the year 1852 by E. Robinson, E. Smith, and others. Drawn up from the original diaries, with historical illustrations by E. Robinson. London 1856. Physical Geography of the Holy Land. London 1865.

STANLEY, Sinai and Palestine in Connection with their History. London 1856.

WILSON, Lands of the Bible visited and described in an extensive journey undertaken with special reference to the promotion of biblical research. 2 vols. Edin. 1847.

VAN DE VELDE, Journey through Sinai and Palestine. 2 vols. Edin. 1854.

VAN LENNEP, Bible Lands and Customs. 2 vols. London 1875.

THOMSON, The Land and the Book; or, biblical illustrations drawn from the manners and customs, the scenes and scenery of the Holy Land. London 1859.

THE SURVEY OF WESTERN PALESTINE. This is the general title of the work, the several portions of which have the following special titles: Special Papers on topography, archaeology, manners and customs, etc., contributed by Wilson, Warren, Conder, Kitchener, Palmer, George Smith, Greville-Chester, Clermont-Ganneau, etc. London 1881.—Arabic and English Name Lists, collected by Conder and Kitchener, transliterated and explained by Palmer. London 1881.—Memoirs of the topography, orography, hydrography, and archaeology, by Conder and Kitchener. 3 vols. London 1881–1883.—Jerusalem, by Warren and Conder. London 1884.—The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, by Tristram. London 1884.—All together in 7 vols., with the large map referred to below and the large plans of excavations in Jerusalem. See two papers in the Expositor, one by Socin criticizing the work of the English Exploration Society (Expos., third series, vol. ii. pp. 241–262), the other a defence by Conder (Expos., third series, vol. iii. pp. 321–335).

CONDER, Tent Work in Palestine. Published by Palestine Exploration Fund Committee. 2 vols. London 1878.

TRISTRAM, Topography of the Holy Land. London 1876.

TRELAWNEY SAUNDERS, An Introduction to the Survey of Western Palestine: its waterways, plains, and highlands. London 1881.

MERILL, A record of travels and observations in the countries of Moab, Gilead, and Bashan during 1875–1877. New York 1881.

TOBLER, Bethlehem in Palästina. 1849.—Golgotha: seine Kirchen und Klöster. 1851.—Die Siloahquelle und der Oelberg. 1852.—Denkblätter aus Jerusalem. 1853.—Zwei Bücher Topographie von Jerusalem und seinen Umgebungen. 2 vols. 1853–1854.—Dritte Wanderung nach Palästina im Jahre. 1857. Rittdurch Philistäa, Fussreisen im Gebirge Judäas und Nachlese in Jerusalem. 1859. Nazareth in Palästina. 1868.

SEPP, Jerusalem und das heilige Land; Pilgerbuch nach Palästina, Syrien und Aegypten. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Schaffhausen 1873–1876.

DE SAULCY, Voyage en Terre Sainte. 2 vols. Paris 1865. Jerusalem. Paris 1882.—On earlier works of De Saulcy, see Tobler, Bibliographia geographica, p. 180 f.

GUÉRIN, Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. I. Judé. 3 vols. Paris 1868–1869. II. Samarie. 2 vols. Paris 1874–1875. III. Galiée. 2 vols. Paris 1880.—The volume promised on Jerusalem has not yet appeared.

3. Topography of Jerusalem

Topographical descriptions of Jerusalem are given in the books above mentioned of Ritter, Raumer, Robinson, Socin, de Saulcy, Sepp, and Tobler.

In addition to these we may name the Monographs of Olshausen, Schultz, Krafft, etc. WILLIAMS, The Holy City. London 1845. 2nd ed. 1849. THRUPP, Ancient Jerusalem. London 1855. BESANT and PALMER, Jerusalem, the city of Herod and Saladin. London 1871. CASPARI, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ. Edinburgh 1876. Appendix: Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 256–308. Also various essays in the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, by Schick (vol. i. 15–23), Alten (i. 61–100, ii. 18–47, 189–200, iii. 116–176), Klaiber (iii. 189–213, iv. 18–56, xi. 1–37), and Spiess (xi. 46–59); and of these Klaiber makes contributions of special value.

Materials for the topography, especially in reference to the site of the Temple, are given in the reports of the Excavations and Researches of the English Society. A good general sketch will be found in: WILSON and WARREN, The Recovery of Jerusalem, edited by Morrison, London 1871; and Our Work in Palestine, being an account of the different expeditions sent out to the Holy Land by the Palestine Exploration Fund since 1865. London 1877. WARREN, Underground Jerusalem. London 1876. Schick, Beit el Makdas oder der alte Tempelplatz zu Jerusalem wie er jetzt ist. Jerusalem 1887.

4. Atlases, Charts, and Plans

SMITH and GROVE, Atlas of Ancient Geography, biblical and classical, intended to illustrate Smith’s Classical Dictionaries, and especially the Dictionary of the Bible. London 1875 (43 maps).

MENKE, Bibelatlas in acht Blättern. Gotha 1868.

KIEPERT, Bibelatlas. Berlin 1847. 3rd ed. 1854

OORT, Atlas voor bijbelsche en kerkelijke geschiedenis. Groningen 1884.

VAN DE VELDE, Map of the Holy Land, with memoir to accompany it. London 1858.—The best map before that of the English Society had appeared.

MAP OF WESTERN PALESTINE, in 26 sheets, from surveys conducted for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Conder and Kitchener during the years 1872–1877. Photozincographed for the Committee at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton. London 1880.—This map is of the highest value, but the printing is not so clear as could be wished. The scale is 1 inch to the mile.—Another smaller edition on the scale of 3/8 of an inch to a mile has been issued under a similar title. London 1881.—This map, in 6 sheets, is most suitable for ordinary use. In clearness of printing it is far behind that of Van de Velde.

WILSON, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem during 1864–1865.—This plan of the Jerusalem of today in respect of accuracy and exactness supersedes all earlier attempts.

WARREN, Plans, Elevations, Sections, etc., showing the results of the excavations at Jerusalem, 1867–1870, executed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Warren. London 1884.—Contains fifty plans on a large scale, with the most minute details on the topography of the Temple site.

5. Journals

Palestine Exploration Fund. Quarterly Statement.—Issued since 1869.

Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, edited by the Committee carrying on the work under the direction of Hermann Guthe.—Issued since 1878.

The various methods of time-reckoning among all nations and in all ages have been collected and set forth by Ideler in his Handbook, which, notwithstanding the great amount of research since his day, has not yet been antiquated. For Roman chronology the Fasti consulares form unquestionably the most reliable source of information.—Chronological surveys of Hellenistic and Roman history, with references to the original sources, will be found in the works of Clinton, Fisher, and others.

IDELER, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie. 2 vols. Berlin 1825–1826. Lehrbuch der Chronologie. Berlin 1831.

GUMPACH, Hülfsbuch der rechnenden Chronologie. 1853.

MOMMSEN, Die römische Chronologie bis auf Cäsar. 2 Aufl. Berlin 1859.

MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. iii. (2 Aufl. bes. von Wissowa 1885), pp. 281–298, 567 ff.—An excellent summary account of the Roman Calendar.

MATZAT, Römische Chronologie. 2 vols. Berlin 1883–1884.

MÜLLER, art. “Aera,” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthums-wissenschaft, i. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 404–422.

BOUCHET, Hémérologie. Paris 1868.

On the Jewish Calendar, see Appendix iii. at the end of vol. ii.

Fasti consulares ab A.U.C. CCXLV. ad A.U.C. DCCLXVI. qui supersunt inter se collati cura Th. Mommseni (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. i. pp. 481–552).

KLEIN, Fasti consulares inde a Caesaris nece usque ad imperium Diocletiani. Lips. 1881.

CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici: The civil and literary chronology of Greece and Rome, vol. iii. From the CXXIV Olympiad to the death of Augustus. Oxford 1830. 2nd ed. 1851.

CLINTON, Fasti Romani: the civil and literary chronology of Rome and Constantinople from the death of Augustus to the death of Justin II. 2 vols. Oxford 1845–1850.

FISCHER, Römische Zeittafeln von Roms Gründung bis auf Augustus’ Tod. Altona 1846.

PETER, Zeittafeln der römischen Geschichte zum Handgebrauch. 4 Aufl. Halle 1867.—Considerably shorter than Fischer.

ZUMPT, Annales veterum regnorum et populorum imprimis Romanorum. ed. 3. Berol. 1862.—A summary sketch without quotation of authorities.

KNAAKE, Wie rechnet Josephus die Jahre der römischen Kaiser? (Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1871, pp. 224–247).

WIESELER, Ueber die Regierungsjahre der römischen Kaiser nach Josephus (Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1872, pp. 55–63).

SEYFFARTH, Chronologie der römischen Kaiser von Cäsar bis Titus in Bezug auf das Neue Testament (Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1873, pp. 50–76).

On Biblical Chronology

LEWIN, Fasti Sacri; or, a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament London 1865.—An able survey, in the form of annals, not only of the biblical, but also of the Roman and Jewish history, from B.C. 70 to A.D. 70, with abundant quotations from original sources after the style of Clinton.

CASPARI, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ. Edinburgh 1876.

WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, translated by Venables. London 1864. [German original. Hamburg 1843.]

FAIRBAIRN, Hermeneutical Manual or Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the New Testament Scriptures. Edinburgh 1858.

SEYFFARTH, Summary of Recent Discoveries in Biblical Chronology. New York 1882.

ELLICOTT, Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, being Hulsean Lectures for 1859. London 1860.

WURM, Astronomische Beiträge zur genäherten Bestimmung des Geburtsund Todesjahres Jesu. In Bengel’s Archiv für die Theologie, 1816, pp. 1–39; 1817, pp. 261–313.

WIESELER, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien der evangelischen Geschichte. Gotha 1869.

SEYFFARTH, Chronologia sacra, Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr des Herrn und die Zeitrechnung des Alten und Neuen Testamentes. Leipzig 1846.

QUANDT, Zeitordnung und Zeitbestimmungen in den Evangelien (also under the title: Chronologisch-geographische Beiträge zum Verständniss der heiligen Schrift, i. 1). Gütersloh 1872.

SEVIN, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu. 2 Aufl. Tübingen 1874.

LJUNGBERG, Chronologie de la vie de Jésus, deux études. Paris 1879. (1. On the day of Jesus’ death, 2. On the year of Jesus’ birth, see Lit. Centralbl. 1879, p. 537.)

MÉMAIN, La connaissance des temps évangéliques. Paris 1886 (543 pp.).—A French companion treatise to Wieseler’s Synopsis.

The following works treat specially of the year of Jesus’ birth and the year of Herod’s death:—

SANCLEMENTE, De vulgaris aerae emendatione. Romae 1793.—The classical work on the subject.

RÖSCH, Zum Geburtsjahr Jesu, in Jahrbb. für deutsche Theologie, 1866, pp. 3–48. Compare also his reviews of the work of Caspari, Zumpt, and Sevin in the Stud. und Krit. 1870, pp. 357–388; 1871, pp. 515–538; 1875, pp. 585–596.

ZUMPT, Das Geburtsjahr Christi. Leipzig 1869.

RIESS (S. J.), Das Geburtsjahr Christi. Freiburg 1880.

SCHEGG, Das Todesjahr des Königs Herodes und das Todesjahr Jesu Christi. 1882.

RIESS, Nochmals das Geburtsjahr Jesu Christi. 1883.

EWALD, History of Israel. London 1885. Vol. vii. “The Apostolic Age,” especially pp. 37–43, “The Chronology of this Period.”

WURM, Ueber die Zeitbestimmungen im Leben des Apostels Paulus (Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1883, 1 Heft, pp. 3–103).

ANGER, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione. Lips. 1833.

WIESELER, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. Göttingen 1848 (in which also on pp. 6–9 we shall find lists of more of the older literature).

LEHMANN, Chronologische Bestimmung der in der Apostelgeschichte, Cap. 13–28, erzählten Begebenheiten (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1858, pp. 312–339).

ABERLE, Zur Chronologie der Gefangenschaft Pauli (Theol. Quartalschr. 1883, pp. 553–572).

A rich abundance of coins, which is being constantly increased by new discoveries, is helpful in illustrating: 1. The History of the Seleucidae; 2. The History of the Phoenician and Hellenistic cities; 3. The Jewish History. The Jewish Numismatics in particular has been developed with special zeal since A.D. 1854, when De Saulcy’s Recherches sur la Numismatique judaïque appeared.

1. Seleucid Coins

GOUGH, Coins of the Seleucidae, Kings of Syria; from the establishment of their reign under Seleucue Nicator to the termination of it under Antiochus Asiaticus. With historical memoirs of each reign. Illustrated with twenty-four plates of coins, from the cabinet of the late Matthew Duane. London 1803.

GARDNER, Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. The Seleucid Kings of Syria. With twenty-eight plates. London 1878.—Rich in material, and extremely serviceable. The twenty-eight plates give good photographs, with coin, portraits of the successive Seleucid kings.

BUNBURY, Rare and unpublished Coins of the Seleucidan Kings of Syria. In the Numismatic Chronicle, 1883, pp. 65–107.

HEAD, Historia numorum, a Manual of Greek Numismatics, London 1887, pp. 637–649.

ECKHEL, Doctrina numorum veterum, t. iii. (1794) pp. 209–249.—The classical work on the subject.

MIONNET, Description des médailles antiques, t. v. (1811) pp. 1–109. Supplément, t. viii. (1837) pp. 1–81.—The classical work on the subject.

TRÉSOR, de numismatique et de glyptique (edited under the direction of Lenormant), Numismatique des rois grecs, Paris 1849, pp. 83–114, planches xxxiv.–lv. (folio).

DE SAULCY, Mémoire sur les monnaies datées des Séleucides. Paris 1871 (publication de la Société française de Numismatique et d’archéologie).

DE SAULCY, Monnaies des Séleucides munies de contremarques (Mélanges de Numismatique, t. i. 1875, pp. 45–64).

DE SAULCY, Monnaies inédites de Tryphon, frappées dans les villes maritimes de la Phénicie (Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, pp. 76–84).

FRIEDLÄNDER and SALLET, Das königliche Münzkabinet [at Berlin]. Geschichte und Uebersicht der Sammlung nebst erklärender Beschreibung der auf Schautischen ausgelegten Auswahl (2 Aufl. 1877), pp. 122–131.

FRIEDLÄNDER in Sallet’s Zeitschr. für Numismatik, vi. 1879, p. 7; vii. 1880, pp. 224–227.—On coins of Antiochus VIII. and IX.

IMHOOF-BLUMER, Monnaies grecques (in Verhandelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, veertiende deel, Amsterdam 1883), pp. 422–438.

IMHOOF-BLUMER, Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen hellenischer und hellenisirter Völker, Leipzig 1885, pp. 28–32, Tafel iii. n. 8–28; iv. n. 1–13 (admirable photographs).

2. Coins of the Free Cities

a. Phoenician

HEAD, Coinage of Lydia and Persia. In the International Numismata Orientalia. London 1878. At p. 31 ff., Phoenician coins with figures of Persian kings.

SIX, Observations sur les monnaies phéniciennes. In Numismatic Chronicle, 1877, pp. 177–241.—The most complete treatise on the subject.

BRANDIS, Das Münz-, Maass- und Gewichtswesen in Vorderasien. Berlin 1866.

REICHARDT, Beiträge zur phönischen Numismatik (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschrift, ii. 1870, pp. 1–16).

IMHOOF-BLUMER, Monnaies grecques, 1883, pp. 440–449.

L. MÜLLER, Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand. Copenhagen 1855.—The bilingual coins of Alexander form the transition from the Phoenician to the Greek. On the Alexander coins of Akko, in Div. ii. vol. i. p. 91.

b. Greek and Roman

REICHARDT, Unpublished Greek Imperial Coins. In Numismatic Chronicle, 1862, pp. 104–122.

HEAD, Historia numorum, London 1887, pp. 662–681.

ECKHEL, Doctrina numorum veterum, iii. pp. 328–445.

HUBER, Unedirte Bronzemünze in Tiberias Galilaeae unter Commodus geprägt (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschr., Bd. i. 1869, pp. 401–414).

MIONNET, Description des médailles antiques, v. 281–552. Supplément, viii. 192–377.

DE SAULCY, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, Description des monnaies autonomes et impériales de la Palestine et de l’Arabie Pétrée. Paris 1874.

3. Jewish Coins

The more recent literature, since A.D. 1849, is enumerated by Madden in Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, pp. 222–234; and in Coins of the Jews, pp. 317–324.

a. Comprehensive Treatises

MADDEN, Coins of the Jews. London 1881.—Now the classical work on Jewish Numismatics. We have here an earlier work: History of Jewish Coinage of money in the Old and New Testament, London 1864, rewritten, with all more recently discovered material incorporated, including various papers exhibited to the Numismatic Chronicle, 1874, 1875, 1876.

ECKHEL, Doctrina numorum veterum, iii. 445–498.

LEVY, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen. Leipzig 1862.

MERZBACHER, Untersuchungen über althebräische Münzen (Sallet’s Zeitschr. für Numismatik, iii. 1876, pp. 183–215; iv. 1877, pp. 350–365; v. 1878, pp. 151–176, 292–319).

MIONNET, Description des médailles antiques, v. 552–576. Supplément, viii. 377–381.

TRÉSOR, De numismatique et de glyptique (edited under the direction of Lenormant), Numismatique des rois grecs, Paris 1849, pp. 118–130, planches lvii.–lxii.

CAVEDONI, Biblische Numismatik oder Erklärung der in heil. Schrift erwähnten alten Münzen. From Italian. 2 Thl. Hannover 1855, 1856.

DE SAULCY, Catalogue raisonné de Monnaies Judaïques recueillies à Jérusalem en Novembre 1869 (Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 235–255).

DE SAULCY, Recherches sur la Numismatique judaïque. Paris 1854.—Contributes a large abundance of new material.

b. Shorter Treatises on Matters of Detail

REICHARDT, Inedited Coins of Judea, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1862, pp. 268–277.—Also: Remarks on some Jewish coins and some inedited coins of Phoenicia, Judea, etc., in Numismatic Chronicle, 1864, pp. 174–189.—Also: Unpublished coins of John Hyrcanus, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1882, pp. 306, 307.

POOLE, article “Money,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1863.—Very complete.

MADDEN, Coins of the two revolts of the Jews, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, pp. 36–65.—Also: Rare and unpublished Jewish coins, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1879, pp. 13–22. Also: article “Money,” in Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature.

HEAD, Historia numorum, a Manual of Greek Numismatics, London 1887, pp. 681–685.

LEWIS, Shekel of the year five, in Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, p. 322.

The Academy, vol. vi. (July–December 1874) pp. 277 (5th Sept.), 296 (12th Sept.), 321 (19th Sept.), 459 (24th Oct.), 486 (31st Oct.), 536 (14th Nov.).—Correspondence in regard to the genuineness of a Jewish Shekel found by Besant, Evans, and Conder at Jericho.

EWALD, Recension von de Saulcy’s Recherches, in den Gött. gel. Anzeigen 1855, 641–655.—Also: Ueber das Zeitalter der ächten Münzen althebräischer Schrift, in dem Gott. “Nachrichten” 1855, pp. 109–122.

ARNOLD, article “Gold,” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. iv. 1856, 763 ff. In 2 Aufl. revid. von Rüetechi, v. 32–37.

ZUCKERMANN, Ueber talmudische Gewichte und Münzen. 1862.

HERZFELD, Metrologische Voruntersuchungen zu einer Geschichte des ibräischen resp. altjüdischen Handels, Thl. i. 1863 (im Jahrb. für Geschichte der Juden).

CAVEDONI, Neuere Untersuchungen über die antiken jüdischen Münzen, übers, von Werlhof (Münzstudien, herausg. von Grote, v. 1867, pp. 9–37).

REICHARDT, Ueber die Münzen Simons des Makkabäerfürsten (Wiener Numismat. Monatshefte, herausg. von Egger, Bd. ii. 1866, pp. 137–143).—Also: Ueber die Münzen der Makkabäerfürsten (ebendas. iii. 1867, pp. 103–116).—Drei merkwürdige Münzen der Könige Agrippa I. und II. (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschrift, iii. 1871, pp. 83–90).

MOMMSEN, Zu den Münzen Agrippa’s I. und II. (Wiener Numismat. Zeitschrift, Bd. iii. 1871, pp. 449–457).

MERZBACHER, De siclis nummis antiquissimis Judaeorum. Berol. 1873.—Also: Jüdische Aufstandsmünzen aus der Zeit Nero’s und Hadrian’s (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. i. 1874, pp. 219–237).—Also: Jüdische Sekel (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. iii. 1876, pp. 141–144).

HULTSCH, Griechische und römische Metrologie (2 Bearbeit. 1882), pp. 456 ff., 602 ff.

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, 2 Abtheil, 1883, art. “Munzen.”

STICKEL, Jüdische Münzen aus Jerusalem (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 211–214).

GRÄTZ, Bedeutung der jüdischen Münzen mit dem Feststrauss (Lulab) und dem Portale (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1887, pp. 145–176).—Also: Les monnaies de Simon du temps de l’insurrection des juifs sous Adrien (Revue des études juives, t. xvi. 1888, pp. 161–169).

DE SAULCY, Lettre à M. de la Saussaye sur les monnaies de cuivre frappées à Jérusalem par l’ordre des gouverneurs romains de la Judée depuis le règne d’Auguste jusqu’ à celui de Néron (Revue Numismatique, 1853, pp.186–201).—Also: Nouvelles observations sur la numismatique judaïque (Revue Num. 1864, pp. 370–400).—Lettre à M. J. de Witte sur la numismatique judaïque (Revue Num. 1865, pp. 29–55).—Also: Étude chronologique de la vie et des monnaies des rois juifs Agrippa I. et Agrippa II. (Mémoire de la Société française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, Section d’histoire et d’ethnographie, 1869. This same part contains other two treatises, pp. 3–25, and the above named, pp. 26–56. The several memoirs are, as a rule, published separately under a special title).—Also: Note sur quelques monnaies d’Ascalon (Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. iii. 1868–1873, pp. 253–258).—Notes sur les monnaies de Philippe le tétrarque (ibid. pp. 262–265).—Numismatique de Tibériade (ibid. pp. 266–270).—Also: Numismatique des Macchabées (Revue archéologique, nouv. série, vol. xxiii. 1872, pp. 1–19).—Also: Description de quelques monnaies judaïques nouvelles insuffisamment connues (Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, pp. 85–94).

DE VOGÜÉ, Monnaies Juives, Eléasar (Revue Numismatique, 1860, pp. 280–292).

RÉVILLOUT, Note sur les plus anciennes monnaies hébraïques (Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. viii. 1884, pp. 113–146. Revised reprint from Revue Egyptologique).—Seeks to show that the Hebrew-Phoenician shekel was first reckoned equal to four drachmas by the Ptolemies, whereas the old Hebrew shekel was only half the weight, viz. two drachmas.—Compare also the correspondence between Lenormant and Révillout in Annuaire, viii. 1884, p. 210 sqq.; ix. 1885, p. 89 sqq.

REINACH, Une monnaie hybride des insurrections juives (Revue des études juives, t. xv. 1887, pp. 56–61).—Les monnaies juives (Revue des études juives, 1887, p. cxxxi.–ccxix.).

RENAN, L’église chrétienne, 1879, pp. 546–551.—On the coins of Barcochba.

SALLET, Die Silbermünzen des Barcochba (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. v. 1878, pp. 110–114).

GARRUCCI, Monete delle due rivolte giudaiche (Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario argomento, vol. ii., Roma 1865, pp. 31–39).

The inscriptions falling under our consideration here are of various kinds: Non-Jewish and Jewish, Palestinian and extra-Palestinian; written in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic.—1. The non-Jewish Greek and Latin inscriptions from Palestine and neighbouring countries have been collected in the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, vol. iii., and in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. iii. Both collections, especially the former, have meanwhile been largely supplemented by the discoveries of Wetzstein, Waddington, and others. The inscriptions referred to afford highly important information regarding the state of civilisation and culture in the pagan districts of Palestine (see § 22). Besides the Palestinian inscriptions, many that have been found in other places are of interest in connection with the history of our period, as are also many Semitic inscriptions in Palestine and outside of it, among which the Nabatean inscriptions collected by De Vogüé and Euting are specially important.—2. Of the Jewish inscriptions, those in Hebrew have been collected by Chwolson in the Quarterly edited by him. More numerous are those in Greek and Latin, mostly epitaphs on tombstones in Palestine and outside of it; and most numerous and important of all are those taken from the Jewish catacombs at Rome.

1. Non-Jewish Inscriptions

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, t. iii. 1853, n. 4444–4669.

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, t. iii. 1873, n. 86–211, 6027–6049.

Additional inscriptions from the Haurân and the eastern desert of Syria, communicated by G. C. Graham, and edited with a preface and notes by John Hogg (Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, second series, vol. vi., London 1859, pp. 270–323).

ALLEN, Greek and Latin inscriptions from Palestine (American Journal of Philology, vi. 1885, pp. 190–216).

WETZSTEIN, Ausgewählte griechische und lateinische Inschriften, gesammelt auf Reisen in den Trachonen und um das Haurângebirge (Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1863, philol.-histor. Classe, pp. 255–368).—Compare also: Wetzstein, Reisebericht über Hauran und Trachonen. Berlin 1860.

MORDTMANN, Griechische Inschriften aus Arabia (Trachonitis) (Rhein. Museum, xxvii. 1872, pp. 146–148, 496).—Only six inscriptions, mostly fragmentary, of which two, the most complete, were previously given by Waddington.—Also: Griechische Inschriften aus dem Hauran (Archäol.-epigr. Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich, viii. 1884, pp. 180–192).—Also: Beiträge zur Inschriftenkunde Syriens (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 119–124).

GILDEMEISTER, Bemerkungen zu den griechischen Inschriften Frei’s und Schuhmacher’s (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, xi. 1888, pp. 38–45).

WADDINGTON in: Le Bas et Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. The inscriptions from Syria are in vol. iii. 1870; the text in Pt. 1, pp. 449–625, the explanations in Pt. 2, pp. 435–631.—The number of new discoveries communicated by Waddington is very considerable.

CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Inscriptions grecques inédites du Haurân et des régions adjacentes (Revue archéologique, troisième série, t. iv. 1884, pp. 260–284).—Single inscriptions may be found quoted in various reports of travel in Palestine.

Inscriptions referring to the Herodian princes have been collected by me in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1873, pp. 248–255.—To this collection may be added: Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, t. iii. pars 1, 1878, n. 550, 551, 556. Corpus Inscriptionem Graecarum, n. 2502 (Herod Antipas in Coos). Bulletin de corres. hellénique, t. iii. 1879, p. 365 sq. (Herod Antipas in Delos). Archäolog.-epigr. Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich, viii. 1884, p. 189 f.=Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vii. 1884, p. 121 f. (Agrippa II.).

The Roman inscriptions referring to the Jewish history from Vespasian to Hadrian have been collected by Darmesteter, Revue des études juives, t. i. 1880, pp. 32–55.

The Semitic inscriptions have been collected in the most complete manner in the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, which has been in course of publication at Paris since 1881.

Up to the present only the Phoenician inscriptions have been issued. With reference to one of these, the inscription of Eschmunazar which gives dates important for the history, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 88, 89. The most interesting in relation to our subject of the non-Jewish Semitic inscriptions are the Nabatean, which have been made available to us in the editions of DE VOGÜÉ, 1868, and Euting, 1885. For further particulars regarding these, see Appendix II. at close of second volume.—It is only the slightest possible sort of connection with our subject that can be claimed for the numerous Aramaic and Greek inscriptions of Palmyra (edited by DE VOGÜÉ, Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques. Paris 1868), among which, especially the bilingual Tariff of Taxes of Palmyra, discovered in 1881, belonging to the age of Hadrian, is most important. The Aramaic text is edited in the best style by Schroeder, Sitzungsb. der Berliner Akad. 1884, pp. 417–436; the Greek text by Dessau, in Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, pp. 486–533.

2. Jewish Inscriptions

MADDEN gives a list of Jewish Inscriptions in his Coins of the Jews, pp. 34–39.

CHWOLSON, Corpus Inscriptionum Hebraicarum, containing epitaphs from the Crimea and other epitaphs and inscriptions in the old Hebrew square characters, as well as specimens from manuscripts of ninth and fifteenth centuries. St. Petersburg 1882.—Besides the epitaphs from the Crimea, it gives a collection of all inscriptions in the Hebrew square characters down to the eleventh century after Christ.—A partial list is also given by Merx, Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. i. 360–362.

Among the oldest inscriptions collected by Chwolson, the following are elsewhere treated of separately:—1. The epitaph of the Benê Chesir on the so-called tomb of St. James at Jerusalem, belonging to the Herodian period (de Vogüé, Revue archéologique, nouv. série, t. ix. 1864, pp. 200–209). Also: Le temple de Jérusalem, pp. 45, 130 sqq., pl. xxxvii. n. 1. De Saulcy, Revue archéolog., nouv. série, t. xi. 1865, pp. 137–153, 398–405. Merx, Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. i. 360 sq.).—2. Some Synagogue Inscriptions in the north of Galilee, from the time of the Roman Emperors (Renan, Mission de Phénicie, pp. 761–783). To these may also be added a similar one from Palmyra, which contains the beginning of the Jewish Schma Deut. 6:4–9 (Landauer, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1884, p. 933 ff.).—3. The numerous Jewish Epitaphs. Among the latter are those from the Crimea of a much later date than previously Chwolson, on the basis of false dates attached to them by Firkowitsch, supposed them to be (for the literature, see Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 219); the Palestinian inscriptions are older, but very short. On these, partly in. Hebrew, partly in Greek, the following authors, before and after Chwolson, specially treat:—

CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Nouveaux ossuaires juifs avec inscriptions grecques et hébraïques (Revue archélogique, nouv. série, t. xxv. 1873, pp. 398–414).—Also: Ossuaire juif de Joseph fils de Jean (Revue archéol., nouv. série, t. xxxvi. 1878, pp. 305–311). Hebraic.

VIKTOR SCHULTZE, Sarkophage und Grabinschriften aus Jerusalem (Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, iv. 1881, pp. 9–14).

GRÄTZ, Die jüdischen Steinsarkophage in Palästina (Monatsschrift. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1881, pp. 529–539).—Treats not so much of the inscriptions, as of the tablets on which they are engraved.

CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Epigraphes hébraïques et grecques sur des ossuaires juifs inédits (Revue archéol., troisième série, t. i. 1883, pp. 257–276).—Also: Un nouveau titulus funéraire de Joppe (Revue critique, 1885, n. 27, p. 14 sq.). Greek.

EUTING, Epigraphische Miscellen (Sitzungsberichte der berliner Akademie, 1885, pp. 669–688, Tafel vi.–xii.).—Principally Palmyrene inscriptions and Hebrew-Greek epitaphs from Palestine.

Apart from the epitaphs, Greek inscriptions of Jewish origin are rarely met with in Palestine. The most interesting are the Warning Tablet on the entrance to the Outer Court of the Temple (see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 266, note 16 and the Greek inscription among the ruins of the synagogue at Casiun (Renan, Mission de Phénicie, p. 774=Guérin, Galilée, ii. 447 sq.).

The extra-Palestinian Greek and Latin inscriptions, in so far as they are of any value at all, are given in § 31, i. and ii. 1 (Div. ii. vol. ii. pp. 220–242). Special attention may be called to the great inscription of Berenice (Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 231). Something may also be learned from Caspari, Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. 1875, pp. 268–274—Among these, too, the majority are epitaphs. Most numerous are the inscriptions from the Catacombs of Rome and Venosa, which, together with some others, are collected in the following works:—

BURGON, Letters from Rome, 1862, pp. 168–174. Quoted by Madden in his Coins of the Jews.

GREPPO, Notice sur des inscriptions antiques tirées de quelques tombeaux juifs à Rome. Lyons 1835.

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, t. iv. n. 9894–9926 (edited by Kirchhoff).

LEVY, Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Juden, in Jahrbuch für die Geschichte der Juden (edited by Goldschmidt), Bd. ii. 1861, pp. 259–324.

LENORMANT, Essai sur la propagation de l’Alphabet Phénicien dans l’ancien Monde, vol. i. pp. 264–267.

GARRUCCI, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei scoperto recentemente in Vigna Randanini. Roma 1862.—These inscriptions from the newly-discovered Catacombs of the Vigna Randanini have very considerably enriched our materials.—Also: Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario argomento, vol. ii., Roma 1865, pp. 150–192.—Forms a useful supplement to the preceding work.

HIRSCHFELD, Bullettino dell’ Institute di corrisp. archeol. 1867, pp. 148–152.—Gives the first notice of the Catacombs of Venosa in South Italy, discovered in 1853.

FIORELLI, Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Raccolta epigrafica, ii. Iscrizioni Latine (Napoli 1868), n. 1954–1965.—Describes the inscriptions now to be found in the Museum of Naples from the Catacombs of Rome.

ENGESTRÖM, Om Judarne i Rom under äldre tider och deras Katakomber. Upsala 1876.

SCHÜRER, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit nach den Inschriften dargestellt. With forty-five Jewish inscriptions. Leipzig 1879.

ASCOLI, Iscrizioni inedite o mal note greche, latine, ebraiche di antichi sepolcri giudaici del Napolitano. Torino e Roma 1880.—Gives the inscriptions from the Catacombs of Venosa; of the Greek and Latin inscriptions, however, only those which also have a Hebrew paraphrase. Compare Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1880, 485–488; Grätz, Monatsschr. 1880, pp. 433–451; Chwolson, Corp. Inscr. Hebr. col. 149 sqq.; also: Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 240.

Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, t. ix. 1883, n. 647, 648, 6195–6241.—The Greek and Latin inscriptions from Venosa are given more completely than in Ascoli.

LENORMANT, La catacombe juive de Venosa (Revue des études juives, t. vi. 1883, pp. 200–207).—Gives a part of the inscriptions after new copies.

NIC. MÜLLER, Le catacombe degli Ebrei presso la via Appia Pignatelli (Mittheilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archäolog. Instituts, Römische Abtheilung, Bd. i. 1886, pp. 49–56).—A communication in regard to a newly-discovered Jewish catacomb. According to a statement on p. 49, the author seems to entertain the idea of writing a Monograph on “The Old Jewish Cemeteries of Italy.”—For an explanation of the inscriptions communicated by Müller, compare also the remarks of Gomperz in: Archäologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, x. 1886, p. 231 f.

THE chief sources of information in regard to the spiritual and intellectual life of the Jewish people during our period must evidently be such literary works of the Jews as had their origin in that period, and have come down to us. In regard to these, we can here only refer to the accounts of that literature given in § 32–34. Among these documents is included the New Testament, in so far as it was composed by Jewish writers or makes reference to Jewish affairs. The coins and inscriptions, of which the literature has been given in the last section, are also to be ranked among the documents of primary importance.

All these works and documents, however, would not afford us material for writing a history of our period if we had not been possessed of the two Books of Maccabees and the works of Josephus, which relate the main incidents in the course of events, and, indeed, often go into very minute details. They form the most important, yea, almost the only, source of information in regard to the political history. As supplementary to them, we have, on the one hand, the Greek and Roman writers, who treat in a comprehensive way of the general history of that age; and, on the other hand, the rabbinical literature, contained in Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, Targum, which sets forth the results and preliminary summing up of the work of the scribes, who were at the very height of their activity during this period, and is, in so far at least, an indirect witness to the state of matters at that time.—Before considering the information supplied us by Josephus, we shall take a general view of the non-extant sources, partly in order that we may obtain a glimpse into the circumstances and conditions of an earlier age, partly and mainly in order to secure solid material for answering the question about the sources drawn upon by Josephus. This will give us the following five divisions:—1. The two Books of Maccabees; 2. The non-extant Documents; 3. Josephus; 4. Greek and Roman Writers; and 5. The Rabbinical Literature.

The First Book of Maccabees is the main source to be relied upon for the first forty years of our history, from B.C. 175 to B.C. 135. The second book treats only of the first fourteen of those years, B.C. 175 to B.C. 161; but in respect of credibility stands far below the first, and can scarcely be said to be of independent value except in regard to the period that precedes the rise of the Maccabees. On the character of both of these works and the circumstances of their origin, all that is necessary will be found under § 32 and 33, in Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 6–13, 211–216. All that we are required to do here is to determine what is to be regarded as the starting-point of the Seleucid era, in accordance with which both of these books fix their dates. The usual Seleucid era begins with autumn 312 B.C. But it is open to question whether in the two Books of Maccabees, or whether even in one of them, this usual starting-point is presupposed. In order to help to a decision, we set down in order the examples of dating by months given in the First Book of Maccabees:—

Chap.              1:54:              τῇ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ Χασελεῦ.

   ”              1:59:              τῇ πέμπτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ μηνός.

   ”              4:52:              τῇ πέμπτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ ἐννάτου, οὗτος ὁ μὴν Χασελεῦ.

   ”              7:43:              τῇ τρισκαιδεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Ἀδάρ.

   ”              7:49:              τὴν τρισκαιδεκάτην τοῦ Ἀδάρ.

   ”              9:3:              τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου ἔτους τοῦ δευτέρου καὶ πεντηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ.

   ”              9:54:              μηνὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ.

   ”              10:21:              τῷ ἑβδὁμῳ μηνὶ ἔτους ἑξηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ ἐν ἑορτῇ σκηνοπηγίας.

   ”              13:51:              τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ δευτέρου μηνὸς ἔτους ἐνὸς καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ. For the same occurrence the Megillath Taanith gives the date 23rd Ijjar.

   ”              14:27:              ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῃ Ἐλοὺλ, ἔτους δευτέρου καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ.

   ”              16:14:              ἐν μηνὶ ἑνδεκάτῳ, οὗτος ὁ μὴν Σαβάτ.

From these dates it is put beyond all doubt that the author reckoned the months from the spring season. With him Ijjar or Zif is the second mouth (chap. 13:51); Tizri, therefore, the month of the Feast of Tabernacles, was the seventh (chap. 10:21); Chisleu is the ninth (chap. 4:52), and Shebat is the eleventh (chap. 16:14). The numbering of the months, therefore, begins with Nisan or Abib, that is, in the spring (see list in Appendix III. at the end of vol. ii.). From this it seems to be put beyond all reasonable doubt that the year by which the author reckoned also began in the spring season. But the Seleucid era, according to which he reckons, is usually supposed to start with autumn, just as it was customary in Syria generally to commence the year in the season of harvest. Among the Jews, too, it was the custom in very early times (Ex. 23:16, 34:22) to begin the year in autumn,—a custom older probably than that of starting with the spring. In the post-exilian times we certainly have both of these methods of reckoning the beginning of the year existing side by side. The cycle of religious festivals begins in the spring season; and so from it the months are counted in the First Book of Maccabees as well as in the Priestly Code. But just as even the Priestly Code could not prevent the celebrating of the new moon of the month Tizri with a religious festival (Lev. 23:23–25; Num. 29:1–6), in later times the beginning of the year came to be counted from that day, ראֹשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. The Mishna, indeed, says distinctly that “for the year” simply, therefore for the numbering of its months, the beginning is made with the 1st of Tizri. According to Josephus, too, the beginning of the year with Nisan, as ordained by Moses, holds good with reference only to sacred things; whereas, on the other hand, “for buying and selling and other business,” the year begins with Tizri according to the more ancient pre-Mosaic ordinance. In these circumstances it is quite possible that the First Book of Maccabees too, notwithstanding the numbering of the months from the spring season, may have reckoned its dates from the autumn. We should indeed have felt ourselves obliged, if no very decided reasons could be adduced against such a supposition, to accept this as the most probable explanation, seeing that it is from autumn as a rule that the dates in the Seleucid era are reckoned. This is the view taken by Wernsdorff, Clinton, and myself in the first edition of this work. But now it seems to me that weighty grounds can be given for thinking that the era of our book begins with the spring.

1. According to 1 Macc. 7:1, Demetrius I. withdrew from Rome in the year 151 of the Seleucid era, and became king of Syria. After this we meet with no other note of time in the First Book of Maccabees until we come to the 43rd and 49th verses of the 7th chapter, where we are told that Nicanor lost the battle and his life in fighting against Judas on the 13th Adar. The year is not thereby determined. But in chap. 9:3 it is further said that in the first month of the year 152 of the Seleucid era a new army was sent by Demetrius into Palestine. According to this statement, it must then be assumed that the defeat of Nicanor took place on the 13th Adar of the year 151 of the Seleucid era. Since, then, by the “first month” of the year 152, after what had just been stated, the month Nisan of that year must evidently be understood, and since, further, Nisan follows immediately after Adar, if we suppose the year to begin, not on 1st Nisan but on 1st Tizri, a space of three months would intervene between the one event and the other. But according to the context of the story it is much more probable that the one followed almost immediately upon the other, and that therefore the beginning of the year was counted from 1st Nisan.

2. According to 1 Macc. 10:1, Alexander Balas raised himself to the Syrian throne in the year 160 of the Seleucid era. According to chap. 10:21, Jonathan put on the high priest’s garments for the first time “in the seventh month” of this same year 160 of the Seleucid era, at the Feast of Tabernacles, therefore on the 15th Tizri. If, therefore, the year had begun on 1st Tizri, it would follow that all the occurrences reported in 1 Macc. 10:1–21 would have taken place within fourteen days, which is impossible. Should we insist upon putting the beginning of the year in the autumn, we would be obliged to set it later than the Feast of Tabernacles, and then that festival would be thrown into the end of the year, as indeed is presupposed in the old legislation of Ex. 23:16, בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה. But after what has been said above about the New Year Festival on the 1st Tizri, on the supposition of the year beginning generally in the autumn, for our period only the 1st of Tizri can come into consideration.

3. When in the year 150 of the Seleucid era, which date is given us in 1 Macc. 6:20 and 7:1, Antiochus V. Eupator and Lysias came into Palestine with a great army, the garrison of Bethzur was obliged to submit to them, and those besieged in the fortress of Mount Zion suffered the direst privations (1 Macc. 6:48–54). And both of these disasters happened from their being deprived of the means of sustenance on account of the Sabbatical year, “the year of rest to the land” (1 Macc. 6:49, 53). This seventh year of rest was counted from autumn to autumn, as is shown in the passage quoted above from Rosch haschana i. 1. The want of victuals, however, could not have been felt before the middle of the seventh year, after the stores of the previous year had been used up and no new fruits were coming in during spring and summer. On the other hand, at the time when these events occurred, the Sabbath year had not yet expired (chap. 6:49: σάββατον ἦν τῇ γῇ; 6:53: διὰ τὸ ἕβδομον ἔτος εἶναι). They must therefore have taken place in the period between spring and 1st of Tizri. But we know that the siege of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius also occurred during a Sabbath year (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 2; comp. xv. 1. 2). That siege, however, is certainly to be dated in the summer of B.C. 37 (see below, § 14). Thus the year B.C. 38–37 was a Sabbath year. If, then, we reckon back from this, we shall find that the year B.C. 164–163 reckoned from autumn to autumn was also a seventh year of rest. The occurrences in question must therefore fall to the summer of B.C. 163. But the year B.C. 163–162 corresponds with the year 150 of the Seleucid era. Had that been counted from autumn, this reckoning would not tally. It will agree only if the Seleucid era is made to begin with spring.

As a confirmation of our understanding of the Sabbath year, may be quoted the somewhat late rabbinical note that it was מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית when the temple was destroyed by Titus (Seder Olam, ed. Meyer, p. 91 ff.: אותו היום מוצאי שבת היה ומוצאי שביעית היתה. So, too, Arachin 11b, Taanith 29a). By מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, according to the well-established usage, is certainly to be understood the year after the Sabbath year (see Schebiith v. 5, vi. 4; Sota vii. 8; Machschirin ii. 11; comp. מוצאי שבת, meaning the day after the Sabbath, and ערב שבת, meaning the day before the Sabbath, in Chullin i. fin.). Accordingly the year A.D. 68–69 was a Sabbath year. And if we reckon back from this, we shall find that also the years B.C. 164–163 and B.C. 38–37 were Sabbath years.

Only one historical date on a Sabbath year stands opposed to the views that have been here set forth. According to 1 Macc. 16:14, Simon Maccabeus died in the month Shebat of the year 177 of the Seleucid era. Since Shebat corresponds in part with our February, this date, whether one counts the Seleucid year from spring or from autumn, must be rendered February B.C. 135. But, according to the report of Josephus, after the murder of Simon, John Hyrcanus besieged Simon’s murderer in the fortress of Dagon, and was then obliged after some time to raise the siege when the Sabbath. year came round in which the Jews are required to rest. His words are these: “The year of rest came on upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do on every seventh day” (Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 4). “That year on which the Jews used to rest came on; for the Jews observe this rest every seventh year as they do every seventh day” (Antiq. xiii. 8. 1). The year B.C. 135–134 must therefore have been a Sabbath year, whereas according to our calculations we should have expected it to have been B.C. 136–135. The statement of Josephus, however, is open to suspicion on other grounds. The reason given there to show the necessity of raising the siege is that rest is enjoined during the seventh year as on the seventh day. This was indeed the idea that prevailed among Gentile writers. So Tacitus says, Hist. v. 4: dein blandiente inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae datum. But in the Pentateuch rest in general during the seventh year is by no means enjoined, but only the leaving of the fields unsown (see Lev. 25:1–7). And so far as my knowledge goes, even the later refinements on the interpretation of the law have never gone farther than this. There is therefore good reason for the suspicion that Josephus, who is in this place following Gentile authorities, as is certain on other grounds, has simply transcribed without sifting the statements which were before him. It would also appear that the real occasion of the raising of the siege was not the coming round of the Sabbath year, but the failure of provisions during the course of that year of rest to the land. If this interpretation be accepted, then B.C. 136–135 will be the Sabbath year in full agreement with the other dates.—Wieseler, who indeed places the Sabbath year in B.C. 136–135, sets down the death of Simon as occurring in Shebat, or February B.C. 136; and seeing that this, according to our reckoning, would be the Shebat of the year 176 of the Seleucid era, he makes the Seleucid year of the First Book of Maccabees begin in accordance with the Roman practice in January,—an eccentricity of view that need not now be seriously criticized.

Against the cycle of the Sabbath year here adopted I argued in the first edition of this work that the year A.D. 40–41 could not have been a Sabbath year, as according to our cycle it must have been. For the Jews omitted to sow the seed in the last month before Caligula’s death, during November A.D. 40, not because it was the Sabbath year, but because for weeks they were going in great crowds to lay before Petronius their complaints on account of the profanation threatened to the temple (Antiq. xviii. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 5). From this it would appear that the sowing of the fields during that year had been expected. But we are obliged to admit that this indirect argument, when put over against other possible explanations that may still be given, is not strong enough to overturn the very positive proofs that have been advanced in favour of regarding this year as a Sabbath year.

Compare generally on the reckoning of the historically attested Sabbath year in our periods (which by many are made about a year later than by us): Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione, Lips. 1833, p. 38 (and the earlier works of Scaliger, Petavius, etc., there quoted).—Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender, Brussels 1848.—Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, ii. 458 ff.—Zuckermann, Ueber Sabbathjahrcyklus und Jobelperiode, Breslau 1857 (and the older literature quoted there, pp. 2, 3).—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. (3 Aufl. 1878) pp. 636–639, note 7.—Wieseler, art “Aere,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. i. 159 f. Also: Stud. und Krit. 1875, p. 527 ff.—Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, 1876, pp. 23–28. Also: Die geschichtlichen Sabbathjahre (Stud. und Krit. 1877, pp. 181–190).—Rösch, Stud. und Krit. 1870, p. 361 f., and 1875, p. 589 ff.—Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1874, p. 58 ff.—Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1880, pp. 45 f., 229–236.

Besides the reasons which we have adduced for believing that the Seleucid years of our book begin with the spring, we may also add the important fact that it is also from the spring that it numbers the months. Even had it not been otherwise impossible to suppose that its cycle of years began in autumn, this circumstance would have caused very great difficulty, especially in those passages in which the name of the month is not mentioned, but only the number of the month and the year. Thus we read “in the first month of the year 152, ” chap. 9:3, etc. This form of expression would scarcely have been adopted unless a uniform mode of determining the order of the month had prevailed.

We assume then, with the great majority of critics, that the Seleucid era of the First Book of Maccabees begins, not in autumn, but in spring. And however extraordinary it may at first sight appear that in Palestine they had a Seleucid era which differed to the extent of about half a year from that current in the rest of Syria, this will no longer appear extraordinary to one who is acquainted with the circumstances. Almost every one of the more important cities in the neighbourhood of Palestine had during the Graeco-Roman period its own era, yea, even its own calendar (see § 23). It is therefore quite conceivable that the Jews on adopting the imperial era should modify it in accordance with their calendar. We find, too, that exactly this same era was in use in the city of Damascus. The year began in Damascus and in the Roman province of Arabia in the spring (see Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 413, 437). But the coins of Damascus are dated according to the Seleucid era. And although on an inscription discovered in recent times a specifically Damascene era is spoken of, this can mean nothing else than the Seleucid era beginning in spring, just as in our book.

By all that has been said, the question is not yet settled as to whether the era of our book begins half a year before or half a year after the date usually assigned, whether in spring B.C. 312 or in spring B.C. 311. The French scholar Gibert pronounces in favour of the former view. But the opinion generally accepted, that spring of B.C. 312 is the starting-point, can be proved to be certainly the right one. It will be enough here, apart from all other grounds, to refer to the remarks made in reference to the Sabbath year. If the year 150 of the Seleucid era were to be regarded, as Gibert desires, as equivalent to B.C. 162–161, then the Sabbath year must be fixed a year later, which would be in direct conflict with the date of the siege of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius, with which Gibert can reconcile himself only by very artificial and far-fetched reasoning.

The era of the Second Book of Maccabees is still more open to dispute than that of the first book. We have also an apologetic interest in determining the era, inasmuch as certain dates of the second book are reconcilable with those of the first only if the years in each era were reckoned according to different eras. And, indeed, the era of the second book seems to have a later starting-point than that of the first. But in regard to this matter, too, the most diverse opinions prevail. Some assume half a years difference, some a whole year’s, and some a year and a half. The last mentioned is the view of Ideler, who dates the epoch of the first from spring B.C. 312, and that of the second from autumn B.C. 311. The dates upon which arguments are based are indeed very few; practically only the following two:—1. The death of Antiochus Epiphanes is set down in 1 Macc. 6:16 at the year 149 of the Seleucid era; whereas, according to 2 Macc. 11:33, he must have died at the latest in the year 148 of the Seleucid era, for there a decree of his successor Eupator is quoted, bearing the date of that year. 2. The second campaign of Lysias, according to 1 Macc. 6:20, was undertaken in the year 150 of the Seleucid era; whereas, according to 2 Macc. 13:1, it is placed in the Seleucid year 149. But in reference to the former date, the facts of the case are different from what at first appears. The subject treated of in 2 Macc. 11:33 is not really the date of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, but rather the date of the first campaign of Lysias. And although 2 Macc. 11:33 assigns that event to the Seleucid year 148, this is quite reconcilable with 1 Macc. 4:28, 52. The difference consists, therefore, not in a diverse mode of reckoning time, but simply in this, that the Second Book of Maccabees erroneously sets down the first campaign of Lysias after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, while both books agree in assigning it to the year 148 of the Seleucid era. In the other pair of passages, however,—1 Macc. 6:20 and 2 Macc. 13:1,—we actually do come upon a diversity of dates. But Grimm on 2 Macc. 13:1 has justly remarked, after repeating his own earlier opinion, that one “certainly does too much honour to the abounding historical and chronological errors of which the author of the second book has been convicted, by a great expenditure of combinations either in reconciling diversities, or in seeking, by the assumption of a different beginning of the Seleucid era, to explain the chronological difference between him and the First Book of the Maccabees.”—There is therefore no sufficient ground for assuming a special era for the Second Book of the Maccabees. We have therefore before us the choice of regarding the era of that book as the Palestinian Seleucid era employed in the First Book of the Maccabees, or as the Seleucid era prevailing throughout the rest of Syria.

Compare on the eras of the two Books of Maccabees: Froelich, Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae (ed. 2, 1750), Proleg. p. 22 sqq.—Wernsdorff, De fide historica librorum Maccabaicorum, 1747, pp. 18–31 (contests the view previously maintained by Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Prideaux, Foy-Vaillant, des-Vignoles, Froelich, and others, that the era of the First Book of Maccabees begins with a spring year).—Gibert, Mémoire sur la chronologie de l’histoire des Machabées (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, alte série, t. xxvi. 1759, pp. 112–156).—Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 375–382.—Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 531–534.—Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel, 1839, p. 110 ff. Also: Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 1864. Also: art. “Aere,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. i. 159 f. Also: Stud. und Krit. 1875, pp. 520–532; and 1877, p. 510 ff.—Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, iii. 11 f., iv. 186 f. Also: Bissel and Wace (in Speaker’s Comm.) in their Introductions to Maccabees.

The following survey embraces—1. All special works on the Jewish history of our period known to us only through quotations or fragments, whether they are used by Josephus or not; and 2. Those of the more general historical works now lost, to which the exposition of Josephus is directly or indirectly indebted. To one or other of these categories belong all the works enumerated in the following paragraphs:—

1. Jason of Cyrene

He wrote a work in five books on the history of the Maccabean rising, from its beginning down to the victory of Judas over Nicanor in B.C. 161. All this period is treated of in one book in our so-called Second Book of Maccabees: “All these things being declared by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we shall essay to abridge in one volume,” 2 Macc. 2:23. He is supposed to have lived not long after the events which he narrates, somewhere about the middle of the second century B.C.; comp. Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 211.

2. The History of John Hyrcanus

A history of John Hyrcanus was known to the writer of the First Book of Maccabees: “The chronicle of his priesthood,” 1 Macc. 16:24. This book, in a style similar to that of the First Book of Maccabees, described his long and honourable career. It seems to have got lost at an early date, for it was evidently unknown even to Josephus. Comp. Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 13.

3. Posidonius of Apamea

The celebrated Stoic philosopher and historian Posidonius, from Apamea in Syria, lived chiefly in Rhodes, where he founded a Stoic School. He is hence called “the Rhodian.” Since he was also a scholar of Panätius, who at latest must have died B.C. 110, he cannot have been born later than B.C. 130. In the seventh consulship of Marius, B.C. 86, he went as ambassador to Rome, and there saw Marius shortly before his death (Plutarch’s Marius, chap. xlv.). Immediately after Sulla’s death (B.C. 78), Cicero heard him in Rhodes (Plutarch’s Cicero, chap. iv.). Pompey visited him there repeatedly. During the consulship of Marius Marcellus, B.C. 51, he went once more to Rome (Suidas, Lexicon, art. Ποσειδώνιος). He may therefore be described as having flourished between B.C. 90 and B.C. 50. According to Lucian. Macrob. chap. xx. he lived to the great age of eighty-four years. Of his numerous writings, it is his great historical work that here interests us. It is frequently quoted in the historical sketches of Athenäus, Strabo, Plutarch, and others. From the criticisms in Athenäus it would appear to have consisted of at least forty-nine books. It is not, therefore, open to doubt that Suidas (Lexicon, under the word Ποσειδώνιος) has this work in view when he makes the erroneous remark about the Alexandrian Posidonius: ἔγραψεν Ἱστορίαν τὴν μετὰ Πολύβιον ἐν βιβλίος νβʹ. The extant fragments, too, make it probable that the work begins where Polybius ends, with B.C. 146. How far down it carried the history is uncertain. It went on, according to Suidas, ἕως τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ Κυρηναϊκοῦ καὶ Πτολεμαίου. Müller (Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 250) believes that instead of this we ought to read ἕως τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Κυρηναϊκοῦ, that is, down to Ptolemäus Apion of Cyrene, who died B.C. 96. The fact, too, that the fragments that have been preserved from the 47th and 49th books refer to the period from B.C. 100 to B.C. 90, goes to confirm this supposition. But, according to a fragment of considerable extent quoted by Athenäus, it appears that Posidonius also gave a detailed account of the history of the Athenian demagogue Athenio or Aristion, B.C. 87–86. And further, according to a notice in Strabo (xi. 1. 6), he also treated of the history of Pompey: τὴν ἱστορίαν συνέγραψε τὴν περὶ αὐτόν. From this Müller concludes that Posidonius had dealt with the period after B.C. 96 in a “second part,” or a continuation of his great work. This elaborate hypothesis, however, has no substantial support in the evidently corrupted words of Suidas. The fifty-two books may have quite easily embraced the period from B.C. 87–86, and the work, as Scheppig maintains, may have been brought down to that time. Arnold would have it carried down even to B.C. 82. Much further it certainly could not have extended, since in the 47th and 49th books the writer had got no farther than the period B.C. 100–B.C. 90. The history of Pompey must therefore have formed a separate work.

The great work of Posidonius was held in high esteem by later historians, who seemed to have used it as they did Polybius, as a principal source for the period of which it treats. It is certain that Diodorus has drawn upon it (Müller, Fragmenta, t. ii. p. 20, t. iii. p. 251). But even Trogus Pompeius refers to it as an authority (see Heeren in: Com. Soc. Sc. Gött. t. xv. 1804, pp. 185–245; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 258. 4, and the literature given there). And so probably it was used by most who treated of this period. It is therefore highly probable that the passages in Josephus which deal with that time are essentially based upon Posidonius,—not indeed directly, but indirectly, as he had found him quoted and used by Strabo and Nicolaus Damascenus.

Josephus used Strabo and Nicolas as authorities of the first order for the period referred to. That Strabo had made use of Posidonius in the composition of his history is abundantly evident, for he quotes him frequently and with great respect in his Geography (ii. 102, xvi. 753). In Nicolaus Damascenus, too, there are unmistakeable traces of use having been made of Posidonius (Müller, iii. 415).—Josephus mentions Posidonius only once, in his Treatise against Apion, ii. 7. Strongly marked resemblances, however, are discernible between his exposition and that of Diodorus and Trogus Pompeius. Compare the account of the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 2–3, and in Diodorus, xxxiv. 1; and that of the Parthian war of Demetrius II. in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11, and in Justin, i.e. Trogus Pompeius, xxxvi. 1. 3. If, then, these two—Diodorus and Trogus Pompeius—rely upon Posidonius, then so also does Josephus. Further details in Nussbaum, Observ. in Fl. Jos. Antiq. xii. 3–xiii. 14; Destinon, Die Quellen, § 52; J. G. Müller on Josephus “Against Apion,” 214 ff., 258 f.

The historical and geographical fragments of Posidonius are collected by C. Müller, fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 245–296. Compare generally, Fabricius, Bibliothec. graec. ed. Harles, iii. 572–574, iv. 34.—Bake, Posidonii Rhodii reliquae doctrinae, Lugd. Bat. 1810.—Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. under years 143, 86, 78, 62, 60, 51.—Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, i. 1842, 357–363.—Toepelmann, De Posidonio Rhodio rerum scriptore, Bonnae 1867.—Scheppig, De Posidonio Apamensi rerum gentium terrarum scriptore, Halis Sax. 1869.—Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte, ii. 182 f., 242 f.—Blass, De Gemino et Posidonio, Kiel 1883.—Arnold, Untersuchungen über Theophanes von Mytilene und Posidonius von Apamea, in Jahrbb. für class. Philologie, 13 Supplementalband, 1884, pp. 75–150 (seeks to prove that Appian in his Mithridatica has used both of these authors).—Schühlein, Studien zu Posidonius Rhodius, Freising 1886; a careful sifting and arranging of biographical detail. Zimmermann in: Hermes xxxiii. pp. 103–130; on the use made of Posidonius in the Geography of Strabo.—On Posidonius as a philosopher, see Ueberweg, History of Philosophy, vol. i. pp. 185, 189; and Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, London 1869. Also: Wendland, Posidonius Werk περί θεῶν (Archiv für Geschichte der Philos., Bd. i 1888, pp. 200–210).

4. Timagenes of Alexandria

Timagenes, by birth probably a Syrian, had been taken prisoner in Alexandria by Gabinius during his Egyptian campaign in B.C. 55. He was then carried off to Rome, where he continued ever afterwards to reside (Suidas, Lexicon, under the word Τιμαγένης). He was notorious for his loose tongue, on account of which he was forbidden by Augustus to enter his house. He was nevertheless held in high esteem, and enjoyed the intimate friendship of Asinius Pollio. Seneca in his de ira, iii. 23, says: Timagenes in contubernio Pollionis Asinii consensuit, ac tota civitate dilectus est: nullum illi limen praeclusa Caesaris domus abstulit. His numerous works were much prized on account of their learning and their elegant rhetorical form. Ammianus Marcellinus, xv. 9, speaks of Timagenes as et diligentia Graecus et lingua. Even Quintilian, x. 1. 75, names him among the most famous historians. The few extant fragments are not sufficient to lead us to form any definite judgment upon the contents and style of his work.—The quotations in Josephus are confined to the history of Antiochus Epiphanes (Treatise against Apion, ii. 7), of the Jewish king Aristobulus I. (Antiq. xiii. 11. 3), and of Alexander Jannäus (Antiq. xiii. 12. 5). It is evident, however, that Josephus did not use the work of Timagenes at first hand, but borrowed his references from other historians. In Antiq. xiii. 11. 3, he introduces a quotation in this fashion: “as Strabo bears witness in the name of Timagenes, who says thus.” So, too, the quotation in Antiq. xiii. 12. 5 is taken from Strabo, who is himself immediately afterwards quoted in Antiq. xiii. 12. 6.

The fragments of Timagenes are collected by C. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, iii. 317–323. Comp. also Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 2nd ed. p. 573 ff.—Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 1971, and the literature quoted there.—Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgesch. ii. 188.—Gutschmid in a paper on “Trogus and Timagenes,” in Rhein. Museum, vol. xxxvii. 1882, pp. 548–555, seeks to show that Trogus Pompeius is only a Latin reproduction of an original Greek work, and assumes that the latter was the work of Timagenes.

5. Asinius Pollio

C. Asinius Pollio, the well-known friend of Caesar and Augustus, composed, besides other works, a history of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, in 17 books, in the Latin tongue. This, at least, is the most probable rendering of the confused statements in Suidas’ Lexicon, under the names Πωλίων and Ἀσίνιος (see Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 221. 3). Plutarch, Appian, and others made use of the work (Plutarch. Pompeius, c. 72; Caesar, c. 46; Appian. Civ. ii. 82). Since it was an authority of the first order, as being the work of a contemporary man of affairs, an investigator like Strabo naturally did not allow it to escape him. From a notice in Josephus it would appear that Strabo had used it and quoted from it in the history of Caesar’s Egyptian campaign. In his Antiq. xiv. 8. 3, Josephus thus introduces a quotation: “Strabo of Cappadocia bears witness to this, when he says thus in the name of Asinius.”

Compare on Asinius Pollio generally, Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. i. 2, 2 Aufl. pp. 1859–1865; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 221, and the literature quoted in both places.—Something may also be found in Hübner, Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die römische Literaturgesch. 1878, p. 181.—On the history of the Civil War, Thouret, De Cicerone, Asinio Pollione, C. Oppio rerum Caesarianarum scriptoribus (Leipz. Stud. zu class. Philol., Bd. i. 1878, pp. 303–360; on Asinius Pollio, pp. 324–346). A discussion is being carried on in regard to the authorities used by Appian, but nothing definite has been reached as to how far he may have employed the work of Asinius Pollio.

6. Hypsikrates

Hypsikrates, a writer otherwise unknown, is quoted twice by Strabo in his Geography. The one quotation refers to the history of Asander, a governor of the Bosporus under King Pharnaces II., in the time of Caesar (Strabo, vii. 4. 6). The other quotation refers to the ethnology of the Caucasian nations (Strabo, xi. 5. 1). In a third passage a quotation about the natural history of Libya is attributed to Iphikrates, but this name is most likely to be read Hypsikrates (Strabo, xvii. 3. 5). According to Lucian. Macrob. c. 22, Hypsikrates was a native of Amisus in Pontus, and lived to the age of ninety-two years. Since he treats of the times of Caesar he cannot have been much older than Strabo.—According to a statement in Josephus, Strabo had borrowed from this Hypsikrates in his account of the Egyptian campaign of Caesar: “The same Strabo says thus again, in another place, in the name of Hypsikrates,” Antiq. xiv. 8. 3.

Compare generally, Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 493 ff.—Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iii. 1560.

7. Dellius

Dellius, a friend of Antonius, wrote a work on the Parthian campaign of Antonius, in which he had himself taken part. (Strabo, xi. 13. 3, p. 523: ὥς φησιν ὁ Δέλλιος ὁ τοῦ Ἀντωνίου φίλος, συγγράψας τὴν ἐπὶ Παρθυαίους αὐτοῦ στρατείαν, ἐν ᾗ παρῆν καὶ αὐτὸς ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. Plutarch. Anton. c. 59: πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φίλων οἱ Κλεοπάτρας κόλακες ἐχέβαλον … ὧν καὶ Μάρκος ἦν Σιλανὸς καὶ Δέλλιος ὁ ἱστορικός).

It is possible, as Bürcklein and Gutschmid surmise, that all the accounts of later historians regarding the Parthian campaign of the years B.C. 41–36, and so, too, that of Josephus, are drawn either directly or indirectly from this work. Josephus mentions Dellius in Antiq. xiv. 15. 1; xv. 2. 6; Wars of Jews, i. 15. 3; not, however, as a historian, but as a comrade of Antony.

Compare Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römischparthischen Feldzüge in den Jahren, 713–718. An Inaugural Dissertation, 1879 (on Josephus, pp. 41–43).—Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, p. 97. Generally, Haakh in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 899. Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 255. 3.

8. Strabo

Besides his Geography, which has come down to us, and will be treated of under § 3. D, among extant authorities, Strabo was the author of a large historical work which, with the exception of a few fragments, has been lost. It had been completed before Strabo began his Geography. In the introduction to this latter work he refers to his history: Διόπερ ἡμεῖς πεποιηκότες ὑπομνήματα ἱστορικὰ χρήσιμα, ὡς ὑπολαμβάνομεν, εἰς τὴν ἠθικὴν καὶ πολιτικὴν φιλοσοφίαν. From another quotation which he makes, it appears that the 5th book of that history began where the work of Polybius ended, i.e. with B.C. 146: εἰρηκότες δὲ πολλὰ περὶ τῶν Παθικῶν νομίμων ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ τῶν ἱστορικῶν ὑπομνημάτων βίβλῳ, δευτέρᾳ δὲ τῶν μετὰ Πολύβιον. This overlapping of the narrative explains how it is that the character of the first four books is different from that of the books μετὰ Πολύβιον; the former being summary in the style, the latter detailed and full. In the earlier books the times of Alexander the Great must have been treated of, for Strabo says in a third passage that he had come to see the untrustworthiness of the reports about India when he was engaged upon the history of Alexander the Great: καὶ ἡμῖν δʼ ὑπῆρξεν ἐπὶ πλέον κατιδεῖν ταῦτα ὑπομνηματιζομένοις τὰς Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις. According to an explanatory note by Suidas, Lexicon, under the name Πολύβιος, the work “after Polybius” was composed of forty-three books: “Strabo,” it is said, “wrote the μετὰ Πολύβιον in forty-three books;” while the whole work was made up of forty-seven books. From the quotations in Josephus it may be concluded that the history had been carried down at least to the conquest of Jerusalem by Herod in B.C. 37. It may therefore have closed with the establishment of sole and absolute monarchy under Augustus. The most of the quotations are made by Josephus, who evidently used this work as his main authority for the history of the Asmonaeans from John Hyrcanus to the overthrow of Antigonus, B.C. 135–37, because he culls from this large general history the passages and allusions that have reference to the history of Palestine. Such notices will be found in Antiq. xiii. 10. 4, 11. 3, 12. 6; xiv. 3. 1, 4. 3, 6. 4, 7. 2, 8. 3; xv. 1. 2. Compare also a statement with reference to Autiochus Epiphanes in the Treatise against Apion, ii. 7. This history of Strabo is also expressly cited by Plutarch, Sulla, c. 26; Lucull. c. 28; Caesar, c. 63; and by Tertullian, de anima, c. 46. But much as the loss of this work is to be regretted, it is at least some satisfaction to know that Josephus used it along with Nicolaus Damascenus as one of his principal authorities. For Strabo was a thoroughgoing investigator, who employed the best sources with circumspection, subjecting them to a careful critical examination. Even in the few fragments preserved in Josephus he three times cited his authorities by name, Timagenes, Asinius Pollio, and Hypsikrates. That he made use of the great work of Posidonius cannot be doubted. And though his name is not once mentioned, we cannot say how much Strabo may have been indebted to him for the information given in his comprehensive work. Josephus frequently calls attention to the agreement between Strabo and Nicolaus Damascenus. “Now Nicolas of Damascus and Strabo of Cappadocia both describe the expeditions of Pompey and Gabinius against the Jews, while neither of them says anything new that is not in the other,” Antiq. xiv. 6. 4. But it is not probable that the one had made use of the other, seeing that they were contemporaries. Nicolaus Damascenus is quoted by Strabo in his Geography (xv. 1. 72, 73). On the other hand, the historical work of Strabo is rather older than that of Nicolas. The agreement between them to which Josephus calls attention must therefore have resulted from their using the same authorities.

It was a decided mistake on the part of Lewitz (Quaest. Flav. specimen, 1835) to describe Strabo the historian and Strabo the geographer as two different persons. Josephus does indeed speak of his authority as a Cappadocian, whereas the geographer belonged to Amasia in Pontus. But the district of Pontus is also called by Strabo ἠ πρὸς τῷ Πόντῳ Καππαδοκία (xiii. 1. 4); and Pliny names Amasia among the cities of Cappadocia (Nat. Hist. vi. 3. 8). Mithridates, king of Pontus, is styled on an inscription: Μιθραδάτης Καππαδοκί[ας βασιλεύς]. See Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, iii. 136a. Kuhn, Die Städtische und bürgerlich Verfassung des röm. Reichs, ii. 148.

The fragments of Strabo’s historical work are collected by Müller, Fragmenta historicum graecorum, iii. 490–494.

9. Commentaries of Herod

Like other royal personages of that age, such as Augustus and Agrippa (Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 220), Herod the Great wrote Commentaries or Memoirs, which are once referred to by Josephus. “This account we give the reader as it is contained in the Commentaries of King Herod,” Antiq. xv. 6. 3. Whether Josephus had actually seen them himself is extremely doubtful, since in his own history of Herod he follows Nicolaus Damascenus as his chief authority, and besides him used only a source that was unfavourable to Herod. The preterite περιείχετο awakens the suspicion that the work cited did not then lie before the writer, but was known to him only at second hand.

On the philosophical, rhetorical, and historical studies of Herod, see the fragment from the Autobiography of Nicolaus Damascenus in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 350.—The view which I had myself at one time advocated, that Josephus had made a direct use of the Commentaries of Herod, does not now appear to be tenable. This is the opinion also of Destinon, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, 1882, 121 ff. But we have not the materials for arriving at any final and definite result.

10. Ptolemäus

In the work of Ammonius, De adfinium vocabulorum differentia, the following statement is made under the word Ἰδουμαῖοι: “Idumaeans and Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) differ from one another, as Ptolemäus says in the first book of his Life of King Herod. For the Jews are the original inhabitants; but the Idumaeans were originally not Jews, but Phoenicians and Syrians.” The work of one Ptolemäus on Herod, here referred to, is otherwise quite unknown. The statements quoted about the semi-Judaism of the Idumaeans are without doubt taken from an independent and unbiassed investigation as to the descent of Herod, such as a royal historiographer would never have ventured to publish. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1. 3. The author cannot therefore have belonged to the court officials of Herod, among whom we meet with two men of the name of Ptolemy. One of these was a brother of Nicolaus Damascenus, who, after Herod’s death, took the side of Antipas, as we are told in Antiq. xvii. 9. 4, and Wars of the Jews, ii. 2. 3. The other, after Herod’s death, joined the party of Archelaus along with Nicolaus Damascenus, and is spoken of in Antiq. xvii. 8. 2, 9. 3, 5, and in Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8; ii. 2. 1, 4. Seeing that our author can be neither of these two, one naturally thinks of the grammarian Ptolemy of Ascalon, the only writer of the name of Ptolemy mentioned by Ammonius in De adfin. vocab. differentia in any other passage than the one above quoted. Stephanus Byzantinus indeed (s.v. Ἀσκάλων) speaks of this Ptolemy as a contemporary of Aristarchus; and if this were so, he must have lived in the second century before Christ. But Bäge (De Ptolemaeo Ascalonita, 1882) has made it highly probable that this statement of Stephanus is erroneous, and that Ptolemy had lived rather in the early part of the first century after Christ. In that case he would be, in respect of time, in the very best position for writing a biography of Herod.

Many accomplished scholars, as Fabricius in Biblioth. graec., v. 296, Ammon in his note on the passage from Ammonius, and Westermann in his edition of Vossius, De historicis graecis, p. 226, regard Ptolemy of Ascalon as the author of Herod’s biography. Compare in regard to him generally, the literature given in Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 28, 29.—Müller, Fragm. hist. graec., is inclined to look for the author among the courtiers of Herod.

The statement about the Idumaeans, quoted above, is found also in an abbreviated form in a writing ascribed to Ptolemy of Ascalon, περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων, which has recently been published in a complete form by Heylbut in Hermes, vol. xxii. 1887, pp. 388–410. In this work the passage runs as follows: “Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) and Idumaeans (Ἰδουμαῖοι) are not the same; for the Jews are the original inhabitants, but the Idumaeans were originally not Jews, but Phoenicians and Syrians.” But this passage, as well as all the rest of this reputed work of Ptolemy, appears to be nothing else than an extract from Ammonius, who had on his part quoted from the genuine work of Ptolemy of Ascalou.

11. Nicolaus Damascenus

No writer has been used by Josephus who yields such abundance of good material for the post-Biblical period as Nicolas of Damascus, the trusted friend and counsellor of Herod. He belonged to a distinguished non-Jewish family in Damascus. His father, Antipater, held the highest official appointments there. Since Nicolas, immediately after the death of Herod, in B.C. 4, speaks of himself as about sixty years of age, he must have been born about B.C. 64. He acquired a thorough Greek education, and in his philosophical views followed mainly Aristotle. Hence in the Fragments collected by Müller he is called “Nicolas the Peripatetic,” “one of the Peripatetic philosophers.” According to Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem in the beginning of the seventh century after Christ, he is said to have been the tutor of the children of Antony and Cleopatra. When Augustus was in Syria in B.C. 20, Nicolas saw in Antioch the Indian ambassadors who came there (Strabo, xv. 1. 73). Probably even then, but at the very latest by B.C. 14, he lived in the closest intimacy with King Herod, by whom he was employed in some important diplomatic negotiations. In B.C. 14 he was in the retinue of Herod when he visited Agrippa in Asia Minor. At a later period he went with Herod to Rome. When Herod, on account of his proceedings in Arabia, had fallen into disfavour with Augustus, Nicolas was sent to Rome as his ambassador. Also in his conflicts with his sons, Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, Nicolas occupied a prominent place as counsellor of the king. After the death of Herod he represented the interests of Archelaus before the emperor at Rome. All these particulars are derived from his autobiography, as given in Müller’s Fragments and the corresponding sections of Josephus. He seems to have spent his last years in Rome.

Of the tragedies and comedies which Nicolas is supposed to have written, no single vestige now remains. Even of his philosophical productions very little has been preserved. Undoubtedly by far the most important of his writings were his historical works, regarding which Suidas, in his Lexicon, under the name Νικόλαος, makes the following remark: “He wrote a general history in eighty books, and an account of the life of Caesar, and also of his own life and career.” Besides these three works, he wrote, according to Photius, Biblioth. cod. 189, a παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή. Of all the four works we possess fragments of greater or less extent.

We owe the greater number of the fragments that are preserved to the great undertaking of the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, A.D. 912–959, who had the most trustworthy statements of the old historians collected into certain volumes. There were in all fifty-three volumes or heads among which those collections were distributed. Only a few of those fifty-three books have been preserved, and of those that are extant, only two come into consideration at present (1) The extracts De virtutibus et vitiis, edited by Valesius in A.D. 1634; and (2) the extracts De insidiis, first edited by Feder, from a codex Escurialensis, in A.D. 1848–1855, with other extracts, in 3 vols. At the same time, and independently of Feder, Müller edited the same manuscript in his Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 1849.—Compare on the undertaking of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus generally, Fabricius-Harles, Biblioth. graec. viii.; Schulze, De excerptis constantinianis quaestiones criticae, Bonn 1866. De Boor, Zu den Excerptensammlungen des Konstantin Porphyrogennetos (Hermes, Bd. xix. 1884, pp. 123–148).

1. The great historical work of Nicolas contained 144 books (Athenaeus, vi. p. 249). When Suidas speaks of only eighty books, this must be explained either by assuming an error in the MSS. of Suidas, or by supposing that only eighty books were known to Suidas. The extensive fragments preserved in the Constantine excerpts, de virtutibus and de insidiis, are taken exclusively from the first seven books, and refer to the early history of the Assyrians, Medes, Greeks, Lydians, and Persians, down to the times of Croesus and Cyrus. Of books 8–95 we possess as good as nothing. Of book 96 some fragments have been preserved by Josephus and Athenaeus. Books 96, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 114, 116, 123, 124 are distinctly quoted. In books 123 and 124 an account is given of the negotiations with Agrippa in Asia Minor in favour of the Jews residing there, in which Herod and Nicolaus Damascenus represented the Jewish interests (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 2; comp. xvi. 2. 2–5). These negotiations were carried on in the year B.C. 14. The remaining twenty books would undoubtedly treat of the following ten years, down to the beginning of the reign of Archelaus, in B.C. 4. One only requires to read Josephus connectedly in order to see immediately that the uncommonly complete and detailed authority which he follows in books xv.–xvii. on the life of Herod, breaks off at the beginning of the reign of Archelaus. What he tells regarding that reign in book xviii. is so desperately poor and meagre, that it is utterly impossible that he could have had at his disposal a document like that upon which he drew for books xv.–xvii. But this complete and detailed authority can have been no other than the work of Nicolas of Damascus, who is expressly cited in Antiq. xvi. 7. 1, and who in his autobiography gives a historical statement that reads almost like an extract from Josephus. Hence it is evident that it gives in briefer form the story of the events recorded at greater length by the author in his larger historical work.—But the historical work of Nicolas is used by Josephus, not only for the history of Herod, but also for the history of the Asmonaeans, in a similar way to that in which he uses the historical work of Strabo (Antiq. xiii. 8. 4, 12. 6; xiv. 4. 3, 6. 4). Josephus also expressly cites Nicolas’ work for the history of primitive times (Antiq. i. 3. 6, 3. 9, 7. 2), for the history of David (Antiq. vii. 5. 2), and the history of Antiochus Epiphanes (Treatise against Apion, ii. 7).

2. Of the biography of Augustus, Βίος Καίσαρος, there are still extant two large fragments, of which the one in the Constantine excerpts, de virtutibus, treats of the history of Octavian’s youth and education; while the other, which is particularly extensive, in the Constantine excerpts, de insidiis, refers to the time immediately subsequent to Caesar’s assassination, there being added to it, in the form of a large note or excursus, c. 19–27, a complete account of the conspiracy against Caesar, and of the circumstances that preceded his murder. This second fragment, which was first made known in the publications of Feder, Müller, and Piccolos, makes it possible fairly to estimate the historical value of the work, which, notwithstanding its general panegyristic character, is considerable.

3. The autobiography, of which several fragments are preserved in the excerpts de virtutibus, and upon which probably Suidas mainly relies for the facts given in his Lexicon articles on the names Ἀντίπατρος and Νικόλαος, is interesting on account of the undisguised self-complacency and conceit of its author, which he shows in the unbounded praise lavished upon all his own achievements.

4. The collection of “Remarkable Habits and Customs,” Παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή, which was seen by Photius (Biblioth. cod. 189), is known to us only from the extracts in the Florilegium of Stobaeus.

A complete collection of the fragments of Nicolas, with the exception of the philosophical fragments, was first issued by Müller in his Fragmenta historicorum graecomm, iii. 1849, pp. 343–464, and iv. pp. 661–664. Compare generally, Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 574 f.—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 483, note 20, proving that Nicolas was not a Jew.—Nicolai, Geschichte Literaturgeschichte, ii. 536 f.—On his exposition of early history, books i.–vii.: Steinmetz, Herodot und Nicolaus Damascenus, Lüneburg 1861.—On Nicolas as an authority with Josephus: Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 106–116. Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1882, pp. 91–120.

The Βίος Καίσαρος was separately edited by Piccolos, Nicolas de Damas., vie de César, fragment récemment découvert, etc., Paris 1850.—It is discussed by the following: Bürger, De Nicolai Damasceni fragmento Escurialensi quod inscribitur Βίος Καίσαρος, Bonnae 1869; and O. E. Schmidt, who writes in the Jahrbb. für class. Philologie, 1884, pp. 666–687, on Nicolaus Damascenus and Suetonius Tranquillus, supporting, in opposition to Bürger, the historical importance of the Βίος Καίσαρος, and seeking to show that Suetonius had made use of it.

The fragments of the Παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή have also been collected and edited in a separate issue by Westermann, Παραδοξογράφοι, 1839, pp. 166, 167.—On the passage referring to the Lacedaemonians, see Trieber, Quaestiones Laconicae, pars I.: De Nicolai Damasceni Laconicis, Berol. 1867.

Of the philosophical writings of Nicolas there remain only a number of titles and short fragments. See Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ed. 2, iii. p. 574 ff.—Roeper, Lectiones Abulpharagianae, Danzig 1844, pp. 27, 35–43.—Müller, Fragm. histor. graec. iii. 344.—Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, London 1869.—Zell in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1679 f., art. “Aristoteles.”—Diels, Doxographi graeci, 1879, p. 84, Anm. 1.—The pseudo-Aristotelian writing de plantis has been ascribed by E. H. F. Meyer to Nicolaus Damascenus, and published under his name.—Another pseudo-Aristotelian tract, περὶ κόσμου, has been by several scholars in earlier and later times attributed to Nicolas. The grounds for so doing are very insufficient. Becker, Bernays, and Zeller, however, still incline to ascribe it to our author. On its later reproduction by Apuleius, see Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 367. 6.—So far as we can judge from the quotations and fragments of the philosophical works of Nicolas, they are closely related to those of Aristotle, and were not so much independent works as short expositions or compendia and illustrations of the several departments of the Aristotelian philosophy. Roeper, Lectiones Abulpharagianae, pp. 35–43, and Usener in: Bernays’ Ges. Abhandlungen, ii. 281. Roeper gives the most complete collection of quotations and fragments. This is the view also taken of them by Ueberweg in his History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 184.

12. The Commentaries of Vespasian

In the 65th chapter of his Life, Josephus refers to the Commentaries of Vespasian as vouching the correctness of his statements: “Nor is it only I who say this: but so it is written in the Commentaries of Vespasian the emperor.” At the same time he brings the charge against his opponent, Justus of Tiberias, that he could not have read those commentaries, since his statements are in direct contradiction to this in the emperor’s work: “For neither wast thou concerned in that war, nor hast thou read the Commentaries of Caesar, of which we have evident proof, because thou hast contradicted those Commentaries of Caesar in thy history.” In the Treatise against Apion he engages in a polemic against those who judged unfavourably of his History of the Jewish War, and denies to them the right of making such a criticism: “How impudent must those deserve to be esteemed who undertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs, who, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperor’s own memoirs, yet they could not be acquainted with our affairs who fought against them.” These memoirs “of the emperor’s” are evidently identical with the Commentaries of Vespasian referred to in the Life. Nothing more than this is known about them. Compare Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 311. 2. Josephus evidently came to know them only after he had composed his work on the Wars of the Jews, since he does not mention them among his authorities for that work (Treatise against Apion, i. 9–10).

13. Antonius Julianus

Minucius Felix, in his Octavian. c. 33. 4, refers for proof of his statement that the Jews had brought their misfortunes upon themselves by their own evil deeds, to their own writings and those of the Romans: “Read again their writings, or if you prefer those of the Romans, look into those of Antonius Julianus, and you will find that their own wickedness has occasioned their calamities.” The work of Antonius Julianus treated probably of the war of Vespasian. For a Μάρκος Ἀντώνιος Ἰουλιανός is also mentioned by Josephus as Procurator of Judea during the time of the Vespasian war (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 3).

Bernays (Ueber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus, 1861, p. 56) conjectures that this work of Antonius Julianus may have been used by Tacitus, on whom again the work of Sulpicius Severus depends. This is possible. But it should not be forgotten that there were yet other works on the Vespasian war. Josephus, indeed, distinguishes such books into two classes. To the one class belonged those who knew the events of the war at first hand from having themselves been engaged in it, but through prejudice in favour of the Romans or against the Jews, told the story in a false and garbled manner. To the other class belonged those who knew the matter only from report, and were often misled by the incorrect and inconsistent reports on which they relied. “Some men who were not concerned in the affair themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and those who were then present have given false account of things, and this rather out of humour of flattery to the Romans or of hatred to the Jews,” Josephus, Wars of the Jews, preface 1. Compare also the remarks at the end of the preface to the Antiquities, in the Treatise against Apion, 1. 8 at the end, and in the letter of Agrippa, quoted in chap. 65 of the Life of Josephus.

14. Justus of Tiberias

About the life of Justus of Tiberias we know only what Josephus has told us in his Life (chaps. 9, 12, 17, 35, 37, 54, 65, 70, 74). He was a Jew who had received a Greek education (c. 9), and along with his father Pistus occupied a conspicuous position in his native city of Tiberias during the Jewish war of A.D. 66–67. Being a man of moderate tendencies, he attached himself more under compulsion than voluntarily to the revolution party, but quitted his native town even before the subjugation of Galilee, and fled to Agrippa (c. 70). Condemned to death by Vespasian, and given over to Agrippa for execution, he had his sentence commuted by him, through the intercession of Berenice, to a long period of imprisonment. He seems then to have gone again to reside in Tiberias, but led, according to Josephus, a rather mysterious and doubtful sort of life. Agrippa sentenced him twice to imprisonment, and had him repeatedly banished his native city. Once he pronounced against him sentence of death, and pardoned him only at the entreaty of Berenice. In spite of all this, Agrippa entrusted him with the τάξις ἐπιστολῶν. But in this office, too, Justus proved himself unserviceable, and was at last, for good and all, dismissed by Agrippa (Josephus’ Life, c. 65). He was still alive in the beginning of the second century after Christ, for his Chronicle reaches down to the death of Agrippa in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100. His works are: 1. A History of the Jewish War, against which the polemic of Josephus in his Life is directed. The later writers who mention this work, Eusebius, Jerome, his translator Sophronius, and Suidas, obtained their knowledge of it only from Josephus. It is also very doubtful whether Steph. Byz. s.v. Τιβεριάς, drew directly from this work.—2. A Chronicle of the Jewish Kings from Moses to Agrippa II. It was known to Photius, and is briefly described by him (Biblioth. cod. 33). Also Julius Africanus, from whom the quotations in the Chronicle of Eusebius and in Syncellus are borrowed, made use of it. A notice in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 5. 41, has probably to be referred to another work of Justus.—3. The existence of the Commentarioli de scripturis, mentioned by Jerome in his de viris illustr. c. 14, is very questionable, since no other author knows anything about it.

In regard to the part played by Justus during the Jewish war utterly false opinions have very widely prevailed, owing to the misleading statements of Josephus. He has generally been regarded as an extreme patriot and bitter foe of the Romans. So especially by Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, 1887. But a critical examination of all these assertions of Josephus affords us an essentially different picture. On the one hand, Josephus describes him as a chief agitator in pressing on the war, and affirms that he had moved his native city of Tiberias to revolt from Agrippa and the Romans (Life, 9, 65, 70). For proof of this Josephus adduces his campaign against the cities of Decapolis, Gadara, and Hippos, on account of which lie was accused by the representatives of those cities to Vespasian, and by him given over to be punished to Agrippa, so that he escaped death only through the intercession of Berenice (c. 9 at the end, 65, 74). Further, his connection with the revolutionary chiefs, John of Gischala (c. 17) and Jesus, son of Sapphias (c. 54), is advanced as evidence against him. But in spite of this effort to brand Justus as one mainly to blame for the revolutionary rising in Galilee, Josephus is yet guileless enough to confess even at the outset that Justus belonged neither to the Roman nor to the revolutionary party, but to a middle party which “pretended to be doubtful about going to war” (c. 9). And a whole series of facts prove that Justus was by no means enthusiastically in favour of war. His nearest relatives m Gainala were murdered by the revolutionary party (c. 35, 37). He himself was one of the prominent men who opposed the destruction of the palace of Herod in Tiberias (c. 12). Indeed, he was one of the councillors whom Josephus had put in prison just because they would not join in the revolution, to whom he also then declared that he did indeed know the might of the Romans, but that for the present they could do nothing else than join “the robbers,” that is, the revolutionists (c. 35. Comp. Wars of the Jews, ii. 21. 8–10; Life, 32–34). Justus also left Tiberias when the revolution there was just at its height, and went over to Agrippa and the Romans (c. 65 and 70). He was therefore quite correct in his statement that Josephus was mainly chargeable with the revolutionary movement in Tiberias, and in affirming that Tiberias had been drawn into the revolt only under compulsion (c. 65). The real facts of the case are thus perfectly clear. Justus was a man of precisely the same style and tendency as Josephus. Both had taken part in the revolt, but both did so only under the pressure of circumstances. In reality neither of them wished to have anything to do with it, and so now the one seeks to throw the blame upon the other.

The work which Josephus in his Life so vehemently attacks cannot have been the same as the Chronicle described by Photius. For, according to Photius, that Chronicle was “very meagre and brief, and passed over much that was important and even necessary;” but the work referred to by Josephus evidently entered into minute details, and is simply characterized by Josephus as a History of the Jewish War. “For he was not unskilful in the learning of the Greeks, and in dependence on that skill it was that he undertook to write a history of these affairs” (Life, c. 9). “Justus, who hath himself written a history concerning these affairs.… Justus undertook to write about these facts and about the Jewish war” (c. 65). In this same chapter (Life, c. 65) Josephus speaks of his astonishment at the impudence of Justus, who claimed to be the best narrator of these occurrences; whereas he knew nothing at first hand, either of the proceedings in Galilee, or of the siege of Jotapata, or of the siege of Jerusalem. He therefore evidently treated in that work of the whole history of the war. It was not published by Justus until twenty years after it had been completed, when Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa II. were dead (Life, c. 65). It must therefore have been completed during the lifetime of Agrippa, and so, again, it must be distinguished from the Chronicle which reaches down to Agrippa’s death.—Eusebius, Jerome, and others derived their grounds of accusation against Justus from Josephus. He is charged (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 10. 8; Jerome, de viris illustr. c. 14) with having written a history of Jewish affairs in a distorted manner to suit his own personal ends, and is declared to have been convicted by Josephus of falsehood. The article in Suidas’ Lexicon on Ἰούστος is taken verbatim, from Sophronius, the Greek translator of Jerome. Probably also the notice in Stephanus Byzantinus on the name Tiberias is grounded upon Josephus.

On the Chronicle of the Jewish Kings, Photius in his Biblioth. cod. 33, remarks as follows: Ἀνεγνώσθη Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως χρονικόν, οὗ ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως Ἰουδαίων βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασιν. Οὗτος ἀπὸ πόλεως τῆς ἐν Γαλιλαίᾳ Τιβεριάδος ὡρμᾶτο. Ἅρχεται δε τῆς ἱστορίας ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως, καταλήγει δὲ ἕως τελευτῆς Ἀγρίππα τοῦ ἑβδόμου μὲν τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας Ἡρώδου, ὑστάτου δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίαν Βασιλεῦσιν, ὃς παρέλαβε μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, ηὐξήθη δε ἑπὶ Νέρωνος καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ, τελευτᾷ δὲ ἔτει τερίτῳ Τραϊανοῦ, οὗ καὶ ἡ ἱστορία κατέληξεν. Ἔστι δὲ τὴν φράσιν συντομώτατός τε καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων παρατρέχων.—From this work also are taken the quotations in the Chronicle of Eusebius and those made by Georgius Syncellus, which undoubtedly made their way to Eusebius and Syncellus through the medium of Julius Africanus. In the preface to the second book of the Chronicle, Eusebius speaks as follows: “That Moses flourished in the times of Inachus is affirmed by such famous teachers as Clement, Africanus, Tatian from among ourselves, and by Josephus and Justus from among the Jews, each after his own fashion supporting the statement from primitive histories.” This passage from the preface of Eusebius is not only expressly quoted by Syncellus, but also made use of elsewhere in several other passages.—Eusebius further mentions Justus in his Chronicle, ad ann. Abrah. 2113, during the reign of the Emperor Nerva, as a well-known Jewish writer. In Syncellus again the same notice stands at the beginning of the account of Trajan’s reign. This also must have been the original position given to him in the Chronicle of Africanus. For undoubtedly the statement rests upon the assumption that the Chronicle of Justus reached down to the beginning of the reign of Trajan.—The notice in Scaliger, Thesaurus, ἱστοριῶν συναγωγή ad Ol. ΣΙΦ, Δ: ἐνταῦθα λήγει τὸ Ἰούστου Τιβεριέως χρονικόν, rests only upon Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33.—If, then, it is rendered certain from what has been adduced that Julius Africanus made use of the Chronicle of Justus, the theory is thoroughly confirmed that certain notices about Jewish history in the Chroniclers dependent on Africanus, which are not derived from Josephus, are to be traced back to Justus. See below, § 10, note 3 and Gelzer, Julius Africanus, i. 246–265. Gutschmid had also previously guessed that Africanus had made use of Justus. See Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 222.

In the biography of Socrates in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 5. 41, we meet with the following statement: “Justus of Tiberias tells that at his trial Plato went up to the platform and said, O men of Athens, being the youngest of those who have gone up to the platform, and that the judges cried out: Go down, go down.” It is extremely improbable that so special a notice regarding details in the history of Socrates and Plato should have had place in a brief chronicle of Jewish kings. But even a comparison of the wording of the title as given by Photius with that given by Diogenes Laertius, leads one to suppose that Justus had written other works besides the Chronicle of the Jewish Kings. The title (Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33): Ἰουδαίων βασιλέων τῶν ἐν τοῖς στέμμασιν, cannot mean: “History of the crowned kings of the Jews,” although στέμμα, usually means crown. But as στέμμα also means a genealogical table, this title is rather to be rendered: “History of the kings of the Jews enumerated in the Tables.” But what στέμματα are meant? The Chronicle of Julius Africanus consisted, it is well known, in great part of lists of kings, Greek, Oriental, and Roman. Is it not likely that the older work of Justus should have been similarly constructed? Then there would have been, only a part of the whole work known to Photius, namely, the history of the kings of the Jews designated in the στέμματα of Justus, while to Diogenes Laertius there was known another στέμμα, therefore another part of the whole work.

Compare on Justus generally, Vossius, De historicis graecis, 1838.—Fabricius, Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles, v. 61, x. 691.—Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 523.—Vaillant, De Historicis qui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere, Paris 1851.—Creuzer, Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853, pp. 57–59.—Grätz, Das Lebensende des Königs Agrippa II., des Justus von Tiberias und des Flavius Josephus und die Agrippa-Münzen (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Jud. 1877, p. 337 ff.), gives an impossible explanation of the Photius passage. Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, sein Verhältniss zu den Parteien, insbesondere zu Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II., Breslau 1877.

15. Aristo of Pella

On Aristo of Pella and his literary work we have only two independent witnesses, Eusebius and Maximus Confessor.—1. According to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iv. 6. 3, it was told in a work of Aristo of Pella, that after the conquest of Bitther and the overthrow of Barcochba, “it was enjoined by regular legal enactments of Hadrian upon the whole Jewish race, that they should on no pretext enter within the region round about Jerusalem, the emperor wishing that they should not be able, even from a distance, to look upon their native soil.” (τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἐξ ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα γῆς πάμπαν ἐπιβαίνειν εἴργεται, νόμου δόγματι καὶ διατάξεσιν Ἀδριανοῦ, ὡς ἂν μηδʼ ἐξ ἀπόπτου θεωροῖεν τὸ πατρῷον ἔδαφος ἐγκελευσαμένου. Ἀρίστων ὁ Πελλαῖος ἱστορεῖ.) On this passage in Eusebius is founded what is said in the Chronicon paschale, and by the Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, respecting Aristo of Pella.—2. In the Scholia of Maximus Confessor on Dionysius the Areopagite, De mystica theologia, written about A.D. 630–650, we meet with the following notice: “I have also read the expression ‘seven heavens’ in the dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, composed by Aristo of Pella, which Clement of Alexandria, in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, says was written by St. Luke.” (Ἀνέγνων δὲ τοῦτο "ἑπτὰ οὐρανοὺς" καὶ ἐν τῇ συγγεγραμμένῃ Ἀρίστωνι τῷ Πελλαίῳ διαλέξει Παπίσκου καὶ Ἰάσονος, ἣν Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐν ἕκτῳ βιβλίῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων τὸν ἅγιον Λουκᾶν φησιν ἀναγράψαι.) According to Maximus Confessor, therefore, Aristo was the author of the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, which is also elsewhere quoted, but always as an anonymous work. He was already known to the heathen philosopher Celsus, as well as to Origen and Jerome. We obtain most information from the still extant preface to a Latin translation made by a certain Celsus, according to Harnack, belonging probably to the fifth century after Christ, contained in some manuscripts of the works of Cyprian. At the close of the main section, cap. 8, he names himself Celsus. According to the statement here given concerning it, Jason was the representative of the Christian view, Papiscus was the representative of Judaism. But the Christian so convincingly proves to the Jew the Messiahship of Jesus, that the latter is soon converted and baptized.

Seeing that the Dialogue, as it lay before Celsus, Origen, Jerome, and the Latin translator, was evidently anonymous, for no one is named by them as its author, it is very questionable whether the testimony of Maximus in favour of the authorship of Aristo is worthy of credit. Whence should a writer of the seventh century obtain correct information about the author of whom all earlier writers knew nothing? The guess of Maximus, however, is by no means improbable. In Tertullian’s work, adversus Judaeos, c. 13, at the beginning, we have the imperial edict forbidding the Jews to enter the environs of Jerusalem, given in terms almost literally identical with those of the passage quoted by Eusebius from Aristo (interdictum est ne in confinio ipsius regionis demoretur quis-quam Judaeorum.… post expugnationem Hierusalem prohibiti ingredi in terram vestram de longinquo eam oculis tantum videre permissum est). Since Tertullian brings this forward in an anti-Jewish controversial treatise, it is highly probable that he had extracted the notice from a similarly anti-Jewish work. But such precisely was the character of the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus (comp. also Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, i. 1–2, p. 127 ff.).

If, then, on the basis of what has been adduced, it is conjectured that the notice in Eusebius is taken from the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, we cannot ascribe to Aristo a special history on the Hadrian war; and it is not probable that the other statements in Eusebius about the Hadrian war are drawn from Aristo, who rather makes only passing reference to that one edict.—As to the date of Aristo, he may be put down somewhere about the middle of the second century.

In the Chronicon paschale, on the year A.D. 134, the remark is made: “In this year Apelles and Aristo, whom (ὧν) Eusebius Pamphilus mentions in his Ecclesiastical History, presents (ἐπιδίδωσιν) the draft of an apology concerning our religion to the Emperor Hadrian.” Since the author refers expressly to Eusebius, his testimony has no independent value. The singular ἐπιδίδωσιν makes it probable that he wrote ὁ Πελλαῖος Ἀρίστων, out of which Ἀπελλῆς καὶ Ἀρίστων arose through corruption of the text.—At any rate, the Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, derived his information from Eusebius. He indeed states that Aristo reports the death of King Artases, a contemporary of Hadrian; but then in his history of Barcochba he closely follows Eusebius. See Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, i. 101 ff. Langlois, Collection des Historiens de l’Arménie, t. i. [= Müller, Fragmenta hist. graec. v. 2] p. 391 sqq. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, i. 1–2, p. 126.

The Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus was probably largely used in the Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili christiani, published by Martène in his Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, vol. v., Paris 1717, and again rescued from oblivion by Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. i. div. 3, 1883, especially pp. 115–130.

On Aristo generally, compare Fabricius, Biblioth graec., ed. Harles, vii. 156 ff.—Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, ii. 127–133.—Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, i. 91–109.—Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, Edin. 1846, vol. i. 156.—Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, London 1877, vol. i. pp. 160, 161.—Pauly’sReal-Encyclop. i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1597.—Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 328.—Corpus apologetarum, ed. Otto, t. ix. 1872, pp. 349–363.—Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter, 1882.—Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons, vol. iii. 1884, p. 74.

16. Papyrus Parisiensis, n. 68

Among the Greek Papyrus texts of the Louvre at Paris we meet with certain fragments which refer to the revolt of the Jews in Alexandria during the time of the Roman Empire. The texts, however, are so fragmentary that it is quite impossible to determine with any exactness the date of the revolt referred to. Were they more complete, they would have afforded us invaluable historical information. For they had contained, as we can make out beyond question, among other things, one or two rescripts of the emperor addressed to the Jews of Alexandria with reference to the outbreak, as well as a letter addressed to the emperor by a man who had been already under sentence of death, and now, face to face with death, “will not shrink from telling the truth.”

The fragments are published as Papyrus Paris. n. 68, by Brunet de Presle, in Notices et extraits des Manuscrits … publiés par l’Institut de France, vol. xviii. part 2, Paris 1865, pp. 383–390. See also Atlas attached thereto, sheet xlv.

17. Teucer Cyzicenus

Suidas in his Lexicon, under the name Τεῦκρος ὁ Κυζικηνός, says that he wrote: “On the Gold-yielding Earth; on Byzantium; on the Mithridate war, in five books; on Tyre, in five books; on the Arabians, in five books; on Jewish History, in six books, and various other works.” (Τεῦκρος ὁ Κυζικηνὸς, ὁ γράψας Περὶ χρυσοφόρου γῆς, Περὶ τοῦ Βυζαντίου, Μιθριδατικῶν πράξεων βιβλία εʹ, Περὶ Τύρου εʹ, Ἀραβικῶν εʹ, Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἱστορίαν ἐν βιβλίοις ςʹ, Ἐφήβων τῶν ἐν Κυζίκῳ ἄσκησιν γʹ καὶ τὰ λοιπά.) Of this Teucer Cyzicenus there are only two small fragments now extant, which discuss the etymology of the names of two places in Epirus and Euboea. Otherwise nothing whatever is known of him. Whether he is identical with some other writers of the name of Teucer who have been occasionally mentioned, must continue undetermined. Comp. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, iv. 508.

18. Various Works Ἰουδαίων

Special treatises on the history of the Jews were also written by the Jewish Hellenists, Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Aristeas, Cleodemus-Malchus, and the classical Philo. But these can scarcely come under consideration here, since they mainly, if not exclusively, treat of the earlier periods of the history (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 200–210). The book of the pseudo-Hecateus on the Jews seems to have dealt in more detail than those just named with the condition of the people in his own days (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 302–306).—The five books of Philo on the persecution of the Jews under Tiberius and Caligula would have been an important document for the history of his times, which ought to be mentioned here, because the work is no longer extant (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 350–354).

Pagan authors, even from very early times, made passing allusions to the Jews. A collection of these may be found in Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, pp. 177–179, and in Josephus, Treatise, against Apion, i. 14–23. But from the beginning of the first century before Christ special works on the Jews by non-Jewish authors came to be written. 1. The oldest non-Jewish history of the Jews known to us is the συσκευὴ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων of Apollonius Molon (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 251–254).—2. Not much later is the learned compilation of Alexander Polyhistor, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, to which we are indebted for valuable excerpts from the writings of Jewish Hellenists (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 197–200).—3. In the age of Hadrian lived Philo Byblius, also called Herennius Philo, who, besides other works, wrote a treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων. In it, according to the statement of Origen, he referred to the book of the pseudo-Hecateus on the Jews, and in regard to it expressed the opinion that either the book was not the work of the historian Hecateus, or that if Hecateus were indeed the author, he must have out and out accepted the Jewish doctrine (Origen, contra Celsum, i. 15; see the passage referred to in Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 304). Two fragments in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangel. i. 10, are avowedly taken from the same treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων. The contents of those fragments, however, refer expressly to the Phoenician mythology, and the second of them is quoted by Eusebius in another place (Praeparatio evangel. iv. 16) with the formula, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου συγγράμματος τῆς Φίλωνος Φοινικικῆς ἱστορίας. It was therefore generally assumed that the treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, was simply an excursus to the large work of Philo, Φοινικικὴ ἱστορία. So, e.g., Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p. 34. But, when we consider the contents of the Eusebian fragments, this is not probable. It would rather seem that Eusebius, i. 10, inadvertently ascribed the passages taken by him from the Phoenician history to the treatise περὶ Ἰουδαίων, with which, too, he was acquainted. Comp. on Philo generally, Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 560–576. Baudissin, in art. “Sanchuniathon,” in Herzog, xiii. 364.—4. A treatise, περὶ Ἰουδαίων, was also written by a certain Damocritus. From the brief statement regarding it in Suidas, under the name Δαμόκριτος (comp. also Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iv. 377), this only seems clear, that its standpoint was one of deadly enmity to the Jews.—5. The same may be said of the work of a certain Nicarchus, περὶ Ἰουδαίων (Bekker, Anecdota, p. 380=Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 335).—6. As a writer on Jewish affairs, Alexander Polyhistor also mentions one Theophilus (Eusebius, Praeparatio evangel. ix. 34), one Timochares, ἐν τοῖς περὶ Ἀντιόχου (Eusebius, ix. 35), and an anonymous Συρίας σχοινομέτρησις (Eusebius, ix. 36). But all the three had evidently spoken of Jewish matters only in passing. Theophilus treated of Solomon’s relation to the king of Tyre; the other two gave interesting details about the topography of Jerusalem. Comp. on all the three: Müller, Fragmenta histor. graec. iii. 209; also on Theophilus, Müller, iv. 515 ff.

19. The Chronographers

For a detailed account of the plundering of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, Josephus refers, in his Treatise against Apion, ii. 7, among others to the chronographers Apollodorus and Castor. To Castor he also refers in order to determine the date of the battle of Gaza (Treatise against Apion, i. 22). Since it is possible that he also elsewhere derived various chronological information for these treatises, it is most important that we should here examine carefully the notices that we have regarding these two.

1. Apollodorus of Athens lived about the middle of the second century before Christ, and besides other works wrote the Χρονικά, which treated in chronological order of the most important events in universal history down to the time of King Attalus II. of Pergamum, in the middle of the second century before Christ.

A collection of the fragments of this historical work, which is not to be confounded with the extant Βιβλιοθήκη under Apollodorus’ name, is to be found in Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, i. 435–439. Compare also Müller, l.c. p. 43; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, i. 2, 2 Aufl. p. 1302 f.

2. Castor’s Chronicle is known to us mainly through the quotations in the works of the Christian chroniclers Eusebius and Syncellus. The first book of the Eusebian Chronicle, extant now only in an Armenian translation, gives us particularly valuable extracts. What is therein contained makes it certain that the work of Castor was carried down to the consulship of M. Valerius Messala and M. Piso, B.C. 61; that is, down to the year in which Pompey celebrated his Asiatic triumph, by which the subjection of Further Asia was finally settled (nostrae regionis res praeclaraque gesta cessarunt). Since the author concludes at that particular point of time, his work cannot have been written much later than the middle of the first century before Christ. It consisted, according to Eusebius, of six books.—We meet with many individuals bearing the name of Castor during the time of Caesar and Cicero. But it is doubtful whether the chronographer is to be identified with any of these, and so nothing can with certainty be determined as to the circumstances of his life.

The fragments are collected by Müller in the Appendix to the edition of Herodotus, Paris 1844, Appendix, pp. 153–181.—Eusebius mentions the work in the list of his authorities in the following terms: “The six books of Castor, in which he collects materials for history from the ninth to the one hundred and eighty-first Olympiad.”—The termination of the work is precisely stated in passages expressly quoted by Eusebius. “We set down in order the consuls, beginning with Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and ending with Marcus Valerius Messala and Marcus Piso, who were consuls in the times of Theophemus, archon of Athens” (Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 295).—“The archous of Athens end with Theophemus, in whose days the famous deeds and the renown of our land were brought utterly to an end” (Euseb. Chron. i. 183).

Compare generally, Müller, Herodotus, Paris 1844, Appendix, pp. 153–155.—Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 207 f.—Bornemann, De Castoris Diodori Siculi chronicis fonte ac norma, Lübeck 1878.—Stiller, De Castoris libris chronicis, Berlin 1880.—Gelzer, Julius Africanus, ii. 1, 1885, pp. 63–79; on the person of Castor, p. 70 ff.

Josephus, whose works form a principal authority for our history, gives in his Life and in the History of the Wars of the Jews several important particulars from the story of his own career. He was born at Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Caligula, A.D. 37–38. His father was called Matthias, and was descended from a distinguished priestly family, whose ancestors Josephus can trace back to the times of John Hyrcanus. One of his forefathers, called Matthias, had married a daughter of the high priest Jonathan (= Alexander Januaeus?). See Life, 1, and Wars of the Jews, preface 1; Antiquities, xvi. 7. 1. The young Josephus obtained a careful rabbinical education, and even as a boy of fourteen years old had acquired so great a reputation for his knowledge of the law, that the high priests and the chief men of the city came to him in order to receive from him instruction in regard to difficult points of law. Yet he was hot himself satisfied with such attainments, but, on his attaining his sixteenth year, made a pilgrimage through the various schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. But even this did not suffice to quench his thirst for knowledge. He now withdrew into the wilderness, and visited a hermit called Banus, in order to receive from him the finishing stroke in his education. After he had spent three years with him, he returned to Jerusalem, and in his nineteenth year openly joined the party of the Pharisees (Life, c. 2). In his twenty-sixth year (μετʼ εἰκοστὸν καὶ ἕκτον ἐνιαυτόν), which corresponds to A.D. 64, he took a journey to Rome in order to obtain the release of certain priests nearly related to him, who had been carried thither as prisoners on account of some trifling matter. Having, by means of an introduction from a Jewish actor Alityrus, secured the favour of the Empress Poppaea, he succeeded in securing the end he had in view, whereupon he returned to Judea laden with rich presents (Life, c. 3). Soon after his return, in A.D. 66, the war against the Romans broke out. At first Josephus kept himself clear of all connection with the war (Life, c. 4); and this indeed was quite possible, since the Jewish aristocracy in general entered this outbreak only under compulsion. But the fact is that Josephus, after the first decisive battles had taken place, attached himself to the revolution party, and indeed became one of its leaders. He was entrusted by the directors of the movement with the most important post of a commander-in-chief of Galilee (Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 4; Life, c. 7). From that time onward his doings and fortunes are closely joined with those of the Jewish people, and therefore form a component part of the history of the Jewish war. Compare Life, c. 7–74; Wars of the Jews, ii. 20. 4–21. 10; iii. 4. 1, 6. 3–8. 9; ix. 1. 5, 6. His performances as commander-in-chief of Galilee came to an end by his being taken prisoner by the Romans after the fall of the fortress of Jotapata in A.D. 67 (Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 7–8). When he was carried before Vespasian, he prophesied to him his future elevation to the imperial throne (Wars of the Jews, iii. 8. 9; Life, c. 75). But when, two years later, in A.D. 69, Vespasian was in very deed proclaimed emperor by the Palestinian legions, and the prophecy of Josephus was thus fulfilled, Vespasian remembered his prisoner, and as a thank-offering granted him his freedom (Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 7). From this time onward Josephus, as custom required, assumed the family name of Vespasian “Flavius” along with his own. After being proclaimed emperor, Vespasian hasted first of all to Alexandria (Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 5), to which place Josephus accompanied him (Life, c. 75). Thence Josephus returned to Palestine in the retinue of Titus, to whom Vespasian had committed the continuation of this war, and remained in the company of Titus down to the close of the war (Life, c. 75; Treatise against Apion, i. 9). During the siege of Jerusalem he was obliged, by order of Titus, often at the great risk of his own life, to negotiate with the Jews for a surrender (Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 3, 6. 2, 7. 4, 9. 2–4, 13. 3; vi. 2. 1–3, 2. 5, 7. 2; Life, c. 75). Once while engaged on such an errand he was struck by a stone, so as to be rendered unconscious (Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 3). When, after the capture of the city, Titus allowed him to take whatever he would, he took only some sacred books, and obtained the release of many of the prisoners who were his friends, among whom was his own brother. Three who had been already crucified were again taken down at his request, one of whom recovered (Life, c. 75). When his property in Jerusalem was required by the Roman garrison, Titus gave him in place of it another in the plain (Life, c. 76). At the conclusion of the war he went with Titus to Rome, where he continued to reside, pursuing his studies and engaged in literary work amid the unbroken favour of the emperor. The Jewish priest was now transformed into a Greek literary man. Vespasian assigned him a residence in what had formerly been his own palace, bestowed on him the rights of Roman citizenship, and granted him a yearly pension (Life, c. 76; compare Suetonius, Vespasian, 18: primus e fisco Latinis Graccisque rhetoribus annua centena constituit). He also presented him with a splendid estate in Judea. On the suppression of the Jewish outbreak in Cyrene, the captive leader of the insurrection, Jonathan, gave the names of many prominent Jews as being accomplices with him, and among these was the name of Josephus. He said that Josephus had sent him weapons and money. But Vespasian gave no credence to this false charge, and continued to show favour to Josephus (Life, c. 76; Wars of the Jews, vii. 11. 1–3). Like favour was enjoyed by Josephus under Titus, A.D. 79–81, and under Domitian, A.D. 81–96. The latter granted him exemption from tribute in respect of his estate in Judea (Life, c. 76). Nothing is known as to his relation to the later emperors. We also know equally little as to the precise time of his death. This much only is certain, that he was still alive in the first decade of the second century. For the autobiography was written after the death of Agrippa II. (Life, c. 65). But Agrippa died in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100 (Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33).—According to a statement by Eusebius (Ecclesiast. History, iii. 9), Josephus was honoured in Rome by the erection of a statue.

In regard to his family connections, Josephus gives us the following details. During the days of John Hyrcanus his fore-father Simon the Stammerer lived. He belonged to the first of the twenty-four orders of priests, therefore to the order of Jehoiarib. Simon’s son was Matthias, called Ephlias, who married a daughter of the high priest Jonathan (= Alexander Jannaeus?). Of this marriage was born Matthias Curtus, in the first year of Hyrcanus II. The son of Matthias Curtus was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra (?). His son was Matthias, the father of our Josephus, born in the tenth year of Archelaus (Life, c. 1).—The parents of our Josephus were still alive in the time of the great war. While he was commander-in-chief in Galilee, he obtained through his father news from Jerusalem (Life, c. 41). During the siege of Jerusalem his parents were within the beleaguered city, and were, because regarded as untrustworthy, kept in prison by the revolutionists (the father, Wars of the Jews, v. 13. 1; the mother, Wars, v. 13. 3; comp. also v. 9. 4 at the end). On the capture of the city he obtained the release of his brother from a Roman prison (Life, c. 75). This is supposed to have been his full brother Matthias, who had been educated along with him (Life, c. 2). According to the Wars of the Jews, v. 9. 4 at the end, his wife also was in the city during the siege. In all probability this was his first wife, of whom there is no mention elsewhere. As Vespasian’s prisoner of war, he had at his command married a captive Jewess from Caesarea. But she left him during his stay with Vespasian in Alexandria. He then, again, in Alexandria married another (Life, c. 75). By this last he had three sons, of whom at the time of his writing his autobiography only one survived, Hyrcanus, who was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian (Life, c. 1 and 76). Still during Vespasian’s reign, he got divorced from this wife and married a Jewess of noble family in Crete, who bore him two sons: Justus, born in the seventh year of Vespasian, and Simonides, with the surname of Agrippa, born in the ninth year of Vespasian. Both of these were alive when Josephus wrote his life (Life, c. 1 and 76).

To the literary leisure of Josephus at Rome we are indebted for those works, without which our history could scarcely have been written. They comprise the four following:—

1. THE WARS OF THE JEWS, Περὶ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου, as Josephus himself entitles the work in his Life, c. 74. It is divided into seven books, a distribution which, as appears from Antiq. xiii. 10. 6, xviii. 1. 2, it owes to Josephus himself. The proper history of the war is preceded by a very comprehensive introduction, which occupies the whole of the first book and the half of the second. The first book begins with the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 175–164, and reaches down to the death of Herod, B.C. 4. The second continues the history down to the outbreak of the war in A.D. 66, and gives an account of the first year of the war, A.D. 66–67. The third treats of the war in Galilee in A.D. 67; the fourth of the continued course of the war down to the complete isolation of Jerusalem; the fifth and sixth describe the siege and overthrow of Jerusalem; the seventh relates the events that followed the war, down to the destruction of the last smouldering embers of the revolution.—From the preface to this work (c. 1) we learn that it was originally written in the author’s mother tongue, therefore in Aramaic, and only at a later period re-written by him in Greek. In order to re-write it, he took lessons in Greek composition (Treatise against Apion, i. 9). As main authority for the story of the war proper, he relies upon his own experience, since he had been either actively engaged in, or was at least an eye-witness of, the events recorded. Even during the siege of Jerusalem he had taken down notes in writing, for which he drew upon the statements of survivors as to the state of matters within the city (Treatise against Apion, i. 9). When the work was completed, he handed it to Vespasian and Titus, and had the satisfaction of being assured by them, as also by King Agrippa II. and many Romans who had taken part in the war, that he had reported the facts correctly, and with absolute fidelity to the truth (Treatise against Apion, i. 9; Life, c. 65). Titus with his own hand wrote an order for the publication of the book (Life, c. 65). Agrippa wrote sixty-two letters, in which he gave testimony to the truthfulness of the narrative. During the composition of the work, Josephus had submitted to him book by book, and had obtained favourable opinions from him (Life, c. 65).—Since the completed work was submitted to Vespasian (Treatise against Apion, i. 9), it must have been written during his reign, A.D. 69–79; but not until near the close of that reign, for other works had been written on the Jewish war before this one by Josephus (Wars of the Jews, Preface, c. 1; Antiquities, Preface, c. 1).

2. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία, in twenty books, treat of the history of the Jewish people from the earliest times down to the outbreak of the war with the Romans in A.D. 66. The division into twenty books was also the work of Josephus himself (Antiq. conclusion). The first ten books run parallel with the biblical history, and reach down to the end of the Babylonian captivity. The eleventh carries the history down from Cyrus to Alexander the Great; the twelfth from Alexander the Great, who died B.C. 323, down to the death of Judas Maccabee in B.C. 161; the thirteenth down to the death of Alexandra in B.C. 69; the fourteenth down to the beginning of the reign of Herod the Great in B.C. 37; the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth treat of the reign of Herod, B.C. 37–4; the last three books carry us on to the year 66 after Christ.—The work, according to many parenthetic statements, was completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian, when Josephus was in his fifty-sixth year, that is, in A.D. 93 or 94 (Antiq. xx. 11 at the close). He had been encouraged to carry it on to the end, especially by a certain Epaphroditus, a man whose lively interest in science and literature is enthusiastically praised by Josephus.—That the entire work was intended, in the first instance, not for Jewish but for Greek and Roman readers, and that its aim mainly was to afford the cultured world some idea of the much calumniated Jewish race, must appear evident from its general form and character, and is expressly declared even to superfluity by Josephus himself (Antiq. xvi. 6. 8).

As authorities, Josephus employed for the earlier periods down to Nehemiah, about B.C. 440, almost exclusively the canonical books of the Old Testament. As a native of Palestine, he displays in his use of them, in many ways, his knowledge of the Hebrew language. Yet he makes use commonly of the Greek Septuagint translation. To such an extent is this the case, that Josephus uses those parts of the books of Ezra and Esther which appear only in the LXX. (see Div. ii. vol. iii. 179, 182; Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, pp. 69–79). His reproduction of the Jewish history is written from the following points of view:—(1) Not infrequently modifications are made in an apologetical interest, something offensive is omitted or smoothed down, and the history is set forth in the form best fitted to glorify the nation. (2) For the latter purpose Josephus had the help of the older legends, the so-called Haggada. The influence of that literature is seen chiefly in the history of the patriarchs and of Moses. (3) Josephus, it would seem, had not derived this Haggadic adornment wholly from oral tradition, but in part from the older Hellenistic reproductions of the biblical history by Demetrius, Artapanus, and others. (4) In his exposition of the law he follows the Palestinian Halacha. For examples, see Div. ii. vol. i. 330–339. (5) In several particulars the influence of Philo is very observable. (6) He does not scruple to draw upon extra-biblical authors in order to illustrate, fill up, and confirm the Scripture history. This is specially the case with his treatment of the history of primitive times, and also of that of the latest periods, where it became largely mixed up with the history of neighbouring nations.

On the post-biblical period he has made his inquiries and set forth his information in an extremely unequal and disproportionate manner. In filling up the great gap between Nehemiah and Antiochus Epiphanes, from B.C. 440 to B.C. 175, Josephus depends almost entirely upon two legendary productions, namely, the Alexander legends and the pseudo-Aristeas, from whom he gives a lay extract (xii. 2). For the period B.C. 175–135 the First Book of Maccabees is the principal source, which indeed towards the close is used in so slight a way that it becomes doubtful whether Josephus could have had before him a complete copy of that work (see Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 9). It is supplemented by Polybius (xii. 9. 1), and, for the period beyond that at which Polybius stops, B.C. 146, by those authorities from which the history of the Asmoneans generally, down to B.C. 135, is derived. For this period Josephus evidently was without any written documents of Jewish origin. He therefore obtained his materials by culling from the general historical works of the Greeks any statements that he discovered bearing upon the history of Palestine. His chief authorities for the period B.C. 135–37 were two historians often, and indeed almost exclusively, quoted by him: Strabo (xiii. 10. 4, 11. 3, 12. 6; xiv. 3. 1, 4. 3, 6. 4, 7. 2, 8. 3; xv. 1. 2) and Nicolas of Damascus (xiii. 8. 4, 12. 6; xiv. 1. 3, 4. 3, 6. 4). In recent times the idea has been indeed expressed by many, that the very fact of these authors being so frequently quoted by Josephus shows that they were not his chief sources, and that the citations are to be regarded as interpolations, inserted only for the purpose of supplementing the text afforded by unnamed leading authorities made use of by him. But such a view would only lead one into inexplicable confusion. Josephus borrows his whole material from these authors, and then refers to particular passages of special importance, which he quotes in order to show that they state the author in the same way that he does. Or where the citations are really an interpolation in the given text, Josephus follows the one and supplements it from the other. Of any deeper laid foundation, an unnamed principal source, not the least vestige can be found. The careful method of weighing his evidence which characterizes Strabo, and is so conspicuous in his geography, is quite discernible in particular passages where he is not named, as in several statements about numbers, xiii. 12. 5. Then, again, that these two base their conclusions upon earlier authorities is self-evident. For the first half of the period under consideration, B.C. 135–85, most probably Posidonius would prove the most reliable source (see above, pp. 49, 50). Also in passages borrowed from Strabo we find references to Timagenes (xiii. 11. 3, 12. 5), Asinius Pollio, and Hypsikrates (xiv. 8. 3). Josephus has scarcely made use of Livy, who is only once named (xiv. 4. 3). But the material obtained in this way from Strabo and Nicolas was supplemented by Josephus in respect of the internal Jewish history from narratives which, by reason of their contents, deserve to be characterized as legends, and from the general framework of the narrative we may see that they are plainly taken as such (xiii. 10. 3, 10. 5–6; xiv. 2. 1). These are evidently derived from oral tradition.—For the history of Herod, it is admitted on all hands that Nicolas of Damascus is the principal authority (comp. xii. 3. 2; xiv. 1–3; xvi. 7. 1; and above, pp. 58–63). It would seem that the short sketch given in the Wars of the Jews is drawn exclusively from him. Also the detailed account given in the Antiquities, books xvi. and xvii., produces the impression of having been derived from one source. On the other hand, in book xv. seams and joinings are apparent, which point to the employment of two sources; and indeed, in addition to Nicolas, it is evident that Josephus made use of another authority unfavourable to Herod. Whether Josephus had himself seen the Commentaries of King Herod, mentioned in the Antiquities, xv. 6. 3, is at least extremely questionable (compare above, p. 56).—Full and detailed as the treatment of the history of Herod is, it is very noticeable that the history of his immediate successor is extremely defective. It seems almost as if Josephus had at this point been deprived of all written sources of information. It is only when we come to the reign of Agrippa I., A.D. 41–44, that the narrative enters again more into detail. Here he would be once more in possession of abundance of oral tradition, for he would then be informed about the reign of Agrippa I. by his son Agrippa II. For the history of the last decade preceding the war, he would be able to rely upon his own personal recollections. The quite unparalleled completeness with which the events, even those which do not relate to the Jewish history, occurring in Rome at the time of Caligula’s death, and at the beginning of the reign of Claudius in A.D. 41, are narrated, is very remarkable (xix. 1–4). There can be no doubt that this portion of the history is borrowed from a special source by the hand of a contemporary. But we are unable to arrive at any more definite conclusions from the absence of any sure standing ground. Josephus paid very particular attention to the history of the high priests. From what he here states, we are able to determine the uninterrupted succession of high priests from the time of Alexander the Great down to the destruction of the temple by Titus. It might be conjectured that for this purpose he would have had at his command, at least from the time of Herod the Great, the original priestly documents. For great importance was attached to the preservation of the register of the generations of the priests, and great care taken of it (Treatise against Apion, i. 7).—Finally, of great value are the State papers which Josephus frequently embodies in his narrative (xiii. 9. 2, xiv. 8. 5, xiv. 10, xiv. 12, xvi. 6, xix. 5, xx. 1. 2). The most numerous of these are those of the time of Caesar and Augustus, which granted to the Jews the privilege of the free observance of their religion.

3. THE LIFE OR AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It does not by any means present us with an actual account of the life of Josephus, but treats almost exclusively of the part which he played as commander-in-chief of Galilee in A.D. 66–67, and indeed only of the measures which in that situation he took preparatory to the grand hostile encounter with the Romans (c. 7–74). The short biographical notices of the beginning and end of the work (c. 1–6, 75–76) form only introduction and conclusion to this principal part of the contents. According to the remarks at the close of the Antiquities, Josephus had then the intention of carrying on the account of the war and “our fortunes,” the story of the Jewish people “down to the present day.” “And if God permit me, I will briefly run over this war again, with what befell us therein to this very day,” Antiq. xx. conclusion. In fact, the Life is represented as an Appendix to the Antiquities. It begins with the enclitic δέ, which attaches it to the preceding work, and concludes with the words: “To thee, O Epaphroditus, the most excellent of men, do I dedicate all this treatise of our Antiquities, and so for the present I here conclude the whole.” Also the position of the Life in the manuscripts is immediately after the Antiquities. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, iii. 10. 8 f.) quotes a passage from the Life with the remark that the words occur “at the close of his Antiquities;” and in all extant manuscripts, with only one exception, the Life is joined with the Antiquities. It would, however, be a great mistake to regard the statement at the end of the Antiquities as having reference to the Life. Josephus there has in view the continuing of the history of the Jews down to the present time. The Life, however, is anything but a fulfilment of such a proposal. It was apparently called forth by the publication of another history of the Jewish war by Justus of Tiberias (see on him, above, pp. 64–69). That author had represented Josephus as the real organizer of the outbreak in Galilee. This was extremely inconvenient to Josephus now that he occupied a position of eminence in Rome. And so he now writes a counterblast, in which he casts all the blame on Justus, and makes himself pose as the friend of the Romans. The attempt is pitifully weak, for Josephus cannot avoid mentioning deeds which prove the very opposite of what he desires to make out. With this self-vindication which he had been driven to make he joined a few biographical notices by way of introduction and conclusion, and then published the whole as an Appendix to his Antiquities. The earlier scheme was therefore abandoned and quite a different one substituted for it. In spite, then, of the δέ that would attach it immediately to the other work, the Life must have been written a long time subsequent to the Antiquities. Now the Life assumes that Agrippa II. was already dead (c. 65). But Agrippa died, according to Photius, Biblioth. cod. 33, in the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100. If, then, the composition of the Life must be set down as at least after A.D. 100, that will be in perfect harmony with the other facts of the case, and there will be no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement of Photius or to set it aside as unsupported, because the Life must have been written immediately after the Antiquities.

4. THE TREATISE AGAINST APION, or, On the Extreme Antiquity of the Jewish People, in two books. This work is not solely, not even in any part of it mainly, directed against the grammarian Apion and his calumniating of the Jewish people, but rather generally against the venomous attacks and the prejudices, in many instances absurd enough, from which the Jews of those days suffered. It is a careful and well-conceived Apology for Judaism, skilfully and ably wrought out. The numerous quotations given from authors whose works are now lost lend it an altogether special interest. On the writers whose statements are contested by Josephus, see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 249–262. The title “Against Apion” is certainly not the original one. Porphyry in his De abstinentia, iv. 11, cites the work under the title πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας; the earliest Church Fathers (Origen, contra Celsum, i. 16, iv. 11; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii. 9; Praeparatio evangel. viii. 7. 21, x. 6. 15) refer to it under the title περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχαιότητος. Both titles are probably equally old and equally well authenticated, for the demonstration of the antiquity of the Jewish people is, in fact, the main point insisted upon in the Apology. In the Codex Peirescianus of the excerpts of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus, de virtutibus, we meet with the superscription περὶ παντὸς ἢ κατὰ Ἑλλήνων,—a singular blending of right and wrong. The title contra Apionem first appears in Jerome in Epist. 70 ad Magnum oratorem, c. 3; de viris illustr. c. 13; adv. Jovinian. ii. 14. In the last-named passage he transcribes the above quoted sentence of Porphyry, but substituted for Porphyry’s title the one that has now become current. For the full statement of Jerome, see Div. ii. vol. ii. p. 201.—As Josephus in this work quotes from his Antiquities (i. 1 and 10), the Treatise against Apion must have been written later than A.D. 93. It is, like the Antiquities and the Life, dedicated to Epaphroditus (i. 1, ii. 41).

Besides these four works, many of the Church Fathers ascribe to Josephus the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, or the treatise περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ. The spirit of it is certainly very similar to that of Josephus. It is written from the standpoint of Pharisaic Judaism with a varnish of Greek philosophy. But it may be accepted as certain that Josephus was not its author. See Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 244–247.

The writing described by Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 48, as bearing in the manuscripts the three different titles, Ἰωσήπου Περὶ τοῦ παντός, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας, is of Christian origin, and belongs to the author of the Philosophumena, who, in c. x. 32, quotes it as his own under the title περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας. The author of both was probably Hippolytus, among whose works in the list on the Hippolytus statue a treatise περὶ τοῦ παντός is also named. See Volkmar, Hippolytus und dis römischen Zeitgenossen, 1855, pp. 2 ff., 60 ff. Besides Photius, many other writers refer to this treatise as a work of Josephus. So, for example, John Philoponus in De mundi creatione, iii. 16; John of Damascus, Sacra parall. Opp. ii. 789 ff., and John Zonaras, Annal. vi. 4.

A considerable fragment of this treatise was published first by David Höschel in his edition of the Bibliotheca of Photius in 1601, then by Le Moyne in his Varia sacra, i. 53 ff., where he maintains the position that it was written by Hippolytus; by Ittig and Havercamp in their editions of Josephus; in Fabricius, Hippolyti Opp. i. 220–222; in Gallandi, Biblioth. patr. ii. 451–454, and in Migne, Patrol. gr. x. 795–802. It has been issued in a more complete form, according to codex Baroccianus, in Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, vol. i., and Lagarde, Hippolyti quae feruntur, 1858, pp. 68–73. A specimen of the text according to three Vatican manuscripts is given by Pitra, Analecta sacra, ii. 1884, p. 269 f. Compare generally, Salmon in article on Hippolytus in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 100. Routh, Reliquiae sacrac, 2nd ed. ii. 157 ff. Caspari, Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols, iii. 395 ff.

At the close of the Antiquities Josephus says that he had the intention of writing “these books concerning our Jewish opinions about God and His essence; and about our laws,—why, according to them, some things are permitted us to do and others are prohibited.” (κατὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας δόξας τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐν τέσσαρσι βίβλοις περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ καὶ περὶ τῶν νόμων, διὰ τί κατʼ αὐτοὺς τὰ μὲν ἔξεστιν ἡμῖνποιεῖν τὰ δὲ κεκώλυται.) By this he certainly does not mean so many different works, as these words have been understood by many, but only one work, which should treat of the essence of God and the rational interpretation of the Mosaic law, in a way similar to Philo’s systematic exposition of the legislation of Moses. Compare Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 338–348. In the earlier books of the Antiquities, too, he frequently refers to this work as one contemplated by him (Preface 4, i. 1. 1, 10. 5; iii. 5. 6, 6. 6, 8. 10; iv. 8. 4, 44). But it seems never to have been actually written.

Many of the formulae of reference used in the Antiquities are obscure, seeming, as they do, to imply that Josephus had also written a work on the history of the Seleucidae. He often remarks, for example, that what is briefly related by him is narrated in more detail in another place. Where this is done by the passive formula, “as has been related elsewhere” (καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δεδήλωται), the reference might quite naturally be supposed to be to the historical works of the writers (Antiq. xi. 8. 1; xii. 10. 1; xiii. 4. 8, 8. 4, 13. 4; xiv. 6. 2, 7. 3, 11. 1). But not infrequently Josephus distinctly uses the first person, “as we have informed the reader elsewhere” (καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις δεδηλώκαμεν, Antiq. vii. 15. 3; xii. 5. 2; xiii. 2. 1, 2, 4, 4. 6, 5. 11, 10. 1, 10. 4, 12. 6, 13. 5). Of these citations four may be explained as references to other portions of the works of Josephus known to us. Antiq. vii. 15. 3 may refer to Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 5; Antiq. xiii. 10. 1 may refer to c. 7. 1 of the same book; Antiq. xiii. 10. 4 may refer to Wars, vii. 10; and Antiq. xiii. 3 and xiii. 13. 5 may refer to Antiq. iii. 10. 4. But so far as the rest are concerned, no such parallels can be thought of. All of them refer to the history of the Seleucid dynasty from Antiochus Epiphancs down to the end of the second century before Christ (Antiq. xii. 5. 2; xiii. 2. 1, 2. 4, 4. 6, 5. 11, 12. 6). Seeing, then, that nothing is known of a history of the Seleucids written by Josephus, Destinon in his Quellen des Josephus, pp. 2129, ventures to guess that all these formulae of reference may have been already in the sources used by Josephus, and that he simply transcribed them without change to his own pages. Such procedure would indeed be somewhat extraordinary, but the conjecture is not to be thrown aside without further examination. This at least can be adduced in its favour, that occasionally similar formulae of reference are met with in the Antiquities and to the parallel passages in the Wars of the Jews, although both works were produced independently of one another from common sources. Compare Antiq. xiv. 7. 3 at the beginning, with Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 8; and Antiq. xiv. 7. 3 at the end, with Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 9. On the other hand, in some of the passages in question, the writer, immediately after or before speaking in the first person, is certainly Josephus himself (so in xii 5. 2 and xiii. 12. 6). These doubtful formulae, too, are precisely the same in form as those which unquestionably proceed from Josephus (xiii. 10. 4, 13. 5). It is therefore scarcely possible to do more than pass a verdict of non liquet.

On the character of Josephus and his credibility as a historian, the most widely divergent opinions have been entertained. In early times and during the Middle Ages he was, as a rule, very highly prized; Jerome, for example, styling him the “Greek Livy.” Modern criticism has run to the precisely opposite extreme of depreciation. It will probably be found that the truth lies midway between these extremes. No one will now be inclined to undertake the vindication of this character. Vanity and self-sufficiency are the main elements in his composition. And even had he not been the base and dishonourable betrayer of his native country that he at a later period in his Life declared himself to be, he at least carried out the transference of his allegiance to the Romans and his attachment to the imperial family of Flavius with more dexterity and equanimity than was becoming in an Israelite who pretended to mourn over the destruction of his people. As a writer, too, he has his great weaknesses. But to be quite fair, one must admit that his principal weakness as a writer is not to his discredit as a man. He writes with the purpose of glorifying his own nation. With such a design he invests the earlier history of the Jews with a halo of romance. His description of their later history, too, is dominated by the same intention. The Pharisees and Sadducees are philosophical schools which concern themselves with the problems of freedom and immortality. The Messianic hope, which, on account of the political claims which became attached to it, had proved the most powerful incentive to rebellion against Rome, is passed over in absolute silence, for it is his wish not to represent the people as enemies of the Romans. The war against Rome was not engaged upon by the will of the people, but they were only driven into it by some fanatics. In all these directions the historical statement of Josephus presents us with a distorted picture. In other respects, his several works are of very varied and unequal importance. The Wars of the Jews is unquestionably much more carefully compiled than the Antiquities. It gives an account, going into the minutest details of events, the credibility of which we have no reason to doubt. The long speeches which Josephus puts into the mouth of his heroes are, of course, free rhetorical productions, and we must not take his numbers too exactly. But these faults are shared by Josephus with many ancient historians, and they do not affect the credibility of the works in other respects. Only what he says about the circumstances of his being taken prisoner at Jotapata, in Wars of the Jews, iii. 8, must be excepted from this favourable judgment.—The case is considerably different as regards the Antiquities. That work was evidently much more carelessly prepared than the history of the Wars of the Jews. This is specially true about the last books, of which it has been remarked that when writing them the author must have been utterly wearied. And not only is the work carelessly done, but also the sources are often used with great freedom and the utmost arbitrariness, at least where we are in a position to criticize them. This is not calculated to produce much confidence in regard to the use of those sources that we can no longer verify. Yet here, too, we meet with occasional evidence of his having subjected his sources to critical examination (Antiq. xiv. 1. 3, xvi. 7. 1, xix. 1. 10, 1. 14). As might be expected, the value of the work in its various sections varies according to the sources that had been used. By far the most faulty production is undoubtedly the Life,—an attempt made with singular blindness to turn facts upside down, by proving that while he had organized the rebellion in Galilee, he had always maintained his allegiance to the Romans.

In the Christian Church from the earliest times Josephus was diligently read, since his works afforded a suitable and convenient summary of the history of the Jewish people. The testimonia veterum regarding Josephus are gathered together in Havercamp’s edition in the Prolegomena to the first volume.

In the West, Josephus became known mainly through a Latin translation of his complete works, with the exception of the Life, and by a free paraphrase of the Wars of the Jews. On the history of the origin of these texts we have statements from the following witnesses:—1. Jerome, Epist. 71 ad Lucinium, c. 5, says: “The rumour that has reached you that the books of Josephus and of St. Papias and St. Polycarp have been translated by me is false, for I have had neither the leisure nor the strength to render these writings with the same elegance into another tongue.”—From this it follows not only that Jerome had made no translation of Josephus, but also that in his time the works of Josephus, or at least some parts of them, were still untranslated, otherwise the need of such a performance would not have been felt.—2. Cassiodorius, De institutione div. lit. c. 17, says: “As Josephus, almost a second Livy, is widely known by his books on the Antiquities of the Jews, whom Jerome, writing to Lucinus Baetieus, declares that he had not been able to translate on account of the size of his voluminous work. Yet one of our own friends has translated the work into Latin in twenty-two books,” i.e. twenty books of Antiquities and the two books against Apion, “who also wrote other seven books on the captivity of the Jews with wonderful brilliancy, the translation of which some ascribe to Jerome, others to Ambrose, others to Rufinus; and its being ascribed to such men sufficiently proves the excellency of its style.”—From this it may be assumed as certain that the extant Latin translation of the Antiquities and the Treatise against Apion were made at the suggestion of Cassiodorius, that is to say, in the sixth century after Christ. But there seems no ground whatever for attributing this translation, as has commonly been done after the example of St. Bernard, to a certain Epiphanitis, whose name was probably suggested by the fact that Cassiodorius, two sentences farther on, ascribed to him the reproduction of the historia tripartita.—It is uncertain whether the remarks of Cassiodorius in reference to the Bellum Judaicum refer to the Latin translation which is generally ascribed to Rufinus, or to the free Latin paraphrastic rendering which in the various editions bears the name of Hegesippus. The designation of the work as a translation might apply to either production. For even the free rendering has been spoken of as a translation (compare the superscription in cod. Ambrosianus: Ambrosius epi de grego transtulit in latinum). But what Cassiodorius says about its style favours the reference to the work of Hegesippus. For although Rufinus also wrote in good Latin, the expression dictionis eximiae merita could only be correctly applied to the work of Hegesippus written in the Sallustian style. If the latter be intended, then these two results would follow from the words of Cassiodorius: 1. That this work was anonymous, for Cassiodorius knew only of conjectures as to its author. 2. That the literal translation was not yet in existence in the time of Cassiodorius; for had it been so he would not have been silent regarding it, and have mentioned only the free rendering, since he distinctly states that care had already been taken to translate the Wars of the Jews into Latin. Before this question can be decided with certainty, it would be necessary to inquire whether the older Latin writers down to the ninth century, from which the oldest manuscripts of Rufinus are dated, make use of the Wars of the Jews in the form of the so-called Rufinus or in that of the so-called Hegesippus translation. That the literal translation was the work of Rufinus is in any case highly improbable, since in the catalogue of Rufinus’ translations by Gennadius, De viris illustr., no translation of Josephus is mentioned.

The free Latin rendering of the Wars of the Jews in the various editions bears the name of Egesippus or Hegesippus. This is certainly only a corruption of Josephus: in Greek, Ἰώσηπος, Ἰώσηππος, Ἰώσιππος; in Latin, Josepus, Joseppus, Josippus. The name “Egesippus” is not found in the manuscripts of Josephus earlier than the ninth century. In the earliest references the work is quoted simply under the name of Josephus; as, for example, in Eucherius in the fifth century, and now in Widukind, the historian of the Saxons, in the tenth century. Also in the oldest manuscripts, an Ambrosianus of the seventh and eighth centuries and a Cassellan of the eighth and ninth centuries, only Joseppus Josephus is named in the inscriptions on the columns as the author. In addition, at an early date the names of Ambrosius and Hegesippus were given. In the somewhat more recent part of the cod. Ambrosianus, eighth and ninth centuries, the inscription of the first book runs: “Josippi,” corrected by a later hand into “Egesippi” “liber primus explicit.” Incipit secundus. Ambrosius epi de grego transtulit in latinum. A codex Bernens of the ninth century names Hegesippus, a Palat.-Vatican of the ninth and tenth centuries names Ambrose; yet more modern manuscripts sometimes the one and sometimes the other. An interesting passage is brought forward by Traube in the Rhein. Museum, xxxix. 1884, p. 477, in a letter of the Spaniard Alvarus of the ninth century, in which he says to an opponent: scito quia nihil tibi ex Egesippi posui verbis, sed ex Josippi vestri doctoris, where he refers to a passage in the work ascribed to our Hegesippus! He knew the work therefore only under the name of Josephus, but his opponent had known it under the name of Hegesippus.—In this state of matters the idea of an Ambrosian authorship need not be seriously entertained. It is a mere conjecture, which has been suggested simply from the circumstance that Ambrose, as well as Jerome and Rufinus, acted a leading part in transmitting Greek theological literature to the West. The work certainly had its origin in the days of the great bishop of Milan, the second half of the fourth century, but was produced most probably not by him, as the thorough investigations of Vogel in his De Hegesippo, 1881, tend to show.—The text of Josephus is there treated with great freedom,—in many places abbreviated, in many places expanded. The seven books of Josephus are compressed into five.—The first edition appeared in Paris 1510. The work has been often since reprinted. The best edition is: Hegesippus qui dicitur sive Egesippus de bello Judaico ope codicis Cassellani recognitus, ed. Weber, opus morte Weberi interruptum absolvit Caesar, Marburg 1864.—Compare generally: Gronovii Observatorum in scriptoribus ecclesiasticis Monobiblos, 1651, capp. 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 24.—Oudin, De script. eccl. ii. 1722, col. 1026–1031.—Fabricius, Biblioth. lat. mediae et infimae aetatis iii. 1735, pp. 582–584.—Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 433. 5–6.—Mayor, Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature, 1875, p. 179.—Vogel, De Hegesippo qui dicitur Josephi interprete, Erlangen 1881. Also: Ὀμοιότητες Sallustianae (in Acta, seminarii philolog. Erlangensis, i. 1878).—Also in Zeitschrift für die oesterreich Gymnas. 1883, pp. 241–249.—Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii. 1, 1887, pp. 194–200.—Rönsch. Die lexikalischen Eigenthümlichkeiten der Latinität des sogen. Hegesippus (Romanische Forschungen, Bd. i. 1883, pp. 256–321).—Also: Ein frühes Citat aus dem lat. Hegesippus (Zeitschrift für Wissensch. Theol. 1883, pp. 239–241).—Traube, Zum latein. Josephus (Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxxix. 1884, p. 477 f.).

The Latin translation of the works of Josephus was first printed by John Schüssler in Augsburg in 1470. From that time down to the appearance of the first Greek edition, the number of printed editions of the Latin rendering was very great; the last with which I am acquainted was issued in 1617. The Latin translations which after that date for the most part accompanied the Greek original, are modern productions; only the edition of Bernard, which which never carried to completion, gives the old Latin version. The best edition of the old Latin version is that of Basel 1524. The later ones are in various places corrected after the Greek text. More particulars about the character of this translation and its editions are given in the prolegomena of Ittig, Havercamp, and Niese, and in Fürst, Biblioth. Jud. ii. 118 ff.—A manuscript of the Latin translation of the Antiquities vi.–x. (with blanks), of importance owing to its age, the sixth and seventh centuries, and its material, papyrus, has been found in the Ambrosiana in Milan. On it see Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae, iii. 919 ff.; Reifferscheid, Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie, philos.-hist. Kl., Bd. lxvii. 1871, pp. 510–512. Niese, Josephi opp. i. p. xxviii.

A Syriac translation of the sixth book of the Wars of the Jews is contained in the great Peschito manuscript of the Ambrosiana in Milan, and is there given as the Fifth Book of Maccabees. It has been published in a complete form, with notes by Ceriani, in the Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti, 2 vols., Milan 1876–1883.—Compare Kottek, Das sechste Buch des Bellum Jadaicum, nach der von Ceriani photolithographisch edirten Peschitta-Handschrift übersetzt und kritisch bearbeitet, Berlin 1886. The view there maintained is that this Syriae translation was made, not from the Greek, but from the Aramaic original of Josephus. See the opposite view upheld in the Lit. Centralbl. 1886, pp. 881–884.

On the free Hebrew rendering of Josephus known under the name of Josippon or Joseph son of Gorion, see below in the account of the rabbinical literature.

On the manuscripts of the Greek text the Prolegomena of the earlier editions gave very insufficient information. The manuscript material was first examined in a thorough manner by Niese. But the Prolegomena that have up to this time been published with the first volume of his edition, 1887, only undertake to deal with the manuscripts of the first ten books of the Antiquities. The following sketch of the most important manuscripts of the complete works has been most kindly handed over to me by Niese for publication at this place (compare also on his researches: Edersheim in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iii. 1882, p. 450 ff.):—

The several works of Josephus were issued separately. The Antiquities also fell again into two divisions, each of which, in respect of its transmission, has a history of its own.

The numerous manuscripts of the Wars of the Jews fall into two principal classes. The most important representatives of the first are the Parisinus gr. 1425, the Ambrosianus D. super. 50, both from the eleventh century, and Marcianus 383, from the twelfth century. The second class has three different types. As representative of the first type may be mentioned the Vatican 148, the Palatino-Vatican 284, and the Lipsiensis. To the second type belongs the Laurent, plut. 69, cod. 19; and to the third, the Urbinas n. 84. All these manuscripts, the most perfect specimens of the several kinds, belong to the eleventh century, only the Palatino-Vatican to the twelfth. Of the two classes the first named is the better. Besides the Greek text there is also the old Latin version commonly ascribed to Rufinus, which is at least a pre-Cassiodorian translation, belonging exclusively to neither of these two classes, but attaching itself in many passages to the superior class. Also the still older free Latin rendering of Ambrose, the so-called Hegesippus version, comes under consideration for the purposes of criticism and history of the text.

The manuscripts of books i.–x. of the Antiquities also fall into two classes: the first and better, extant in two specimens, the Parisin. 1421 and the Bodleianus miscell. gr. 186; and the second, which embraces all the other manuscripts, of which we may mention the Marcianus gr. 381, Vindobon. hist. gr. 2, Parisin. 1419, and Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 20.

Less directly marked are the distinctions of classes in the second division of the Antiquities, books xi.–xx., together with the Life. The oldest and best of the manuscripts is the Palatino-Vatican n. 14, of the tenth century, in which indeed the last three books, xviii.–xx., are wanting, while the Life is still preserved. Next to it come the Ambrosianus F. 128 sup., of the eleventh century, the Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 10, of the fifteenth century, the Laurent. plut. 69, cod. 20, and the Leidensis F. 13. The last two named have only books xi.–xv. In these manuscripts the documentary sources in book xiv. 10 are perfectly preserved. The rest, among which the Vatican 147 may be specially mentioned, want these either wholly or in part.

For the history of the transmission of the Antiquities, an Epitome, extant in several manuscripts, and made use of by Zonaras, is of importance. It may have been drawn up somewhere in the ninth or tenth century. For the first edition it follows the inferior class of texts, and for the second it assumes a middle position.—The Antiquities, too, were translated into Latin on the suggestion of Cassiodorius. The text lying at the basis of this translation was for the first division a representative of the inferior class; but in the second division it rests sometimes upon this manuscript, sometimes upon that. The Life is to be found neither in the Epitome nor in the translation.

Finally, of the Books against Apion, there is only one Greek manuscript that comes into consideration, the Laurentianus plut. 69, cod. 22, of the eleventh century. Besides this, the Cassiodorian Latin translation, which appears in a fragmentary form in all printed copies, is of very great critical value. Of special value, too, are the quotations of Eusebius, which restore to us several isolated passages of this important work.”

The first edition of the Greek text of the works of Josephus were published by Frobenius and Episcopius at Basel in 1544, under the direction of Arnold Peraxylus Arlen.—It was followed by the Genevan editions of 1611 and 1634.—At Leipzig, in 1691, the title falsely bearing the name Coloniae, appeared the edition of Ittig with learned Prolegomena.—An edition by Bernard, Antiquitatum Jud. libri quatuor priores et pars magna quinti, De bello Jud. liber primus et pars secundi, Oxoniae 1700, which made use of a new collection of manuscripts, and was accompanied by a rich exegetical apparatus, was never completed.—Hudson was the first to issue an improved text of the whole works according to the manuscripts, 2 vols, fol., Oxonii 1720.—Havercamp issued a repertory of everything that had previously been discovered, and also new collections, but not an improved text, in 2 vols, fol., Amsterdam, Leyden, Utrecht, 1726. The editions of Oberthür, in 3 vols., Lips. 1782–1785, and Richter, 6 vols., Lips. 1826–1827, follow closely that of Havercamp.—Dindorf in his edition, 2 vols., Paris 1845–1847, here and there amended the text from materials supplied by Havercamp.—Bekker in his edition, in 6 vols., Lips. 1855–1856, followed Dindorf.—In none of these editions, not even in those of Hudson and Havercamp, is the manuscript apparatus presented with anything like completeness. None of the editors above named since Havercamp gave themselves any concern with the manuscripts. Only for the Bellum Judaicum Cardwell issued a separate edition of a creditable kind, for which he had examined at least a portion of the better manuscripts: Flavii Josephi De bello Judaico libri septem, ed. Cardwell, 2 vols., Oxonii 1837.—A comprehensive collection of all the better manuscripts was first undertaken quite recently by Niese. Of his critical edition, which gives a thorough reconstruction of the text of Josephus on the basis of the manuscripts, two volumes have up to this time appeared, containing the first ten books of the Antiquities: Flavii Josephi opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit Bened. Niese, vols. i. ii., Berol. 1887, 1885. He has also issued a smaller edition of the text only, without the critical apparatus: Flavii Josephi opera recognovit B. Niese, vols. i. ii., Berol. 1888. The Life appeared in a separate edition by Henke, Brunswick 1786.—Compare generally on the editions: Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec., ed. Harles, v. 31 ff. Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, ii. 117 f. Grraesse, Trésor de livres rares et précieux, iii. 1862, pp. 480–484.

On Textual Criticism: Ernesti, Observations philologicocriticae in Aristophanis nubes et Flav. Josephi antiqu. Jud., Lips. 1795.—Holwerda, Emendationum Flavianarum specimen, Gorinchemi 1847. Also: Observationes criticae in Flavii Josephi Antiquitatum Judaicarum librum XVIII. (Mnemosyne, 1853, pp. 111–141).—Bekker, Varianten zum Josephus, in Monatsberichte der Berlin. Akad. 1860, pp. 224–230.—Westermann, Excerptorum ex bibliothecae Paulinae Lipsiensis libris manu scriptis pars altera, Lips. 1866.—Wollenberg, Recensentur LXXVII. loci ex Flavii Josephi scriptis excerpti qui ex conlectaneis Constantini Augusti Porphyrogenetae περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας in codice Peiresciano extant, Berlin 1871.—Dindorf, Ueber Josephos und dessen Sprache (Neue Jahrbb. für Philol. und Pädag. Bd. 99, 1869, pp. 821–847).—Naber, Observationes critieae in Flavium Josephum, in Mnemosyne, xiii. 1885, pp. 263–284, 352–399.

Translations. On the older translations, see what has been said above. More recent Latin translations are given in the editions of Hudson, Havercamp, Oberthür, and Dindorf.—An English translation of the whole works of Josephus was made by Whiston, Professor of Mathematics in the University of Cambridge, and published by him in 1737. Though by no means invariably correct in its rendering, nor in any sense a critical work, its serviceableness and general popularity are shown by the numerous editions through which it has passed. An admirable translation of the Wars of the Jews has been made by Traill, The Jewish War of Flavius Josephus, a new translation by R. Traill, edited by Isaac Taylor, London 1862. Before the publication of the Greek editions a German translation from the Latin was made by Caspar Hedio, Strassburg 1531; then revised by the same after the Greek text, Strassburg 1561. On other German translations of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, see Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec., ed. Harles, v. 31, 38, 48; Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, ii. 121–123. There need here only be mentioned the translations of the whole works by Ott, Zürich 1736; Cotta, Tübingen 1736; Demme, Josephus’ Werke, übers, von Cotta und Gfroerer; das Ganze von neuem nach dem Griechischen bearbeitet, etc., durch C. R. Demme, 7th ed., Philadelphia 1868–1869. The translation of the Antiquities by Martin, 2 vols., Cologne 1852–1853, 2nd ed. by Kaulen, 1883; of the 11th and 12th books of the Antiquities by Horschetzky, Prague 1826; of the 13th book of the Antiquities by the same translator in 1843; of the Jewish War by Friese, 2 vols., Altona 1804–1805; by Gfroerer, 2 vols., Stuttgart 1836; and by Paret, 6 vols., Stuttgart 1855. Translations of the Life by Eckhardt, Leipzig 1782; by Friese, Altona 1806; by M. J. in the Library of Greek and Roman writers on Judaism and the Jews, vol. ii., Leipzig 1867. Of the Treatise against Apion by Frankel in the Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1851–1852, with some abbreviation; by Paret, Stuttgart 1856; and by M. J. in Library of Greek and Roman writers on Judaism and the Jews, vol. ii. 1867. On other translations into English, French, Italian, etc., see Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graec., ed. Harles, v. 30 ff.; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 123–127.

General Literature on Josephus (the earlier literature given in Fabricius: Bibliotheca Graec., ed. Harles, v. 49–56; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 127–132).—Vossius, De historicis Graecis (ed. 1, 1624), ii. 8, ed. Westermann, 1838, pp. 238–243.—Havercamps edition, ii. 2, p. 57 ff.—Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, i., Paris 1729, pp. 552–580.—Cave, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria, i., Oxonii 1740, pp. 32–36.—Meusel, Bibliotheca historica, i. 2, 1784, pp. 209–236.—Oberthür in Fabricius, Bibliotheca graeca, ed. Harles, t. v. 1796, pp. 1–64—Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten, ii. 1821, Anhang, pp. 55–73.—Schöll, Geschichte der griech. Literatur, ii. 1830, pp. 383–389.—Lewitz, Quaestionum Flavianarum specimen, Regiom. Pr. 1835. By the same, De Flavii Josephi fide atque auctoritate, Königsberg 1857.—Hoëvell, Flavii Josephi vita; quatenus per vitae opportunities ad conscribendam historiam atque antiquitatem Hebraicam idoneus fuit? etc., Traj. ad Rh. 1835.—Chasles, De l’autorité historique de Flavius Josèphe, Paris 1841.—Egger, Examen critique des historiens anciens de la vie et du règne d’Auguste, Paris 1844, pp. 189–209.—Bähr, art. “Josephus” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissensch. ii. 1846, pp. 242–244.—Creuzer, Josephus und seine griechischen und hellenistischen Führer (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853, pp. 45–86).—Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften A. T.’s, 1881, § 15.—Paret, art. “Josephus” in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. Bd. vii. 1857, pp. 24–29.Farrar, article “Josephus” in Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature.—On relation of St. Peter to Josephus: Farrar in Expositor, second series, vol. iii. p. 403 ff.; E. A. Abbott in Expositor for January 1882; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, London 1885, pp. 638–649.—Edersheim, article on “Josephus” in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, iii. 441–460.—Terwogt, Het leven van den joodschen geschiedschrijver Flavius Josephus, Utrecht 1863.—Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 ed., iv. 56–74. Also: Ueber den jüdischen Geschichtschreiber und Staatsmann Flav. Josephus (Sybel’s Histor. Zeitschr. Bd. xii. 1864, pp. 285–314).—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. vii. 492 ff., viii. 68–75.—Baerwald, Josephus in Galiläa, sein Verhältniss zu den Parteien insbesondere zu Justus von Tiberias und Agrippa II., Breslau 1877.

On the theological and philosophical standpoint of Josephus: Bretschneider, Capita theologiae Judaeorum dogmaticae e Flavii Josephi scriptis collecta, Viteb. 1812.—Gfroerer, Philo, ii. pp. 356–367.—Dähne, Jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie, ii. 240–245.—Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, i. 1852, pp. 410–412.—Gerlach. Die Weissagungen des A. T.’s in den Schriften des Fl. Josephus, 1863, pp. 6–19.—Poznanski, Ueber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus, Breslau 1887.—Lewinsky, Beiträge zur Kenntniss der religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus, Breslau 1887.—Drummond, Philo-Judaeus: or the Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion, 2 vols., London 1888.

On the Old Testament Canon that lay before Josephus (especially in regard to the Treatise against Apion, i. 8), compare the Introductions to the Old Testament of Hävernick, Keil, vol. ii. pp. 138–140; De Wette, Bleek, ii. 307–309.—Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Edin. 1881, pp. 149 f., 408.—Ewald, History of Israel, viii. 337 ff., 346, 361.—Dillmann (Jahrbb. für deutsche Theologie, 1858).—Strack, art. “Kanon des Alten Testam.,” in Herzog, 2 Aufl. Bd. vii. 1880.—Treuenfels in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des Orients, x. 1849, xi. 1850.—Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 478–480.

On the use of the original Hebrew text and the Septuagint: Carpzov, Critica sacra, Lips. 1748, pp. 945–954.—Gesenius, Geschichte der hebr. Sprache und Schrift, 1815, pp. 80–82.—Spittler, De usu versionis Alexandrinae apud Josephum, Gottiag. 1779.—Scharfenberg, De Josephi et versionis Alexandrinae consensu, Lips. 1780.—Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 8–22.—Siegfried, Die hebräischen Worterklärungen des Josephus (in Stade’s Zeitschrift für die alttestam. Wissensch. 1883, pp. 32–35).—A list of the Hebrew etymologies of Josephus is also given in Vallarsi’s edition of Jerome, iii. 745–752.

On the treatment of the biblical history of Josephus: Edersheim in article “Josephus” in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, iii. pp. 454–457.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 120.—Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des A. T.’s mit dem Neuen, 1831, pp. 464–514.—Burger, Essai sur l’usage que Fl. Josèphe a fait des livres canoniques de l’ A. T., Strasburg 1836.—Gerlach. Die. Weissagungen des A. T. in den Schriften des Fl. Josephus, 1863.—Duschak, Josephus Flavius und die Tradition, Wien 1864.—Plaut, Flavius Josephus und die Bibel, Berlin 1867.—Tachauer, Das Verhältniss des Fl. Josephus zur Bibel und zur Tradition, Erlangen 1871.—Bloch, Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus, 1879, pp. 23–53.—Ranke, Weltgeschichte, iii. 2, pp. 12–41,1883.—Olitzki, Flavius Josephus und die Halacha, 1 Thl. 1885.—Grünbaum, Die Priestergesetze bei Flavius Josephus, 1887.

On the chronology of Josephus, especially for the earlier periods: Brinch. Chronologiae et historiae Fl. Josephi examen Hafniae 1701 (also in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2, 287–304).—Spanheim in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2, 407 f.—Carpzov, Critica sacrae, pp. 954–957.—Junker, Ueber die Chronologie des Flavius Josephus, Conitz 1848.—The Journal of Sacred Literature, vol. v. 1850, pp. 60–81.—Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, vol. vii. 1858, pp. 178–181. Ewald, History of Israel, ii. p. 371.—Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und Babel’s, 1857, pp. 105–109, 347–360.—Kuenen, De statmboom van den masoretischen tekst des O. Testaments (Verdagm en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetensehappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Tweede reeks, deel iii. 1873, pp. 289–339; on Josephus, p. 321 ff.).—Destinon, Die Chronologie des Josephus, Kiel 1880.

On the sources of the second half of the Antiquities: Nussbaum, Observationes in Flavii Josephi Antiquitates, lib. xii. 3–xiii. 14. Dissertat. inaugur. 1875.—Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archaeologie, Leipzig 1879.—Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd. Archaeologie, Buch xii.–xvii.=Jüd. Krieg, Buch i., Kiel 1882.—Schemann, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der jüdischen Archaeologie, Buch xviii.–xx.=Polemos ii., cap. vii.–xiv., 3 Dissert. 1887.

On the communicated State Papers, especially of times of Caesar and Augustus: Gronovius, Decreta Romana et Asiatica pro Judaeis, etc., Lugd. Bat. 1712.—Krebs, Decreta Romanorum pro Judaeis facta e Josepho collecta et commentario illustrata, Lips. 1768.—Egger, Examen critique des historiens anciens de la vie et du règne d’Auguste, 1844, pp. 193–200. By the same: Études historiques sur les traités publics, 1866, p. 163 ff.—Bonnetty, Annales de philosophie chrétienne, ix., 5 série.—Mendelssohn, Senati consulta Romanorum quae sunt in Josephi Antiquitatibus (Acta Societatis philol., Lips. ed. Ritschelius, v. 1875, pp. 87–288).—Niese, Bemerkungen über die Urkunden bei Josephus Archaeologie, B. xiii. xiv. xvi., in Hermes, xi. 1876, pp. 466–488.—See reply to Niese by Mendelssohn, Rhein. Museum, Neue Folge, Bd. xxxii. 1877, pp. 249–258.—Wicseler, Einige Bemerkungen zu den römischen Urkunden bei Josephus Ant. 12. 10, 14. 8, 14. 10, in Theol. Stud. und Kritiken, 1877, pp. 281–298.—Rosenthal, Die Erlässe Cäsars und die Senatsconsulte im Josephus Alterth. xiv. 10, in Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1879, pp. 176–183, 216–228, 300–322.

For the literature on the so-called witness to Christ in Antiquities, xviii. 3. 3, which, as a rule, also deals with Josephus more generally, see below at § 17.

On the geographical views of Josephus: Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. i. pp. 408–415, and elsewhere throughout the work.—Raumer, Palästina, 4th ed. 1860, pp. 466–471.—Berggren, Flavius Josephus der Führer und Irreführer der Pilger im alten und neuen Jerusalem, Leipzig 1854. Arnold, Die Bibel, Josephus und Jerusalem; Sammlung und Beleuchtung aller Stellen der Bibel und des Josephus, welche auf die Topographie Jerusalem’s Bezug nehmen, 2 Abth., Halle 1865–1866.—For the explanation and criticism of the geographical statements: Boettger, Topographisch-historisches Lexicon zu den Schriften des Flavius Josephus, Leipzig 1879.

For the illustration of the Treatise against Apion: Cruice, De Flavii Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem afferendis fide et auctoritate, Paris 1844.—Creuzer, Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853, p. 64 ff.—Kellner, De fragmentis Manethonianis guae apud Josephum contra Apionem, i. 14 et i. 26 sunt, Marburgi 1859.—Zipser, Des Flavius Josephus Werk, “Ueber das hohe Alter des jüdischen Volkes gegen Apion,” nach hebräischen Originalquellen erläutert, Vienna 1871.—J. G. Müller, Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion, Text und Erklärung, Basel 1877.

We are not required here to take into consideration all the Greek and Roman writers who may have made any sort of contribution to our history, but only those who have contributed something of considerable and permanent value. The Greek and Roman historians whose works are still preserved, afford us only a few notices in regard to the special history of the Jewish people. Of much greater importance are the hints respecting the general characteristics of Judaism which we gather from contemporary authors, especially from satirists like Horace and Juvenal. But of yet higher value are the statements made by those historians who give special consideration to the history of Syria during the reign of the Seleucidae and the Roman period. For the history of Palestine during our period is most intimately linked with the general history of Syria. The historians who treat of the history of that country are therefore to be ranked among the authorities for our history. The most important of these are the following:—

1. Greek Writers

1. POLYBIUS of Megalopolis in Arcadia. He was one of the thousand distinguished Achaeans who in B.C. 167, under suspicion of being ill-affected toward Rome, were transported to Rome, and were detained there, or at least in Italy, for seventeen years. During his long residence in Rome, the conviction gained possession of him that there was a divine reason and need-be for the sovereignty of the Romans. He gave expression to this idea in his great historical work, which in forty books described the gradual upbuilding of the Roman Empire and universal supremacy from B.C. 220 to B.C. 146. Of these only the first five books are preserved in a complete form; of the rest we have only fragments, more or less extensive, contained for the most part in the collection of excerpts by Constantinus Porphyrogennetus. For the purposes of our history, only the best fifteen books, xxvi.–xl., come into consideration. In book xxvi. c. 10, Polybius enters first upon the history of Antiochus Epiphanes.

2. DIODORUS. This historian was born at Agyrium in Sicily, hence called Siculus, and lived during the reigns of Caesar and Augustus. He wrote a large universal history of all times and peoples, which he entitled βιβλιοθήκη. It consisted of forty books, covered a period of eleven hundred years, and reached down to the conquest of Gaul and Britain by Caesar. Of this work there still remain books i.–v., giving the early history of Egypt and Ethiopia, of the Assyrians and the other peoples of the East, as well as the Greeks; books xi.–xx., from the beginning of the second Persian war, B.C. 480, down to the history of the successors of Alexander the Great, B.C. 302; of the other books we have only fragments, for the most part preserved in the collection of excerpts by Constantinus Porphyrogennetus. Some of these fragments have been brought to light only in recent publications by Mai, Müller, and Feder.—For our purpose only the fragment from book xxix. 32, given in Müller, Fragmenta histor. graecor. ii., comes into consideration, where for the first time mention is made of Antiochus Epiphanes.

3. STRABO of Amasia in Pontus lived from about B.C. 60 to A.D. 20; but we cannot precisely determine the date either of his birth or of his death. Of his works we possess only the Γεωγραφικά, in seventeen books, written toward the end of his life, well known as a principal source of information in regard to ancient geography. Among the numerous historical notices interspersed in this great work, we meet with many which are of importance for the history of Syria. In his description of Palestine, xvi. 2. 25–46, Strabo has used, besides other authorities, one which treated of the state of affairs during the ante-Pompeian age, for he speaks of Gaza, which was destroyed by Alexander Jannaeus, as μένουσα ἔρημος (xvi. 2. 30), without mentioning that it had been rebuilt by Gabinius; see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 70. Also, according to the authority used by him, the forcible Judaizing of Joppa and Gazara (Gadara) are fresh in the memory (xvi. 2. 28–29). These statements were perhaps derived from Posidonius, from whom Strabo here frequently quotes.

4. PLUTARCH was born about A.D. 50 at Chaeronea in Boeotia. Trajan bestowed on him consular rank, and Hadrian appointed him Procurator of Greece. We also know that in his native city he filled the office of Archon, and repeatedly presided at the festival of the Pythian Apollo. He died about A.D. 120.—Of his works we have to do with the Biographies, βίοι παράλληλοι, of distinguished men of Greece and Rome, of whom generally two, the one a Greek, the other a Roman, are placed alongside of one another. Somewhere about fifty of these are preserved, among which those of Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, Brutus, and Antony are of special interest in connection with our history.

5. APPIAN. Of Appian’s life very little is known. He says of himself at the conclusion of his historical work: “I am Appian of Alexandria, who attained to the highest position of honour in my own land, and as a jurist conducted processes at Rome before the justiciary courts of the emperor, until the members of court deemed me fit to be made their procurator.” From various passages in his works, it appears that he lived under Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius. The composition of his historical work falls in the time of Antoninus Pius, about A.D. 150. It treats of the history of Rome, in twenty-four books. Instead of the synchronistic method, Appian chose to follow rather the ethnographic, “because he wished to give the history of events in each separate country in an unbroken narrative down to the time of its union with Rome. Thus he gives also the history of Rome in a series of special histories of the various lands and people that had been combined with the Roman Empire, describing in detail the history of each from the period of its first contact with Rome down to the time of its absorption into the empire, and then sketching in a brief style the incidents of more recent times” (Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop.). Of the twenty-four books, the following are extant:—Of books i.–v. and ix., only fragments, but in a complete form; book vi. Ἰβηρική (scil. ἱστορία), vii. Ἀννιβαϊκή, viii. Λιβυκὴ καὶ Καρχηδονική, xi. Συριακὴ καὶ Παρθική (of which the part on the Parthian history is lost), xii. Μιθριδάτειος, xiii.–xvii. Ἐμφύλια (that is, the Civil War), xxiii. Δακική or Ἰλλυρική. The extant five books on the Civil War, xiii.–xvii., are usually cited as Appian. Civ. i. ii. iii. iv. v.; the other books being named according to their contents as Libyca (or Punica), Syriaca, etc.

6. DIO CASSIUS, or, more correctly, Cassius Dio, was born at Nicaea in Bithynia about A.D. 155. He spent the period of his public life in Rome, and occupied successively the positions of aedile, quaestor, praetor, and, about A.D. 221, Consul. He administered the province of Africa as Proconsul. In A.D. 229 he retired from official life. We have no information at all regarding his later days or about the date of his death.—His great work on Roman history was most probably composed about A.D. 211–222, but it was continued by him down to A.D. 229. It consisted of eighty books, and comprised the whole Roman history from the arrival of Aeneas at Latium down to the year 229 after Christ. The following portions are still preserved:—Of the first thirty-four books only short fragments; more considerable pieces of books xxxv. and xxxvi.; books xxxvii.–liv. inclusive are complete, treating of the wars of Lucullus and Pompey with Mithridates, down to the death of Agrippa in B.C. 12; of books lv.–lx. inclusive, we have considerable portions; but of the rest, books lxi.–lxxx., we have only an epitome made by Xiphilinus in the eleventh century; while for the first thirty-four books we have not even this.

2. Latin Writers

1. CICERO was born on 3rd January B.C. 106, at Arpinum, and died on 7th December B.C. 43, a victim of the proscriptions of Antony and Octavian. Cicero’s Orations and Epistles are generally recognised as a main source of information on the history of his times, and especially on the history of Syria during the years B.C. 57–43.

2. LIVY was born at Patavium (Padua) in B.C. 59, and died in the same place A.D. 17. His great historical work treated of the history of Rome from the founding of the city down to the death of Drusus, in 142 books. Of these, only thirty-five have been preserved, namely, the first, third, fourth decade, and the first half of the fifth. For the purpose of our history only the first half of the fifth decade comes into consideration. It comprises books xli.–xlv., dealing with the period B.C. 178–167. The summary of contents of the books that are lost, relating to more recent times, is still of some value to us.

3. MONUMENTUM ANCYRANUM. Augustus at his death left behind him, besides other writings, a review of the most important incidents in his reign, recorded on tablets of brass, and intended to be set up before his Mausoleum (Suetonius, Aug. 101: indicem rerum a se gestarum, quem vellet incidi in aeneis tabulus, quae ante Mausoleum statuerentur). This review has come down to us almost complete in consequence of its having been engraved, according to the Latin text, and in a Greek translation, on the marble walls of the temple of Augustus at Ancyra in Galatia. What is there wanting in the Latin text is so far supplied by the fragments of the Greek translation that only unimportant blanks remain. Another copy of the Greek text is found in a temple at Apollonia in Pisidia, whereof also extracts are still preserved.—This comprehensive documentary memorial is, together with the histories of Dio Cassius and Suetonius, our chief authority for the reign of Augustus.—The most recent and most correct editions are: 1. Perrot, Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, etc., 1862–1872, pl. 25–29; 2. Corpus Inscript. Lat. iii. 1873, pp. 769–799, 1054, 1064; 3. Bergk, Augusti rerum a se gestarum indicem, ed. 1873; 4. Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, ex monumentis Ancyrano et Apolloniensi iterum edidit; accedunt tabulae undecim, Berol. 1883, with a thoroughly comprehensive and informing commentary.

4. TACITUS was born about A.D. 55, and was praetor in A.D. 88, and Consul in A.D. 98. The date of his death is unknown. He seems to have been still alive at the beginning of the reign of Hadrian, and may therefore have died somewhere about A.D. 120.—Of his historical works, the Annals, which in sixteen or eighteen books—their exact number is not certainly known—treated of the times of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, that is, of the period from A.D. 14 to A.D. 68, are admittedly the most important original authority for the history of these times, and so, too, for the history of Syria. They are arranged annalistically, so that they afford a sure determination of the chronology. A great piece is wanting in the middle. There are extant: books i–iv. complete, v. and vi. partly, and xi.–xvi. defective at the beginning and the end. The portions preserved embrace the period of Tiberius, the second half of the reign of Claudius and that of Nero, with the exception of its close.—Of his other great work, the History, which consisted of twelve or fourteen books, dealing with the reigns of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, that is, from A.D. 68 to A.D. 96, only a fragment remains, books i.–iv. and a part of book v., treating of A.D. 68–70. Of special interest for us is Book v. 1–13, where Tacitus, by means of a few graphic strokes, gives a sketch of the history of the Jewish people down to the war with Titus.

5. SUETONIUS. In regard to his life-course, we know that his youth synchronizes with the reign of Domitian, A.D. 81–96; that he had the rank of tribune conferred upon him during the reign of Trajan, A.D. 98–117; and that under Hadrian, A.D. 117–138, he was made magister epistolarum, but afterwards received his dismissal from that emperor. Among his writings only the Vitae XII. Imperatorum come into consideration in connection with our history. The twelve Imperatores are: Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

6. TROGUS POMPEIUS (JUSTINUS) wrote under Augustus a universal history from Ninus down to his own times, in forty-four books, with special reference to the history of Macedonia and the Diadochen dynasty, full of material, carefully compiled and resting on good Greek authorities.—The work itself is lost. Only the lists of contents or prologi of the forty-four books are preserved, and an epitome which a certain Justinus, probably in the age of the Antonines, drew up. Even this short epitome is itself so full of material, that it forms for us an important source of information regarding the Seleucid period.

Compare specially: Zunz, Die gottesdienstliclien Vorträge der Juden, 1832.—For the bibliography: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, 4 vols. 1715–1733.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, 3 vols. 1849–1863.—Steinschneider, Catalogue librorum hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Berol. 1852–1860.—Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, London 1867.—Strack, Bibliographischer Abriss der neuhebr. Litteratur, in Lehrb. der neuhebr. Sprache und Litt., by Siegfried and Strack, 1884, p. 93 ff.

By “Rabbinical Literature” we understand that literature which has grown up out of the professional labours of the Rabbis or scribes. These labours consisted, not indeed exclusively, but mainly, in learned discussions and criticism of the Scriptures. Of such productions we have two different classes. On the one hand, some have discussed the law hypercritically in the jurist style; on the other hand, some have expanded and developed the sacred history and religious and ethical views by means of learned combinations. The productions of the first sort constitute the Halacha, or the traditional law; the productions of the second kind form the Haggada, or the legends, embracing religious and moral contents. For further information about both, see § 25, III.

The Halacha and Haggada were transmitted for the first hundred years by oral tradition only. In the Halacha strict adherence to literal accuracy in the transmission was insisted upon; whereas in the Haggada, greater freedom was given to subjective opinion and imagination. The final fixing of both in numerous and comprehensive literary works makes up what we style the Rabbinical Literature. The origin of this literature dates almost without exception from the earliest years of the period immediately after that treated in our history. Only the Haggadic treatment of Genesis, which is known under the name of the Book of Jubilees, belongs to our period; as do also the earliest, but no longer extant, contributions to the Halacha. But almost the whole of the rabbinical literature that has been preserved reaches no farther back than the last decade of the second century after Christ. It is nevertheless an invaluable source for the times of Christ, for the fountain of the there fixed traditions is to be sought away back, not merely in the times of Christ, but in yet earlier periods.

The Halacha has been written down partly in close connection with the Scripture text, therefore in the form of commentaries upon Scripture, partly in systematic order, grouping the materials under various headings according to the subjects dealt with. The works belonging to the latter class very soon obtained the pre-eminence. They embrace—1. The Mishna; 2. The Tosephta; 3. The Jerusalem Talmud; 4. The Babylonian Talmud. They may be comprehended under the general designation of Talmudical Literature. In all of them Haggada is mixed up with Halacha; this blending being most conspicuous in the Babylonian Talmud, and least discernible in the Mishna.

The Haggada makes its appearance mainly in the form of commentaries on the Scripture text. The Halachic, as well as the Haggadic commentaries, may be comprehended under the general name of Midrashim.

The traditional conception of the Scripture text is given expression to in the Aramaic translations or the Targums. They too, therefore, are to be mentioned here, although in the form in which they have come down to us they are probably to be dated about one hundred years after the time of Christ.

Finally, as the residuum of historical tradition, we must refer to still other historical works which make reference to the period of which we treat.

I. The Talmudical Literature

1. The Mishna

The word מִשְׁנָה(stat. construct. מִשְׁנַת, varied from מִשְׁנֶה, stat. construct. מִשְׁנֵה) has generally been rendered by the Church Fathers by δευτέρωσις. This is correct, inasmuch as the verb שָׁנָה, according to its root significance, means δευτεροῦν, to repeat. But in later usage “to repeat” came to be equivalent to “the teaching or learning of the oral law,” traditiones docere or discere. For the mode of imparting such instruction was by the teacher dictating the matter again and again to the pupils, or even by the pupils themselves being made to repeat it over and over again. Hence מִשְׁנָה, which properly means “repetition,” came to be regarded as signifying the doctrine of the law, and even the doctrine of the oral law as distinguished from the written Thora.

The work specially designated by the name Mishna is the oldest codification of the traditional Jewish law that has come down to us. The material is here arranged according to its contents, distributed into six groups (סְרָרִים), containing altogether sixty tracts (מַסִּכְתּוֹת, sing. מַסֶּכֶת). In our printed editions, by subdivision their number is increased to sixty-three. Each tract, again, is divided into chapters (פְּרָקִים); each chapter into paragraphs (מִשְׁנִיוֹת). The chapter division is very old; but the position and numbering of paragraphs is modern, and in the printed editions vary very considerably from those of the manuscripts.—The language of the Mishna is Hebrew; its contents, as we might expect, almost purely Halachic. Only two tracts, Aboth and Middoth, are Haggadic; and besides, Haggadic elements, to a small extent, are found in the conclusion of the tracts, or in the explanation of particular Halachas.

The names and contents of the sixty-three tracts are as follows:—

First Seder, ס׳ זְרָעִים

1.              Berachoth, בְּרָכוֹת, on formulae of blessings and prayers.

2.              Pea, פֵּאָה, on the corners of fields which in harvest must be left unreaped for the poor; and generally on the right of the poor in the produce of the soil, according to Lev. 19:9, 10, 23:22; Deut. 24:19–22.

3.              Demai, דְּמָאִי, on the treatment of the fruit, especially about anything where it is doubtful whether it ought to be tithed or not.

4.              Kilajim, כִּלְאַיִם, on the illegal mixing of what is heterogeneous in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and in clothing, according to Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9–11.

5.              Shebiith, שְׁבִיעִית, on the Sabbatical year.

6.              Terumoth, תְּרוּמוֹת, on the dues of the priests.

7.              Maaseroth, מַעֲשֵׂרוֹת, on the tithes of the Levites.

8.              Maaser sheni, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, on secondary tithes, which are taken after the payment of the first tithes, and must, according to Deut. 14:22 ff., be paid at Jerusalem.

9.              Challa, חַלָּה, on the dough offerings, a 1-24th of the baking for home use, and 1-48th of the baking for sale, which, according to Num. 15:17 ff., is to be given to the priests.

10.              Orla, עָרְלָה, on the prohibition against using the fruits of newly-planted trees during the first three years, according to Lev. 19:23–25.

11.              Bikkurim, בִּכּוּרִים, on the presenting of the firstlings of the produce of the ground.

Second Seder, ס׳ מוֹעֵד

1.              Shabbath, שַׁבָּת, on the Sabbath festival.

2.              Erubin, עֵרוּבִין, on the binding together of separate localities for the purpose of freer movement on the Sabbath.

3.              Pesachim, פְּסָחִים, on the Passover festival.

4.              Shekalim, שְׁקָלִים, on the half-shekel tax, Ex. 30:11 ff.; Matt. 17:24.

5.              Yoma, יוֹמָא, on the “day,” that is, the great day of atonement.

6.              Sukka, סֻכָּה, on the Feast of Tabernacles.

7.              Beza, בֵּיצָה, or Yom tob, יוֹם טוֹב, whether one may eat an egg laid on a feast day, and generally on the observance of feast and Sabbath days.

8.              Rosh Hashana, ראֹשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, on the New Year festival.

9.              Taanith, תַּעֲנִית, on the days of fasting and mourning.

10.              Megilla, מְגִלָּה, on the reading of the “roll,” that is, of the book of Esther, and generally on the Feast of Purim.

11.              Moed katan, מוֹעֵד קָטָן, on the feast days intervening between the first and last feast days of the great festivals.

12.              Chagiga, חֲגִיגָה, on the duty of appearing at Jerusalem to offer at the three great festivals.

Third Seder, ס׳ נָשִׁים

1.              Jebamoth, יְבָמוֹת, on levirate marriage with the brother-in-law, according to Deut. 25:5–10.

2.              Kethuboth, כְּחוּבוֹת, on marriage contracts.

3.              Nedarim, נְדָרִים, on vows, especially with reference to their validity in the case of women, according to Lev. 27. and Num. 30.

4.              Nasir, נָזִיר, on the Nazarite vow, according to Num. 6. and 30.

5.              Sota, סוֹטָה, on proceeding against one suspected of adultery, according to Num. 5:11–31.

6.              Gittin, נִּטִּין, on writings of divorcement (נֵּט), and what gives legal claim to the obtaining of a divorce.

7.              Kiddushin, קִרּוּשִׁין, on betrothal.

Fourth Seder, ס׳ נְזִיקִין

1.              Baba Kamma, בָּבָא קַמָּא, “the first gate,” the first division of the threefold treatise on injuries, treating of the legal damages due for various kinds of injuries done by one to another.

2.              Baba mezia, בָּבָא מְצִיעָא, “the middle gate,” treats of complaints and claims, especially between masters and slaves, employers and employed, borrowers and lenders.

3.              Baba bathra, בָּבָא בתְרָא “the last gate,” on the municipal regulations most influential upon the development of social life.

4.              Sanhedrin, סַנְהֶדְרִין, on the Sanhedrim and the criminal law.

5.              Makkoth, מַכּוֹת, on punishment by flogging.

6.              Shebuoth, שְׁבוּעוֹת, on oaths and offences against sanctity.

7.              Edujoth, עֵדֻיּוֹת, “witnesses,” contains controverted propositions from all departments; the traditional validity is “witnessed to” by celebrated authorities.

8.              Aboda sara, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, on idolatry and generally on heathenism.

9.              Aboth, אָבוֹת, or Pirke Aboth, פִּרְקֵי אָבוֹת, a collection of sentences from the most famous scribes, dating from somewhere about B.C. 200 to A.D. 200.

10.              Horayoth, הוֹרָיוֹת, decisions on unintentional offences caused by erroneous decisions of the Sanhedrim, and on unintentional offences of the high priests and princes.

Fifth Seder, ס׳ קָדָשִׁים

1.              Sebachim, זְבָחִים, on sacrifices.

2.              Menachoth, מְנָחוֹת, on meat-offerings.

3.              Chullin, חוּלִּין, on the right method of slaying animals not to be offered, and on the eating thereof.

4.              Bechoroth, בְּכוֹרוֹת, on the sanctifying of the first-born among men and cattle.

5.              Arachin, עֲרָכִין, “treasures,” treating, according to Lev. 27., of the redemption of persons and things which had been devoted to the service of the sanctuary, or had so devoted themselves.

6.              Temura, תְּמוּרָה, on the exchanging of things devoted to God, Lev. 27:10.

7.              Kerithoth, בְּרִיתוֹת, on the penalty of extermination, or rather what those have to do who have unintentionally broken a command which involves the penalty of utter destruction.

8.              Meila, מְעִילָה, on the embezzlement of things devoted to God, Num. 5:6–8.

9.              Tamid, תָּמִיד, of daily morning and evening sacrifices, and generally of the daily temple service.

10.              Middoth, מִדּוֹת, of the size and arrangements of the temple.

11.              Kinnim, קִנִּים, of the offerings of doves by the poor, according to Lev. 5:1–10 and 12:8.

Sixth Seder, ס׳ טָהֳרוֹת

1.              Kelim, כֵּלִים, on household furniture and its purifying.

2.              Ohaloth, אֹהָלוֹת, on the defilement of tents and houses, specially by the dead, according to Num. 19.

3.              Negaim, נְגָעִים, on leprosy.

4.              Para, פָּרָה, on the red heifer, that is, on atonement for pollution contracted from the dead, according to Num. 19.

5.              Tohoroth, טָהֳרוֹת, of the lesser kinds of defilements.

6.              Mikwaoth, מִקְוָאוֹה, of the water fitted for bathing and washing.

7.              Nidda, נִדָּה, of the defilement peculiar to the female sex.

8.              Machshirin, מַכְשִׁירִין, properly “making fit,” treating of the liquids which, falling upon fruits, render or do not render them impure, according to Lev. 11:34, 38.

9.              Sabim, זָבִים, on the running of ulcers and bloody issues.

10.              Tebul yom, טְבוּל יוֹם, treats of the defilement which is removed by bathing, but requires isolation until the going down of the sun.

11.              Yadayim, יָדַיִם, on the pollution and the cleansing, washing of the hands.

12.              Ukzin, עוּקְצִין, on the defilement of fruits through their stalks and rinds or husks.

Tolerably sure results in regard to the age and origin of this work may also be gained from certain indications given iu the text itself. In innumerable instances, where the opinions of scholars on particular points of law are divergent, not only is the view of the majority given, but the views of the dissenting scholar or scholars, with the distinct mention of the names. In this way somewhere about 150 authorities are quoted in the Mishna; the most, indeed, only very seldom, but some almost through all the tracts. The most frequently cited authorities are the following:—

First Generation, from about A.D. 70 to A.D. 100

Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai, 23 times.—R. Zadoc or Zadduc.—R. Chananya, president of the priests, סגן הכהנים, 12 times.—R. Elieser ben Jacob.

Second Generation, from about A.D. 100 to A.D. 130

A. Older Group: Rabban Gamaliel II., 84 times.—R. Josbua [ben Chananya], 146 times.—R. Elieser [ben Hyrcanos], 324 times.—R. Eleasar ben Asarya, 38 times.—R. Dosa ben Archinos, 19 times.—R. Eleasar, son of R. Zadduc.

B. Younger Group: R. Ishmael, 71 times.—R. Akiba [ben Joseph], 278 times.—R. Tarphon, 51 times.—K. Jochanan ben Nuri, 38 times.—R. Simon ben Asai, or simply Ben Asai, in the one form 4, in the other 21 times.—R. Jochanan ben Beroka, 11 times.—R. Jose the Galilean, 26 times.—R. Simon ben Nannos, or simply Ben Nannos, in each of these forms 5 times.—Abba Saul, 20 times.—R. Judah ben Bethera, 16 times.

Third Generation, from about A.D. 130 to A.D. 160

R. Judah [ben Ilai, or more correctly Elai], 609 times.—R. Jose [ben Chalephta], 335 times.—R. Meir, 331 times.—R. Simon [ben Jochai], 325 times.—Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel II., 103 times.—R. Nehemiah, 19 times.—R. Chananya ben Antigonos, 13 times.

Fourth Generation, from about AD. 160 to A.D. 200

Rabbi [i.e. R. Juda ha-Nasi or ha-kadosh], 37 times.—R. Jose, son of R. Judah [ben Elai], 14 times.

The chronology which has been here adopted, while in its leading outlines perfectly certain, cannot be vouched for in every individual case. The fact that the men enumerated in the same generation were really contemporary with one another, is evidenced by the circumstance of their being more or less frequently referred to in the Mishna as disputing with one another. Thus, for example, we find Rabban Gamaliel II., R. Joshua, R. Elieser, and R. Akiba frequently engaged together in conversation and discussion, and that, indeed, with such indications as show that R. Akiba was a younger contemporary of the three previously named. So, too, we often find disputing with one another, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Meir, and R. Simon. And in a similar way in respect to other scholars mentioned here, it can be determined with more or less certainty to which of the four generations each belonged.—But further, also, the succession of the generations can be ascertained by similar statements in the Mishna. R. Joshua and R. Elieser were pupils of Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai; also, R. Akiba is so described. The men of the third generation, too, are linked on with the men of the second by personal relationships, etc.—Finally, we are furnished with various outstanding points for the sure determination of an absolutely correct chronology. Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai is said to have made various arrangements “after the temple had been destroyed;” he was therefore alive immediately after that event. With this also agrees the statement that Akiba, who was about a generation younger, was a contemporary of Barcochba and a martyr during the war of Hadrian. In a like manner we may deal with the rest.

Our statistics, then, have thus proved that the Mishna must have been collected and edited toward the end of the second century after Christ, for in a later composition it might be expected that more recent authorities would have been employed. In fact, the composition of the work has been ascribed to E. Judah ha-Nasi, or ha-kadosh, called also simply Rabbi, who lived at the end of the second century after Christ. But our statistics teach us something more even than this. It is clear that a couple of thousand of statements about the views of particular scholars could not have been transmitted by oral traditions. If in a work issued toward the end of the second century, by various scholars of earlier generations, even a couple of hundred particular decisions were communicated (by R. Judah ben Elai over six hundred!), there must have been written sources at their command. But the result of our statistics makes it probable that the final redaction had been preceded by two earlier summaries of written documents, one from the age of the second generation, and one from the time of the third generation. Certain phenomena in the text of the Mishna itself favour this theory, as well as some rather obscure and doubtful traditions. The opinion, still firmly maintained by many Jewish scholars, that written documents are not to be found before the time of Judah ha-Nasi, indeed not even in his days, is based upon the assumed prohibition of a written record of the Halacha, of which, however, the age and range of application are extremely uncertain.—At any rate this much is beyond dispute, that in the Mishna the Jewish law is codified in that form which it retained in the schools of Palestine from the end of the first to the end of the second century after Christ.

2. Tosephta

The Mishna of R. Judah ha-Nasi has generally received canonical rank, and has served as the basis for the further development of the law Another collection that has come down to us, the so-called Tosephta, תּוֹסֶפְתֶּא, additamentum, has not attained such a rank. The material here gathered together belongs essentially to the age of the Tannaites (הַנָּאִים in Aramaic, meaning δευτερωταί, the scholars of the age of the Mishna). The arrangement is quite the same as that of the Mishna. Of the sixty-three tracts of the Mishna, only Aboth, Tamid, Middoth, and Kinnim are wanting in the Tosephta. The other fifty-nine tracts, not merely fifty-two, as Zunz in his Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge affirms, have their exact parallels in the Tosephta. The two are therefore closely related. The precise nature of their relationship has not yet indeed been made sufficiently clear. But there are at least two points which may be stated with absolute certainty:—1. That the Tosephta is laid out in accordance with the plan of the Mishna, and professes to be an expansion of it, as the name itself implies; and 2. That the redactors had at their command in carrying out their scheme sources which are older than our Mishna. Hence, on the one hand, in the Tosephta we have authorities cited which belong to the post-Mishna times; while, on the other hand, the Tosephta has not unfrequently retained the original and complete literal quotation where the Mishna has given only an abbreviated text. The Haggada bulk much more largely in the Tosephta than in the Mishna.

A complete separate edition of the Tosephta was issued for the first time quite recently by Zuckermandel, Tosephta nach den Erfurter und Wiener Handschriften mit Parallelstellen und Varianten, Pasewalk 1880. Supplement containing summary, register, and glossary, Treves 1882–1883.—On the Erfurt manuscript: Zuckermandel, Die Erfurter Handschrift der Tossefta, Berlin 1876; and Lagarde, Symmicta, i. 1877, pp. 153–155.—Previous to this, leaving out of account separate editions of special portions, the Tosephta had appeared only in the editions of the Alfasi. On these and on the separate editions of portions, see Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 34–36, 173; Steinschneider, Catalogus librorum hebr. in biblioth. Bodleiana, col. 647 sq., 1087 sqq.; Alter Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, pp. 365 f., 757.

A great part of the Tosephta, consisting of some thirty-one tracts, is translated into Latin in Ugolini Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum: in vol. xvii. Schabbath, Erubin, and Pesachim; in vol. xviii. the other nine tracts of the second Seder; in vol. xix. the following eight tracts of the fifth Seder: Sebachim, Menachoth, Chullin, Bechoroth, Temura, Meila, Kerithoth, Arachin; in vol. xx. the whole of the eleven tracts of the first Seder.

On the Tosephta generally, compare: Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 50 f., 87 f.—Dünner, Die Theorien über Wesen und Ursprung der Tosephta kritisch dargestellt, Amsterdam 1874.—Zuckermandel, Verhältniss der Tosifta zur Mischna und der jerusalemischen Gemara zur babylonischen (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1874–1875). By the same, Tosifta-Variantem (Monatsschrift, 1880–1881).—Schwarz, Die Tosifta des Tractates Sabbath in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Mischna kritisch untersucht, Carlsruhe 1879. By the same, Die Tosifta des Tractates Erubin in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Mischna kritisch untersucht, Carlsruhe 1882.—Hoffmann, Mischna und Tosefta (Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, ix. 1882, pp. 153–163).—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, ii. 1225–1227, art. “Tosephta.”—Brüll, Begriff und Ursprung der Tosefta (Jubelschrift zum neunzigsten Geburtstag des Dr. L. Zunz, Berlin 1884, pp. 92–110).—Pick, Die Tosefta-Citate und der hebräische Text (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. 1886, pp. 23–29).—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. p. 298 f.

3. The Jerusalem Talmud

On the basis of the Mishna the juristic discussion was carried on with unwearied energy and zeal in the schools of Palestine, especially in that of Tiberias, during the third and fourth centuries. By means of the codification of the new material that was in this way gathered together, there sprang up in the fourth century after Christ the so-called Jerusalem, or more correctly, Palestinian, Talmud. In it the text of the Mishna is taken statement after statement in regular succession, and is explained by a casuistical system of distinctions that becomes ever more and more subtle and over-refined. For the purpose of explanation not only are the opinions of the “Amoreans,” the scholars of the post-Mishna age, drawn upon, but very frequently dogmatic utterances of the Mishna age. Such propositions as are borrowed from earlier times which have not been incorporated in the Mishna, are called Baraytha, בָּרָֽיְתָא “extranea,” scil. traditio. They are quoted in the Talmud in Hebrew, whereas for the rest the language of the Talmud is Aramaic.—The date of the composition of the Palestinian Talmud may be determined from the fact that, although indeed the Emperors Diocletian and Julian are mentioned, no Jewish authorities are referred to who can be assigned to a later period than the middle of the fourth century.—Besides the Halacha, which forms its principal contents, we also meet in it with rich Haggadic material.—Whether the Palestinian Talmud ever went over the whole range of the Mishna is still a disputed point. Only its first four Seders, together with the tract Nidda, have been preserved to us, and the tracts Eduyoth and Aboth are wanting.

4. The Babylonian Talmud

The Mishna is said to have been brought to Babylon by Abba Areka, usually called Rab, a scholar of R. Judah. In the schools of that place, too, it came to be used as the basis for continuous juristic discussion. The boundless accumulation of material here also led gradually to its codification. This was in all probability undertaken in the fifth century after Christ, but was not brought to a conclusion before the sixth century.—In the Babylonian Talmud as well as in the Palestinian, the statements of older scholars were frequently given in the Hebrew language. The Talmud itself was written in the Aramaic dialect of Babylon.—The Haggada is here represented still more literally than in the Palestinian Talmud.—The Babylonian Talmud, too, is incomplete. There are wanting: The whole of the first Seder with the exception of Berachoth; Shekalim out of the second; Eduyoth and Aboth from the fourth; Middoth and Kinnim and the half of Tamid from the fifth; and the whole of the sixth with the exception of Nidda. See Zunz, p. 54. It therefore embraces only 36½ tracts, while in the Palestinian Talmud 39 tracts are dealt with. Nevertheless, the Babylonian Talmud is at least four times the size of the Palestinian, has been much more diligently studied in Europe since the Middle Ages, and stands in much higher repute than the other.

The literature of the Mishna and both Talmuds, their editions, translations, and commentaries, are carefully enumerated by Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica, ii. pp. 700–724, 882–913; iv. 321–327, 437–445.—Winer, Handbuch der theolog. Literatur, i. pp. 523–525.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 40–49, 94–97, confines himself to the Mishna and Palestinian Talmud.—Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford 1886, nos. 393–407.—Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts preserved in the University Library, Cambridge, vol. ii. pp. 1–12.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, 1867, pp. 545–555, 739–751.—Raph. Rabbinovicz has written in Hebrew a critical review of all the complete and separate editions of the Babylonian Talmud since A.D. 1484, Munich 1877.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie) xviii. 342 ff., 357–368.—We specify only the following:—

Mishna sive totius Hebraeorum juris, rituum, antiquitatum ac legum oralium systema cum clarissimorum Rabbinorum Maimonidis et Bartenoras commentariis integris, etc. Latinitate donavit ac notis illustravit Guil. Surenhusius. 6 vols. fol. Amsterdam 1698–1703.

The Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests, edited from the unique manuscript preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, Add. 470, 1, by W. H. Lowe. Cambridge 1883. An exact reproduction of a valuable Cambridge manuscript, which, however, is not “unique,” since there is certainly another of the same kind, the cod. de Rossi 138, at Parma, representing the same text in perhaps even a better form.

Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna. Translated by D. A. de Sola and M. J. Raphall. London 1843.

ששה סדרי משנה וכו׳. 6 vols. Berlin 1832–1834. Issued by authority of the Society of Friends of the Thora and Science at Berlin, under the direction of J. M. Jost. The printed text with a German translation in Hebrew writing and a short Hebrew commentary.

Mischnajoth, Die sechs Ordnungen der Mischna. Hebrew printed text, German translation and exposition, by A. Sammter. Part I. giving the First Seder. Berlin 1887. If this edition be carried out to completion in accordance with the promise of its first part, it will be most worthy of recommendation for the use of the Christian theologian. The German translation follows closely that of Jost, but it is printed in German letters.

Editions of the Hebrew texts, with short Hebrew commentaries, have in all times been issued in large numbers. Of the more recent editions, we may name those of Sittenfeld in Berlin 1863, of Cohn in Berlin 1876.

The editio princeps was issued by Bomberg in Venice in folio, without mention of the year; but this was, according to Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica, iv. 439, either A.D. 1523 or A.D. 1524.

Besides this other three complete editions have appeared: at Cracow A.D. 1609, at Krotoschin A.D. 1866, and at Shitomir in 4 vols. fol. A.D. 1860–1867.—Several other editions have been projected, but were stopped after the appearance of one or more parts. See Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 343.

A Latin translation of a great part of the Palestinian Talmud, extending to nineteen tracts, appeared in Ugolini Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrar., namely, in vol. xvii. Pesachim; in vol. xviii. Shekalim, Joma, Sukka, Rosh hashana, Taanith, Megilla, Chagiga, Beza, Moed Katan; in vol. xx. Maaseroth, Challa, Orla, Bikkurim; in vol. xxv. Sanhedrin, Makkoth; in vol. xxx. Kiddushin, Sota, Kethuboth.

An English rendering of the French translation of Moses Schwab has been undertaken. The first volume, containing the tract Berachoth according to the Jerusalem Talmud, was issued in the end of 1885. The French translation began to appear at Paris in 1871; and up to this time ten volumes have been issued, containing thirty-three tracts.

WÜNSCHE, Der jerusalemische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen in’s Deutsche übertragen, Zürich 1880, gives only the Haggadic passages.

SCHILLER-SZINESSY, Occasional Notices of Hebrew Manuscripts; No. 1. Description of the Leyden Manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud. Cambridge 1878.

The editio princeps was published by Bomberg at Venice in 12 vols. folio, A.D. 1520 ff. With this edition all subsequent issues agree exactly in the numbering of pages.

Among later editions there is none that can be regarded as satisfactory on critical grounds. The prejudices of Christian editors led unhappily to the perverse corruption of the text. On this point, see Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, p. 1099. On the other hand, the persecutions to which the Jews were subjected occasioned such bitterness of feeling on their part that they forbade, under severest penalties, the printing in the Mishna or Gemara anything that had reference to Jesus of Nazareth. See circular to this effect printed by Leslie in his Short and Easy Method with the Jews. London 1812.

The Fragment of the Talmud Babli Pesachim of the Ninth or Tenth Century, in the University Library, Cambridge, edited with notes and an autograph facsimile, by W. H. Lowe. Cambridge 1879.

IN UGOLINI’S Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrar., three tracts of the Babylonian Talmud are translated into Latin; in vol. xix. Sebachim and Menachoth; and in vol. xxv. Sanhedrin.

Several single tracts have been translated into German: Berachoth, by Pinner, Berlin 1842; Aboda Sara or Idolatry, by F. Chr. Ewald, Nürnberg 1856; Baba Mezia, by Sammter, Berlin 1876; Taanith, by Straschun, Halle 1883; Megilla with Tosafat transl. into German, by Rawicz, Frankf. 1883; Rosch ha-Schanah, by Rawicz, Frankf. 1886; Rabbinowicz, Legislation civile du Talmud, 5 vols. Paris 1877–1880, discusses passages on civil law from the various tracts of the Talmud.

WÜNSCHE, Der babylonische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen wortgetreu übersetzt, etc., 2 vols. 1886–1888, gives only the Haggadic passages.

RABBINOVICZ, Variae lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum quum ex aliis libris antiquissimis et scriptis et impressis tum e codice Monacensi praestantissimo collectae annotationibus instructae, written in Hebrew, not yet completed. Vols. i.–xv. Munich 1867–1886.

LEBRECHT, Handschriften und erste Gesammtausgaben des Babylonischen Talmud, No. 1, Berlin 1862, deals only with the manuscripts.

BUXTORF, Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum. Basel 1640.—A reprint of this work has been issued by B. Fischer. Leipzig 1874.

LEVY, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, vol. i. 1876, זא; vol. ii. 1879, לח; vol. iii. 1883, עמ; vol. iv. still incomplete.—Also: Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums. 2 vols. 1867–1868.

JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yérushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Vol. i. London 1886. Containing 96 pp. quarto, and reaching down to אספריסא.

HARTMANN, Thesauri linguae Hebraicae e Mischna augendi particula, i. ii. iii. Rostock 1825–1826. A diligent collection of the non-biblical linguistic materials of the Mishna.

GEIGER, Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mischna. Breslau 1845.

DUKES, Die Sprache der Mischna, lexikographisch und grammatisch betrachtet. Esslingen 1846.

WEISS, משפט לשין המשנה, Studien über die Sprache der Mischna, in Hebrew. Vienna 1867.

LUZZATTO, Grammatik der biblisch-chaldäischen Sprache und des Idioms des Talmud Bibli. From the Italian by Krüger. Breslau 1873.

STRACK and SIEGFRIED, Lehrbuch der neuhebräischen Sprache und Literatur Carlsruhe 1884.

The most complete and comprehensive treatises on the origin and character of the Mishna, are the three following works written in the Hebrew language:—

FRANKEL, דרכי המשנה, Hodegetica in Mischnam librosque cum ea conjunctos Tosefta, Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri. P. I. Introductio in Mischnam. Lips. 1859.—Also: חוספות ומפתח לספר דרכי המשנה, Additamenta et index ad librum Hodegetica in Mischnam. Lips. 1867.

BRÜLL, מבוא המשנה, Einleitung in die Mischnah, enthaltend das Leben und die Lehrmethode der Gesetzeslehrer von Ezra bis zum Abschlusse der Mischnah. Frankfort 1876.—A second volume has been published under the title, Einleitung in die Mischnah, ii.; Plan und System der Mischnah. Frankfort 1884.

WEISS, דור דור ודורשיו, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Tradition. Vol. i. From the earliest Times down to the Destruction of the Second Temple, Vienna 1871; vol. ii. From the Destruction of the Second Temple down to the close of the Mishna, 1876; vol. iii. From the close of the Mishna down to the completion of the Babylonian Talmud, 1883; vol. iv. From the close of the Talmud down to the end of the first five thousand years according to Jewish reckoning, 1887.

SCHILLER-SZINESSY, article “Mishnah” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xvi. 1883, pp. 502–508.

TAYLOR, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirke Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with critical and illustrative notes. Cambridge 1877.

ROBINSON, The Evangelists in the Mishna; or, Illustrations of the Four Gospels drawn from Jewish Traditions. London 1859.

BENNETT, The Mishna as illustrating the Gospel. Cambridge 1884.

JOST, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Makkabäer, iv. 103 ff.—Also: Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, ii. 114–126.

ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 45 f., 86 f., 106 f.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden (2 Aufl.), iv. 210–240, 419–422, 430 f., 479–485, 494 f.—Also: Beiträge zur Wort- und Sacherklärung der Mischna (Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1871).—Also: Die Mischna in mündlicher Ueberlieferung erhalten (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 35–41).

DÜNNER, Veranlassung, Zweck und Entwickelung der halachischen und halachischen exegetischen Sammlungen während der Tannaim-Periode, in Umrisse dargestellt (Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1871).—Also: R. Juda ha-Nasi’s Antheil an unserer Mischnah (Monatsschr. 1872, pp. 161–178, 218–235).—Also: Der Einfluss anderer Tannaiten auf B. Jehuda Hanassi’s Halachah-Feststellung (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 321 ff., 361 ff.).

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. 1883, pp. 789–798 (art. “Mischna”).

On the scholars quoted and referred to in the Mishna, the “doctores Misnici,” see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 351–379 (§ 25, IV.).

GEIGER, Einiges über Plan und Anordnung der Mischna (Geiger’s Wissenschaftl. Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, Bd. ii. 1836, pp. 474–492).

COHN, Aufeinanderfolge der Mischnaordnungen (Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben, Bd. iv. 1866, pp. 126–140).

LANDSBERG, Plan und System in der Aufeinanderfolge der einzelnen Mischna’s (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 208–215).

DERENBOURG, Les sections et les traités de la Mischnah (Revue des études juives, t. iii. 1881, pp. 205–210).

On the various series of tracts in some of the principal manuscripts and editions, see the tabulated list by Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 2 Aufl. xviii. 302–304.

DÜNNER, Einiges über Ursprung und Bedeutung des Tractates Edajoth (Monatssch. 1871, pp. 33–42, 59–77).

JELLINEK, Die Composition der Pirke Aboth (Füret’s Literaturblatt des Orients, 1849, nos. 31, 34, 35).

FRANKEL, Zum Tractact Aboth (Monatsschr. 1858, pp. 419–430).

BRÜLL, Entstehung und ursprünglicher Inhalt des Tractates Abot (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 1–17).

A complete list of the Old Testament passages, quoted in the Mishna, is given by Pinner, Tract. Berachoth, Einl. fol. 21b.

Arguments against the generally accepted opinion that the Jerusalem Talmud had been revised from the Babylonian Talmud, are given in Fürst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1843, nos. 48–51.

FRANKEL, מבוא הירושלמי, in Hebrew, with the Latin title: Introductio in Talmud Hierosolymitanum. Breslau 1870.—Also: Einiges über die gegenseitigen des Beziehungen des jerusalemischen und babylonischen Talmuds (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1851–1852, pp. 36–40, 70–80).

GEIGER, Die jerusalemische Gemara im Gesammtorganismus der talmud. Lit. (Jüd. Zeitschr. 1870, pp. 278–306).—Also: Der Jerusalem. Talmud im Lichte Geiger’scher Hypothesen (Monatsschr. 1871, pp. 120–137).

WIESNER, Gibe’th Jeruschalaïm. A study on the nature, sources, origin, conclusion, and on the author of the Jerusalem Talmud, edited with critical notes by Smolensky. Vienna 1872.

WOLF, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 657–993, iv. 320–456.

WAEHNER, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, de Israeliticae gentis origine fatis, etc., vol. i. pp. 231–584. Göttingen 1742.

BARCLAY, The Talmud, London 1878; containing selected treatises from the Mishna and Gemara, with commentary.

LIGHTFOOT, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, on Gospels, Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, in Opera Omnia. Francker 1699, vol. ii. pp. 243–742, 783–928.

OORT, The Talmud and the New Testament, reprinted from the Modern Review. London 1883.

DEUTSCH, The Talmud, in Literary Remains. London 1874.

DAVIDSON, article “Talmud” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, vol. iii. Edinburgh 1862.

PICK, article “Talmud” in M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop. of Bibl. Theol. and Eccl. Literature, New York 1881, pp. 166–187.

STRACK, article “Thalmud” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 297–369; a particularly careful and complete statement of rich and voluminous literature.

JOST, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Makkabäer, Bd. iv. 1824, pp. 222 f., 323–328, nebst dem Excurs “Ueber den Talmud als historische Quelle,” im Anhang, pp. 264–294.

ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, pp. 51–55, 94.

PINNER, Compendium des hierosolym. und babyl. Talmud. Berl. 1832.—Also: Einl. in den Talmud, vor seiner Ausgabe und Uebersetz. des Tractates Berachoth.—Also the first twelve sheets of the same, containing Maimonides’ Preface to Seder Seraim (German and Hebrew).

FÜRST, Die literarischen Vorlagen des Talmuds (Literaturbl. des Orients, 1850, n. 1 ff.).—Also: Kultur- und Literaturgesch. der Juden in Asien. 1 Thl. 1849.

FRANKEL, Ueber die Lapidarstyl der talm. Historik (Monatsschr. 1851–1852, pp. 203–220, 403–421).—Also: Beiträge zur Einl. in den Talmud (Monatsschr. 1861, pp. 186–194, 205–212, 258–272).

GRÄTZ, Die talmudische Chronologie (Monatsschr. 1851–1852, pp. 509–521).—Also: Zur Chron. der talm. Zeit (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 433–453, 481–496).—Also: Gesch. der Juden, iv. 384, 408–412.

PRESSEL, art. “Thalmud” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl., Bd. xv. 1862, pp. 615–664.

JOST, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 202–212.

BEDARRIDE, Étude sur le Talmud (142, p. 8). Montpellier 1869.

AUERBACH, Das jüdische Obligationsrecht, Bd. i. 1870.—Gives in the very full introduction, especially pp. 62–114, a history of the development of the Talmud.

BRÜLL, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des babylonischen Talmuds als Schriftwerkes (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, ii. 1876, pp. 1–123).

DERENBOURG, art. “Talmud” in Lichtenberger’s Encyclopédie des sciences religieuses, t. xii. pp. 1009–1038.

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. (1883) art “Talmud, Talmudlehrer, Talmudschulen” (pp. 1155–1164), and various articles on individual teachers.

WEISS, Zur Geschichte der jüd. Tradition, iii. 1883

BLOCH, Einblicke in die Geschickte der Entstehung der talmudischen Literatur, Vienna 1884 (see also: Brüll’s Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 101–106).

In the editions of the Babylonian Talmud, in vol. ix., at the close of the fourth Seder, we meet with several pieces which do not belong to the codex, but in part at least reach back to the Talmudic age:—

(a) The Aboth derabbi Nathan, an expansion of the Pirke Aboth, with many stories about the life of the Sage and other Haggadic legends. Its present form was given it first in post-Talmudic times.

A recension of this tract, diverging from the usually printed text, has been edited by Taussig, ניה שלום, Nweh Shalom; 1st part, containing Aboth di R. Nathan, is a recension differing from the printed text, Seder Tannaim w’Amoraim and Varianten or Pirke Aboth, from manuscripts in the Royal Library at Munich, edited and annotated, Munich 1872.—Both recensions are given by Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, hujus libri recensiones duas collatis variis apud bibliothecas et publicas et privatas codicibus edidit, Vienna 1887.—A Latin translation of the common text is given in Tractatus de patribus: Rabbi Nathane auctore, in linguam Latinum translatus opera Francisci Taileri, London 1654.—Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 855–857.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 108 f.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. p. 19 f.—Zedner, Catalogue of British Museum, p. 748.

(b) The so-called small tracts: on these compare Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 237 ff.; Zedner, Catalogue, p. 748 f.; Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 328.

1. Sopherim, on the writing of the roll of the law, and the various exercises of the Synagogue. Belonging to post-Talmudic times.

Separate edition: Masechet Soferim. Der talmudische Tractat der Schreiber, nach Handschriften herausgegeben und commentirt von Joel Müller, Leipzig 1878. Compare generally: Zedner, Catalogue, p. 749; Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p. 96 f.; Hamburger, Real-Enc. Supplem. p. 104.

2. Ebel rabbathi, or euphemistically Semachoth, not Simchoth, on the treatment of corpses, and on the customs observed in reference to the dead. It is quoted in the Talmud. Zunz, p. 90. Brüll, however, contests the idea that the tract cited in the Talmud is identical with the one that has come down to us. See Hamburger, Supplement, pp. 51–53.

3. Kalla, on marital intercourse and on chastity in general. According to Zunz, p. 89 f., it is probably older than the Jerusalem Talmud.

4. Derek erez rabba, on social duties, Zunz, p. 110 f.; Hamburger, Supplement, p. 50 f.

5. Derek erez suta, Precepts for Scholars, Zunz, pp. 110–112; Hamburger, Supplement, p. 50 f. Separate edition: Der talmudische Tractat Derech Erez Sutta nach Hand-schriften und seltenen Ausgaben mit Parallelstellen und Varianten, kritisch bearbeitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Abr. Tawrogi, Königsberg 1885.

6. Perek schalom, on peace-making, Zunz, pp. 110–112.

Seven similar small tracts have been recently published by Raphael Kirchheim, under the title שבע מסכתות קטנות ירושלמיות, Septem libri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitani, Frankfort 1851. These are the following:—1. Massecheth Sepher Thora; 2. M. Mesusa; 3. M. Tephillin; 4. M. Zizith; 5. M. Abadim; 6. M. Kuthim; 7. M. Gerim.—The sixth tract was published separately, with a commentary, under the title: כרמי שמרון, Introductio in librum Talm. de Samaritanis, Frankfort 1851.—On the tract Gerim, which was earlier recognised, see Zunz, p. 90. It is of later date than the Talmud.—On all the seven, see Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie, Supplementalband, p. 95, article “Kleine Tractate;” Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. p. 328 f.

II. The Midrashim

In the Mishna and the two Talmuds the Jewish law, the Halacha, is codified in systematic order. Another class of rabbinical literary works attaches itself closely to the Scripture text, commenting upon it step by step. These commentaries or Midrashim, מִדְרָשִׁים, are partly of Halachic, partly of Haggadic contents. In the older ones, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre, the Halacha predominates; the more recent ones, Rabboth and those following it, are almost exclusively Haggadic. The former, in respect of age and contents, stand in very close relation to the Mishna; the latter belong to a later period, and are not the product of juristic discussion, but the residuum of practical lectures delivered in the synagogue. The following three works therefore form a group by themselves:—

1. Mechilta, מכילתא, on a portion of Exodus.

2. Siphra, ספרא, on Leviticus.

3. Siphre or Siphri, ספרי, on Numbers and Deuteronomy.

All the three were frequently made use of in the Talmud; Siphra and Siphre being also expressly quoted (Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, 46, 48; on Mechilta, see Geiger’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 125). In their original form they date back to the second century after Christ, but were revised and altered in later times. The Mechilta is ascribed to R. Ishmael (see on him, Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 373, 374). This opinion, however, is based simply on the fact that in Mechilta, as well as in Siphre, sayings of R. Ishmael and those of his school are very frequently quoted. The theory of Geiger is extremely problematical, that the original form of the Mechilta and Siphre represented an older Halachic tendency, which had already disappeared from the Mishna, Siphra, and Tosephta.—The Haggada is only feebly represented in Siphra, more strongly in Mechilta, and in Siphre “there are considerable passages almost exclusively Haggadic, which comprise at least three-seventh parts of the whole work” (Zunz, Die gott. Vorträge, p. 84 f.).—The language of these, as well as of the other Midrashim, is Hebrew.

On the older editions of these three Midrashim, see Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1349–1352, 1387–1389; iv. 1025, 1030 f.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 76 f., iii. 125, 126.—Steinschneider, Catalogue librorum Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Berol. 1852–1860, col. 597 sq., 627 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, 1867, pp. 515 f., 699 f.—More recent editions are the following:—

מכילתא. Mechilta. Der älteste halachische und hagadische Commentar zum zweiten Buch Moses. Krit. bearbeitet von J. H. Weiss, Vienna 1865.

ספר מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל על ספר שמות וכו׳, Mechilta de Rabbi Ishmael, the oldest Halachic and Haggadic Midrash on Exodus. Edited after the oldest printed editions, with critical note, explanations, indices, and introduction by M. Friedmann, Vienna 1870 (reviewed in Monatsschr. 1870, pp. 278–284).

ספרא דבי רב הוא ספר תורת כהנים וכו׳, with commentary (“Hatora vehamitva”), Bucharest 1860.

ספרא דבי רב הוא ספר תורת כהנים וכו׳, also under the title: Sifra, Barajtha zum Leviticus, mit dem Commentar des Abraham ben David, etc., ed. by Weiss, Vienna 1862.

ספרי. Sifré debé Rab, der älteste halachische und hagadische Midrasch zu Numeri und Deuteronomium, ed. by Friedmann, Vienna 1864.

A Latin translation of the Mechilta is given in Ugolini Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrum, vol. xiv. Also a Latin translation of Siphra in the same volume, and of Siphre in vol. xv.

On the three above-named Midrashim generally, compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1349 sqq., 1387 sqq.; iii. 1202, 1209; iv. 1025, 1030 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 46–48, 84 f.—Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam, p. 307 sqq.—Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 393–395.—Joel, Notizen zum Buche Daniel. Etwas über die Bücher Sifra und Sifre, Breslau 1873.—Weber, System der altsynag. palästinischen Theologie, 1880, p. xix. f.—Strack, art. “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, p. 752 f.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, ii. pp. 721–724, 1166 ff., articles Mechilta and Talmud. Schriften.—Schiller-Szinessy, article “Mishnah” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xvi. 1883, p. 507 f.—Hoffmann, Bemerkungen zur Kritik der Mischna (Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, xi. 1884, pp. 17–30).

On Mechilta and Siphre: Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 434–450.—Also: Jüd. Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben, 1866, pp. 96–126, and for 1871, pp. 8–30.—Pick, Text-Varianten aus Mechilta und Sifre (Zeitschr. für die alttest. Wissensch. 1886, pp. 101–121).

On Mechilta: Frankel, Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Jud. 1853, pp. 388–398; 1854, pp. 149–158, 191–196.

On Siphra: Frankel, Monatsschrift, 1854, pp. 387–392, 453–461. Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschr. xi. 1875, pp. 50–60.

Besides Siphre, there is yet another Midrash, on Numbers, the so-called second or small Siphre, Siphre suta, סיפרי זוטא, which is known only from repeated quotations given from it in Yalkut and other Midrashic works. It seems also to have belonged to the Tannaite period. See in regard to it: Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 48; Brüll, Der kleine Sifre, in the Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage des Prof. Dr. H. Grätz, Breslau 1887, pp. 179–193.

The following Midrashim contain almost nothing but Haggada:—

4. Rabboth, רבות, or Midrash Rabboth, מדרש רבות.

This is made up of a collection of Midrashim on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth (the Song, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), which took their rise in very different times, but were subsequently gathered together as one whole under the above name.

(a) Bereshith Rabba, on Genesis. According to Zunz, it was compiled in Palestine during the sixth century. The last five chapters on Gen. 47:28, and what follows, hence from the opening words of the passage וַיְחִי, called also Vaiechi rabba, are certainly of later date; according to Zunz, p. 255 f., of the eleventh or twelfth century. Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 174–179, 254–256. Lerner, Anlage des Bereschith rabba und seine Quellen, in Mag. für die Wiss. des Jud. book vii. 1880, and book viii. 1881. Wünsche, Der Midrash Bereschit Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881.

(b) Shemoth Rabba, on Exodus, owes its origin to the same pen as Vaiechi rabba, and so belongs to the eleventh or twelfth century. Zunz, pp. 256–258. Wünsche, Der Midrash Shemoth Rabba, in’s Deutsche, übertragen, Leipzig 1882.

(c) Vayyikra Rabba, on Leviticus, was compiled, according to Zunz, in Palestine, somewhere about the middle of the seventh century. Zunz, pp. 181–184. Wünsche, Der Midrash Wajikra Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1884.

(d) Bamidbar Rabba, on Numbers, written, according to Zunz, by two different authors, both of whom made use of Pesikta, Tanchuma, Pesikta Rabbathi, and the works of still later Rabbis. Zunz places the second author in the twelfth century. Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 258–262. Wünsche, Der Midrash Bemidbar Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1885.

(e) Debarim Rabba, on Deuteronomy, compiled, according to Zunz, about A.D. 900. Zunz, pp. 251–253. Wünsche, Der Midrash Debarim Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1882.

(f) Shir Hashirim Rabba, on the Song, also called Agadath Chasith, from the words with which it opens. It belongs to the later Midrashim, but is “presumably older than the Pesikta Rabbathi.” Zunz, p. 263 ff. Chodowski, Observationes criticae in Midrash Shir Hashirim secundum cod. Monac. 50 Orient, Halle 1877. Wünsche, Der Midrash Shir ha-Schirim, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1880.

(g) Midrash Ruth, somewhere about the same date as the preceding. Zunz, p. 265. Wünsche, Der Midrash Ruth Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1883.

(h) Midrash Echa, on Lamentations, also called Echa Rabbathi. It was compiled, according to Zunz, in Palestine, in the second half of the seventh century. Zunz, pp. 179–181. J. Abrahams, The Sources of the Midrash Echah Rabbah, Leipzig Dissertation, 1881. Wünsche, Der Midrash Echa, Rabbati, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881.

(i) Midrash Koheleth, or Koheleth Rabba, belonging to somewhere about the same time as the Midrashim on the Song and on Ruth. Zunz, p. 265 f. Wünsche, Der Midrash Koheleth, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1880.

(k) Midrash Esther, or Hagadath Megilla, makes use of, according to Zunz, p. 151, Josippon, written about A.D. 940, and first quoted in the thirteenth century. Zunz, p. 264 f. Wünsche, Der Midrash zum Buche Esther, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881.—Originally, according to Jellinek and Buber, closely connected with this Midrash, is the “Midrash Abba Gorion,” edited by Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, i. 1853, pp. 1–18; and by Buber, Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Esther, Wilna 1886. Compare also Brüll, Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, viii. 1887, pp. 148–154, who expresses himself opposed to Jellinek and Buber’s view.

On the entire Rabboth and its editions, compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1423–1427, iii. 1215, iv. 1032, 1058.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Bibliothecum Bodleian., col. 589–594.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, pp. 539–542.—Strack, art. “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, pp. 753–755.—Schiller-Szinessy, art. “Midrash” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xvi. 1883, p. 285 f.—Theodor, Die Midraschim zum Pentateuch und der dreijährige palästinensische Cyclus (Monat. 1885, 1886, 1887), seeks to show that the chapter division rests on the three years’ Palestinian cycle.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, pp. 107–111, art. “Midrash Rabba.”—Editions with Hebrew commentaries are numerous in recent times. For example, that of Warsaw 1874, of Wilna 1878.

5. Pesikta, פסיקתא.

The Pesikta does not treat of a whole biblical book, but of the biblical lessons for the feast days and the more important Sabbaths of the entire year, taking up sometimes the readings of the day from the Pentateuch and sometimes those from the prophets (Zunz, p. 190). Since the work is frequently quoted from in the later literature, Zunz made the attempt to reconstruct the text without having a copy of the work within reach, and succeeded in producing what in all essential points agrees with the original. The complete text was first edited by Buber in A.D. 1868.—Owing to its manifold resemblances to Bereshith Rabba, Vayyikra Rabba, and Echa Rabbathi, Zunz, p. 195, considered that the text of the Pesikta must be regarded as dependent on these, and hence set down the time of its composition at A.D. 700. So also Geiger, Weiss, and Hamburger. On the contrary, Buber, Berliner, and Theodor regard the Pesikta as older than those Midrashim.—It must have originally begun with the reading for the New Year (Zunz, p. 191; Geiger, Zeitschrift for 1869, p. 191); whereas in the manuscripts which Buber follows it begins with the Feast of Dedication.

Edition: פסיקתא, Pesikta. Die älteste Hagada, redigirt in Palästina von Rab Kahana. Herausgegeben nach einer in Zefath vorgefundenen und in Aegypten copirten Handschrift durch den Verein Mekize Nirdamim. Mit kritischen Bemerkungen, Verbesserungen und Vergleichungen der Lesearten anderer drei Handschriften in Oxford, Parma und Fez, nebst einer ausführlichen Einleitung von Salomon Buber, Lyk 1868. German translation: Wünsche, Pesikta des Rab Kahana, nach der Buber’schen Textausgabe in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1885.

Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 185–226.—Carmoly, Pesikta (Monatsschrift, 1854, pp. 59–65).—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 495 ff.—Weber, System der altsynagog. paläst. Theol. p. xxii.—Strack, article “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, p. 755 f.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, p. 117 ff., art. “Pesikta.”

Besides this Pesikta de Rab Kahana, or Pesikta simply, there are other two works which bear that name:—

(a) Pesikta Rabbathi, which, like the older Pesikta, treats of the biblical readings for certain feast days and Sabbaths of the Jewish year. The date of its origin is the second half of the ninth century. Zunz, p. 244.

(b) Pesikta Sutarta, a Midrash on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth, by R. Tobia ben Elieser of Mainz, in the beginning of the twelfth century. It was quite a mistake to give to this book the name of Pesikta, for it has nothing at all in common with the other two books that bear this name. Compare Zunz, pp. 293–295. A Latin translation is given in Ugolini’s Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, vols. xv. and xvi.

On these two works and their editions see: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 391, 720 f., iv. 1031.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 160, iii. 427.—Steinschneider, Catalog. libr. Hebr. in Biblioth. Bodl., col. 631 sq., 2674 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in Library of British Museum, pp. 633, 758.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 756. Hamburger, Real-Encyclop., Supplement, pp. 119–122, art. “Pesikta.”

A “New Pesikta,” which is closely related to the Pesikta Rabbathi, but shorter and more popular in style than it, has been edited by Jellinek in his Bet ha-Midrash, vol. vi. 1877, pp. 36–70.

6. Pirke derabbi Elieser, פרקי דר׳ אליעזר, or Baraytha derabbi Elieser, ברייתא דר׳ אליעזר.

A Haggadic work, in fifty-four chapters, which follows in all essential respects the course of the pentateuchal history. It goes into specially minute details about the creation and the first man, and then again it lingers over the story of the patriarchs and the Mosaic age.—It was written at the earliest not before the eighth century (Zunz, p. 277).

Compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 173 sq., iii. 110, iv. 1032.—Zunz, pp. 271–277.—Sachs, Bemerkungen über das gegenseitige Verhältniss der Beraita des Samuel und der Pirke de R. Eliesar (Monatsschr. 1851–1852, pp. 277–282).—Strack and Hamburger are referred to in the last note. Pinner gives an outline of its contents in the introduction to his translation of the tract Berachoth (1842).—A list of editions, etc., is given by Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 232.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 633 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 221.—A Latin translation is given by Vorstius, Capitula R. Elieser ex Hebraeo in Latinum translata, Lugd. Bat. 1644.—Proof that the Barajtha derabbi Elieser is different from the Barajtha R. Samuel is given by Zunz in Steinschneider’s Hebr. Bibliographie, vol. v. 1862, p. 15 f.

7. Tanchuma, תנחומא, or Yelamdenu, ילמדנו.

A Midrash on the Pentateuch. Zunz fixes the date of its composition in the first half of the ninth century, and assumes that it had its origin in Europe, perhaps in Greece or in the south of Italy. It obtained the name Yelamdenu from its frequent use of the formula: “It is taught us by our Master”—Yelamdenu rabbenu.—Zunz has proved, pp. 226–229, that both of these designations, Yelamdenu and Tanchuma, were originally applied to one and the same Midrash. But the author of Yalkut had before him two different recensions, which he distinguished as Yelamdenu and Tanchuma (Zunz, p. 229 f.). And the common printed text is also distinguished from both of these as a comparatively recent abbreviation of Tanchuma; so that we have in all no less than three recensions of the text of this Midrash. Buber edited the original text of Tanchuma in 1885. Up to this time, however, we have no complete text of Yelamdenu. In opposition to Buber’s opinion, that the original Tanchuma is older than Bereshith Rabba, Pesikta, or the Babylonian Talmud, Neubauer has written in the Revue des études juives, xiii. 225 sq., and Brüll in the Jahrbb. für jüd. Geschichte und Literatur, viii. 121 ff. Tanchuma, however, is undoubtedly the oldest Haggadic Midrash on the whole Pentateuch (Zunz, p. 233).

On the common printed text and its editions: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 1159 sq., iii. 1166 sq., iv. 1035.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. 409.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 596 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 543.—Recent editions have been issued at Stettin 1864, at Warsaw 1875.

Midrasch Tanchuma. Ein agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch von Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba. Zum ersten Male nach Handschriften aus den Bibliotheken zu Oxford, Rom, Parma und München herausgegeben etc. von Salomon Buber, 3 vols., Wilna 1885.

Fragments from Yelamdenu and Tanchuma are given in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, vol. vi. 1877, pp. 79–105. Fragments of Yelamdenu in Neubauer, Le midrasch Tanchuma et extraits du Yélamdénu et de petits midraschim (Revue des études juives, xiii. 1886, pp. 224–238; xiv. 1887, pp. 92–113).

For a general information reference may be made to the following: Zunz, pp. 226–238.—Weber, System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie, xxiv. f.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 757 f.—Theodor, Buberʾs Tanchuma (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 35–42, 422–431).—Die Midraschim, zum Pentateuch und der dreijährige palästinensische Cyclus (Monatsschr. 1885, 1886, 1887).—Bacher, Zu Buber’s Tanchuma-Ausgabe (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 551–554).—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, p. 154 f., art. “Tanchuma.”—Brüll, Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. 1887, pp. 121–144.

8. Yalkut Shimoni, ילקוט שמעוני (from לקט, to collect).

This is an immense Midrashic compilation on the whole Hebrew Bible, in which, after the style of the patristic Catenae, explanations of each separate passage are put down in order, collected from the older works. According to Zunz, p. 299 f., the work was composed in the first half of the thirteenth century.—A certain Rabbi Simeon Haddarshan is named as the compiler, whose native place or residence is said to have been Frankfurt-on-the-Main. Zunz supposes that he was Simeon Kara, who, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, lived in South Germany.

Compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 1129 sq., iii. 1138.—Zunz, pp. 295–303.—Rapoport in Kerem Chemed (written in Hebrew), vii. 4 ff.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. 327 sq.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 2600–2604.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 702.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 738.—Recent edition, Warsaw 1876–1877.

III. Targums

The Targums or Aramaic translations of the Old Testament also belong to the Rabbinical Literature, inasmuch as expression is given in them likewise to the traditional understanding of the Scripture text. This is especially true of those which are not strictly literal, but rather free paraphrastic renderings of the original.—We mention here only the Targums on the Pentateuch and on the Prophets, for the Targums on the Sacred Writings or Kethubim can scarcely come under consideration by us owing to their late origin.

1. ONKELOS ON THE PENTATEUCH. The few notices about the person of Onkelos that are to be found in the Talmud describe him sometimes as a scholar and friend of the elder Gamaliel, according to which he must have lived about the middle of the first century after Christ, sometimes as a contemporary of R. Elieser and R. Joshua, according to which he must have lived in the first half of the second century. They agree only in this one particular, that he was a proselyte. The Chaldaic translation of the Pentateuch which has been ascribed to him is distinguished from all other Targums by its almost painful literalness. Only in a few, and those mostly poetic, passages (Gen. 49; Num. 24; Deut. 32–33), does it incline towards the Haggada by fanciful exposition. In other places departures from the text have been occasioned simply by a desire to avoid anthropomorphisms and expressions or modes of representation that seemed to be unworthy of God. The dialect of Onkelos is, according to Geiger and Frankel, the East Aramaic or Babylonian. Nöldeke in his earlier writings described it as “a somewhat later development of the Palestinian Aramaic already represented in some of the books of the Old Testament;” but latterly he has adopted the more definite view, that Onkelos is a Palestinian production re-edited in Babylon, “in general conformed in respect of language to the Old Palestinian dialect, but in respect of particular phrases very decidedly coloured by the dialect of Babylon.” At a very early period Onkelos secured a great reputation. The Babylonian Talmud and the Midrashim frequently quote passages from it. And in later times, indeed, it had an entire Masora devoted to itself. It has been often printed, e.g. in the rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in the London Polyglott. Berliner has issued a critical edition.

2. JONATHAN ON THE PROPHETS. Jonathan ben Uzziel is said to have been a scholar of Hillel, and must therefore have lived during the first decades of the Christian era. The Targum ascribed to him embraces all the Prophets, Nebiim, that is, the historical books and the prophets properly so called. It is distinguished from the Targum of Onkelos by its decidedly more paraphrastic character. “Even in the case of the historical books Jonathan often acts the part of an expositor; in the case of the prophetical books again, such a style of exposition is uninterruptedly pursued as makes it really a Haggadic work.” In respect of dialect, what was said above of Onkelos is equally applicable here. Jonathan also soon attained a high reputation, and is very frequently quoted in the Talmud and Midrashim. Like Onkelos, it has been often printed; e.g. in the rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in the London Polyglott. Lagarde issued a small critical edition on the basis of a codex Reuchlinianus.

According to the traditional views which we have thus reported, the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were written somewhere about the middle of the first century after Christ. Zunz and many recent scholars still are inclined to set them down to that period. But this opinion has been ably contested, especially by Geiger. A series of circumstances strongly supports the idea that both works must have been wrought up in Babylon, where a rabbinical school had been first established during the third century after Christ. Geiger therefore assumes that both Targums were composed, or rather revised and edited, in Babylon not before the fourth century. Frankel agrees with him in all essential points, only putting Onkelos a little earlier, as belonging to the third century. This latter opinion might be supported by the fact that Onkelos seems to have been made use of by Jonathan. The idea that the Targum on the Prophets was edited in the fourth century is also confirmed by tradition, for the Babylonian Talmud quotes it as the “Targum of R. Joseph,” a Babylonian teacher of the fourth century. But as to Onkelos, nothing whatever is known of his existence save that he composed the Targum that is named after him. For the notice which the Babylonian Talmud (Megilla 3a) gives of Onkelos and his Chaldaean translation of the Pentateuch, is to be found in the parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud attached to the name of Aquila and his Greek translation (Jer. Megilla i. 9). And the latter is undoubtedly the original form of the statement. Elsewhere, too, the names אונקלוס and עקיִלס are interchanged. It seems therefore that in Babylon the old and correct statement about a translation of the Pentateuch by the proselyte Aquila was erroneously attached to the anonymous Chaldaean Targum, and that the name Onkelos therefore is merely a corruption of the name Aquila. But even if the two Targums were first issued during the third and fourth centuries, it cannot be doubted that they are based upon earlier works, and only form the conclusion of a process that had been going on for several centuries. Even the Mishna speaks of Chaldee translations of the Bible. The New Testament is sometimes found in its rendering of Old Testament passages in striking agreement with the Targums (e.g. in Eph. 4:8),—a clear proof that the latter in respect of their materials reached back to the Apostolic age. Also express mention is made of a Targum on Job in the period preceding the overthrow of the temple. Fragments even from the time of John Hyrcanus are preserved in our Targums. From all this it is evident that in our Targums materials are made use of which had been gradually amassed during many generations, and that the works which we now possess were preceded by earlier written treatises. The linguistic character of the Targums, as Nöldeke has quite correctly maintained, testifies to the history of their origin. For in spite of their being revised and issued in Babylon, the Palestinian character of their language is unquestionable.

3. PSEUDO-JONATHAN AND JERUSALMI ON THE PENTATEUCH. Besides Onkelos, there are other two Targums on the Pentateuch, one of which contains the whole of the Pentateuch, while the other comprises only separate verses, and gives often only renderings of isolated words. The former is ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel; the latter is designated by the editors “Targum Jerusalmi.” That the former cannot have been written by the author of the Targum on the Prophets has long been generally admitted. But Zunz has also shown that Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalmi are only two different recensions of one and the same Targum; that both are quoted by older authorities (Aruch and Elia) under the name “Targum Jerusalmi;” and that even the recension now existing only as a fragment had been before the older authors in its complete form. The last statement may be questioned. Geiger thinks that the fragmentary Targum was from the beginning only “a collection of detached glosses,” not probably on the Pseudo-Jonathan but on the primary recension. According to Seligsohn and Volck, the Jerusalmi was “not a fragment of what had originally been a complete paraphrase, but a Haggadic supplement and a collection of marginal glosses and various readings on Onkelos; but Pseudo-Jonathan, on this basis and, upon the whole, with the same tendency, composed a later redaction of the Jerusalmi.” Bacher regards the fragmentary Targum as a collection of portions from the oldest Palestinian Targum. On the basis of the latter arose on the one side Onkelos, on the other side Pseudo-Jonathan, who already made use of Onkelos. At any rate, Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalmi are most intimately related to one another, and might best be designated as Jerusalmi I. and II. The attributing to Jonathan of the more complete issue is probably due to an erroneous interpretation of the abbreviation תי, which means תַּרְנּוּם יְרוּשַׁלְמִי. This Jerusalem Targum transmitted in its twofold recension is related to the Targum of Onkelos as “a midrash for the simple explanation of words. Onkelos is only sometimes an expositor; the Jerusalemite is only sometimes a translator” (Zunz, p. 72). “His language is a Palestinian dialect of the Aramaic; hence we must pitch upon Syria or Palestine as its author’s native country; and this assumption is confirmed by the oldest examples we have of the way in which the work was referred to—תַּרְנּוּם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל (Zunz, p. 73). As to the date, Pseudo-Jonathan, seeing that in his work there occur the names of a wife and daughter of Mohammed, cannot have composed it before the seventh or eighth century. But besides those later portions it contains, like the other Targums, and perhaps even to a greater extent than these, fragments from a very early period, so that it may justly be styled “a thesaurus of views from various centuries.”—Both recensions have often been printed, as, e.g., in the London Polyglott.

For the literature on the Targums and their editions, see: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1189 sqq.—Le Long, Bibliotheca sacra, ed. Masch, Part ii. vol. i. 1781, pp. 23–49.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 105–107, iii. 48.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr. in Bibliothec. Bodlei. col. 165–174.—Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 1884, ii. 175–200.—Volck in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xv. 1885, pp. 375–377.

HÄVERNICK, A General Historico-Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, translated by Dr. Lindsay Alexander, Edin. 1852, pp. 328–330.

ETHERIDGE, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch; with the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum: from the Chaldee. 2 vols. London 1862–1865.

DEUTSCH, article “Ancient Versions” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, American edition, vol. iv. pp. 3395–3424.

DAVIDSON, article “Targum” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Ginsburg: Articles in the same Cyclopaedia on “Onkelos” and “Jonathan.”

DE WETTE, Introduction to the Old Testament, § 58, and corresponding parts of the Introductions of Keil and Bleek.

Targums on Ruth and Jonah, literally translated by O. T. Crane. New York 1888.

ZUNZ, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 61–83.

WEBER, System der altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie, 1880, pp. xi.–xix.

HELVICUS, De chaldaicis bibliorum paraphrasibus. Giessen 1612.

CARPZOV, Critica sacra V. T. 1728, pp. 430–481. According to Winer, Grammatik des bibl. und targum. Chaldaismus, what more recent works give about the Targums is largely taken from these treatises of Helvicus and Carpzov.

WOLF, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. ii. 1135–1191, iv. 730–734.

EICHHORN, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Bd. ii. (4 Aufl. 1823) pp. 1–123.

GFROERER, Das Jahrhundert des Heils (1838), i. 36–59.

FÜRST, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1840, Nos. 44–47.

FRANKEL, Einiges zu den Targumim (Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums, 1846, pp. 110–120).

HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, Bd. iii. (1857) pp. 61 ff., 551 ff.

GEIGER, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (1857), pp. 162–167.

VOLCK, art. “Thargumim” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. xv. (1862) pp. 672–683; 2 Aufl. xv. (1885) pp. 365–377.

LANGEN, Das Judenthums in Palästina (1866), pp. 70–72, 209–218, 268 ff., 418 ff.

NÖLDEKE, Die alttestamentliche Literatur (1868), pp. 255–262.

BÖHL, Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu (1873), pp. 140–168.

SIEGFRIED, Philo von Alexandria (1875), p. 281 ff.

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud.

MERX, Bemerkungen über die Vocalisation der Targume (Abhandlungen und Vorträge des fünften internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses zu Berlin 1881, ii. 1: Abhandlungen und Vorträge der semitischen und afrikanischen Section, Berlin 1882, pp. 142–225).—Also: Johannes Buxtorf’s des Vaters Targumcommentar Babylonia (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1887, pp. 280–299, 462–471; 1888, pp. 41–48).

WINER, De Onkeloso ejusque paraphrasi chaldaica, Lips. 1820.

MAYBAUM, Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und den spätern Targumim mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ausdrücke Memra, Jekara und Schechintha. Breslau 1870.

SINGER, Onkelos und das Verhältniss seines Targums zur Halacha. Berlin 1881.

BERLINER, Targum Onkelos, herausgegeben und erläutert, vol. ii., Notes, Introduction, etc. Berlin 1884.

LUZZATTO, אוהב גר Philoxenus sive de Onkelosi chaldaica Pentateuchi versione (written in Hebrew). Vienna 1830.

RÖDIGER, art. “Onkelos” in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgem. Encyklop. Section iii. Bd. iii. (1832) p. 468 f.

LEVY, Ueber Onkelos und seine Uebersetzung des Pentateuch (in Geiger’s Wissen. Zeitschr. für jüd. Theol. v. 1844, pp. 175–198; continued in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des Orients, 1845, pp. 337 ff., 354 ff.).

ANGER, De Onkelo Chaldaico quem ferunt Pentateuchi paraphraste et quid ei rationis intercedat cum Akila Graeco Veteris Testamenti interprets. 2 Partt. Lips. 1846.

PRESSEL, art. “Onkelos” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. x. (1858) p. 613 f.

SCHRÖNFELDER, Onkelos und Peschittho. Studien über das Alter des Onkelos’schen Targums. München 1869.

GEIGER, Das nach Onkelos benannte babylonische Thargum zum Pentateuch (Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1871, pp. 85–104).

NEUBÜRGER, Onkelos und die Stoa (Monatsschr. 1875, pp. 566–568; 1874, p. 48).

BACHER, Das gegenseitige Verhältniss der pentateuchischen Targumim (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1874, pp. 59–71).

KLOSTERMANN, Anzeige von Lagarde’s Ausgabe, in den Stud. und Krit. 1873, pp. 731–767.

FRANKEL, Zu dem Targum der Propheten. Breslau 1872.

BACHER, Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum, in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. xxviii. 1874, pp. 1–72.

CORNILL, Das Targum zu den Propheten, in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentl. Wissenschaft, 1887, pp. 177–202.

KLEIN, Bemerkungen zu Bacher’s “Kritischen Untersuchungen” (Zeitschr. der DMG. xxix. 1875, pp. 157–161).—Bacher, Gegenbemerkungen (in same, p. 319 f.).

WINER, De Jonathanis in Pentateuchum paraphrasi chaldaica. Erlangen 1823.

PETERMANN, De duabus Pentateuchi paraphrasibus chaldaicis. P. I. De indole paraphraseos quae Jonathanis esse dicitur. Berol. 1829.

BÄR, Geist des Jeruschalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan), in Monatsschr. f. G. u. W. des Jud. 1851–1852, pp. 235–242.

SELIGSOHN, De duabus Hierosolymitanis Pentateuchi paraphrasibus. Breslau 1858.

SELIGSOHN UND TRAUB, Ueber den Geist der Uebersetzung des Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch und die Abfassung des in den Editionen dieser Uebersetzung beigedruckten Targum Jeruschalmi (Monatsschr. 1857, pp. 96–114, 138–149).

GEIGER, Das jerusalemische Thargum zum Pentateuch, in Urschrift, etc., pp. 451–480.

GRONEMANN, Die Jonathan’sche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Halacha. Leipzig 1879.

LAGARDE, Eine vergessene Handschrift des sogenannten Fragmententargums (Nachricht. von der kön. Gesells. d. Wissensch. zu Gött. 1888, pp. 1–3).

IV. Historical Works

Besides the Talmud, Midrashim, and Targums, there are also the following treatises, which ought to be classed among the works belonging to the circle of rabbinical works, inasmuch as they stand related in one way or another to our history. Only the first named, however, can be regarded as of any particular historical value.

1. Megillath Taanith, properly the “Book of the Fasts,” a list of those days on which, owing to some association or another, any joyous event (especially during the period of the Maccabees) could not be celebrated. The observance of such days is already presupposed in Judith 8:6. Our list is quoted even in the Mishna, Taanith ii. 8, and seems to have been compiled in the first century after Christ. The text is Aramaic; the much later commentary is in Hebrew.—The little tract, which in earlier times was not very highly esteemed, has been found of great historical importance, and much use has been made of it, especially by Derenbourg and Grätz.

Edition with Latin translation: Meyer, Tractatus de temporibus sacris et festis diebus Hebraeorum, etc. Accedit מנלת volumen de jejunio, Amstelaedami 1724.—Derenbourg in his Histoire de la Palestine (1867), pp. 439–446, gives the Aramaic text with a French translation.—Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 68 f., 384 f., ii. 1325 ff., iii. 1195 ff.,iv. 1024.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 9, under Abraham ha-Lewi.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Biblioth. Bodlei. col. 582.—Zedner, Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 517.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 127, 128.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. p. 381, vol. viii. p. 280 sq.—Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iii. pp. 597–615 (n. 1), and 685 ff. (n. 1).—Wellhausen, Phar. u. Saduc. pp. 56–63.—Schmilg, Ueber Entstehung und historischen Werth des Siegeskalenders “Megillath Taanith,” Leipz. 1874.—Joel Müller, Der Text der Fastenrolle (Monatsschr. 1875, pp. 43–48, 139–144).—Brann, Entstehung und Werth der Megillat Taanit (Monatsschr. 1876, pp. 375 ff., 410 ff., 445 ff.).—Cassel, Kritisches Sendschreiben über die Probebibel; II. Messianische Stellen des Alten Testaments. Angehängt sind Anmerkungen über Megillath Taanith, Berlin 1885.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, pp. 104–107, art. “Megillath Taanith.”

2. Seder olam, also called Seder olam rabba, an exposition of the biblical history from Adam down to the time of Alexander the Great, with some notices also of later times.—It is quoted in the Talmud, and is ascribed to R. Jose ben Chalephta, who lived about the years 130–160 after Christ. This supposition, however, rests simply on the fact that R. Jose is quoted nine times as an authority.

Much more modern, composed at the earliest in the eighth century, is the Seder olam sutta, a genealogical work, which treats first of all of biblical times, and then seeks to give an unbroken list of the princes during the Babylonian exile.

An edition of both, with a Latin translation: Chronicon Hebraeorum majus et minus, latine vertit et commentar. perpet. illustravit J. Meyer. Accedit ejusdem dissertat. 3, Amstelaedami 1699.—Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 492–499, iv. 1029 sq.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 107 sq.—Steinschneider, Catalogus Bodlei. col. 1433–1437.—Zedner, Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 689 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 85, 135–139.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. i. pp. 200, 209, vol. viii. p. 49.—Fürst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1846, pp. 547–552.—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 200.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplement. p. 132 f.

3. Megillath Antiochus, a short legendary history of the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the conquests of the Asmoneans. It belongs to the post-Talmudic age, and is historically worthless. The original Aramaic text was first printed in the present century. Numerous older editions give a Hebrew translation, which in its manuscript form is still extant.

On the manuscripts of the Aramaic and Hebrew texts, see especially: Curtiss, The Name Maccabee, Leipzig 1876, p. 36 sqq. In addition, consult: Merx, Chrestomathia targumica 1888, p. xvi., which calls attention to two manuscripts of the British Museum (Oriental Manuscripts, 2377, 2212) as giving the Aramaic text with the Babylonian pointing.—Bartolocci in his Bibliotheca rabbinica, i. 388 sqq., gives the Hebrew text with a Latin translation. The Latin translation alone is copied by Fabricius in his Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1165 sqq.—A modern edition of the Hebrew text: Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, i. (1853) pp. 142–146.—The Aramaic text was first edited by Filipowski in 1851: The Choice of Pearls … to which is added the Book of Antiochus, published for the first time in Aramaic, Hebrew, and English, by H. Filipowski, London 1851. Also more recently by Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrash, vi. (1877) pp. 4–8.

Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 204 sq., iii. 130.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 317.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr. Bodlei. col. 206 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of British Museum, p. 51.—Zunz, p. 134.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. p. 287 sq.

4. Josippon or Joseph ben Gorion. Under this name there exists, written in Hebrew, a history of the Jewish people from Adam down to the destruction of the temple by Titus. The author wishes to pass himself off for the ancient Josephus, but calls himself erroneously Joseph son of Gorion, and not infrequently departs so widely from the rôle which he had assumed as even expressly to quote from the true Josephus (Zunz, p. 150). The latter is, indeed, abundantly made use of, but in a very free and eclectic manner, while much purely legendary material is introduced from other sources. It would seem that this author had before him, not the Greek text, but a Latin translation of Josephus, and for the Bellum Judaicum, indeed, only the paraphrastic and loose rendering of the so-called Hegesippus. According to Zunz, pp 150–152, the work originated in Italy during the first half of the tenth century after Christ.

Among the numerous editions, the following deserve to be mentioned: Josephus Gorionides s. Josephus Hebraicus juxta venetam edit. latine versus et cum exemplari Constantinop. collatus atque notis illustratus a J. F. Breithaupto, Gothae 1707, in Hebrew and Latin. The same with a new title, Gothae et Lips. 1710.—A Hebrew-Latin edition had been already issued at a much earlier date by Sebastian Münster, Josephus Hebraicus diu desideratissimus opera Seb. Münsteri, Basil 1541; but it was disfigured by many arbitrary abbreviations.—A Latin translation of the whole text was given by Gagnier, Josippon sive Josephi ben Gorionis historiae Judaicae libri sex, ex hebraeo latine vertit, etc., Oxon. 1706.

Compare generally on the work and its editions: Oudin, De script. eccles. ii. col. 1032–1062.—Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 508–523, iii. 387–389.—Meusel, Bibliotheca histor. i. 2 (1784), pp. 236–239.—Fabricius, Bibliotheca graec., ed. Harles, v. 56–59.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 111–114.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr. Biblioth. Bodlei. col. 1547–1552.—Zedner, Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 344 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vörtrage der Juden, pp. 146–154.—Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie, Leipsic 1836, pp. 37–40.—Külb, art. “Josephus Gorionides” in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclop. Sec. ii. Bd. 23 (1844), p. 184.

THE RISE OF THE MACCABEES AND THE PERIOD OF FREEDOM, B.C. 175–63

INASMUCH as the history of Israel during this period is very much mixed up with the history of Syria, we propose to give first of all—

A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF SYRIA DURING THE LAST CENTURY OF THE SELEUCID DYNASTY, B.C. 175–63

Eusebii Chronicorum libri duo, ed. Schoene, vol. ii. Berol. 1866, vol. i. 1875; especially an extract given there from Porphyry.—Also the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus, ed. Halm, 1866, contains some statements of importance. See Bernays, Ueber die Chronik des Sulp. Severus, 1861, pp. 61–63.—Scattered notices will also be found in Polybius, Diodorus, Livy, and Justin. Appian gives a good summary sketch.—The Book of Daniel, chap. 11, and the commentary on it by Jerome (Opp. Vallarsi, v. 701–724), come into consideration only for Antiochus Epiphanes.—The two books of Maccabees, especially the first. Josephus, in books xii. and xiii. of his Antiquities, enlarges upon the story, and adds, especially for the history of the Seleucidae, many important historical statements derived from other writers.—And, finally, of the utmost importance are the numerous dated coins. For the literature of this subject, see above, § 2. D. Special attention should be called to Eckhel, Mionnet, de Saulcy, and the Catalogue of the British Museum by Gardner.

CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici. The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece and Rome, vol. iii., from the CXXIV Olympiad to the death of Augustus. Oxford 1830. 2nd edition, 1851, pp. 310–350.

EWALD, History of Israel, vol. v. Supremacy of the Seleucidae; the Maccabees; the sons of John Hyrcanus, pp. 286–394.

STANLEY, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. Third series. 2nd edition. London 1877. Lect. xlviii.–xlix. pp. 285–396.

NIEBUHR, Vorträge über alte Geschichte, iii. (1851). Also: Historischer Gewinn aus der armenischen Uebersetzung der Chronik des Eusebiut in Klein, Schr. i. 179–304.

FOY-VAILLANT, Seleucidarum imperium sive Historia regum Syriae ad fidem numismatum accommodata. Paris 1681.

FLATHE, Geschichte Macedoniens und der Reiche, welche von macedonischen Königen beherrscht wurden. Bd. ii. (1834). The most complete modern history of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

FROELICH, Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae numis veteribus illustrati. Viennae 1744, editio altera 1750.

STARK, Gaza und die philistäische Küste. 1852.

A good summary of the sources is given by Clinton.—For the determining of the general chronological framework the chief sources are: 1. The Extract from Porphyry in the Chronicle of Eusebius; 2. Separate statements in the First Book of Maccabees. The Seleucid era, according to which the dates in this book are reckoned, begins probably, not in autumn, but rather in spring of B.C. 312 (see above, § 3. A.). 3. The coins, whose dates have been lucidly collected and arranged by de Saulcy, Mémoire sur les monnaies datées des Séleucides, Paris 1871.

Porphyry, the well-known Neo-Platonic philosopher of the third century after Christ, wrote a chronological world in which he made careful use of the best sources. From, it Eusebius in his Chronicle makes extracts with reference to the history of the Ptolemies (Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 159 sq.), and with reference to the Macedonian kings (Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 229 sq.). But undoubtedly from, this same source, although Porphyry is not there named, is derived the whole similar paragraph on the history of the Seleucidae (Eusebii Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 247–264). The text of the Chronicle of Eusebius with this passage complete is now extant only in an Armenian translation, first edited by Aucher, Eusebii Chron. vol. i. (1818), translated anew for Schoene’s edition into Latin by Petermann. Fragments of the Greek text are met with in a Parisian manuscript, from which they were published even by Scaliger in the Appendix to his Thesaurus temporum, 1606, and more recently by Cramer, Anccdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis, vol. ii. (1839) p. 115 sqq. Müller in his Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, iii. 706–717, gives among the fragments of Porphyry, the Armenian and Greek text, together with a historical commentary.

In this passage Porphyry fixes the chronology of the Seleucidae according to the Olympiad era, and indeed in such a way that he takes into account only whole years; hence the year in which a change of kings occurs is reckoned to the one who preceded a full year, while the reign of his successor is made to begin with the following year. Thus, for example, although he makes the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes begin with Olympiad 151. 3, it actually began in Olympiad 151. 2. It is further to be remarked that, in dealing with the frequent appearances of pretenders to the throne, he dates the reign of the successful pretender from the year in which his opponent was overthrown.

From what sources Porphyry has derived his information may be learned from the following statement of Jerome, although its immediate reference is not to Porphyry’s Chronicle, but to his book on Daniel: Ad intelligendas autem extremas partes Danielis multiplex Graecorum historia necessaria est: Sutorii videlicet Callinici, Diodori, Hieronymi, Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii Theonis et Andronici cognomento Alipii, quos et Porphyrius esse sequutum se dicit; Josephi quoque et eorum quos ponit Josephus, praecipueque nostri Livii et Pompeii Trogi atque Justini, qui omnem extraemae visionis narrant historiam (Hieronymus, Praefatio in Danielem, Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 621 sq.).

But valuable as the work of Porphyry is, so carefully culled from the best original documents, we ought also to guard against any over-estimation of its worth. His statements about Olympiads are evidently “deductions from calculations of the years of the several reigns” (Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s und seiner Nachbarländer, 1888, p. 77, Anm.), and thus do not possess the weight of immediate traditional testimony.

ANTIOCHUS IV. EPIPHANES, B.C. 175–164

He was the son of Antiochus III. the Great, and brother of Seleucus IV. Philopator, who reigned B.C. 187–175. During the reign of his brother Seleucus he lived as a hostage at Rome. Seleucus procured for him liberty to return to his native land by sending as hostage to Rome his own son Demetrius; but before Antiochus reached home Seleucus had been murdered by Heliodorus. Antiochus then usurped the throne to which by right his nephew Demetrius ought to have succeeded (Appian. Syr. 45).—Antiochus died after a reign of eleven years, in B.C. 164, while engaged in a campaign against the Parthians.

That his reign lasted for eleven years is stated by Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 253, 263 sq.), Jerome (ad Danielem, 11. 21 sq.), and Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 22). The date of the beginning of his reign is set down by Porphyry as Olympiad 151. 3, and so actually Olym. 151. 2, which is equivalent to B.C. 175–174. This statement is borne out by the fact that the coins also begin with the year 138 of the Seleucid era, which corresponds to 175–174 before Christ. The First Book of Maccabees, on the other hand (chap. 1:10), places the beginning of the reign in the Seleucid year 137, that is, in B.C. 176–175, which can be reconciled with the statement of Porphyry only by supposing that the Seleucid year was reckoned from autumn to autumn, so that Olympiad 151. 2 would begin in the summer of B.C. 175. But if we assume that the First Book of Maccabees counts the year from spring to spring, we shall have to admit the existence of a slight discrepancy.—The death of Antiochus occurred, according to Porphyry, in Olympiad 154. 1, that is, in B.C. 164–163; according to the First Book of Maccabees (6:16), in the Seleucid year 149, which also answers to B.C. 164–163.

The chronology of the Egyptian campaigns of Antiochus, which is of importance also in Jewish history, is still matter of controversy. But according to non-Jewish sources, it is highly probable that they belonged to the period between B.C. 170 and B.C. 168. This is further supported by the fact that the First Book of Maccabees (1:20) makes mention for the first time of an Egyptian campaign in the Seleucid year 143, corresponding to B.C. 170–169, and indeed states precisely that autumn of B.C. 170 was the date of the return from it. Only the Second Book of Maccabees (5:1) disagrees with this by reckoning that campaign the second. But the unreliableness of this document would make the assumption of an earlier campaign in B.C. 171 unjustifiable apart from other evidence. Compare generally on this question: Droysen, De Lagidarum regno, 1831, pp. 56–69, which I have not been able to consult; Jo. Christ. Conr. Hofmann, De bellis ab Antiocho Epiphane adversus Ptolemaeos gestis, Erlangae 1835; Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, pp. 202–208; Stark, Gaza und die philistäische Küste, pp. 430–434; Grimm. Das erste Buch der Maccabäer, p. 15 f.; Joh. Friedr. Hoffmann, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, 1873, pp. 36–58; Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, ii. 2 (1876), pp. 436–443.

On Antiochus generally, besides the works mentioned above, compare: Ewald, History of Israel, v. 293–306; Stanley, History of the Jewish Church, third series, 1877, pp. 288–302. See also the article in Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissenschaft, and the articles by Wieseler in Herzog, vol. i. pp. 458–463, and by Reuss in Schenkel, Bibellexikon. For further notice, see § 4.

ANTIOCHUS V. EUPATOR, B.C. 164–162

This monarch was the son of Epiphanes. According to Porphyry he began to reign in his twelfth year, but according to Appian. Syr. 46 and 66, when he was only nine years old. From the statement of Porphyry it would seem as if he had been for a year and a half co-regent with his father; but the text is probably corrupt (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 253). During his short reign of only one and a half or two years he was simply a tool in the hand of his field-marshal and guardian Lysias, and was along with him, by the order of his cousin Demetrius, assassinated in B.C. 162.

The statements as to the length of this reign vacillate between a year and a half and two years; the former period is given by Porphyry in the Summarium (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 263 sq.), and the latter by Josephus in the Antiquities, xii. 10. 1 (Euseb. Chron. ii. 126 sq., ad ann. Abrah. 1852). The beginning and end are determined by the chronology of his predecessor and his successor.—Compare generally: Reuss in Schenkel and Wieseler in Herzog. Also Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography.

DEMETRIUS I. SOTER, B.C. 162–150

Demetrius was the son of Seleucus Philopator. He had been sent by him as hostage to Rome, but fled from thence, and assumed the reins of government in B.C. 162, after having had his cousin Antiochus Eupator assassinated.

In B.C. 153, Alexander Balas took up arms against him as a pretender to the throne. He claimed to be a son of Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore the legitimate heir of the Syrian throne. Demetrius fell in battle against him in B.C. 150.

The flight of Demetrius from Rome and the consequences resulting from it are very vividly sketched by Polybius, who, as a friend of Demetrius, was personally engaged in the incidents which he narrates (Polybius, xxxi. 12, 19–22). Both Polybius (iii. 5) and Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 255, 263 sq.) ascribe to Demetrius a reign of twelve years, while Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 2. 4) allows him only eleven years. Porphyry sets down the commencement of the reign at Olympiad 154. 4, that is really Olym. 154. 3, corresponding to B.C. 162–161; and the First Book of Maccabees (7:1) makes it 151 of the Seleucid era, which also answers to B.C. 162–161. The dated coins extend from 150 to 162 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 163–162 to B.C. 151–150. If the number of the year be rightly read as 150, the beginning of the reign must be set down before autumn of B.C. 162, which is reconcilable with the statement in First Maccabees on the supposition that its years are to be understood as spring years.—On the date of the insurrection of Alexander Balas, see below. The common text of Porphyry gives Olympiad 157. 4 as the date of the death of Demetrius. Since this would give him a reign of thirteen years, it is most probably to be read Olympiad 157. 3, corresponding to B.C. 150–149. According to 1 Macc. 10:50 and 57, the death of Demetrius occurred not later than 162 of the Seleucid era, or B.C. 151–150.—Compare on Demetrius generally, the articles in Herzog and Schenkel.

ALEXANDER BALAS, B.C. 150–145

When Alexander had wrenched the government from Demetrius, the son of Demetrius, who also himself bore the name of Demetrius, rose up against him. With this Demetrius II., Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt entered into alliance. Alexander was besieged in Antioch by the Egyptian king, fled to Arabia, and was there treacherously murdered in B.C. 145. On the fifth day after that bloody deed, the head of Alexander was brought to Ptolemy (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 8).

The coins of Alexander bear dates from 160 to 168 of the Seleucid era, that is, from B.C. 153–152 to B.C. 145–144. The First Book of Maccabees (10:1) describes his revolt against Demetrius as having taken place in the Seleucid year 160, or B.C. 153–152; and indeed B.C. 153 must be fixed upon, since it occurred before the Feast of Tabernacles of the year referred to (1 Macc. 10:21).—His reign proper is reckoned by Porphyry and Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 4. 8) at five years. The common text of Porphyry puts down the beginning of it in Olympiad 157. 3, and the end in Olympiad 158. 4. Since this, according to Porphyry’s style of reckoning, would give six years, probably we should read instead of 157. 3, 157. 4, that is really 157. 3, corresponding to B.C. 150–149.—The death of Alexander is placed by the First Book of Maccabees (11:19) in the Seleucid year 167, or B.C. 146–145. Porphyry’s date is Olympiad 158. 4, which corresponds to B.C. 145–144.—Compare on Alexander, the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.

DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR, B.C. 145–138

ANTIOCHUS VI., B.C. 145–(?). TRYPHO, (?)–138

One of the generals of Alexander, Diodotus, named Trypho, disputed the succession with Demetrius in favour of the youthful son of Alexander, Antiochus VI.

Meanwhile Trypho himself aspired to the throne, had his ward Antiochus murdered, and made himself king. Soon after this, according to other accounts even previously, Demetrius undertook a campaign against the Parthians, in the course of which he was taken prisoner by the Parthians in B.C. 138. But Trypho was defeated by Antiochus VII. Sidetes, the brother of Demetrius, at Dora, then shut up in Apamea, and compelled to end his life by his own hand (Strabo, p. 668; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 2; Appian. Syr. 68).

The revolt of Demetrius against Alexander Balas took place, according to 1 Macc. 10:67, in the Seleucid year 165, or B.C. 148–147, while his reign began in 167 of the Seleucid era, B.C. 146–145 (1 Macc. 11:19). The dates of the coins extend from 167 to 174 Seleucid era, or from B.C. 146–145 to B.C. 139–138.—There are coins of Antiochus VI. from 167 to 170 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 146–145 to B.C. 143–142. Coins of Trypho bear the number of the years III. (de Saulcy, p. 42, Mélanges de Numismatique, t. ii. 1877, p. 82 sq.) and IV. (Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 69). Josephus assigns to the reign of Antiochus VI. a period of four years, and to Trypho a period of three years (Antiq. xiii. 7. 1–2). According to this estimate, the reign of Antiochus would date B.C. 145–141; that of Trypho, B.C. 141–138. This is in agreement with the statement of Porphyry, who gives to Demetrius, before his imprisonment, only a three years’ reign (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 257, 263 sq.), from Olympiad 160. 1, which is really Olym. 159. 4, or B.C. 141–140, to Olympiad 160. 3, or B.C. 138–137. Porphyry evidently reckons the reign of Demetrius as beginning with the displacement by conquest or murder of Antiochus VI. In thorough accord with this, too, is the chronology of the First Book of Maccabees, 13:31, 41, which unhesitatingly assigns the murder of Antiochus by Trypho to the Seleucid year 170, or B.C. 143–142. Finally, it is no serious discrepancy when, in 1 Macc. 14:1, the Parthian campaign of Demetrius is dated from the Seleucid year 172, or B.C. 141–140; while Porphyry, on the other hand, assigns it to Olympiad 160. 2, or B.C. 139–138. In direct contradiction, however, to the foregoing, stands the statement made by many writers (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11, 7. 1; Appian. Syr. 67, 68; Justin. xxxvi. 1), that Antiochus was not murdered by Trypho before the time of the Parthian campaign of Demetrius, and indeed not till after Demetrius had been taken prisoner. This, however, is in opposition not only to the chronology of the First Book of Maccabees, but also to the circumstance that then there is not left a three or four years’ reign for Trypho, which yet, according to Josephus and the coins, must be admitted. Then Trypho’s death occurs almost contemporaneously with the seizure of Demetrius by the Parthians in B.C. 138. See in next paragraph under Antiochus Sidetes. It therefore seems to me hazardous to assume, with many modern critics, that the last-named authorities should have the precedence over 1 Macc.—Compare on this question, and on Antiochus VI. and Trypho generally: Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, 1793, pp. 269–274. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 331. Müller, Fragmenta hist. Graec. t. ii. p. xx. Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 43–49. Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, 1888, pp. 51–53. Also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.

ANTIOCHUS VII. SIDETES, B.C. 138–128

So long as Demetrius was the prisoner of the Parthians, Antiochus VII. held undisturbed sway in Syria.—In B.C. 129 he undertook a campaign against the Parthians, and in it he met his death in B.C. 128. During the war the Parthian king released Demetrius from his imprisonment, in order that he might seize for himself the government of Syria, and so compel Antiochus to return home.

On the surname Sidetes, compare Porphyry (Euseb. Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 255): in Sida urbe educatus, quapropter Sidetes utique vocabatur. The city Side lies in Pamphylia.—The revolt of Antiochus VII. against Trypho occurred, according to 1 Macc. 15:10, in the year 174 Seleucid, or B.C. 139–138. Porphyry reckons his reign from Olympiad 160. 4, that is really Olympiad 160. 3, or B.C. 138–137. The coins begin with the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139–138, and reach down to Seleucid year 184, or B.C. 129–128 (de Saulcy, pp. 44–46).—The beginning of the Parthian campaign cannot, according to Livy, Epit. 59, be placed earlier than B.C. 129, immediately after the consul M. Peperna, whose consulship was in B.C. 130, and immediately before the consul C. Sempronius, whose consulship was in B.C. 129. Porphyry assigns the death of Antiochus, after a nine years’ reign, to Olympiad 162. 4, or B.C. 129–128. According to Justin, xxxviii. 10, it occurred in the winter; according to Diodorus, xxxiv. 15 sq., in spring, therefore in the beginning of B.C. 128. In fact, the coins of Alexander Zabinas (see next paragraph) begin with the Seleucid year 184, or B.C. 129–128.—With these matters of fact in view, some coins of Antiochus, purporting to belong to the Seleucid year 185 and 186, the latter corresponding to B.C. 127–126, have occasioned great difficulties to the historians. Some have disputed the authenticity of their date (so Tôchon d’Annecy, Dissertation sur l’époque de la mort d’Antiochus VII. Evergètes Sidétès, roi de Syrie, sur deux médailles antiques de ce prince, et sur un passage du II livre des Macchabées, Paris 1815, pp. 61–65); others have assumed that even after the death of Antiochus, coins were issued with his name (so Niebuhr, Kleine Schriften, i. 251 f.). The most probable explanation is that the date has only been falsely read (see Nussbaum, Observationes, p. 51).—Compare generally: Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philol. Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 265–280. Nussbaum, Observationes in Flavii Josephi Antiquitates, 1875, pp. 49–54. Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, Tüb. 1888, pp. 75–77, who places the death of Antiochus in B.C. 129. Also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.

DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR, a Second Time, B.C. 128–125 OR 124 (?)

ALEXANDER ZABINAS, B.C. 128–122 (?)

After a ten years’ imprisonment among the Parthians, as Porphyry relates in Eusebius, Demetrius II. once again became king of Syria. There was soon raised up against him, through the intrigues of Ptolemy Physkon, an anti-king in the person of Alexander Zabinas, who claimed to be a son of Alexander Balas. Demetrius was besieged by him in Damascus, obliged to fly, and murdered as he attempted to land at Tyre.

Coins of Demetrius are in existence which pretend to belong to the period from 180 to 187 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 133–132 to B.C. 126–125 (de Saulcy, pp. 51, 52). If the reading is in every case correct, it might be supposed that even during the Parthian imprisonment of Demetrius, coins were issued with his name printed on them (so de Saulcy, p. 55). But the reading is not by any means certain in every instance (Nussbaum, Observationes, p. 52 sq.). There are some which certainly are marked 183–187 of the Seleucid era (Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 76 sq.; Bunbury, Num. Chronicle, 1883, p. 100 sq.).—Porphyry assigns to Demetrius after his imprisonment a reign of four years. The common text gives as its beginning Olympiad 162. 2, for which we ought certainly to read Olympiad 163. 2, that is really Olympiad 163. 1, or B.C. 128–127; and as the year of his death, Olympiad 164. 1, corresponding to B.C. 124–123. With this it is impossible to reconcile the fact that there exists coins of Antiochus VIII. Grypos, and of Cleopatra, professing to belong to the Seleucid year 187, or B.C. 126–125. Yet here again it may be questioned whether this is the correct reading.—Compare on Demetrius also the articles in Pauly, Winer, Herzog, and Schenkel.—For Alexander Zabinas, Porphyry gives no direct dates. His coins range over the period from 184 to 190 of the Seleucid era, or from B.C. 129–128 to B.C. 123–122 (de Saulcy, p. 57; Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, pp. 81–84; Bunbury, Num. Chronicle, 1883, p. 103 sq.).

SELEUCUS V., B.C. 125 OR 124 (?)

Seleucus V. succeeded his father Demetrius on the throne; but soon after beginning his reign he was murdered at the instigation of his own mother.

ANTIOCHUS VIII. GRYPOS, B.C. 125 OR 124–113

Antiochus VIII. was the brother of Seleucus. He had still to do battle with the anti-king Alexander Zabinas, but conquered him in the third year of his reign; according to Porphyry, in B.C. 122–121. He then caused Alexander to be executed, as Justin reports, xxxix. 2 (compare also Diodorus, xxxiv. 28). According to Porphyry, Alexander put an end to his own life by poison.

After a reign of eleven years, in B.C. 113, Antiochus VIII. Grypos was driven from the throne by Antiochus IX. Kyrikenos, who was his cousin on the father’s side, his brother on the mother’s side. Antiochus Grypos then withdrew to Aspendos.

The relationship between the two is as follows:—Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt, who had been already the wife of Alexander Balas (1 Macc. 10:58), had separated herself from him and married Demetrius II. Nicator (1 Macc. 11:12). From this marriage sprang Seleucus V. and Antiochus VIII. Grypos. But while Demetrius was detained among the Parthians, Cleopatra married his brother, Antiochus VII. Sidetes (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 1). From this marriage sprang Antiochus IX. Kyrikenos (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 1; Appian. Syr. 68). Porphyry in Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene, i. 260, says: τῷ ὁμομητρίῳ ἀδελφῷ Ἀντιόχῳ καὶ ἀνεψιῷ τὰ ἐκ πατρός.—Compare generally on the genealogy of the Seleucidae the table at the end of vol. ii. of this work.

The period of the reign of Antiochus VIII., down to his expulsion by Antiochus IX., is reckoned by Porphyry at eleven years, from Olympiad 164. 2, that is really Olympiad 164. 1, down to Olympiad 166. 4, or from B.C. 124–123 down to B.C. 113–112.—On the coins Antiochus VIII. appears sometimes as co-regent with his mother Cleopatra, sometimes alone. The coins of the former kind profess to belong to the period between 187 and 192 of the Seleucid era, or between B.C. 126–125 and B.C. 121–120 (de Saulcy, p. 61 sq.). For an account of the discrepancy between this date and that of Porphyry, see above under Demetrius II. and Alexander Zabinas. The proper coins of Antiochus VIII. begin with the Seleucid year 190, corresponding to B.C. 123–122 (de Saulcy, p. 65 sq.).

ANTIOCHUS IX. CYZICENOS, B.C. 113–95

ANTIOCHUS VIII. GRYPOS, B.C. 111–96

For two years Cyzicenos now ruled as sole monarch. But in B.C. 111, Grypos returned and wrested the greater part of Syria from his cousin. Only Coele-Syria remained in the possession of Cyzicenos. Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 260, says: κρατεῖ μὲν αὐτὸς τῆς Συρίας, ὁ δὲ Κυζικηνὸς τῆς Κοίλης. Thus was the kingdom broken up; and the two cousins and brothers engaged in a conflict with one another.

Antiochus Grypos died fifteen years after his return, in B.C. 96, according to Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4, by the hand of an assassin. His rights and claims were heired by his son Seleucus VI. He took up arms forthwith against Antiochus Cyzicenos, and laid siege to him in Antioch. In order to avoid imprisonment during the battle in B.C. 95, Antiochus put an end to his own life (Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron. i. 260).

To Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, Porphyry assigns a reign of eighteen years, extending from Olympiad 167. 1, that is really Olympiad 166. 4, down to Olympiad 171. 1, or from B.C. 113–112 down to B.C. 96–95. The coins, indeed, begin as early as 196 of the Seleucid era, or B.C. 117–116 (de Saulcy, p. 72 sq.). If both are correct, it must be assumed that Porphyry, with his date B.C. 113, does not mean the time of the revolt of Cyzicenos, but the time of his decided victory over Grypos. The return of Antiochus VIII. Grypos is set down by Porphyry in Olympiad 167. 2, or B.C. 111–110, and a reign of fifteen years is given him, extending down to Olympiad 170. 4, or B.C. 97–96. Josephus ascribes to Antiochus Grypos altogether a reign of twenty-five years, from B.C. 125–124 down to B.C. 96 (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4).

During the next twelve years, from B.C. 95 to B.C. 83, there now followed an almost unbroken series of conflicts between the five sons of Antiochus Grypos, namely, Seleucus VI., Antiochus XI., Philip, Demetrius III. Eucärus, and Antiochus XII. on the one hand, and the son of Antiochus Cyzicenos, Antiochus X. Eusebes, on the other (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4, 14. 3, 15. 1; Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i. 259–262; Appian. Syr. 69; and Clinton, pp. 340–342).

The result of these contendings was that Tigranes, king of Armenia, took possession for himself of the kingdom of Syria. His reign over Syria lasted for fourteen years, from B.C. 83 to B.C. 69.

The details, according to Josephus, who is here the most complete in his descriptions, are as follows:—Antiochus X. Eusebes, in order to revenge his father, made war against Seleucus VI., conquered him, and drove him into Cilicia, where he was put to death by the citizens of Mopsuestia on account of his oppressions. Then his brother, Antiochus XI., next took up the conflict against Antiochus Eusebes, but was defeated, and lost his life in the battle. The third brother, Philip, now appeared upon the scene, and entered the lists against Antiochus Eusebes, according to Porphyry, in Olympiad 171. 3, or B.C. 94–93, and succeeded in making himself master of at least a part of Syria, while the fourth brother, Demetrius Eucärus, had seized upon another portion, with Damascus as its capital. Then Antiochus Eusebes, according to Josephus, lost his life in a battle with the Parthians. The two brothers, Philip and Demetrius, now reigned for a long time, each over his own part of Syria. But by and by Demetrius declared war against Philip, besieged him in Beröa, east of Antioch, but was himself taken prisoner, and died in confinement. There were now left only Philip and the youngest brother, Antiochus XII., who continued to fight with one another. But Antiochus fell in a battle against the Arab chief Aretas, who thereupon took possession of Coele-Syria. At last the whole of Syria fell into the hands of Tigranes. According to Appian. Syr. 48, 69, Antiochus X. Eusebes was still alive and reigning when Tigranes seized upon Syria; and indeed, according to Justin, xl. 2, and Porphyry in Eusebius, Chron. i. 262, he was still living when Pompey made an end of the Syrian empire. The latter statement, however, has evidently resulted from a confusion between Antiochus X. Eusebes and Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus, who are both clearly enough distinguished by Appian. But the former is in every respect more probable, since Appian seems here to have used reliable sources. It may then be assumed that Antiochus Eusebes had possession of the greater, Philip and Aretas of the smaller part of Syria, when Tigranes made himself master of the kingdom.

For the chronology of the years B.C. 95–83, the coins afford some important clues (Gardner, Catalogue of Greek Coins, p. 95 sqq.). Yet we have not materials for determining all the details. There are dated coins of Philip from the Seleucid year 221 down to 229, or from B.C. 92–91 down to B.C. 84–83 (de Saulcy, p. 78); of Demetrius there are some from the Seleucid year 217 down to 224, or from B.C. 96–95 down to B.C. 89–88 (Gardner, Catalogue, p. 101; Eckhel, iii. 245); of Antiochus XII. there is one belonging to the Seleucid year 227, or B.C. 86–85 (Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques, 1883, p. 437). Very puzzling are the coins of Philip which were printed in Antioch, and bear the figures 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 30, purporting to indicate the numbers of the years (de Saulcy, p. 79). If the dates are correctly read, and refer to the years of Philip’s reign, it must be assumed that Philip had been able to maintain his position in Antioch even during the domination of Tigranes. In fact, Porphyry also assumes that Philip lived down to the time of Pompey (Euseb. Chron. i. 262). But according to Diodorus, Fragm. 34 (in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. t. ii. p. 24 sq.), this Philip, who made his appearance at the time of Pompey as a claimant, was a son of our Philip, and so grandson of Antiochus Grypos (see also Müller). We seem therefore to have no alternative but to assume that those numbers signify, not the years of Philip’s reign, but the years of an era that began somewhere about B.C. 113.

This much is known regarding the period of Tigranes: that according to Appian. Syr. 48, 70, and Justin. xl. 1–2 (according to the correct reading), he reigned over Syria fourteen years. The end of his reign, however,—that is, his defeat by Lucullus,—occurred, as is well known from the Roman history, in B.C. 69.

After the defeat of Tigranes by Lucullus, Syria did not all at once fall into the possession of the Romans. Lucullus assigned it to a son of Antiochus Eusebes, who reigned from B.C. 69 to B.C. 65 under the title of Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus. It was Pompey who, on his victorious march through Asia, first made a complete end of the Seleucid dynasty, in B.C. 65 (Appian. Syr. 49, 70; Justin, xl. 2; Clinton, pp. 344–348). Syria now became a Roman province (Plutarch, Pompeius, 39).

Pompey first of all, in B.C. 65, sent his legates from Armenia to Syria, and in B.C. 64 he went himself; but the definite arrangements of Syrian affairs were first settled in B.C. 63–62 (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 345 sq.; Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 215 ff.). In B.C. 65 or 64, probably the disturbances broke out of which Diodorus, Fragm. 34 (in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. t. ii. p. 24 sq.), gives an account. Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus sought to maintain his possession of the throne by the aid of Sampsigeram of Emesa. At the same time a struggle was made for a like purpose by Philip, son of King Philip, and grandson of Antiochus Grypos, who sought to support his claims by the assistance of the Arab prince Azizus. But Antiochus was taken prisoner by Sampsigeram, and afterwards put to death, and Philip was able to escape the snares of Azizus only by flight.

By means of this report of Diodorus of the end of Antiochus Asiaticus, we see how utterly groundless was the statement of older scholars, that Antiochus Asiaticus obtained possession of the small kingdom of Commagene, and became the founder of the dynasty of Commagene (see in opposition, Clinton, pp. 346–348). But it is quite true that the dynasty of Commagene had a connection by affinity with the Seleucidae. Consult upon this matter the inscriptions, Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 362; Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 552; Corp. Inscr. Atticarum, t. iii. 1, n. 557; and especially Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, t. iii. 2, n. 136d, from Ephesus. The latter tells of a βασιλέα Ἀντίοχον Θεὸν Δίκαιον Ἐπιφανῆ Φιλορωμαῖον καὶ Φιλέλληνα, τὸν ἐγ βασιλέως Μιθραδάτου Καλλινίκου καὶ βασιλίσσης Λαοδίκης Θεᾶς Φιλαδέλφου τῆς ἐγ βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου Ἐπιφανοῦς Φιλομήτορος Καλλινίκου. This same Antiochus, with the same genealogy, appears also in an inscription communicated by Puchstein (Puchstein, Bericht über eine Reise in Kurdistan, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1883, p. 49 ff.). The Antiochus to whom both inscriptions refer was undoubtedly a king of Commagene; the other Antiochus, the father of Laodice, was evidently a Seleucid, according to Waddington, Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus; according to Mommsen, Antiochus VIII. Grypos. The latter conjecture is certainly correct, for Antiochus VIII. Grypos is designated on coins Ἐπιφανής, is called by Porphyry and Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 12. 2, Φιλομήτωρ, and the cognomen Καλλίνικος, which Mommsen was not then able to authenticate, has also been since confirmed by an inscription from Delos (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, t. viii. 1884, p. 105 sq.). His daughter Laodice is clearly identical with the Laodice mentioned by Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 13. 4 (Gutschmid, Geschichte Iran’s, 1888, p. 80, Anm.). Compare generally: Mommsen, Die Dynastie von Commagene (Mittheilungen des deutschen archäologischen Institutes in Athen, Bd. i. 1876, pp. 27–39). Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 398 ff.

§ 4. RELIGIOUS DESTITUTION AND REVIVAL, B.C. 175–165

1 Macc. 1–4 2 Macc. 4–11.

Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5–7. Epitome of it in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 19–20.

The Book of Daniel, chap. 11:21–45, and Jerome’s Commentary (Opp., ed. Vallarsi, v. 711–724).

Some facts collected from Megillath Taanith in Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 59–63.

The works already mentioned in p. 170 on Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc.

Treatises and Commentaries on the Books of the Maccabees, by Wace, Birrell (Apocrypha, with introd. notes, etc., New York 1880), Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, etc.

Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. 286–306.

Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 Aufl.), iv. 219–261.

Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 367–395.

Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. ii. 2, pp. 268–352.

Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments, § 451–460.

Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissensch. i. 1 (2 Aufl.), art “Antiochus IV.”

Rossmann, Die makkabäische Erhebung. Vortag. Jena 1860.

Hoffmann (John Fried.), Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, König von Syrien. Leipzig 1873.

Wiederholt, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes nach der Weissagung, Dan. xi. 21, xii. 3, und der Geschichte (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1874, pp. 567–631).

Menke’s Bibelatlas, Bl. IV. Specialkarten über “Judäa und Phönicien zur Zeit des Antiochus Epiphanes.”

Since the conquests of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the Jewish people had lost their political independence. The northern kingdom of the ten tribes had been overthrown by the Assyrians, the southern kingdom of Judah by the Chaldeans. The sovereignty had passed from the Chaldeans to the Persians, and from the Persians, after a supremacy of two centuries, to Alexander the Great. In the wild commotions of the Diadochean period, Palestine formed a main object of strife between Ptolemy Lagus and his opponents, and was therefore sometimes under one, sometimes under another master. With short intervals it continued throughout the third century under the sway of the Ptolemies. But in the beginning of the second century, Antiochus the Great succeeded in permanently securing possession of Phoenicia and Palestine. In place of the Ptolemies, the Seleucidae now became the suzerains of the Jewish people.

Even in the beginning of the Persian domination the Jews had resolved to organize themselves anew as a religious and political community. But the form in which the Jewish commonwealth was restored after the exile was essentially different from that which prevailed before. It was from this time forward a government of priests. As they were preeminently religious interests that had given the impulse to the reconstruction, so also the form of the new commonwealth was more that of a religious than of a political association. The priests had in it a predominating influence, at least from the time of Ezra. Indeed, a priest stood at the head of the political organization. For the so-called high priest was not by any means simply the supreme director of worship, but was at the same time also the supreme head of the State, in so far as civil authority was not exercised by the great king and his officers. The rank of high priest was held for life, and was hereditary. Alongside of him, probably even during the Persian period, and in any case from the beginning of the Greek domination, stood a council of elders, the γερουσία, with the high priest at its head as its executive organ. How far administration and legislation lay in the hands of this native board, and how far these were exercised by the Persian and Greek suzerains, cannot now be determined with any certainty. Under the Greek suzerains the political independence of the Jewish people could not be less, but probably greater, than it had been before (compare generally, § 23. 3).

The extent of the Jewish commonwealth, which still possessed a relatively considerable measure of independence, was probably limited to Judea proper, that is, the province lying south of Samaria, which in its range corresponded nearly with the kingdom of Judah of earlier days. All the coast cities were excluded from it, for these were mainly occupied by a heathen population, and formed independent communities by themselves (see § 23. 1). How far those Gentile districts extended inland may be seen from this, that even Ekron and Gazara did not belong to Judea. Ekron was first united with the Jewish domain and Judaized in the time of Jonathan (1 Macc. 10:88, 89), Gazara first in the time of Simon (1 Macc. 13:43–48). On the situation of these towns, see below under § 6 and 7. Also the whole of the land east of the Jordan was excluded from the Jewish territory. We find there partly Hellenistic communities (see § 23. 1), partly independent tribes, under native rulers. In the country west of the Jordan, towards the end of the third and the beginning of the second century, “Judea” and “Samaria” formed each a separately administered province alongside of “Coele-Syria” and “Phoenicia.” Galilee was not reckoned as a distinct province, and so it belonged to one of the four above named, but scarcely to Judea, toward which it did not conveniently lie. Now the Pseudo-Hecataeus, indeed, expressly affirms that Alexander the Great gave to the Jews Samaria as a district free from tribute. But even if this statement were more credible than it is, it could not by any means apply to the period of the Seleucid rule, since even under the Maccabean high priest Jonathan it is related as a proof of the special favour of King Demetrius II., that he took three νομοί from Samaria and united them with Judea, and made over this whole district to the Jews free of tribute. Ordinarily, therefore, the territory of the Jewish high priest embraced only Judea. And that, too, Judea in the narrower sense, without Galilee, for this is evidently the meaning of the passages quoted from the First Book of Maccabees.

The spread of the Jewish population was by no means limited to the bounds of Judea in the political sense. Even the circumstance that during the Maccabean age stress was laid upon the union with Judea of the three southern districts of Samaria (1 Macc. 11:34; Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim), leads to the conjecture that the population within those districts was mainly Jewish,—in other words, that they had not with the schismatical Samaritans offered sacrifices on Mount Gerizim, but in Jerusalem, and that they had maintained religious fellowship with the Jews there. But also in the province of Galilee, and even in Gilead, in the country east of the Jordan, at the beginning of the second century, a considerable number of Jews must have resided, who maintained religious intercourse with Jerusalem; for it was one of the first acts of the Maccabee brothers, after the restoration of the Jewish worship, to bring help to their brethren in the faith in Galilee and Gilead who had been oppressed by the heathen : Simon went to Galilee, Judas to Gilead (1 Macc. 5:9–54). The manner in which they afforded this help shows us, however, on the other hand, that then the general mass of the population of those districts was no longer Jewish. For neither Simon nor Judas took the provinces as such under Jewish protection. But after Simon had defeated the heathen in Galilee, he led all the Jews away out of Galilee and Arbatta (properly עֲרָבוֹת, the lower districts of the Jordan), together with their wives and children and all their possessions, into Judea, in order that there he might keep them in safety (1 Macc. 5:23). In precisely the same way Judas dealt with those Jews that lived in Gilead, after he had overthrown the heathen there (1 Macc. 5:45–54). It therefore seems quite evident that the Jews in Galilee and Gilead formed then a “dispersion” among the heathen; and the first Maccabees made no sort of attempt to Judaize those provinces, but, on the contrary, withdrew from them their Jewish population. It was John Hyrcanus, or one of his successors (probably not before Aristobulus I.), who first introduced that policy.

The internal development of Judaism from the time of Ezra to that of the Maccabees, or even down to the compilation of the Talmud, can be sketched only in very general outlines. The starting-point, indeed, is known to us in fuller detail—the priestly law introduced by Ezra in the fifth century before Christ; and then, again, the culmination: the codification of the Jewish law in the Mishna in the second century after Christ. Between these two points lies a period of six centuries. What stage of development had Judaism reached at the outbreak of the Maccabean revolution ? We can only say, it was already on the way to those results which are set before us in the Mishna; and the Maccabean age was simply the period of the greatest crisis through which it was called to pass during that whole era. The attempt was made to overthrow the foundations of its earlier development, to convert the Jewish people to heathenism. The result was that the foundations laid before by Ezra were now strengthened, and the theoretical elaboration of the law and its practical applications were prosecuted with glowing enthusiasm. The law which Ezra had introduced was essentially a ceremonial law. The religion of Israel is there reduced to strictly legalized forms, in order that it may be made more secure against the influences of heathenism. In the form of a law given by God Himself, the Jew was told what he had to do as a faithful servant of Jehovah, what festivals he should celebrate, what sacrifices he should offer, what tribute he should pay to the priests who conduct the services, and generally what religious ceremonies he should perform. Precision in the observance of all these prescribed rites was to be made henceforth the gauge and measure of piety. And in order to make this precision as exact as possible, it was necessary that an authentic interpretation be supplied. A special order under the name of “Scribes” devoted themselves to the study of the law as a profession, and engaged upon a subtle and refining exposition of it. But the pious considered it to be their chief business to fulfil with zeal and conscientiousness the law as thus expounded. That very considerable progress in this direction had been made even in the second century before Christ, is distinctly proved by the history of the Maccabean revolution. There was a religious party which interpreted the Sabbath command so strictly, that they would rather surrender without a struggle than infringe upon the observance of the Sabbath by wielding the sword (1 Macc. 2:32–38). It also belonged to the ideal of piety, which even the author of the book of Daniel had already set before the eyes of his comrades in the faith as an essential condition, that they should not defile themselves with the eating of the food of the heathen (Dan. 1).

But alongside of this legalistic tendency there were operating in Palestine, from the time of Alexander the Great, influences of an altogether different kind, which proved the more decidedly and dangerously hostile to the interests of the law and its promoters the longer they existed. These were the Hellenizing tendencies. It had been the fond dream of Alexander to found a universal empire, which would be held together not merely by the unity of the government, but also by the unity of language, customs, and civilisation. All the Oriental races were to be saturated with Hellenic culture, and to be bound together into one great whole by means of this intellectual. force. He therefore took care that always Greek colonists should directly follow in the steps of his army. New cities were founded, inhabited only by Greeks, and also in the old cities Greek colonists were settled. Thus over one half of Asia a network of Greek culture was stretched, which had as its object the reducing under its influence of the whole surrounding regions. The successors of Alexander continued his work; and it is a striking testimony to the power of Greek culture, that it fulfilled in large measure the mission which Alexander had assigned it. All Western Asia, in fact, if not among the wide masses of the population, yet certainly among the higher ranks of society, became thoroughly Hellenized. Even in Palestine about the beginning of the second century this movement was in full progress. It cannot indeed be proved that all those cities, which we have come to reckon during the Roman period as Hellenistic cities (see § 22. 2 and § 23. 1), had been already Hellenized in the beginning of the Maccabean period. But this may safely be assumed in regard to the majority of them. Many had Hellenic institutions introduced by Alexander the Great himself, others by his successors, and everywhere Greek influence and Greek ideas were promoted. Even in the pre-Hellenic age, Gaza, as its coins prove, had lively commercial intercourse with Greece; from the time of its conquest by Alexander it was a Macedonian arsenal and residence for troops; and Josephus describes it as a πόλις Ἑλληνίς. Anthedon by its very name betrays its Greek origin. In Ashkelon coins of Alexander the Great were stamped. Ashdod on its coins, which date from the age of the Diadochae or even earlier, makes use indeed of the Hebrew language, but writes the letters in Greek characters (ΙΡ ΑΣΔΩΔ ΑΣΙΝΑ). Joppa is the old site of the myth of Perseus and Andromeda, and was in the age of the Diadochae a Macedonian garrison town. Apollonia is manifestly a foundation of the Greek times. Straton’s Tower has indeed a Greek name, but was really founded at an earlier date by the Sidonians. On the other hand, Dora was possibly even in the fifth century before Christ put under tribute by the Athenians. In Acre, afterwards Ptolemais, as early as the times of Isaeus and Demosthenes, there was a Greek trading colony. The coins impressed there with the name of Alexander were already very numerous, and in the age of the Diadochae it was an important garrison town. The real Hellenizing and refounding of it as Ptolemais was probably the work of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus.—Along with these coast towns we must also include a number of inland cities. We know certainly of Samaria that it was colonized by Alexander. Scythopolis is met with bearing this Greek name as early as the third century; and even earlier we have Paneion, the grotto at the source of the Jordan, as the sanctuary of Pan. Along with Scythopolis, Polybius (v. 70) makes mention of an important city not otherwise known, Philoteria on the Lake of Gennesaret, in the time of Antiochus the Great, B.C. 218, which, like the similarly named city in Upper Egypt, had its name probably from a sister of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus.—Of the cities of the countries east of the Jordan, Hippus and Gadara were distinctly reckoned πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες. Pella and Dium are denominated Macedonian cities, and were founded perhaps by Alexander the Great, and at latest during the Diadochean age. The derivation of the name Gerasa from the γέροντες, the veterans of Alexander the Great, is probably nothing more than an etymological fancy. This, however, is certain, that the old capital of the Ammonites was Hellenized by Ptolemy II. Philadelphus under the name of Philadelphia. And finally, the Second Book of Maccabees speaks generally of πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες within the boundaries of Judea (2 Macc. 6:8).

Within the encircling network of Hellenistic cities the small province of Judea kept itself clear of the influence of Greek customs and ways. There, too, Hellenism encroached more and more. The indispensable requirements of daily life obliged the Jews to make use of the universal language of the Greeks. How otherwise would commercial intercourse with foreign lands have been possible? But with the language came also the manners and customs, and indeed the whole culture of Greece. In the beginning of the second century the progress of Hellenism in Palestine must have already become quite observable. For only thus can we explain how a section of the people, including the upper classes and the educated, readily gave their consent to the Hellenizing projects of Antiochus Epiphanes, and even went beyond him in carrying them out.—Had this process been allowed to go on in its natural and peaceful course, then the Judaism of Palestine would probably have in time assumed a form in which it would be scarcely recognisable,—a form even more syncretistic than that of Philo. For it belonged to the very essence of Hellenism that it should dominate and colour the modes of religious worship, and at least clothe them in Grecian garments. We find it so in Syria as well as in Egypt. Nor would it have happened otherwise in Judea, if matters there had been permitted to take a smooth course. But the more perfect that legalistic Judaism had become on the one hand, and the more thoroughly developed the central principle of Hellenism had grown upon the other, the more decided and irreconcilable did the opposition between the two appear. Within the circle of the Jewish people itself there now arose two antagonistic parties: the party friendly to the Greeks and the party of “the pious” (חֲסִידִים, Ἀσιδαῖοι, 1 Macc. 2:42, 7:13), who held stoutly by the strict ideal of the scribes. But the whole preliminary history of the Maccabean revolution makes it evident that already the adherents of the former party were in the majority. Everything seemed conspiring to present before Hellenism an open door. It appeared as if nothing else was now left for “the pious” but to form themselves into a sect. But just then a powerful reaction set in, brought about by the attempt of an unintelligent despot, Antiochus Epiphanes, prematurely and with rude violence to force upon them Hellenic institutions. The Jewish worship was to be completely abolished, purely Greek rites were to be introduced, all Jewish ceremonies were all at once to be forbidden. It was just the extreme and radical character of this attempt that saved Judaism. For now not only the strict party of Chasidim, but the whole mass of the people, was roused to do battle for the old faith. And the further development of events led to the complete expulsion of Hellenism from Jewish soil, at least in matters of religion. So far as our information reaches, this is the only example of an Oriental religion completely emancipating itself from the influence of Hellenism.

Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the Great, had succeeded his brother Seleucus IV. in the government of Syria, after that king had been murdered by his minister Heliodorus, and held possession of the throne from B.C. 175 till B.C. 164. He was by nature a genuine despot, eccentric and undependable, sometimes extravagantly liberal, and fraternizing with the common people in an affected manner; at other times cruel and tyrannical, as he showed himself in his treatment of Judea. The picture drawn of him by Polybius describes him under the more pleasing aspect. This is the sketch he gives:—

Sometimes he would slip away from the palace and would appear at one time here, at another time there, in the city, sauntering along in company with one or two. Very often he was to be found in the workshops of the silversmiths and goldsmiths, where he would chat away with the moulders and other workmen, and seek to impress them with his love of art. Then he would condescend to familiar intercourse with any sort of people he chanced to come across, and would carouse with the meanest strangers who might happen to be present. But when he learned that young folks anywhere were to have a drinking bout, he would appear among them unexpectedly with horn and bagpipe, so that most, through sudden fright, would rush precipitately away. Often, too, he laid aside his royal robes, and, dressed in a toga, would go to the forum as a suppliant for an office. He would then seize some by the hand, others he would embrace, and entreat them to give him their vote, sometimes for the office of aedile, sometimes for that of tribune of the people. If he succeeded in obtaining the office, and was seated according to Roman custom in the ivory chair of state, he would take into consideration the cases that were to be adjudicated upon in the forum, and give his decisions with much earnestness and conscientiousness. Rational people, therefore, were at a loss what to think about him. Some regarded him as a simple and homely man, others looked upon him as crazed. He acted in a similar manner in the bestowal of his gifts. To some he gave bone dice, to others dates, to others gold. But if perchance he should meet any one whom he had never seen before, he would give him unexpected presents. But in the sacrifices which he had offered up in cities, and in the honours which he gave to the gods, he went beyond all other kings. As a proof of this we may point to the Temple of Zeus at Athens, and the images around the altar at Delos. He was wont also to bathe in the public baths, when they were quite full of their habitual visitors, where vessels of the most costly perfumes would be brought to him. When somebody once said to him: ‘Happy art thou, O king, since thou hast such perfumes and givest forth such fragrance;’ he went on the following day, without having said anything to the man, to the place where he bathed, and showered upon his head the contents of a large vase of that most precious ointment called stacte; whereupon all made a rush forward in order to wash themselves with the ointment But on account of the slipperiness of the pavement many fell, amid shouts of laughter, the king himself joining in the mirth.”—Thus far Polybius. Diodorus and Livy give similar accounts. They give special prominence to his love of pomp and his munificence. Brilliant spectacles, magnificent buildings, kingly presents, these were the sort of things in which he delighted. But in everything he was inclined to rush to extravagant extremes, so that Polybius already styled him ἐπιμανής rather than ἐπιφανής.

Such being the character of the man, we need not trouble ourselves seeking to discover any very deep motives for his proceedings against Judea. Tacitus has, upon the whole, given a fair estimate of them when he said: Antiochus strove to overthrow the superstition of the Jews and to introduce among them Greek customs, but was prevented by the war with the Parthians “from improving the condition of this most detestable race.” His endeavour was to advance everywhere the lustre of Greek culture. In Judea a section of the people declared in favour of his plans. He was naturally prepared to give that party his support, and to make over to it the government of Judea. But when the Jewish people organized an opposition to these schemes, this roused the capricious humour of the despot. He first of all chastised the refractory people by plundering the rich treasures of their temple, which must have been very enticing to the king, now sorely in need of money. Then, as the opposition still continued, he proceeded to radical and sweeping measures. The Jewish worship was completely suspended, all Jewish ceremonies were strictly forbidden, and with rude violence a thoroughgoing Hellenizing process was attempted.

At the head of the party in Judea attached to the old faith at the time when Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne, stood the high priest of that day, Onias III. The leader of the party friendly to the Greeks was his own brother Jesus, or, as he is better known under his Greek name, Jason. In Jerusalem the inclination in favour of Greek customs was already so strong that the friends of the Greeks could venture upon the attempt to seize the government for themselves, and to carry out their plans by force. Jason promised the king a great sum of money,—whether as a gift bestowed once and for all, or as a regular tribute, is not very clear,—if he would transfer to him the high-priesthood, permit him to erect a gymnasium and an ephebeion, and finally allow “the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be enrolled as Antiocheans,” τοὺς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις Ἀντιοχεῖς ἀναγράψαι, that is, grant them the title and privileges of citizens of Antioch. Antiochus was quite ready to concede all this. Onias was driven out, and Jason was installed as high priest. The Hellenizing process was now carried on with energy. There is indeed no mention of any attack having been made upon the Jewish religion. But in every other direction he put down “the institutions that were according to the law, and brought up new customs against the law” (2 Macc. 4:11). A gymnasium was erected below the castle; the young men of Jerusalem exercised themselves in the gymnastic arts of the Greeks. The very priests forsook their service at the altar and took part in the games of the palaestra. The contempt for Jewish customs went so far that many sought artificially to remove the traces of their circumcision. With a latitudinarianism of a genuinely Hellenistic type, Jason sent a contribution to the sacrificial festival of Hercules at the games celebrated every fourth year at Tyre. This, however, was so offensive to the Jews entrusted with the carrying of it, that they entreated that the money should be applied to building ships.

For three years, from B.C. 174 to B.C. 171, Jason administered his office after this fashion. Then he fell, through the machinations of a rival, who continued his work in a manner still more contemptible. Menelaus, by promising still larger gifts of money, was able to bring about Jason’s overthrow, and to secure the transference to himself of the high priest’s office. He roused against himself the bitter animosity of the people by appropriating the treasures of the temple. He also was the instigator of the murder of the former high priest Onias III., who had sought the asylum of the sanctuary at Daphne, from which, however, he was decoyed and treacherously murdered.

Meanwhile Jason had not abandoned his claims to the high-priesthood. In B.C. 170, when Antiochus was engaged upon his expedition against Egypt, he succeeded by a sudden stroke in making himself master of Jerusalem, and forcing his rival to betake himself for protection to the castle. This success of Jason was, according to the representation of the Second Book of Maccabees, the occasion that led to the king’s direct interference against Jerusalem. Antiochus looked upon the proceeding as a slight to his majesty, and resolved to chastise the rebellious city.

When, toward the end of B.C. 170, he had returned from Egypt, he marched against Jerusalem in person with his army, and there gave direction for a terrible massacre, and plundered the enormous treasures of the Jewish temple, in which he is said to have received assistance from Menelaus himself. All the valuable articles, among them the three great golden pieces of furniture in the inner court of the temple, the altar of incense, the seven-branched candlestick, and the table of shewbread (on these see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 281 f.), he carried away with him to Antioch.

The cup of sorrow and humiliation for the believing Israelites, however, had not yet been completely drained, and the worst was yet to come. Two years later, in B.C. 168, Antiochus undertook another expedition against Egypt. But this time the Romans took the field against him. The Roman general, Popilius Laenas, had sent him a decree of senate, in which he was required, if he were to avoid being regarded as an enemy of Rome, to abandon once for all his schemes against Egypt; and when Antiochus answered that he wished time to consider the matter, Popilius gave him that well-known brief ultimatum, describing a circle round about him with his staff and addressing him with a determined “ἐνταῦθα βουλεύου.” Antiochus was thus compelled, whether he would or not, to yield to the demands of the Romans. The result of this blasting of his plans with regard to Egypt was that Antiochus directed his energies immediately to a war of extermination against the Jewish religion. Since nothing more could be done in Egypt, he would carry out all the more determinedly his schemes in Judea. He sent a chief collector of the tribute to Judea (his name is not given in 1 Macc. 1:29, but in 2 Macc. 5:24 he is called Apollonius), with orders to Hellenize Jerusalem thoroughly. The Jewish population which would not yield was treated with great barbarity; the men were killed, and the women and children sold into slavery. Whoever was able escaped from the city. In place of the Jewish population thus destroyed, strangers were brought in as colonists. Jerusalem was to be henceforth a Greek city. In order that such measures might have enduring effect, the walls of the city were thrown down; but the old city of David was fortified anew and made into a powerful stronghold, in which a Syrian garrison was placed. This garrison remained in possession of the citadel during all the subsequent struggles of the Maccabees, and maintained the supremacy of the Syrian kings amid all changes. Simon was the first, twenty-six years after this, in B.C. 142–141, to gain possession of the citadel, and so to vindicate the independence of the Jews.

The destruction of the Jewish population of Jerusalem was only a means towards the chief end after which Antiochus was striving. Throughout the whole land the Jewish religion was to be rooted out, and the worship of the Greek gods introduced. The observance of all Jewish rites, especially of the Sabbath and circumcision, was forbidden on the pain of death; the Jewish mode of worship was abolished. In all the cities of Judea sacrifices were to be offered to the heathen deities. Officers were sent into all the districts, charged with the duty of seeing that the commands of the king were strictly obeyed. Wherever any one showed reluctance, obedience was enforced with violence. Once a month a rigorous search was instituted: if a copy of the book of the law were found in the possession of any one, or if any one had had his child circumcised, he was put to death. In Jerusalem, on the 15th Chislen of the Seleucid year 145, that is, in December B.C. 168, at the great altar of burnt-offering a pagan altar was built, and on 25th Chisleu, for the first time, a sacrifice was offered upon it (1 Macc. 1:54, 59; this is “the abomination that maketh desolate,” שִׁקּוּץ מְשֹׁמֵם or שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם, LXX.: βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, of which the book of Daniel speaks, Dan. 11:31, 12:11). This sacrifice, according to the account given in the Second Book of Maccabees, was rendered to the Olympic Zeus, to whom the temple of Jerusalem has been dedicated. The Jews were also compelled to keep the Dionysiac festival, crowned with ivy, marching in procession as devotees of Bacchus.

The Second Book of Maccabees relates wonderful stories of the bright martyr courage with which a certain section of the people firmly adhered to the ancient faith. With considerable rhetorical extravagance it tells how an old man ninety years of age, called Eleasar, was tortured; and then also seven brothers, one after another, suffered before the eyes of their mother, who at last herself likewise met a martyr’s death. The question of the accuracy of these details must be left undecided. The fact is that a large circle of the people, notwithstanding all the violent measures of the persecutors, remained true to the faith and customs of their fathers. For their encouragement an unknown author, under the name of Daniel, published a hortatory and consolatory treatise, in which he set before his fellow-believers, for stimulus and incitement, stories culled from the history of earlier times, and with confident assurance of faith represents the speedy overthrow of the heathen rule, and the downfall of the worldly oppressors of the people of God (Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 44 ff.). The effect of such a work we can easily conceive must have been very great.

The passive resistance thus shown was soon succeeded by open revolt,—viewed from a human point of view, a foolhardy enterprise; for how could the small nation of the Jews secure any permanent advantage over the forces of the king? But religious enthusiasm waits not to ask about possibilities of success. The excitement broke forth into revolution in the town of Modein, at the call of a priest of the order of Joarib, named Mattathias, and his five sons, John, Simon, Judas, Eleasar, and Jonathan. When the kings officer had entered that place, in order to insist upon the presentation of the heathen sacrifice, Mattathias refused to obey the command. “Though all the nations,” said he, “that are under the king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the religion of their fathers, and give consent to his commandments, yet will I and my sons and my brothers walk in the covenant of our fathers. God forbid that we should forsake the law and the ordinances.” When he saw a Jew preparing to offer sacrifice, he rushed forward and slew him upon the altar. He also killed the king’s commissioner, and levelled the altar to the ground.

He then fled along with his sons into the mountains. But soon a terrible disaster proved to him that mere flight meant nothing less than utter destruction. Multitudes of like-minded men had now withdrawn into hiding-places in the desert. There they were sought after by a detachment of the Syrian garrison of Jerusalem, and an attack was made upon them on a Sabbath day; and since they declined to offer any resistance because of the Sabbath, they were remorselessly hewn down to the last man, along with their wives and children. To the vigorous, strong-minded Mattathias such a martyrdom seemed a poor way of contributing to the cause of God. He and those about him resolved to proceed to action, and, in case of necessity, not even to scruple engaging in battle upon the Sabbath day. And now the “Pious,” Ἀσιδαῖοι, הֲסִידִים, attached themselves to him; that is, those who proved faithful in their observance of the law, who had hitherto showed their resolution simply in endurance. Mattathias then gathered together all the men fit for battle, who were ready to fight for their faith, passed with them up and down through the country, overturned the altars, slew the apostate Jews, circumcised uncircumcised children, and gave encouragement to all to engage in open hostility to the heathen persecutors.

The work thus begun he was not to be permitted long to carry on. Soon after the beginning of the revolt, in B.C. 167–166, in the Seleucid year 146 (1 Macc. 2:70), Mattathias died, after exhorting his sons to continue the work, and recommending Simon as a man of counsel, and Judas as best qualified to act as leader in battle. Amid great lamentations he was buried at Modein.

And thus now Judas came to the front as head of the movement. His surname, ὁ Μακκαβαῖος, from which the whole party has received the name of Maccabees, was probably intended to designate him as the vigorous, sharp-beating warrior, from מַקָּבָה, “the hammer.” “In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp roaring for his prey.” Thus the First Book of Maccabees (3:4) characterizes him a hero of chivalry, bold and powerful, not waiting to ask about the possibility of success, but enthusiastically sacrificing his goods and his blood in a noble cause. The triumphs which he achieved could indeed, in presence of such a terrible array of hostile forces, only be temporary. The cause which he represented must certainly have been lost if it had to depend only on the sword.

In its earliest stage the movement had a course of singularly good fortune. In one battle after another Judas won brilliant victories, which resulted in the restoring of the Jewish worship on Zion. A Syrian battalion, under Apollonius, probably the same of whom mention has already been made at page 206, was cut down by Judas, and Apollonius himself was slain. The sword which he took from him as spoil was the one which Judas from this time forth always himself used in battle. Also a second Syrian army, which Seron, “the prince of the army of Syria,” whom Judas went forth to meet, was completely routed by him at Beth-horon, north-west of Jerusalem.

The king found it necessary to take vigorous measures in order to suppress the revolt in Judea. While he himself, in B.C. 166–165 (1 Macc. 3:37 gives the Seleucid year 147), went forth upon an expedition against the Parthians, he sent Lysias back to Syria as imperial chancellor and guardian of the minor Antiochus V., and gave him orders to fit out a large army against Judea to quell the rebellion there. Lysias sent three generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias, with a large body of troops against Judea. The defeat of the Jews seemed so certain, that foreign merchants accompanied the Syrians in order to purchase as slaves the expected Jewish captives.

Meantime, however, Judas, and those adhering to him, had not been inactive. Now that Jerusalem had been wrested from the heathens, Judas collected his fighting men in Mizpah, the ancient stronghold of Israel in the times of the Judges, not far from Jerusalem. It no longer consisted merely of a small group of enthusiasts, but was a regular Jewish army, which he had there organized according to military rules; he “ordained captains over the people, even captains over thousands, and over hundreds, and over fifties, and over tens.” By prayer and fasting he prepared himself for the unequal struggle. In the province of Emmaus, west of Jerusalem, at the entrance into the hill country, the armies encountered one another.

While the main body of the Syrian army remained in camp at Emmaus, Gorgias endeavoured with a strong detachment to engage the Jewish army. When Judas heard of this he circumvented him, and got between him and the main body lying at Emmaus. His brave words of encouragement aroused such enthusiasm among the Jews, that the Syrian troops were completely overpowered. When the detachment under Gorgias returned, they found the camp already in flames, and the Jews quite prepared to join with them in battle. Without venturing on such a conflict, they at once fled into the Philistine territory. This victory of the Jews, in B.C. 166–165, was complete.

In the following year, B.C. 165–164, and indeed, as further details show, in autumn of B.C. 165, Lysias himself led a new and still more powerful army against Judea. He did not make his attack directly from the north, but came against Judea from the south by the way of Idumea (1 Macc. 4:29). He must therefore have fetched a compass round about Judea; it may have begun, as Hitzig conjectures, p. 393, on the east, round about the Dead Sea, or, what is more probable, on the west, since he had marched along the Philistine coast and round about the hilly region. At Bethzur, south of Jerusalem, on the road to Hebron, the contending forces met. Although the Syrian army greatly exceeded in numbers, Judas this time again won so complete a victory that Lysias found himself obliged to return to Antioch in order to collect new forces.

After these two brilliant and decisive successes, Judas again took possession of Jerusalem, and directed his attention to the restoration of the services of divine worship. The citadel of Jerusalem was indeed still held by Syrian troops, but Judas kept them continually in check by his people, so that the works of the temple could not be destroyed by them. Thus protected, the work was proceeded with. Everything impure was carried out from the temple. The altar of burnt-offering, which had been polluted by heathen sacrifices, was wholly taken down and a new one built in its place. The sacred garments and furniture were replaced by new ones; and when everything was ready, the temple was consecrated anew by the celebration of a great feast. This took place, according to 1 Macc. 4:52, on 25th Chisleu, in the Seleucid year 148, or December B.C. 165, or precisely the same day on which three years before, for the first time, the altar had been desecrated by the offering up of heathen sacrifices. The festivities lasted for eight days, and it was resolved that every year the memory of those events should be revived by the repetition of the festival observance.

The reconsecration of the temple forms the first era in the history of the Maccabean revolt. Hitherto the struggles of the heroes of the faith had been invariably crowned with success. Judas had led his followers on from one victory to another. The future must now prove whether their power was elastic enough, and their enthusiasm enduring enough, to keep permanent possession of what had thus in so rapid a course been won.

§ 5. THE TIMES OF JUDAS MACCABAEUS, B.C. 165–161

1 Macc. 5–9, 22; 2 Macc. 12–15.

Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8–11. A summary of this is given in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 20–22.

Megillath Taanith, § 30, in Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 63.

The coins ascribed to Judas by de Saulcy, Recherches, p. 84 sq., belong rather in all probability to Aristobulus I.; see § 9.

The works on Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc.

The treatises and commentaries on the Books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc.

EWALD, History of Israel, vol. v. 306–323.

HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 272–296.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 395–421.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte des Juden, Bd. ii. 2, pp. 352–376.

CONDER, Judas Maccabaeus and the Jewish War of Independence. London 1879.

STANLEY, Jewish Church, 1877, vol. iii. pp. 285–343.

Articles, of Judas Maccabaeus, in Winer, RWB., and in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon.

During the next year and a half after the reconsecration of the temple down to the summer of B.C. 163, Judas remained master of Judea. The central government of Syria took no concern in the movements there, for its attention was wholly taken up elsewhere. Hence Judas was able unhindered to arrange for the strengthening of his position. The temple mount was furnished with stony fortifications. On the southern frontier of Judea, Beth-zur, which constituted the key to Judea, was strongly fortified and garrisoned with Jewish troops. And also throughout all the border districts military raids were made, partly in order to protect the Jews dwelling there, partly for the establishment of their own dominion. The Edomites, the Bajanites (a tribe otherwise unknown), and the Ammonites, all of whom had shown themselves hostile, were sharply chastised one after another.

Complaints soon came from Gilead, east of the Jordan, and from Galilee, of persecutions which the Jews dwelling there had been subjected to on the part of the heathens. It was resolved that help should be sent to both. Simon went to Galilee with three thousand men, Judas to Gilead with eight thousand men. In neither case was there any idea of making a permanent conquest of the territory in question. But after Simon had won many battles against the heathen in Galilee, he gathered together the Jewish residents, with their women, children, and goods, and led them amid great rejoicing to Judea, where they would be kept secure. Judas acted in a similar manner in Gilead. In a series of successful engagements, especially in the north of the country east of the Jordan, he subdued the native tribes, whose leader was one Timotheus, then gathered together all the Israelites in Gilead, great and small, women and children, with all their possessions, and led them carefully, after he had been compelled to fight a passage for himself by Ephron, a town of the east Jordan country otherwise unknown, through Bethsean or Scythopolis to Judea.

During the period when Simon and Judas were absent from Judea, the direction of affairs there had been assigned to certain men called Joseph and Asariah. These two, in direct opposition to the orders of Judas, undertook a military expedition against Jamnia, but were driven back with considerable loss by Gorgias, who since his defeat had remained at Emmaus in Philistine territory. The First Book of Maccabees does not fail, in recording this incident, to call attention to the fact that it was by the hand of the family of the Maccabees that salvation was to be wrought for Israel.

But Judas carried his military expedition farther a-field. He went out again against the Edomites, besieged and destroyed Hebron; then passed through Marissa (for thus we are to read in place of Samaria in 1 Macc. 5:66) into the land of the Philistines, overthrew Ashdod, cast down the altars there and the idols, and returned back to Judea with rich spoil. The object now quite evidently was no longer the protection of the Jewish faith, but the strengthening and extending of the Jewish power.

Meanwhile a change had taken place in the affairs of Syria. Antiochus Epiphanes, in his undertakings in the eastern parts of the empire, had been no less unfortunate than his generals had been in Judea. He had advanced into the province of Elymais, but after making an unsuccessful attempt to appropriate the rich treasures of the temple of Artemis there, he had been compelled to retire back upon Babylon, and on the way, in the Persian town of Tabä, he died in B.C. 164, or, according to 1 Macc. 6:16, in the Seleucid year 149, that is, B.C. 164–163. Before his end he appointed one of his generals, Philip, to be imperial chancellor, and tutor to his son Antiochus V. Eupator during his minority. But instead of him Lysias secured possession of the person of the young king, and obtained absolute sovereign power in the empire.

The revolted Jews might not perhaps have been interfered with for a long time had not pressing appeals been made to Antioch directly from Judea. Judas now laid siege in B.C. 163–162, the Seleucid year 150 (1 Macc. 6:20), to the Syrian garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem. Some of the garrison, notwithstanding the siege, escaped, and in company with representatives of the Greek party among the Jews, betook themselves to the king in order to urge upon him the necessity of his interfering. The representatives of the Greek party, in particular, complained of how much they had to suffer from their hostile fellow-countrymen, so that many of them had been slain and had their possessions taken from them.

It was this that first again roused those in Antioch to take active measures. Lysias himself, in company with the youthful king, went forth at the head of a powerful army and marched against Judea. He once more made his attack from the south, and began with the siege of Beth-zur. Judas was obliged to raise the siege of the citadel of Jerusalem, and to go forth to meet the king. At Beth-Zachariah, between Jerusalem and Beth-zur, the armies met. It soon appeared that over against the vigorous onslaught of the Syrian troops the Jews with all their valour could not secure any decisive or lasting victory. They went forth boldly to the conflict. Judas’s own brother Eleasar distinguished himself above all the rest. He thought that he had discovered the elephant on which the young king was seated; he crept forward, stabbed the elephant from below, and was crushed under the weight of the falling animal. His self-immolation and all the efforts of the Jews, however, were in vain. The Jewish army was beaten, and that so completely, that the king’s army soon appeared before the walls of Jerusalem, and laid siege to Zion, the temple mount.

Beth-zur also was obliged to yield and to receive a Syrian garrison. Those besieged in Zion, however, soon began to suffer from want of the means of life, since owing to the Sabbatical year no provision had been made beforehand. The utter discomfiture of the Jews now seemed imminent, when suddenly Lysias, on account of events occurring in Syria, found himself compelled to treat with the Jews for peace under favourable conditions. That same Philip whom Antiochus Epiphanes had nominated as imperial chancellor and tutor of his son Antiochus V. during his minority, had marched against Antioch in the hope of securing the power to himself. In order to have a free hand against him, Lysias granted to the Jews that which had hitherto been the occasion of the war, the liberty freely to celebrate their own religious ceremonies. It was henceforth to be permitted them to “observe their own institutions as formerly.” On this condition those besieged in Zion capitulated; its strongholds were reduced, contrary to the promise sworn to by the king. The subjugation of the Jews was accomplished, but only after that had been granted to them on account of which the Syrian government had declared war against them five years before.

The understanding with the Jews at which Lysias and Antiochus V. in their own interests had arrived, was not interfered with by any of the following kings. None of them resorted again to the foolish attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes forcibly to introduce pagan culture and ceremonies among the Jews. The Jewish worship, which had been restored by Judas Maccabaeus amid all the changeful circumstances of the age, continued to be observed in essentially the same way. This deserves to be specially noted in order that a correct estimate may be formed of the conflicts which followed. The end aimed at in the struggle was now different from that previously before them. It had to do no longer with the preservation of religion, but, just as we have already seen in the preliminary history of the Maccabean revolt, with the question whether the friends of the Greeks or the national party within the Jewish nation itself should have the supremacy. It was essentially a Jewish internecine war, in which the Syrian superiors took part only in so far as they supported and put at the head of the provincial government sometimes the one, sometimes the other, of these two Jewish parties. To a certain extent, indeed, religious interests did come into consideration. For the Greek party were inclined to go farther in the way of favouring Greek institutions, while their nationalist opponents seemed more attached to the religion of Israel. But the fundamental points were no longer in dispute.

In consequence of the events of the previous year, the party in Judea friendly to the Greeks were driven out of the government, and were indeed for the most part persecuted. Judas stood practically at the head of the Jewish people. It may be readily supposed that the opposition party did not quietly submit to this arrangement, but made vigorous efforts on their part to obtain again the governing power. But they succeeded in their efforts only after a change had occurred in the occupancy of the throne. Antiochus V. and Lysias had, indeed, after a short struggle overcome that Philip who had contended with them for the supremacy. But they themselves were soon driven out by a new pretender to the crown. Demetrius I., afterwards distinguished by the cognomen Soter, the son of Seleucus IV. Philopator, therefore nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes and cousin of Antiochus Eupator, who had previously lived as a hostage at Rome, and had vainly entreated from the Roman senate permission to return home, succeeded in secretly making his escape, and landed at Tripolis on the Phoenician coast. He was able soon to gather around him a considerable number of followers; indeed the very bodyguard of King Antiochus deserted him and his guardian Lysias, and joined Demetrius. By the orders of Demetrius both were murdered, and he himself proclaimed king in B.C. 162. The Roman senate was at first in consternation over the flight of Demetrius, but by and by Demetrius managed on his part to induce the Romans to recognise him as king.

Soon after Demetrius had entered upon the government, the leaders of the Hellenistic party, with a certain Alcimus at their head, or as his Hebrew name properly reads, Jakim, made representations to the king with reference to their oppression under the party of Judas. Judas and his brothers had meanwhile slain the adherents of the king, or expelled them from the country. Demetrius was naturally readily impressed by such a statement. Alcimus was appointed high priest, and at the same time a Syrian army under the command of Bacchides was sent to Judea, in order to instate Alcimus by force, if need be, in his office.

The further development of affairs is highly characteristic of the struggles of the Maccabees. The opposition to Alcimus on the side of the strict Jewish party was by no means engaged in by all its adherents. In consequence of quieting assurances which he gave, he was immediately acknowledged by the representatives of the strictest section of the scribes and the “pious” (Ἀσιδαῖοι, 1 Macc. 7:13), as the legitimate high priest of the family of Aaron. Only Judas and his adherents persevered in their opposition. They did not trust the promises of Alcimus, and considered that their religious interests could only be secured if they got the government into their own hands.

Results showed that they were not wrong. One of the first acts of Alcimus was to order the execution of sixty men belonging to the party of the Asidaeans. This struck fear and trembling into the hearts of the people, but had also the effect of arousing more determined opposition. Bacchides now thought that his presence in Judea was no longer necessary. Leaving behind a military force in Judea for the protection of Alcimus, he himself returned to Syria. Then Alcimus and Judas had practically an opportunity of measuring their strength and testing their own resources against one another. The open war between the two parties which now began seemed to tend more and more in favour of the Maccabees, so that Alcimus found it necessary to go to the king and to entreat of him further support.

Demetrius sent now against Judea another general, Nicanor, with a great army. Nicanor sought first of all through stratagem to obtain possession of the person of Judas. But Judas got information of this plot, and so the scheme miscarried. An engagement thus took place at Capharsalama, which resulted in the defeat of Nicanor. He then advanced upon Jerusalem, and wreaked his vengeance on the innocent priests. While they greeted him respectfully, he treated them with scorn and ridicule, and threatened that if they did not deliver up to him Judas and his army, he would on his victorious return set their temple on fire.

Therefore he returned to the district of Beth-Horon, north-west of Jerusalem, where he waited for reinforcements from Syria. Judas lay encamped over against him in Adasa. On 13th Adar, B.C. 161, a decisive conflict was engaged in which resulted in the utter defeat of the Syrians. Nicanor himself fell in the tumult. When his people saw this, they threw their weapons away, and betook themselves to hasty flight. The Jews pursued them, surrounded them, and cut them down to the last man; so, at least, the First Book of Maccabees affirms. The victory must certainly have been overpowering and complete. For from this time the 13th Adar, corresponding roughly to our March, was annually observed as a festival under the name of “Nicanor’s Day.”

Judas was thus once more master of the situation. Josephus assigns to this period the death of Alcimus, and from this time reckons the priesthood of Judas. But the death of Alcimus, according to the First Book of Maccabees, occurred considerably later; and that Judas exercised generally the functions of the high priest, is extremely improbable.

There is, however, this element of truth in the statement of Josephus, that Judas now actually stood at the head of the Jewish commonwealth. And it was his determined plan to maintain himself, or at least his party, in that position. But the events which had occurred taught him that this was possible only after they had completely freed themselves from the Syrian yoke. The king of Syria had indeed showed his inclination to secure the supremacy in Judea to the opposition party by force of arms. The resolve was therefore made to shake off once and for all every sort of subordination to the Syrians. In order to accomplish this purpose, Judas applied to the Romans for help. The rulers of the Western empire, ever since their conflicts with Antiochus the Great, between B.C. 192 and B.C. 189, had taken the liveliest interest in matters that affected the Syrian empire, and looked closely into everything that occurred with watchful eyes. They repeatedly interposed their authority to decide upon the affairs of Syria. All centrifugal movements in that quarter might therefore count upon their support. It was thus very natural that Judas should make the attempt with the help of the Romans to secure permanently that freedom which had been temporarily wrung from their enemy. In grand pictorial style the First Book of Maccabees describes how Judas had heard of the deeds and might of the Romans, and how this led him to endeavour to obtain their aid. Even the inaccuracies which are mixed up in this story serve to set before us very strikingly the measure of the knowledge of the Romans, which was then current in Judea. Judas therefore sent two men of his party as ambassadors to Rome, Eupolemus son of John, and Jason son of Eleasar, the former perhaps identical with that Eupolemus who is known to us as a Hellenistic writer, see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 203–206. The end which he had in view in so doing was avowedly the throwing off of the Syrian yoke (1 Macc. 8:18: τοῦ ἆραι τὸν ζυγὸν ἀπʼ αὐτῶν). The Roman senate readily granted an audience to the Jewish embassy, and a treaty of friendship was made of which the principal provisions were that the Jews should give help to the Romans and the Romans to the Jews in times of war (συμμαχία), but not on precisely equal terms, and in every case just as circumstances required (1 Macc. 8:25, 27: ὡς ἂν ὁ καιρὸς ὑπογραφῇ). It therefore practically depended on the pleasure of the Romans how far they should consider themselves bound by the agreement.

About the same time as this treaty was concluded the Romans issued a missive to Demetrius, wherein they ordered him to desist from every sort of hostile proceeding against the Jews, who were the allies of the Romans. Their interposition of authority came too late. Demetrius proceeded so rashly and energetically, that the overthrow of Judea had been already completed before there was any possibility of interference on the part of the Romans. Immediately after he had received news of the death and defeat of Nicanor, he sent a great army under Bacchides to Judea, which appeared in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem as early as the first month of the Seleucid year 152, that is, in April B.C. 161 (1 Macc. 9:3), only about two months after the fall of Nicanor. Bacchides encamped beside Berea, Judas beside Elasa (written also Eleasa and Alasa). The superiority of the Syrians was so evident, that even in the ranks of Judas there no longer remained any hope of victory. His followers deserted in large numbers. With a few faithful men Judas ventured with the wild courage of despair on the hopeless conflict. The result was just what had been clearly foreseen: the troops of Judas were hewn down, and he himself fell in the battle. To his brothers Jonathan and Simon were granted the sad privilege of burying him in the grave of his father at Modein.

With the overthrow of Judas it was finally and definitely proved that it was a vain endeavour on the part of the Jewish nationalists to measure swords with the mighty forces of Syria. Brilliant as the earlier achievements of Judas had been, he was largely indebted to the recklessness and self-confidence of his opponents. Continuous military success was not to be thought of if only the Syrian authorities seriously roused themselves to the conflict. The following age cannot show even one conspicuous victory of the kind by which Judas had won renown. What the Maccabean party finally reached, it won through voluntary concessions of claimants of the Syrian throne contending with one another, and generally in consequence of internal dissensions in the Syrian empire.

§ 6. THE TIMES OF JONATHAN, B.C. 161–143

1 Macc. 9:23–10:30.

Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1–6. A summary of the history in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 22–24.

The coins ascribed to Jonathan by de Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 85–93, belong to Alexander Jannäus, see § 10.

The works on Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc.

The Treatises and Commentaries on the Books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc.

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 324–333.

HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 296–320.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl., under title: Geschichte der Judäer von dem Tode Juda Makkabi’s, etc., 1888, pp. 1–23.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 421–450.

Articles “Jonathan” in Winer’s RWB., and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon.

THE power of the Jewish national party was quite annihilated by the defeat and death of Judas. The party friendly to the Greeks, with the high priest Alcimus at their head, was able now unhindered to carry on the government committed to it by the king. Wherever any opposition was offered, it was at once vigorously suppressed. The friends of Judas were sought out and brought to Bacchides, who “took vengeance on them.” The “unrighteous” and the “ungodly,” as the opponents of the Maccabees are designated in the First Book of Maccabees, had now the rule in Judea.

But the friends of Judas were by no means disposed to abandon all sort of resistance. They elected Jonathan, the brother of Judas, as their leader, “in order that he might direct the conflict.” No regular or serious undertakings indeed were at first to be thought of. They required first of all gradually to gather together their forces and wait a favourable opportunity. The earliest incidents of this period which we have, represent the doings of Jonathan more in the light of the raiding of a freebooter than the acts of a religious party. When their personal property was no longer secure in Judea, they sent it under the guardianship of John, a brother of Jonathan, over into the country of the friendly Nabathaeans. While so engaged, John, along with his baggage, was attacked by a robber tribe of the sons of Ambri, near Medeba, in the country east of the Jordan, and slain. In order to avenge his death, Jonathan and Simon crossed the Jordan and fell upon the sons of Ambri when these were engaged in great festivities in connection with a wedding celebration. Many were slain, and the rest fled into the mountains. On their return Jonathan and his followers were met at the Jordan by Bacchides and a Syrian army, and were in great jeopardy, but saved themselves by swimming across the Jordan.

Bacchides now took measures to secure that the subjection of Judea under the Syrian rule should be more decided than hitherto. He fortified the cities of Jericho, Emmaus, Beth-Horon, Bethel, Thamnatha, Pharathon, Tephon, and occupied them with Syrian garrisons. He likewise gave orders that the fortifications of Beth-zur, Gazara, and the citadel of Jerusalem should be strengthened. Finally, he took the sons of distinguished Jews as hostages, and put them in ward in the citadel of Jerusalem.

About this time, in the second month of the Seleucid year 153, that is, in May B.C. 160 (1 Macc. 9:54), the high priest Alcimus by his ungodly conduct caused great offence to those who adhered strictly to the observance of the law. He threw down the walls of the inner court, and “so destroyed the works of the prophets.” In his death, which speedily followed, they beheld God’s righteous judgment on such wickedness. The office of the high priest does not seem to have been again filled.

Soon after the death of Alcimus, Bacchides returned to Syria, believing that the subjugation of Judea was now complete. There follows a period of seven years, B.C. 160–153, about which the First Book of Maccabees says almost nothing. But these seven years must have been of very great importance for the reinvigorating of the Maccabean party. For at the close of that period it stands forward as the one party really capable of forming a government and as actually having Judea under its control, so that the Syrian kings in their contentions with one another are found eagerly seeking to secure its devoted adherence. Only by one episode is light shed upon the darkness of this era in the record of the First Book of Maccabees. Two years after the retirement of Bacchides, that is, in B.C. 158, the dominant party of the Jews favourable to the Greek customs made urgent representations to the king’s government about the resuscitation of the Maccabean party. The consequence of this was that Bacchides went again with a still larger army in order to utterly destroy Jonathan and his adherents. But his following had already become so strong that Bacchides could not so easily be done with them. A portion of them entrenched themselves under Simon’s leadership in the wilderness at Bethbasi, a place not otherwise known, and was there laid siege to by Bacchides in vain. With another portion Jonathan went forth on a plundering expedition into the country. When Bacchides observed how difficult the task assigned to him was, very much against the will of the Graeco-Jewish party which had brought him into such difficulties, he made peace with Jonathan and returned again to Syria.

The Jewish parties appear now to have made an attempt to come to terms with one another. The result of this seems to have been that Jonathan more and more secured again to himself the leadership. “The sword was now at rest in Israel, and Jonathan dwelt at Michmash; and he began to judge the people, and drove out the ungodly from Israel.” With this laconic notice the First Book of Maccabees passes over the following five years. This can only mean that Jonathan, while the official Sanhedrim of Jerusalem was still filled by those friendly to the Greeks, established at Michmash a sort of rival government, which gradually won the position of main influence in the country, so that it was able even to drive out (ἀφανίζειν) the ungodly, that is, the Hellenizing party. The Hellenistic or Greek favouring party had no root among the people. The great mass of the Jews had still the distinct consciousness that Hellenism, even if it should tolerate the religion of Israel, was irreconcilable with the ideal of the scribes. So soon, then, as pressure from above was removed, the great majority of the people gave themselves heart and soul to the national Jewish movement. The Maccabees, therefore, had the people soon again at their back. And this is the explanation of the fact that during the struggles for the Syrian throne now beginning, the claimants contended with one another in endeavouring to secure to themselves the good-will of the Maccabees. The Syrian kings were no longer in a position to force upon the people a Hellenistic government, but were obliged to do all in their power to conciliate and win the favour of the Jews. But this they could have only under the sway of the Maccabees. The concessions they made, however, furthered at the same time those tendencies which actually brought about the dissolution of the Syrian empire.

In the Seleucid year 160, or B.C. 153–152, and indeed, as the sequel shows, as early as B.C. 153 (1 Macc. 10:1, 21), Alexander Balas, a youth of mean extraction, and merely a tool of the kings leagued against Demetrius, made his appearance as a claimant of the throne. The despotic Demetrius was himself no favourite in the country, and so all the greater was the danger threatening him from the forces of the confederate kings. It was even feared that the Jews might go over to his opponent if he should be inclined to promise to set up among them a national government. Demetrius now sought to meet this danger by himself granting concessions to Jonathan. He gave him full authority to summon together an army in order to support the king, and for this purpose agreed to the liberation of the Jewish hostages who were still detained in the citadel of Jerusalem. Jonathan then went to Jerusalem invested with full power. The hostages were, in fact, set free, and given back to their parents. But Jonathan now formally seized possession of Jerusalem, and fortified the city and the temple mount. Also the Syrian garrisons of most of the fortresses built by Bacchides were sent away. Only in Beth-zur and in the citadel of Jerusalem did these garrisons remain.

But Demetrius was not sufficiently liberal in his concessions to Jonathan. He was immediately far outbidden by Alexander Balas. He appointed Jonathan high priest of the Jews, and sent him, as a badge of princely rank, the purple and the diadem. Jonathan was not slow to grasp these new offers. At the Feast of Tabernacles of the Seleucid year 160, in the autumn of B.C. 153, he put on the sacred vestments. He had thus all at once, even formally, become the head of the Jewish people. The Greek party was driven out of the government in Judea, and never again regained power, for Jonathan succeeded in maintaining his position amid all the changes of the following year. Favoured by circumstances, he was able to attain to that which Judas, with all his bravery, had never been able to reach.

When Demetrius heard that Jonathan had gone over to the party of Alexander Balas, he endeavoured by yet more liberal promises to win him back to his side. The gracious offers which he now made the Jewish leader were indeed too good to be credited: the tribute was to be remitted, the citadel of Jerusalem given over to the Jews, the Jewish territory to be enlarged by the addition of three districts of Samaria, the temple to be endowed with rich presents and privileges, the expense of building the walls of Jerusalem was to be defrayed out of the royal treasury.

Jonathan was prudent enough not to yield to these tempting offers. It was quite foreseen that Demetrius would succumb to the superior strength of his opponent. But even should he go forth conqueror, it was not to be expected that he would fulfil such extravagantly liberal promises. Jonathan therefore remained on the side of Alexander Balas, and never had occasion to regret his doing so. Demetrius was conquered by Alexander and his confederates in B.C. 150, and lost his own life in the battle. Alexander was crowned king.

In the same year, however, B.C. 150 (1 Macc. 10:57, Seleucid year 162), an opportunity was afforded Alexander of showing marked respect to Jonathan, and loading him with honours. Alexander had treated with King Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt for the hand of his daughter Cleopatra. Ptolemy had promised her to him, and the two kings now met together in Ptolemais, where Ptolemy himself gave away his daughter to Alexander, and the marriage was celebrated with great magnificence. Alexander also invited Jonathan to be present, and received him with marked respect. The deputies of the Hellenistic party in Judea, who made accusations against Jonathan, were indeed also there. But the king gave them no audience, but only showed his favour toward Jonathan the more conspicuously. He had him clothed in the purple and seated beside him, and appointed him στρατηγός and μεριδάρχης, presumably for the province of Judea, and thus the political privileges already actually exercised were now formally confirmed.

During the next year Jonathan was exposed to no danger from any side in maintaining the position which he had reached. The Greek party had been thoroughly silenced. Alexander Balas was an incapable ruler, who abandoned himself to sensual gratifications, and never thought of restricting the concessions that had been made to the Jewish high priest. The Syrian suzerainty continued indeed to exist. But since Jonathan and his party ruled in Judea, the aims hitherto striven after by the Maccabees were reached. Soon, however, the revolutions about the Syrian throne brought new dangers, but at the same time a new opportunity for the extension of political power. We see Jonathan now as a political partisan, sometimes of one, sometimes of another claimant of the Syrian throne, and using in a clever manner the weakness of the Syrian empire for the purpose of obtaining advantages to the Jewish people. But the aims of the Maccabean movement pointed higher than this. It no longer seemed enough that the party of Jonathan ruled unopposed in internal affairs. The troubles of the Syrian empire were made use of for the purpose of widening the boundaries of the Jewish territory—partly by donation, partly by conquest at their own hand, and finally with a dogged determination to accomplish the complete emancipation of the Jewish nation from the Syrian empire.

In B.C. 147 (1 Macc. 10:67, Seleucid year 165), Demetrius II., son of Demetrius I., set himself up as rival king in opposition to the contemptible weakling Alexander Balas. Apollonius, the governor of Coele-Syria, took his side, while Jonathan continued faithful to Alexander. Consequently hostilities were commenced between Apollonius and Jonathan, in which Jonathan was victorious. He drove out a garrison of Apollonius’ from Joppa, then defeated an army under the command of Apollonius in the neighbourhood of Ashdod, destroyed Ashdod and the temple of Dagon in that city, and returned to Jerusalem with rich spoils. In acknowledgment of this support, Alexander Balas bestowed upon him the city of Ekron and its territory.

But Jonathan was the only one who stood by Alexander in opposition to Demetrius. The inhabitants of Antioch, and Alexander’s own soldiers, declared in favour of Demetrius. Even his own father-in-law, Ptolemy, ranged himself on the side of Alexander’s opponent, took Cleopatra back from Alexander, and gave her to the new candidate for the throne as his wife. Ptolemy also led a strong army against Alexander, with which he attacked him at the river Oenoparas, on the plains of Antioch. Alexander fled to Arabia, where his life was put an end to by the hand of an assassin. Immediately afterward Ptolemy also died of wounds received in the battle. Thus Demetrius became king in B.C. 145 (1 Macc. 11:19, Seleucid year 167. Comp. on this subject, above, page 175).

As the confederate of Alexander Balas, Jonathan had occupied a hostile attitude toward Demetrius. It would appear that he now felt himself strong enough to make the attempt to secure by force emancipation from the Syrian empire. In a regular manner he laid siege to the citadel of Jerusalem, in which a Syrian garrison still lay. Here again, as so often happened in similar cases, it was the opposition party in his own nation, the ἄνδρες παράνομοι and ἄνομοι, as they are called in 1 Macc. 11:21, 25, who called the attention of the Syrian king to these revolutionary measures. In consequence of these reports, Demetrius summoned Jonathan to Ptolemais to answer for his conduct. But Jonathan was daring enough boldly to claim concessions from Demetrius. He allowed the siege still to proceed, betook himself with rich presents to Ptolemais, and demanded of Demetrius the cession to Judea of three provinces of Samaria, and immunity from tribute for this whole district. These were some of the most essential points in the concessions which Demetrius I. had made to Jonathan. Demetrius did not venture to refuse these demands. He agreed to add to Judea the three Samaritan provinces of Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim, made over this enlarged Judea to Jonathan free from tribute, and confirmed him in all dignities which he had previously enjoyed. Of the citadel of Jerusalem no mention whatever was then made. Evidently these concessions were the price on account of which Jonathan agreed to raise the siege.

Such a receding ou the part of the Syrian king before the Jewish demands ten years previously would not have been thought of for a moment. But now the power of the Seleucidae was broken. None of the kings of Syria was henceforth sure of his throne. And Jonathan knew how to make use of this weakness, and skilfully to turn it to his own advantage. The next years gave him abundant opportunities for carrying out his policy of annexation. Demetrius had scarcely made these concessions, when he found himself obliged to make new promises in order to secure the support of Jonathan in circumstances of serious difficulty. A certain Diodotus, surnamed Tiypho, of Apamea, a former general of Alexander Balas, managed to get hold of the person of the youthful son of Alexander, called Antiochus, who had been brought up by an Arab Imalkue, and set him up as rival king in opposition to Demetrius. The situation was fraught with extreme peril to Demetrius, since his own troops deserted, and the inhabitants of Antioch assumed a hostile attitude. In face of these dangers, he promised to surrender to Jonathan the citadel of Jerusalem and the other fortresses of Judea, if Jonathan would place at his disposal auxiliary troops. Jonathan soon sent three thousand men, who just arrived at the right moment in order to afford powerful aid to the king in suppressing the revolt that had now broken out in Antioch. It was admittedly by their assistance that the rising in the city was crushed. With the thanks of the king, and with rich booty, the Jewish troops returned to Jerusalem.

But Demetrius did not fulfil the promise which he had made. It also soon appeared that he must yield before the new claimant to the throne. With the help of the troops that had deserted from Demetrius, Trypho and Antiochus made themselves masters of the capital Antioch, and in this way secured the sway in the centre of the empire. Without delay they sought also to win over Jonathan to their side. Antiochus confirmed him in possession of all that Demetrius had granted him. At the same time his brother Simon was appointed military commander for the king, from the ladder of Tyre down to the borders of Egypt.

In view of the faithlessness and weakness of Demetrius, Jonathan regarded it as justifiable as well as useful to pass over to the side of Antiochus. He therefore joined his party, and undertook, in connection with his brother Simon, to reduce the provinces of the empire lying next to Judea under the rule of the new claimant. A beginning was made in those districts over which Simon had been appointed military commander. So Jonathan, at the head of Jewish and Syrian troops, went out against the cities of Ascalon and Gaza. The former readily declared its submission to Antiochus ; the latter yielded only after Jonathan had recourse to forcible measures. He compelled the city to give hostages, and took them with him to Jerusalem. Then Jonathan proceeded to northern Galilee, and offered battle in the valley of Hazor to the general of Demetrius, which at first went against him, but at last resulted in a victory. At the same time Simon laid siege to the fortress of Bethzur in the south of Judea, where still a garrison adhering to Demetrius lay. After a long siege he compelled them to surrender the citadel, and placed in it a Jewish garrison.

While taking those steps toward the establishment of his power, Jonathan did not forget to strengthen his position still further by diplomatic negotiations with foreign nations. He sent two ambassadors, Numenius and Antipater, to Rome, in order to renew the covenant with the Romans that had been concluded in the time of Judas. These ambassadors were also bearers of letters from the high priest and Jewish people to Sparta and other places, in order to open up and secure friendly relations with them. From these documents we also learn that such relations between the Jews and foreign peoples were not wholly without example in earlier times. In the letter to the Spartans, Jonathan refers to the fact that King Areus of Sparta had addressed a friendly communication to the high priest Onias.

The conflict between Jonathan and Demetrius meantime continued, and was so conducted by him that he not only served the interests of Trypho and Antiochus, but also advanced his own. Soon after the defeat which the troops of Demetrius sustained in the valley of Hazor, Demetrius sent a new army to attack Jonathan. But this time the Jewish leader withdrew farther to the north, into the district of Hamath, north of Lebanon. No decisive engagement had taken place, when the Syrian army was recalled. Jonathan then turned his forces against the Arabian tribe of the Zabadeans, then against Damascus, and then, again, he directed his course southwards. When he had returned to Jerusalem he saw to the strengthening of the fortifications of the city, and by the erection of a high wall cut off the Syrian garrison from all intercourse with the city. Even before Jonathan’s return Simon had placed a Jewish garrison in Joppa. He now also fortified Adida in the “Sephela,” that is, in the lowlands in the west of Judea.

All these operations were avowedly carried on by Jonathan and Simon in the interests of the young king Antiochus and his tutor-regent Trypho. But the latter seems to have regarded with considerable misgivings the increase of the Jewish power. And not without reason. For the more the power of the Jews themselves increased, the greater became the danger of their shaking themselves free of the Syrian dominion altogether. It may therefore be quite easily understood how Trypho, so soon as Demetrius allowed him a free hand, turned against Jonathan. According to the First Book of Maccabees, this came about because Trypho wished himself to assume the crown, while Jonathan would not allow it This may indeed have been so, only the motives by which Jonathan was actuated were not so much moral as political.

Trypho went therefore with an army to Palestine, in order to reduce within moderate limits the increasing Jewish power. At Beth-sean or Scythopolis he met Jonathan. The interview was at first of a friendly nature, although Jonathan had with him as large an army as that of Trypho. Trypho sought to remove the suspicions of Jonathan by heaping upon him tokens of respect. He represented to him that a great army was superfluous, since they did not occupy toward one another a warlike attitude. If Jonathan should follow him with a small select company to Ptolemais, he should give over to him that city and “the rest of the fortresses and troops,” meaning those between the Ladder of Tyre and the borders of Egypt, over which Simon had been appointed military commander. Jonathan actually allowed himself to be deceived by those promises. He dismissed his army, and followed Trypho to Ptolemais with only a thousand men. But scarcely had he reached that place when he was put in prison, and his people murderously cut down.

The news of this faithless proceeding of Trypho caused great excitement throughout Judea. It was natural that Simon, the last survivor of the five brothers of the Maccabees, should place himself at the head of affairs. By the decree of a popular assembly he was formally chosen leader. His first acts were the acceleration of the works on the fortifications of Jerusalem, and taking definite possession of Joppa. The latter place had never hitherto belonged to the Jewish territory. But in the exercise of his own official authority as military commander over the coast districts, Simon had placed there a Jewish garrison. The Gentile inhabitants were now expelled from Joppa, the city was Judaized and united with the Jewish territory.

Trypho, now carrying Jonathan as prisoner with him, went against Judea with a great army. At Adida, Simon obstructed his march into the interior by opposing him with his troops. Thereupon Trypho sent ambassadors to Simon and let him know that he kept Jonathan prisoner only for this reason, that he had failed to pay the money due for the offices that had been conferred upon him. If the money should be paid, and as a guarantee of future fidelity, the sons of Jonathan delivered up as hostages, he would then set him free. But although Simon now sent all that was demanded, Jonathan was not liberated. Trypho sought rather by going round about the mountains, to push on to Jerusalem over Adora in Idumaea from the south. When he was prevented from accomplishing this by a heavy snowfall, he marched his troops on to Gilead, that is, through the country east of the Jordan, caused Jonathan to be murdered at Bascama, and returned back to Syria.

Simon now actually entered into his brother’s place as high priest of the Jews. He had the remains of Jonathan carried from Bascama, and buried him beside his parents and three brothers, at their native Modein. Over their common sepulchre, Simon, at a later period, erected a magnificent monument, which could be seen from the sea.

§ 7. SIMON, B.C. 142–135

1 Macc. 13:31–16:22.

Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6–7. A summary of it in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 24, v. 1.

Some dates from Megillath Taanith; see Derenbourg, pp. 67–69.

On the Shekel coins which have been ascribed by many to Simon, see Appendix IV.

The works on Syrian history by Clinton, Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Flathe, Stark, etc.

The treatises and commentaries on the books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc.

EWALD’S History of Israel, v. 333–342.

HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 320–334.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl., or Geschichte der Judäer von dem Tode Juda Makkabi’s, etc., 1888, pp. 50–63.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 450–459.

Art. “Simon” in Winer’s RWB., and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon.

STANLEY, Jemsh Church, vol. iii. (1877) 361–368.

BY the heroic deeds and successes of Jonathan, the Maccabean party had passed out far beyond its original aims. It had not at first intended to strive for anything more than the restoration of the Jewish worship, and the securing of the free exercise of the Jewish religion. But even Judas, when he had attained this end, did not rest satisfied therewith. He and his party then wished also to gain the supremacy in the control of home affairs. In the time of Jonathan this end was completely won. By Jonathan’s appointment as high priest the ruling power was placed in the hands of the Maccabean party, and the Hellenistic party was driven out. But even this no longer seemed sufficient. Favourable circumstances—the weakness of the Syrian empire—tempted them to strive after thorough emancipation from the Syrian suzerainty. The last acts of Jonathan were important steps in this direction. The significance of the reign of Simon consists in this, that it completed the work of Jonathan, and made the Jewish people wholly independent of the Syrian empire.

In Syria, Demetrius and Trypho, as tutor-regent for the young king Antiochus, still occupied a position of antagonism to one another. Trypho, who had hitherto appeared only as representative of his youthful protégé, about this time or not much later, let fall the mask, secured the assassination of Antiochus VI., and had himself crowned king.

After the last hostile proceeding on the part of Trypho, it was clear that Simon would unhesitatingly attach himself to Demetrius. But he did this only after he had exacted the promise that Demetrius would recognise the freedom of the Jews. While he continued eagerly to proceed with the building of the fortresses of Judea, he sent an embassy to Demetrius “to secure for his country exemption from tribute.” Since Demetrius had actually no longer any power in the south of the empire, it was in his interest to act the part of the munificent, and to guarantee to the Jews all that they desired. He therefore not only granted remission of all outstanding taxes, but also perfect exemption from all paying of tribute in the future. Thus was the political independence of Judea recognised. “The yoke of the Gentiles,” as the First Book of Maccabees expresses it, “was taken away from Israel.” In order to give expression to this fact, they now adopted a mode of reckoning of their own, beginning with the Seleucid year 170, or B.C. 143–142. Documents and treatises were dated according to the year of Simon as high priest and prince of the Jews.

With this statement of the First Book of Maccabees we ought to combine a fact derived from a study of numismatics. There are Jewish shekel and half-shekel coins which, in the opinion of most numismatists, were stamped in the time of Simon. They bore on the one side the inscription ירושלם קדשה or ירושלים הקדושה, on the other side, according to their weight, either שקל ישראל, Israel’s shekel, or חצי השקל, half-shekel. On the whole shekel and on the half-shekel the number of the year was impressed, and there are specimens of both coins with the year numbers א, ב, נ, ד (1, 2, 3, 4), and one specimen of a whole shekel with the date ה or 5. The era here used is held to be the era of Simon referred to in the First Book of Maccabees. Now these coins, if indeed they were stamped in the time of Simon, are not to be considered properly as coins of Simon, but as coins of the civic commune of Jerusalem, for after the fashion of the Hellenistic communes Jerusalem is regarded as in a position of authority over all Judea (compare § 23, I. and II.). Also the number of the year on the coins does not designate the year of Simon’s reign, but the year of a civil era of Jerusalem; as also other cities of Phoenicia, such as Tyre, Sidon, Ascalon, had begun toward the end of the second century before Christ, in token of the freedom which they had obtained, to adopt a cycle of their own. But even were it possible that the era used upon the coins was identical with “the years of Simon” spoken of in the First Book of Maccabees, the first year of Simon is just the same as the first year of Jewish freedom. But a difficulty is presented by the fact that up to the present time out of the great number of specimens of shekel coins only one piece is found bearing the mark of the year 5; and that no higher numbers are found, whereas the era of Simon, according to 1 Macc. 13:41, 42 and 14:27, began in the Seleucid year 170, and Simon did not die before the Seleucid year 177 (1 Macc. 16:14), so that coins of his time might have been expected at least with the years 6 and 7. Merzbacher has therefore assumed that the era of Simon had been made in the First Book of Maccabees to begin two years too early. Its actual starting-point was the third year of Simon, the Seleucid year 172, or B.C. 141–140, in which Simon was pronounced by a popular decree hereditary high priest (1 Macc. 14:25–49). Then, too, for the first time did Demetrius confer the privileges that have been mentioned upon the Jews. But the author of the First Book of Maccabees has erroneously used the official “first” year of Simon as interchangeable with his actual first year. The reasons for this hypothesis are set forth by Merzbacher with acuteness and skill of combination, but on closer examination they do not prove convincing. The plain and distinct statement of the First Book of Maccabees, that a beginning was made in the Seleucid year 170 to number the years of Simon (13:41, 42; compare 14:27), cannot be thus set aside. Also Merzbacher’s theory is set up simply in order to overcome the difficulty above referred to which the year numbers on the shekel occasion. But besides this difficulty there are still other considerations which tell against the supposition that the shekel was issued under Simon. It cannot therefore be regarded as by any means certain, though indeed most numismatists are in favour of the idea.

The charter of Demetrius conferred privileges which, indeed, Demetrius had it not in his power to give away. It was Simon’s policy rather to emphasize and give effect to these in face of the power of Trypho, which was more perilous to him. In order to confirm his position, Simon sought above all to get possession of two of the fortresses that would be of chief value to him—the city of Gazara and the citadel of Jerusalem; and in both cases he had the good fortune to be successful. Gazara, the old Geshur, not far from Emmans-Nicopolis in a westerly direction, at the base of the mountains, had been up to that time a Gentile city. Possession of it was of importance to the Jews, because it was one of the places which commanded the passes of the mountains, and the holding of it was thus absolutely necessary in order to maintain connection between Jerusalem and the port of Joppa, which had been already annexed by the Jews. Simon opened against the city a skilfully directed siege, conquered it, expelled all Gentile inhabitants from it, and settled it with “men who observed the law.” Simon’s son Jonathan was appointed governor of Gazara.

Soon after the conquest of Gazara, Simon compelled the Syrian garrison of the citadel of Jerusalem to capitulate through famine. The national struggles of the Maccabees had long been directed to the attainment of this object, for so long as the citadel was in the hands of the Syrian kings the Jews were really their subjects. Now at last Simon succeeded in making himself master of this stronghold. On the 23rd day of the second month of the Seleucid year 171, that is, in May B.C. 142, he entered with great pomp and ceremony into the citadel.

Since the Syrian kings were not in a position to be able to give any attention to proceedings in Judea, several years passed of undisturbed prosperity and peace for the Jews. As such a period the reign of Simon is generally characterized in the First Book of Maccabees. The securing of Joppa as a harbour, and the conquest of Gazara, Beth-zur, and the citadel of Jerusalem, are there represented as the chief services rendered by him. Also express mention is made of his care for the spiritual and material wellbeing of the country, for strict administration of justice and the re-establishment of the Jewish law. “Then did they till their ground in peace, and the earth gave her increase, and the trees of the field their fruit. The ancient men sat all in the streets, communing together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel. He provided victuals for the cities, and set in them all manner of munition, so that his honourable name was renowned unto the end of the world. He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy: for every man sat under his vine and his fig-tree, and there was none to fray them: neither was there any left in the land to fight against them: yea, the kings themselves were overthrown in those days. Moreover he strengthened all those of his people that were brought low: the law he searched out; and every contemner of the law and wicked person he took away. He beautified the sanctuary, and multiplied the vessels of the temple.”

In these words of the First Book of Maccabees expression is given to the feeling of satisfaction which the majority of the people had in Simon’s reign. The ultimate aims of the Maccabean struggles had been secured. The government was in the hands of the national party; the country was emancipated from the suzerainty of the Syrians. Thus Simon now reaped the full fruit of the common labours of the Maccabees: the formal legitimizing on the part of the people of their family as the ruling sacerdotal family. It had, indeed, been an act of usurpation by which the son of Mattathias attained unto the supremacy. Up to the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt the office of high priest had been hereditary in another family. In the course of events that family had been driven out of its place. The Maccabean brothers had undertaken the leadership of the national party, and the Syrian king had transferred to them the high-priestly rank. For the maintenance of Simon’s government it was of supreme importance that the legitimacy of his rule should be expressly recognised by a popular decree as affecting his own person and that of his descendants. Such an act was successfully carried out in the third year of Simon’s reign. On the 18th Elul of the Seleucid year 172, that is, in September B.C. 141, it was resolved in a great assembly “of the priests, and the people, and the princes of the people, and the elders of the land,” that Simon should be high priest and military commander and civil governor of the Jews (ἀρχιερεύς, στρατηγός and ἐθνάρχης), and that “for ever until there should arise a faithful prophet” (1 Macc. 14:41). By the last phrase it was meant that this popular decree should remain in force until an authentic communication from God should make some other enactment. Henceforth therefore Simon’s official rank was regarded as “for ever,” that is, hereditary. The significance of this popular resolution lies not so much in the fact that it conveyed to him any new dignity, but rather in this, that it legitimized and pronounced hereditary those dignities which he already had. In this way a new high-priestly priestly and princely dignity was founded, that of the Asmoneans. The terms of the popular decree were engraved on brazen tablets, and these were set up in the court of the temple.

The legitimizing on the part of the people was soon followed by recognition on the part of the Romans. Just about the time when that popular decree was issued, Simon sent an embassy, under the leadership of Numenius, to Rome, which carried as a present a golden shield weighing a thousand minas, and treated about the renewal of the covenant. The embassy was courteously received by the senate, and obtained a decree of senate, which guaranteed to the Jews unrestricted possession of their own territory. Information regarding the contents of the decree of senate was sent to the kings of Egypt, Syria, Pergamum, Cappadocia, and Parthia, and to many of the smaller independent states and communes of Greece and Asia Minor; while, at the same time, they were charged to deliver up to the Jewish high priest any evil-doers who might have fled to them from Palestine. The terms of the decree of senate is given us probably in the Senatus consultus communicated by Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, which Josephus, however, assigns to the time of Hyrcanus II. The relations presupposed in this document are precisely the same as those of 1 Macc. 14:24 and 15:15–24: Jewish ambassadors, of whom one is named Numenius, carried as a present a golden shield, with a request for the renewal of the covenant; and the senate concluded in consequence of this to insist upon the autonomous cities and kings respecting the integrity of the Jewish territory. The session of senate referred to took place, according to Josephus, εἰδοῖς Δεκεμβρίαις, that is, on the 13th December, under the presidency of the praetor Lucius Valerius. This president may possibly be the same as “Consul Lucius,” who, according to 1 Macc. 15:16, sent out the circular letter to the kings and cities. It is, however, also possible that by this term is intended L. Calpurnius Piso, one of the consuls for B.C. 139, who, according to the correct reading of Valerius Max. i. 3. 2, has the praenomen, not of Cneius, but of Lucius. In any case, the arrival of the Jewish ambassadors at Rome must be assigned to B.C. 139, for they returned to Palestine in the Seleucid year 174, that is, B.C. 139–138 (1 Macc. 15:10, 15). Without doubt, therefore, the statement of Valerius Maximus about the establishment of a Jewish propaganda at Rome in B.C. 139 has reference to the proceedings of these ambassadors.

Meanwhile the government of Simon seems not to have been going on so smoothly as it had hitherto. He became once more involved in Syrian affairs. Just about this time Demetrius II. had been temporarily withdrawn from the scene of Syrian politics. He had allowed himself to be entangled in a tedious war with the Parthian king Mithridates I., which ended by Demetrius being taken prisoner by the Parthians in B.C. 138. In place of Demetrius, his father Antiochus VII. Sidetes now took up the struggle against Trypho. Like all Syrian pretenders, who had first of all to win their throne by conquest, Antiochus hasted to secure the aid of the Jews by flattering promises. He had heard in Rhodes of the imprisonment of Demetrius. Even before his landing on the Syro-Phoenician coasts, “from the islands of the sea” he wrote a letter to Simon, in which he confirmed to him all the privileges granted by former kings, and expressly gave him the right of coining money. Soon thereafter, in the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139–138 (1 Macc. 15:10), Antiochus landed in Syria, and quickly gained the victory over Trypho. The latter was obliged to fly to Dora, the strong fortress on the Phoenician coast, and was there besieged by Antiochus. Trypho, indeed, succeeded in effecting his escape from that place. He fled by Ptolemais and Orthosias to Apamea. But there he was again besieged, and in the siege lost his life.

No sooner had Antiochus gained some advantage over Trypho than he assumed another attitude toward the Jews. Even during the siege of Dora, Simon sent him two thousand auxiliary troops, and besides, silver and gold and weapons for their equipment. But Antiochus declined to accept what was offered, repudiated all his former promises, and sent one of his confidants, Athenobius, to Jerusalem in order to obtain from Simon the surrender of the conquered cities of Joppa and Gazara and the citadel of Jerusalem, as well as of all places outside of Judea that had been taken possession of by the Jews. If Simon should be unwilling to restore them, then he was to pay for them altogether the sum of a thousand talents, to be, as it was made to appear, once for all the sum of acquittance. The demands were justified by the plea that for their conquests the Jews had not been able to show any legal title. But Simon refused to yield to these terms, and declared that he would pay only one hundred talents. With this answer Athenobius returned to the king.

Antiochus had resolved to enforce his claims by violent measures. While he himself was still engaged in conflict with Trypho, he appointed his general Kendebäus to conduct the campaign against Simon. Kendebäus made Jamnia his headquarters, fortified Kedron,—a place not otherwise known, probably in the neighbourhood of Jamnia,—and made raids upon Judea. Simon was prevented by his age from personally taking the field. He sent, therefore, his sons Judas and John with an army against Kendebäus. Both justified the confidence placed in them by their father. In a decisive engagement Kendebäus was utterly defeated. When Judas was wounded, John undertook the pursuit, and chased the enemy to Kedron and down into the territory of Asbdod. He returned as conqueror to Jerusalem.

So long as Simon lived, the attack was not repeated on the part of Antiochus.

It thus seemed as if Simon were to be allowed to end his days in peace. But it was not so to be. Like all his brothers, he too died a violent death. His own son-in-law Ptolemy, who was military commander over the plain of Jericho, entertained bold and ambitious schemes. He wished to secure to himself the supreme power, and so plotted by what stratagem he could put Simon and his sons out of the way. When, therefore, in the month Shebat of the Seleucid year 177, that is, in February B.C. 135 (1 Macc. 16:14), Simon, on a tour of inspection through the cities of the land, visited Ptolemy in the fortress of Dok near Jericho, Ptolemy made a great feast, during which he had Simon and his two sons who were with him, Mattathias and Judas, treacherously murdered.

Thus was the last of the sons of Mattathias gathered unto his fathers.

§ 8. JOHN HYRCANUS I., B.C. 135–105

The History of John Hyrcanus, referred to in 1 Macc. 16:23, 24, is not extant.

Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8–10; Wars of the Jews, i. 2. Zonaras, Annal. v. 1–2 (a summary from Josephus).

Mishna, Maaser scheni v. 15; Sota ix. 10. Other rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 70–82.

The most complete account of the coins is given by Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 74–81.

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 342–384.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. 1888, pp. 64–117.

HITZIG, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, ii. 459–472.

WERNER, Johann Hyrkan, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Judäas im zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert. Wernigerode 1877.

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. pp. 421–426.

WELLHAUSEN, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (1874), pp. 89–95.

Seeing that the high-priestly and princely offices had been declared hereditary in the family of Simon, his third son still surviving, John Hyrcanus, who had held the post of governor of Gazara, was nominated his successor. Against him, therefore, were first directed the attacks of the pretender Ptolemy, who had murdered his father and his two brothers. Immediately after the bloody deed the assassin Ptolemy sent to Gazara in order to do away also with John. That prince, however, had meanwhile been warned by friendly messengers, and so he had the murderers apprehended immediately upon their arrival. Then he hasted to Jerusalem, which he was fortunate enough to reach before Ptolemy. When the latter arrived, he found that the city was already in the power of Hyrcanus.

Ptolemy then retired to the fortress of Dagon, identical probably with that of Dok, near Jericho. There he was besieged by Hyrcanus; and undoubtedly the city would soon have been conquered, and the murderer given over to his welldeserved doom, had not Hyrcanus been restrained by affection for his mother. She had fallen into the power of Ptolemy. And so often as Hyrcanus threatened to storm the fortress, Ptolemy had her led out upon the walls, and threatened to hurl her down unless Hyrcanus would abandon his project. This caused him to hesitate in his proceedings. And so the siege was protracted, until at length the return of the Sabbatical year necessitated its abandonment. Ptolemy was thus set free; but nevertheless he had the mother of Hyrcanus murdered, and then fled.

Thus through Ptolemy had Hyrcanus lost both his parents and his two brothers, without having been able to take vengeance upon him.

An evil fate, however, overtook the murderer. Antiochus VII. Sidetes had hitherto made no further attempt upon Judea. We know not the reason of this, but it was perhaps because the home affairs of Syria were occupying all his attention. He was, however, by no means disposed to forget the demands which he previously made of Simon. In the first year of John Hyrcauus, B.C. 135–134, he invaded Judea, devastated the whole country, and finally laid siege to Hyrcanus in his capital, Jerusalem. He surrounded the whole city with a rampart and a trench. and cut off the besieged from all egress from the city. Hyrcanus on his part sought to harass the besiegers by sallies. In order to make the victuals last longer, he sent the non-combatants out of the city. But Antiochus would not let them pass, and drove them back again, so that they were obliged to roam about between the circle of the besiegers and the city, and many of them perished of hunger. It was not till the Feast of Tabernacles that Hyrcanus received them again into the city. For the celebration of this feast he had begged of Antiochus an armistice for seven days. Antiochus granted not only this, but sent also gifts for sacrifice into the city, which they were to present in the temple. This generous act raised the spirits of Hyrcanus, and he now hoped, by timely capitulation, to obtain favourable terms. He sent therefore an embassy to Antiochus to treat for conditions of peace. After protracted negotiations an understanding was at last come to. The terms of the arrangement were that the Jews should deliver up their arms, pay tribute for Joppa and the other towns lying outside of Judea which they had conquered, give hostages, and besides pay 500 talents. The conditions were indeed by no means satisfactory. Yet in the circumstances Hyrcanus was indeed very glad even at this price to obtain the raising of the siege and the withdrawal of the Syrian army. The walls of the city too were thrown down.

The remarkable moderation of Antiochus had perhaps other reasons than those assigned for it by the historians. In a decree of the Roman senate, which Josephus communicates in Antiq. xiii. 9. 2, it is assumed that a King Autiochus had taken from the Jews in war, Joppa, Gazara, and other towns (πολεμῶν ἔλαβεν Ἀντίοχος), on account of which a Jewish embassy had gone to Rome with the prayer that the senate should order Antiochus to restore these towns. This Antiochus can have been no other than Antiochus VII. Sidetes, for under no earlier Antiochus were the Jews in possession of the towns of Joppa and Gazara, and of the later kings there was none able to usurp any authority worth mentioning over the Jews. Evidently Antiochus, as is indeed in itself most probable, had in that war, before advancing to the siege of the capital, seized upon and taken from the Jews Joppa, Gazara, and the other towns that had been conquered by them. But then it is hardly credible that of his own accord, by a peaceful treaty, he would have left the Jews in possession of these cities, and only have imposed on them a tribute for the holding of them. The mild conditions are to be accounted for rather by the interference of the Romans. The senate certainly did not at first, in the decree referred to, formally accede to the prayer of the Jews, but rather put off any final decision. It appears, however, that very soon afterwards a second Jewish embassy went to Rorne, which did secure the result desired. In a subsequent passage, Antiq. xiv. 10. 22, a decree of the Roman senate is given by Josephus, erroneously inserted in a decree of the Pergamenes, which evidently refers to the matters now under discussion. In consequence of an embassy sent by Hyrcanus, a command is issued to King Antiochus that he must restore all the cities taken by him from the Jews, and in particular that he must withdraw the garrison from Joppa (τὴν ἐν Ἰόπῃ δὲ φρουρὰν ἐκβαλεῖν). The king is there indeed called “Antiochus, son of Antiochus,” instead of “son of Demetrius,” but he can scarcely be any other than Antiochus Sidetes. For if the Jews, since the conclusion of peace with him, obtained possession again of Joppa by the payment of tribute, it can scarcely be supposed that any of the weak successors of Sidetes could have again placcd a garrison there. In any case, the Jews would have had no occasion to call in the help of the Romans against such an adversary. It may therefore be conjectured that the decree of senate in question preceded the conclusion of peace with Antiochus Sidetes, and was pre-eminently the means of securing for the Jews such mild and favourable conditions.—If these combinations are correct, we must assume that the war continued for more than a year.

The conflicts which took placc during those first years of Hyrcanus, gave new proofs that the small Jewish state could maintain its freedom from Syrian suzerainty only so long as the Syrian empire was internally weak. Before the first vigorous onslaught of Antiochus, the freedom that had previously been won by Simon was again lost. Hyrcanus’ dependence on Antiochus VII. also obliged him to take the field with the Syrian monarch against the Parthians in B.C. 129. But he was not involved in the disaster that overtook Antiochus.

The death of Antiochus in the Parthian campaign, in B.C. 128, was for Hyrcanus a favourable occurrence. His place upon the Syrian throne was taken by the weak Demetrius II., who had previously been released from imprisonment by the Parthians. He was immediately involved in a civil war, which obliged him to seek to win the favour of the Jews.

Hyrcauus as soon as possible turned to account the altered circumstances. Without troubling himself about Demetrius, he began to seize upon considerable districts in the neighbourhood of Judea, to the east, to the north, and to the south. First of all he marched into the laud east of the Jordan, and conquered Medaba after a six months’ siege. Then he turned to the north, took Shechem and Mount Gerizim, subdued dued the Samaritans, and destroyed their temple, Finally, he went south, took the Idumean cities Adora and Marissa, and compelled the Idumeans to submit to circumcision, and to receive the Jewish law. The policy of conquest, which had been already inaugurated by Jonathan and Simon, was carried out vigorously by Hyrcanus. The purely worldly character of his policy, however, is shown conspicuously in this, that first among the Jewish princes he no longer conducted the war by means of Jewish soldiers, but called in the aid of foreign mercenaries.

This independent procedure on the part of Hyrcanus was possible only on account of the internal weakness of the Syrian empire. Demetrius II, after his restoration to the throne, was again guilty of the folly of waging war with Ptolemy VII. Physcon, king of Egypt The Egyptian monarch therefore set up over against Demetrius a pretender to the throne, in the person of a young Egyptian, whom he gave out to be an adopted son of Antiochus Sidetes, who was, however, according to others, a son of Alexander Balas. This pretender was named Alexander, and was surnamed by the Syrians Zabinas, i.e. “the purchased.” Conquered by this Alexander at Damascus, Demetrius was obliged to retire to Ptolemais, and to take ship from thence to Tyre, where as soon as he landed he was murdered, in B.C. 125 or 124.

Alexander Zabinas, however, had on his part to contest the sovereignty with the son of Demetrius, Antiochus VIII. Grypos. So he was not forced by necessity to live in peace and friendship with Hyrcanus.

After some years, somewhere about B.C. 122, Alexander Zabinas was subdued by his opponent. Antiochus VIII. Grypos conquered him, and had him executed; while, according to others, he brought his own life to an end by poison.—There now followed a long period of quiet. For eight years Antiochus VIII. Grypos held undisputed sway in Syria. Nevertheless even he made no attempt against Hyrcanus. He had no longer the ambition to restore to Syria its ancient dimensions. In B.C. 113 he was driven out by his cousin and step-brother, Antiochus IX. Cyziceuos, who ruled Syria for two years, and then, when Antiochus Grypos again secured possession of the greater part of Syria in B.C. 111, he took up his residence in Coele-Syria, the part adjoining Palestine, and made it his headquarters.

Of Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, who ruled in Coele-Syria from B.C. 113 to B.C. 95, Diodorus gives the following description: “So soon as he attained the throne, Antiochus Cyzicenos gave way to drunkenness and shameful sensuality, and to habits most unbecoming in a king. He took great delight in theatrical displays and the performance of comedies, and generally in all sorts of showmen, and tried to learn their art. He also zealously promoted the exhibition of marionettes, and sought to fabricate in silver and gold animals five ells long that would move of themselves, and other such arts. On the other hand, battering-rams and engines of war, which would have brought him great advantage and renown, he did not make. He also was passionately fond of adventurous expeditions; and often through the night, without the knowledge of his friends, accompanied only by two or three servants, he would go out into the country to hunt lions, panthers, and boars. In such escapades he often engaged to the extreme peril of his life in foolhardy encounters with wild beasts.”

We see here traditions of an earlier Antiochus IV. imitated again after a baser fashion. From such a ruler, who was taken up with such pursuits, Hyrcanus had nought to fear. And so it came about that from the death of Antiochus Sidetes, in B.C. 128, Judea had been able to keep itself absolutely independent of Syria. The taxes laid upon Judea by Antiochus Sidetes were not paid to any of the following kings. “Neither as their subject nor as their friend did he longer pay them any regard.”

In the last years of his reign Hyrcanus undertook an expedition for the conquest of the neighbouring districts. After having previously subdued the borders of Shechem and Mount Gerizim, he now directed his attack against the city of Samaria, whose inhabitants had given him occasion to complain. He had them enclosed by a wall and a trench, and then transferred the conduct of the siege to his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus. The Samaritans in their straits called in the aid of Antiochus Cyzicenos, who went indeed very willingly, but was driven back by the Jews. So then a second time Antiochus sought to bring them help by means of Egyptian auxiliary troops, which Ptolemy Lathurus supplied, and by their help devastated the Jewish territory, without, however, securing any decided advantage. After sustaining great loss, Antiochus withdrew from the scene of conflict, leaving his generals, Callimander and Epicrates, to carry on the campaign to its close. Of these the one was defeated by the Jews and lost his life, while the other, Epicrates, also achieved nothing, but treacherously gave over Scythopolis to the Jews. Thus Samaria, after a year’s siege, fell into the hands of the Jews, and was utterly razed to the ground.—The Jewish legends relate that on the day of the decisive victory of Antigonus and Aristobulus over Antiochus Cyzicenos, the occurrence was made known to Hyrcanus by a voice from heaven, while he was presenting a burnt-offering in the temple.

What has now been told is all that is known to us as to the external events of what seems to have been the truly brilliant reign of Hyrcanus. The record is scanty enough. But even still more fragmentary is the reports which have come down to us regarding the internal affairs of that government. Something may first of all be gained from the inscriptions on the coins. These, in common with the coins of the immediate successors of Hyrcanus, bear the inscription—

יהוחנן הכהן הגדל וחבר היהודים

or: יהוחנן הכהן הגדל ראש חבר היהודים

The reading of this last word is doubtful. Probably it is to be read: cheber hajjehudim; and by cheber, which literally means fellowship, association, is to be understood, not the γερουσία, but rather the assembly of the whole body of the people. The inscription would therefore run thus: “Jochanan the high priest and the congregation of the Jews,” or “Jochanan the high priest, head of the congregation of the Jews.” This official title shows us that John Hyrcanus regarded himself as in the full sense still high priest. As in the pre-Maccabean age, so also still the Jewish commonwealth was a government of priests, and the chief priest standing at its head was not an autocrat, but simply the chief of the congregation. The coins, at least those of the first order, were not only stamped in his name, but also in that of the congregation, On the other hand, it is a proof of the increasing prominence given to the possession of princely prerogatives, that John has had his name engraven on the coins. He is the first of the Jewish princes who did so. Then from the coins of the second order the name of “the congregation” disappears altogether, and instead thereof he is himself designated under his twofold title of rank as “High Priest,” and as “Chief of the Congregation of the Jews.”

In reference to the internal policy of Hyrcanus, daring his thirty years’ reign, one fact at least is well established, and that one of the greatest importance: his breaking away from the Pharisees, and attaching himself to the Sadducees. These two parties now appear for the first time under those names upon the arena of history. Their beginnings lay far back; their consolidation under those names seems to have been a consequence of the Maccabean movement. The Pharisees are nothing else but the party of strict zealots for the law: essentially the same circles as we meet with in the beginning of the Maccabean movement under the name of the Pious or Chasidim. Diametrically opposed to them were those who in the most extreme fashion favoured everything Greek, who even went beyond the Hellenizing movement of Antiochus Epiphanes by opening the door to Hellenism, not only in the domain of social life, but also in that of religious worship. These extreme Grecianizers, who were found specially in the ranks of the higher priesthood, had been swept away before the blast of the Maccabean revolution. Ideas of this sort could no longer be allowed to find expression in the league of the Jewish commonwealth. But the foundations on which that type of thought had grown up had still continued to exist there. It was the essentially worldly spirit of the higher priesthood, opposed to any kind of religious enthusiasm. They wished to maintain their position on the basis of the Mosaic law. But whatever therein transcended the mere letter, they rejected with a lofty assumption of superiority. They had far heartier interest in the affairs of this life than in those of the time to come. The spirit which among the higher priests was represented pre-eminently by “the sons of Zadoc,” was now called that of the Zadocites or Sadducees.

The Maccabees belonged properly neither to the Pharasaic nor to the Sadducean party. The zeal for the law, which had led them to take the sword in their hand, associated them indeed with the Chasidim, who also at the outset took part in the war of independence. But soon the two went their several ways, and as time advanced they parted farther and farther from one another. The Chasidim had no interest in political supremacy and political freedom. With the Maccabees this was the point of most vital importance. They did not indeed at a later period abandon their original aim, the preservation of the religion of their fathers. But as time wore on they became more and more deeply involved in other political schemes. In this way they were brought into closer relations with the Sadducees. As political up-starts, the Maccabees could not venture to ignore the influential Sadducean nobility. And it may be taken for granted that in the γερουσία of the Maccabean age, the Sadducean party was represented.—But in spite of all this, in religious sympathies the Maccabees originally stood far nearer to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees. They were the conservers of their fathers’ faith and their fathers’ law. It may be unhesitatingly stated, even in regard to Hyrcanus, that in the earlier years of his reign, in regard to the observance of the law, he held the doctrines of the Pharisees. For it was his abandonment of the traditions of the Pharisees which formed the chief accusation brought against him by the stricter Jews.

The interests and activities of the Maccabees were thus going forth in two different directions, the religious and the political, and this explains to us the change of front which took place during the course of Hyrcanus’ reign. The more the political interests were brought into the foreground by him, the more were the religious interests put in abeyance. And just in proportion as this policy was carried out, Hyrcanus was obliged to withdraw from the Pharisees and associate himself with the Sadducees. Any close and hearty relationship with the Pharisees could not possibly continue while he wrought out the devices of his purely worldly policy. Hence it was just what might have been expected, that he should openly break with the Pharisees and cast in his lot with the Sadducean party.

The ostensible occasion of the breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees is described by Josephus and the Talmud in a similar manner as follows. Hyrcanus once made the request, when many Pharisees were with him at dinner, that if they observed him doing anything not according to the law, they should call attention to it, and point out to him the right way. But all present were full of his praise. Only one, Eleasar, rose up and said: “Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the high-priesthood and content thyself with the civil government of the people.” And when Hyrcanus wished to know for what cause he should do so, Eleasar answered: “We have heard it from old men that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.” But this statement was incorrect. On account of it Hyrcanus was incensed against him in the highest degree. When then Hyrcanus laid before the Pharisees the question as to the punishment which Eleasar deserved, they made answer, “stripes and bonds.” Hyrcanus, who believed for such an offence nothing less than death was due, became now still more angry, and thought that Eleasar had given expression to a sentiment that was approved of by his party. Forthwith he separated himself entirely from the Pharisees, forbade under penalties the observance of the laws ordained by them, and attached himself to the Sadducees.

The story indeed, in its anecdotal form, bears on it the imprint of a thoroughly legendary character, and is even by Josephus given only as a tale derived from oral tradition. Nevertheless it may be accepted as a fact that Hyrcanus did turn away decidedly from the party of the Pharisees and abolished the Pharisaic ordinances. For it was a conscious reaction against the policy pursued from the time of Hyrcanus, when Alexandra returned again to the observance of the Pharisaic institutions. Two of the particular ordinances set aside by Hyrcanus are mentioned in the Mishna. But in view of the thoroughgoing opposition of Hyrcanus to every sort of Pharisaic ordinance, the cases referred to in the Mishna are spoken of as being only unimportant matters of detail.

On a review of Hyrcanus’ government Josephus passes a favourable verdict upon him, saying that “he was esteemed of God worthy of the three privileges—the government of his nation, the dignity of the high-priesthood, and prophecy.” Upon the whole, the reign of Hyrcanus seems to the Jewish historian a pre-eminently happy one. He is quite right, if political power is regarded as the measure of prosperity and success. After Hyrcanus’ predecessors had already enlarged the Jewish territory to the sea-coast by the addition of Joppa and Gazara and other conquests in the west, Hyrcanus, by new conquests in the east, south, and north, and by making still more secure his independence of Syria, built up a Jewish state such as had not been from the time of the overthrow of the ten tribes, perhaps not even since the partition of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.

Among the great sepulchral monuments in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, that of “the high priest John” is frequently referred to by Josephus in his Wars of the Jews.

§ 9. ARISTOBULUS I., B.C. 105–104

Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 11; Wars of the Jews, i. 3. A summary from Josephus in Zonaras, Annal. v. 3.

The coins are most completely given by Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 81–83.

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 385, 386.

STANLEY, Jewish Church, vol. iii. 370.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 118–123.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 473–475.

JOHN HYRCANUS left five sons. But according to his will, the government was to pass to his wife, while only the high-priesthood was to go to his eldest son Aristobulus. The young prince, however, was not satisfied with this arrangement. He put his mother in prison, where he allowed her to die of hunger, and assumed the government himself. Also all his brothers, with the exception of Antigonus, he cast into prison. Only in the latter had he such confidence that he assigned to him a share in the management of the kingdom. But this very pre-eminence proved the occasion of disaster to Antigonus. It aroused the jealousy of many whose intrigues were at last successful in making Aristobulus the murderer of his favourite brother. It was represented to him that Antigonus was endeavouring to secure the supreme power to himself. Aristobulus in consequence became suspicious, and gave orders to his bodyguard, that if Antigonus should come to him armed, they should cut him down. At the same time he commanded his brother to come to him unarmed. But the enemies of Antigonus bribed the messengers, so that they should announce to him that Aristobulus desired him to obtain new weapons and new armour, and commanded him that he should come clad in armour in order that he might see his new equipment. Antigonus acted accordingly, and was cut down by the bodyguard when he, suspecting nothing, entered the citadel. After the deed was done, Aristobulus is said to have bitterly repented, and his sorrow seemed to have accelerated his death.

The whole domestic tragedy, if it can be taken as historical, presents the character of Aristobulus in a very dark light. His whole concern was with the civil government. All considerations of piety were sacrificed to that one end. In other directions also Aristobulus was estranged still more completely than his father from the traditions of the Maccabees. The monarchical selfish spirit led him to assume the title of king, which his successors maintained down to the time of Pompey. The Greek culture, against the introduction of which the Maccabees had first taken a stand, was directly favoured by him. Whether he assumed the title of Φιλέλλην is not with absolute certainty to be concluded from the words of Josephus. As already his father Hyrcanus had given his sons purely Greek names (Aristobulus, Antigonus, Alexander), it may be taken for granted that he was inclined to those tendencies afterwards openly avowed by Aristobulus.

On the coins Aristobulus has made use neither of his royal title nor of his Greek name. He calls himself on them, “Judas, high priest.” For the coins with the inscription—

יהודה כהן גדול וחבר היהודים

belong, as Cavedoni was the first to point out, to one Aristobulus, whose Hebrew name was Judas.—How thoroughly Aristobulus, notwithstanding his Greek leanings, still occupied the Jewish standpoint, is shown us by the most important occurrence which is recorded of his short reign : the conquest and Judaizing of the northern districts of Palestine. He undertook a military expedition against the Itureans, conquered a large portion of their land, united that to Judea, and compelled the inhabitants to allow themselves to be circumcised and to live according to the Jewish law. The Itureans had their residence in Lebanon. As Josephus does not say that Aristobulus subdued “the Itureans,” but only that he conquered a large portion of their country and judaized it; and as Galilee had not hitherto belonged to the territory of the Jewish high priest, the conquests even of John Hyrcanus extending northwards only as far as Samaria and Scythopolis; and as, yet again, the population of Galilee had been up to that time more Gentile than Jewish,—the conjecture has good grounds that the portion conquered by Aristobulus was mainly Galilee, and that the actual judaizing of Galilee was first carried out by him. In any case, he extended the Jewish power farther northward, as Hyrcanus had toward the south.

Aristobulus died of a painful disease after a reign of one year. Seeing that the judgment passed upon him by Gentile historians is a favourable one, we cannot avoid entertaining the suspicion that the cruelties which he, the Sadducee and friend of the Greeks, is said to have inflicted upon his relatives, are calumnious inventions of the Pharisees.

§ 10. ALEXANDER JANNÄUS, B.C. 104–78

Josephns, Antiq. xiii. 12–15; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. Summary in Zonaras, Annal. v. 4.

Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 558 sq., goes back to a source independent of Josephus.

Rabbinical Traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 95–102.

The coins are most completely collected in Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 83–90.

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 386–392.

STANLEY, Jewish Church, iii. (1877) 370, 386–388.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 123–135.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. pp. 475–488.

HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. pp. 430–434, art. “Janai, Alexander.”

MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Bl. iv., special map of Judea and Phönicia in the Times of Alexander Jannäus.

WHEN Aristobulus was dead, his widow Salome Alexandra released from prison the three brothers of Aristobulus, whom he had placed in confinement, and raised the eldest of them to the throne and the high-priesthood, while at the same time she gave him her hand in marriage.

Alexander Jannäus, B.C. 104–78, was, during his reign of twenty-six or twenty-seven years, almost constantly involved in foreign or in civil wars, which for the most part were provoked by his own wilfulness, and resulted by no means invariably in his favour.

First of all he took the field against the citizens of Ptolemais, besieged them, and surrounded the city. The inhabitants applied for help to the Egyptian prince Ptolemy Lathurus, who, driven from the throne by his mother Cleopatra, was then exercising rule in Cyprus. Ptolemy arrived with an army, and Alexander through fear of him raised the siege.—He sought, however, by guile to get rid of Ptolemy, for he openly concluded peace and a friendly treaty with him, but secretly called his mother to his help against him. Ptolemy was at first disposed to enter into a mutual agreement. But when he heard that Alexander had secretly summoned his mother to his aid, he broke the truce and went forth with his army against Alexander. He conquered and plundered the city of Asochis in Galilee, and thus put himself in position against Alexander at Asophon on the Jordan. Alexander had a standing army, fairly well equipped. That of Ptolemy was not nearly so well armed, but his soldiers were experienced, and had thorough confidence in the tactical skill of their general Philostephanus. The two armies now lay on either side of the river. The Egyptian troops began to cross. Alexander allowed them peacefully to accomplish this, because he hoped more completely to destroy them when once they had all come over. On both sides they fought bravely, and at first the army of Alexander gained some advantage. But then the Egyptian general managed by a clever manœuvre to cause a part of the Jewish army to retreat, and when once a part fled, the rest could no longer hold their ground. The whole Jewish army took to flight; the Egyptians pursued them, continuing the massacre without intermission, “and slew them so long that their weapons of iron were blunted, and their hands quite tired with the slaughter.”

The whole country now lay open before Ptolemy. But now Cleopatra sent an army to Palestine, in order to check in time the increasing power of her son. While this army operated in Palestine, Ptolemy succeeded in pressing forward into Egypt. But he was driven out of it again and obliged to return to Gaza, and Cleopatra took possession of the whole of Palestine. When she had the power in her hands, some of her counsellors advised her to unite the land of the Jews again with Egypt. But the representations of her Jewish general Ananias prevailed in getting their scheme set aside, and in inducing her rather to conclude a treaty with Alexander. Ptolemy could no longer maintain his position in the Jewish territory, and so he returned to Cyprus. Cleopatra also withdrew her army from Palestine, and Alexander was again ruler of the country.

He was now in a position to make preparations for other conquests. He began these on the east of the Jordan, for he took Gadara and the strong fortress of Amathus on the Jordan. The former he succeeded in taking only after a two months’ siege. Then he turned his attention to the land of the Philistines, conquered Raphia, Anthedon, and finally the city of Gaza, so celebrated in days of old. For a whole year Alexander lay before that city, and at last he obtained the mastery only through treachery, whereupon he plundered it and set it on fire.

The conquest of Gaza must have taken place in B.C. 96, for it was about the same time that Antiochus VIII. Grypos died.

No sooner was peace secured with those outside of the nation than conflicts arose within. The incurable dissension of parties which had already cast its shadows over the reign of Hyrcanus, became productive of strife and turmoil during Alexander’s reign, especially in matters of internal government. The rabbinical legends tell of disputes between the king and the chiefs of the schools of the Pharisees which were of a very harmless kind, childish wranglings rather than serious contendings. But their tales are so utterly worthless from a historical point of view, that they can find a place here only as evidence of the peculiar lusts and equally peculiar morals of Talmudic Judaism. The hero of these tales is Simon ben Shetach, the celebrated Pharisee, reputed to be a brother of Alexander’s wife Salome. Of his doings at court the following are told. There came once 300 Nazarites to Jerusalem in order to present there the prescribed sacrifices. Simon found ways and means to relieve them of the one-half of their burden. But with the other half he could not do so, and therefore he petitioned the king that he should bear the cost, pretending that he himself would bear the expense of the other half. The king agreed to this. But when he discovered that Simon had deceived him he was exceedingly angry, and Simon was obliged to go into hiding in order to escape his wrath. Some time thereafter Parthian ambassadors arrived at the king’s court and wished to see the distinguished rabbis. The king turned to the queen, who knew Simon’s place of concealment, and urged her to induce her brothers to bring him forth. The queen obtained from him a promise that no injury would be done the high priest, and then urged him to come. No sooner was the agreement come to than Simon entered in and seated himself between the king and the queen, whereupon the following conversation took place between him and the king. The king: “Wherefore didst thou flee?” Simon: “Because I heard that my lord and king was angry with me.” The king: “And why didst thou deceive me ?” Simon: “I did not deceive thee. Thou didst give thy gold, and I my wisdom.” The king: “But why didst thou not tell this to me ?” Simon: “If I had told thee, thou wouldest not have given it me.” The king: “Wherefore hast thou taken thy place between the king and the queen?” Simon: “Because it is written in the book of Sirach, Exalt wisdom, and it will exalt thee among princes” (Sirach 11:1).—Thereupon the king ordered to set wine before him, and called upon him to invoke the blessing at table. Simon began: “Thanks be unto God for the nourishment which Jannai and his companions have enjoyed.” “Thou dost ever continue stiff-necked,” said the king; “I have never before in any grace at table heard the name of Jannai.” “Could I say,” retorted Simon, “we thank Thee for that which we have eaten, when I as yet have received nothing?” The king then gave orders that they should set food before Simon; and when he had partaken of it, he said: “Thanks be unto God for that which we have eaten.”

The real conflicts between Alexander on the one hand, and the Pharisees and those of the people who sympathized with them on the other, were of an entirely different and wholly tragic character. The deeper foundations of this strife lay in the general course of development taken by the internal affairs of the nation since the establishment of the Asmonean dynasty. Among the people the Pharisees gained power and influence more and more. The policy of the Asmoneans separated them always farther and farther from the popular movements, and brought them at last into direct antagonism with the nationalist party. It could only be with deep-seated resentment that pious Jews could look on and see a wild warrior like Alexander Jannäus discharging the duties of high priest in the holy place, certainly not with the conscientious and painstaking observance of the ordinances regarded by the Pharisees as divine. Even while he was discharging his priestly office it is said that for the first time they broke out in open rebellion. During the Feast of Tabernacles, when every one taking part in it was required to carry a palm branch (לוּלָב φοίνιξ) and a citron fruit (אֶתְרוֹג κίτριον) as a festal emblem, Alexander was once, as he stood beside the altar about to offer sacrifice, pelted by the assembled people with the citrons. At the same time they insulted him by calling out that he was the son of a prisoner of war, and was unworthy of the office of sacrificing priest. Alexander was not the man to bear this quietly. He called in the aid of his mercenaries, and 600 Jews were massacred. The bitterness of feeling created thereby among the people was so great, that only a favourable opportunity was waited for in order to break off the hated yoke.

By his love of war Alexander was soon again involved in further complications. He went forth against the Arab tribes which dwelt east of the Jordan, and of these he made the Moabites and Gileadites tributary. But Amathus, which had once previously been conquered but never very securely held, was now utterly destroyed. He then began hostilities against the Arabian king Obedas; but during the conflict with him in the neighbourhood of Gadara, Alexander fell into an ambuscade, in which he was so sore pressed that he narrowly escaped with his bare life. He went as a fugitive to Jerusalem. But there a poor reception awaited him. The Pharisees took advantage of the moment of Alexander’s political weakness to break down his power and influence at home. There was a general rebellion against him, and Alexander had for six full years to fight against his own people with mercenary troops. No less than 50,000 Jews are said to have perished during this period in these civil conflicts. When Alexander’s power had been established he held out the hand of peace. But the Pharisees wished to turn the state of affairs to account so as to secure a victory to their party. When therefore Alexander inquired what they wanted from him, and under what conditions they would agree to maintain the peace and yield obedience, they said that they wanted only his death. At the same time they called to their aid Demetrius III. Eucärus, a son of Antiochus Grypos, and at that time governor of a portion of Syria,—somewhere about B.C. 88.

Demetrius arrived with an army. The Jewish national party united themselves with him at Shechem. Alexander was completely beaten, lost all his mercenary troops, and was obliged to flee to the mountains. But now it seemed as if among many of the Jews who now attached themselves to Demetrius, the national feeling had again wakened up. They would rather, in a free Jewish state, be subject to an Asmonean prince than be incorporated into the empire of a Seleucid ruler. Six thousand Jews went over to Alexander, and Demetrius was in consequence under the necessity of withdrawing again into his own land. The rest of the Jews who still continued in revolt had no other object than to get rid of Alexander. But they were by him defeated in many battles, and many of them were slain. The leaders of the rebellion at last fled to Bethome or Besemelis, where they were besieged by Alexander. After the overthrow of the city, Alexander carried them as prisoners to Jerusalem, and there within the city, at least according to the account of Josephus, while he along with his mistresses gave himself up to debauchery, he had somewhere about 800 of the prisoners crucified in his own presence, and while they were yet alive caused their wives and children to be slain before their eyes. His opponents in Jerusalem were by these atrocities so paralysed with terror, that they fled during the night to the number of 8000, and during his lifetime kept away from the land of Judea.

From this time forward Alexander, throughout his whole reign, enjoyed peace at home. It was not so in the matter of his relations with those outside.

The empire of the Seleucidae then, indeed, lay in its death-throes. Its last convulsions, however, were the occasion of again putting Judea into commotion. Antiochus XII., the youngest of the five sons of Antiochus Grypos, was at this time at war with his brother Philip and the king of the Arabians. When once he resolved to take his way to Arabia through Judea, Alexander Jannäus endeavoured to prevent that by constructing a great wall and trench from Joppa to Capharsaba, and fortifying Joppa with a wooden tower. But Antiochus laid everything low with fire, and made his way through it all.

When Antiochus met his death in battle against the king of the Arabians, and that monarch, whose name was Aretas, extended his rule to Damascus, he became from this time forth the most powerful and the most dangerous neighbour of the Jews. On the south and the east Palestine was bounded by districts which lay under the dominion of the Arabs. Very soon Alexander Jannäus also began to have experience of their power. He was obliged by an attack of Aretas to retreat to Adida, within the boundaries of Judea, where he suffered a rather serious defeat, and could only by making concessions purchase the withdrawal of the Arabian king.

More fortunate were the results of the campaigns which Alexander Jannäus during the next three years, B.C. 84–81, carried on in the country east of the Jordan, in order to extend his power in that direction. He conquered Pella, Dium, Gerasa, then advanced again northward and took Gaulana, Seleucia, and at last the strong fortress of Gamala. When, after these exploits, he returned to Jerusalem, he was then received by the people in peace.

Not long after this, as the result of a drunken debauch, he became sick, and this sickness continued throughout the last three years of his life, B.C. 81–78. He did not, however, abandon his military expeditions until at last, amid the tumult of war, during the siege of the fortress Ragaba he succumbed to his sickness and excrtions in B.C. 78. His body was brought to Jerusalem, where he was buried with great pomp.

Of the coins issued by him, those are of special interest which bear the inscription in two languages—

יהונתן המלךְ || ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ.

They were known even to the earlier numismatists; but first de Saulcy stated the correct and now generally accepted view regarding them, that the Hebrew inscription supplies us with the Hebrew name of Alexander. Jannai is therefore a contraction for Jonathan, not, as was formerly supposed, for Jochanan. But if undoubtedly Alexander’s name was Jonathan, then the coins of the high priest are to be ascribed to him which bear the inscription

יהונתן הכהן הגדל וחבר היהדים (or ינתן).

These high-priestly coins are of the same type as the coins of John Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. The bilingual royal coins are a novelty introduced by Alexander.

By the conquests of Alexander the boundaries of the Jewish state had now been extended far beyond the limits reached by John Hyrcanus. In the south, the Idumeans had been subdued and judaized. In the north, Alexander’s dominion reached as far as Seleucia on the Lake Merom. The sea-coast, on which Joppa had been the first conquest of the Maccabees, was all now completely under Jewish rule. With the single exception of Ascalon, which had been able to maintain its independence, all the coast towns were conquered by Alexander, from the borders of Egypt as far as Carmel. But also the country east of the Jordan, from the Lake Merom to the Dead Sea, was wholly under his sway; among them a number of the more important towns, which had previously been centres of Greek culture, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others.

This work of conquest, however, proved at the same time a work of destruction. It did not lead, as once the conquests of Alexander the Great had done, to the furtherance, but to the extinction of Greek culture. For in this respect Alexander Jannäus was still always a Jew, who subjected the conquered territories, as far as they went, to Jewish modes of thought and manners. If the cities in question would not consent to this, they were laid waste. Such was the fate that befell the great and hitherto prosperous coast towns, and the Hellenistic cities on the east of the Jordan. The Romans, Pompey and Gabinius, were the first to rebuild again those ruins, and reawaken in them a new prosperity.

§ 11. ALEXANDRA, B.C. 78–69

Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. Summary in Zonaras, Annal. v. 5.

Rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 102–112.

The coins in Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), p. 91 sq.

JOH. MÜLLER (praeside G. G. Zeltner), De Alexandra Judaeorum regina tanquam specimine sapientis ex hac gente foeminae. Altdorffi 1711.

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 392–394.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 136–150.

HITZIG, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, ii. 488–490.

WELLHAUSEN, Die Pharisäer und Sadducäer (1874), pp. 97–99.

ACCORDING to the latest expression of Alexander’s will, the succession of the throne went to his widow Alexandra, who again nominated her eldest son Hyrcanus high priest. Alexandra, or, as her Hebrew name runs, Salome, B.C. 78–69, was in all respects the direct antithesis of her husband. While he hated the Pharisees, and was hated by them, she befriended them, and committed to them the helm of government. While he was a despot of the real Oriental type, she was a God-fearing ruler, according to the very ideal of the Pharisees. Her rule, measured by the Pharisaic standard, was faultless.

Alexander, upon his deathbed, is said to have advised his wife to make peace with the Pharisees. This may be true, or it may not; this at least is a fact, that Alexandra, from the beginning of her reign, took her stand unhesitatingly on the side of the Pharisees, lent an ear to their demands and wishes, and in particular gave legal sanction again to all the Pharisaic ordinances abolished since the time of John Hyrcanus. During these years the Pharisees were the real rulers in the land. “She had indeed the name of regent, but the Pharisees had the authority; for it was they who restored such as were banished, and set such as were prisoners at liberty, and to say all at once, they differed in nothing from lords.” To this period of Pharisaic reaction we may also assign a series of triumphs of the Pharisees, of which a report is given in the rabbinical traditions. But the authentic accounts which are given of these in the Festival-Calendar (Megillath Taanith, i.e. the list of the joyous days of thanksgiving on which fasting was not to be practised) are so brief and enigmatical, that they afford no satisfactory historical basis. And the quite modern Hebrew commentary thereon gives purely worthless fancies. Also the statement of the Mishna, that Simon ben Shetach had once caused eighty women to be hanged in Ascalon, cannot be used for this reason, that that celebrated rabbi had no connection with Ascalon. Historical information is therefore wholly to be derived from Josephus. And the picture of this queen with which he presents us, in respect of vividness leaves nothing to be desired. The Pharisees, conscious of their power, went so far as to cause the execution of the former counsellors of King Alexander who had advised him to massacre the 800 rebels. This despotic proceeding did not involve in ruin the aristocracy of Jerusalem. An embassy representing them, including Alexandra’s own son Aristobulus, approached the queen, and besought her to put a stop to the scheme of the Pharisees; and the queen was obliged, whether she wished it or not, to consent thereto.

In her foreign policy Alexandra showed circumspection and energy. There are, however, no very important political events to be recorded during her reign. The most important was a military expedition of her son Aristobulus against Damascus, which, however, ended without result. The Syrian empire was then in the hands of the Armenian king Tigranes. He assumed a threatening attitude toward the end of the reign of Alexandra. The danger, however, that thus hung over Judea was arrested, partly by Alexandra purchasing peace by bestowing rich presents, partly and mainly by the Romans having just then made a descent under Lucullus upon the empire of Tigranes, which obliged him to abandon his plans in regard to Judea.

Upon the whole, Alexandra’s reign was looked upon by the people as one of prosperity. There was peace abroad as well as at home. The Pharisees were satisfied; and since they had the people at their bidding, all expressed themselves in favour of the God-fearing queen. In the Pharisaic tradition the days of Alexandra are naturally represented as a golden age, in which even the soil of the land, as if blessed on account of the piety of the queen, enjoyed a truly miraculous fruitfulness. “Under Simon ben Shetach and Queen Salome rain fell on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the corns of wheat were as large as kidneys, the barley corns as large as olives, and the lentils like golden denarii; the scribes gathered such corns, and preserved specimens of them in order to show future generations what sin entails.”

But the Pharisees were not yet so exclusively in possession of power that the queen, without risk, could depend upon their support alone. The influence of the Sadducean nobles was not altogether broken. And the discontent of this circle was all the more considerable, from the fact that at its head stood Alexandra’s own son Aristobulus. The queen must herself have felt, toward the close of her life, on what a shifting foundation she had built. When, in her seventy-third year, she fell sick of a serious complaint, and intended to bestow the succession to the throne upon her elder son Hyrcanus, Aristobulus thought that the time had now arrived for unfurling the standard of revolt. He succeeded in getting the strongest fortresses into his possession. As the number of his adherents rapidly grew, the elders of the people and Hyrcanus became sorely distressed, and made representations to the queen that it was necessary to adopt measures against him. The queen granted the necessary authority for this, but died even before the war broke out, in B.C. 69.

§ 12. ARISTOBULUS II., B.C. 69–63

Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 1–4; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 7. Zonaras, Annal, v. 5–6, a summary from Josephus.

Rabbinical traditions in Derenbourg, pp. 112–118.

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 394–399.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 151–165.

HITZIG, Geschichte der Volkes Israel, ii. 490–500.

MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Sheet iv., special map of “Judea and Phoenicia according to the Arrangements of Pompey and Gabinius.”

THE star of the Asmoneans was now hasting to its setting. After Alexandra’s death a war immediately broke out between the brothers Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II., which, after a few years, ended in the Romans taking from the Jews that freedom which they had wrested from the Syrians. Alexandra had died just at the critical moment when the idea had taken possession of her son Aristobulus to grasp for himself the government by force. Her legitimate successor was her eldest son Hyrcanus, who had been already, during the reign of his mother, invested with the office of high priest. He also began to exercise civil government. But his brother Aristobulus was by no means disposed to acquiesce in his plans. He advanced against Hyrcanus with an army. Near Jericho they engaged in a battle, in which many of the soldiers of Hyrcanus went over to Aristobulus, and thus secured for him the victory. Hyrcanus fled to the citadel of Jerusalem, but was obliged there to surrender to Aristobulus. A truce was now concluded between the two brothers, according to the terms of which Hyrcanus, who undoubtedly was a weak and indolent character, was to renounce the royal and high-priestly rank, and to resign both to his brother Aristobulus. In return, he was to be left in the undisturbed enjoyment of his revenues.

By all this the state of affairs had been by no means improved. For now the Idumean Antipater or Antipas, the father of him who was afterwards King Herod, joined in the game. His father, who was also called Antipater, had by Alexander Jannäus been appointed governor, στρατηγός, of Idumea, and his son had now, as it seems, stepped into his place. But the younger Antipater saw clearly that he could assert his position much better under the government of the weak and unmanly Hyrcanus, than under the warlike and active Aristobulus. He therefore set all plans in motion for overturning Aristobulus and restoring again Hyrcanus to the head of affairs. First of all, he managed to win to himself adherents from the most distinguished of the Jews, representing to them that Aristobulus, against all right and fairplay, had seized upon the throne, while Hyrcanus was the legitimate ruler. Then he turned to Hyrcanus, made it appear to him that his life was in danger so long as Aristobulus held the reins of government, and that at once, for his own sake, he must seek his overthrow. The indolent and easy-minded Hyrcanus at first gave him no hearing. But at last Antipater’s endeavours were successful. He had also secured the confederacy of the Arabian prince Aretas, who promised that if Hyrcanus fled to him, he should receive him as a friend. Now at length Hyrcanus was induced to listen to the representations of Antipater. In company with him, he fled by night from Jerusalem, and betook himself to Petra, the capital of Aretas. To him he gave the promise that, after he had won again the sovereignty, he would restore to him the twelve cities which Alexander Jannäus had taken from the Arabians; while Aretas, on the other hand, undertook to lend him his support in recovering the throne.

In fulfilment of this promise Aretas went forth against Aristobulus with an army, and conquered him in a battle. In consequence of this victory a great part of the army of Aristobulus went over to Hyrcanus, and indeed the people as a whole attached themselves to their old king. Only a few remained faithful to Aristobulus, so that he was obliged to withdraw to the temple mount, where he was besieged by Aretas and Hyrcanus. Of the period of this siege Josephus relates certain episodes which are highly characteristic of the Jewish piety of that time. On the side of Hyrcanus there was a certain Onias, who had attained unto a great reputation by having prayed to God for rain during a great drought, and having had his prayer immediately answered. They wished to make use of this man, or rather of the irresistible power of his prayers, to secure the destruction of the besieged. They conducted him into the camp, and insisted that he should solemnly invoke God’s curse upon Aristobulus and his adherents. But instead of doing so, Onias went forth into the middle of the camp and said: “O God, the King of the whole world, since those that stand now with me are Thy people, and those that are besieged are also Thy priests, I beseech Thee that Thou wilt neither hearken to the prayers of those against these, nor bring to effect what these pray against those.” But the people were so little in sympathy with this spirit of brotherly love in Onias that they immediately stoned him to death. In connection therewith Josephus relates also another incident which places the besiegers in a by no means favourable light. The Passover festival came round, at which the priests who were among the followers of Aristobulus wished at any cost to offer the appointed sacrifices. But they had no animals for sacrifice, and they knew of no other way of procuring such but by obtaining them for payment from the people of Hyrcanus. A thousand drachmas were demanded for the supply. The price was indeed preposterously extravagant. Yet, notwithstanding, the besieged consented to the terms, and passed out the money through an opening in the wall. The besiegers, however, after accepting of the money, still kept the animals to themselves. For this wickedness, as Josephus thinks, retribution soon came upon them. A violent storm burst forth which destroyed all the fruits of the field, so that the modius of wheat cost eleven drachmas.

While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his victorious campaign in Asia. He had conquered Mithridates in B.C. 66, and had in the same year received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to Syria in B.C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement, and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans. Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted upon him a crushing defeat.

But the Roman favour which Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon proved fatal to his wellbeing and that of his country. He himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present, a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents, which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus, whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B.C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria, subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There he was met at one and the same time by representatives of three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would put all things in order when he had accomplished his contemplated expedition against the Nabateans. Till then all parties were to maintain the peace.

Aristobulus, however, was by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabateans. Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the Nabateans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus. He passed by Pella and crossed the Jordan near Scythopolis, and at Corea entered the territory of Judea proper. Thence he sent messengers to Alexandrium, to which Aristobulus had fled, and ordered him to surrender the fortress. After long delay and manifold negotiations, Aristobulus did this, but at the same time went to Jerusalem in order that he might there prepare for resistance. Pompey pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city, while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius returned without having obtained his object, for the people in the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately advanced against the city. In Jerusalem opinions were now divided. The adherents of Aristobulus had no wish for peace, and resolved to defend themselves to the utmost. The adherents of Hyrcanus, on the other hand, regarded Pompey as their confederate, and wished to open the gates to him. The latter were in the majority, and succeeded in carrying out their purpose. The city was surrendered to Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for resistance.

The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In this fortress, well-nigh impregnable, the adherents of Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. It was quite evident from the nature of the ground that the north side must be the point of attack. A rampart was thrown up, and on it were placed the great battering-rams and engines of war which they had brought with them from Tyre. For a long time the powerful walls withstood the shock of their blows. At length, after a three months’ siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000 Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B.C. 63, under Cicero’s consulship, according to Josephus on the very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath, that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander.

Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into which only the feet of the high priest had ever before entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary (τῇ χώρᾳ καὶ τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπιτάττει φόρον). The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others; also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them. All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II., who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king.

After Pompey had made these arrangements for the government of Palestine, he sent Scaurus back as governor of Syria, while he himself hasted away again to Asia Minor, and first of all to Cilicia. He took Aristobulus along with him as a prisoner of war. He had with him also his two daughters and his sons Alexander and Antigonus, the former of whom contrived almost immediately to make his escape.—When, in B.C. 61, Pompey celebrated his triumph in Rome with great magnificence and display, the Jewish priest-king, the descendant of the Maccabees, was made to march in front of the conqueror’s chariot. Besides Aristobulus and his family, Pompey also had with him a great number of Jewish prisoners, who, at a later period being set at liberty, formed the original stock of the Jewish community at Rome, which quickly rose to a position of importance.

With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we reckon it as beginning in B.C. 142, was completely over-thrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no essential change in the internal government of the country. He suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the Romans. This result, indeed, was inevitable from the moment the Romans set foot in Syria. For their power was altogether of a different sort from that of the Seleucidae. And even the most powerful of the princes, and one most loved by the people, would have been utterly unable to withstand the continued pressure of the superior forces of the Romans. But the work of conquest was made light to their Western assailants by the fact that the country was torn with internal strifes, and that the contending parties were so blind to their own interests as to seek protection and help from the strangers. There was no longer any trace left of that spirit which had led the people on to victory a hundred years before.

THE ROMAN-HERODIAN AGE, B.C. 63–A.D. 135

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

SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF SYRIA, B.C. 65–A.D. 70

For the period of the Republic and the Civil Wars, B.C. 65–30, the chief original sources are JOSEPHUS, DIO CASSIUS, APPIAN, CICERO, and PLUTARCH.

For the period of the Empire, B.C. 30–A.D. 70: JOSEPHUS, DIO CASSIUS, TACITUS, and SUETONIUS.

NORIS, Cenotaphia Pisana Caii et Lucii Caesarum dissertationibus illustrata. Venetiis 1681.—A list of the governors of Syria from A.U. 707–822, or B.C. 47 to A.D. 69, is given in Dissertation ii. c. 16, pp. 267–335.

SCHÖPFLIN, Chronologia Romanorum Syriae praefectorum, etc., in Commentationes historicae et criticae, Basileae 1741, pp. 465–497.—It treats of the whole period of Pompey down to the Jewish war of Vespasian and Titus.

SANCLEMENTE, De vulgaris aerae emendatione libri quatuor. Romae 1793, fol.—Sanclemente gives in lib. iii. 3–4, pp. 330–349, a list of the governors of Syria from M. Titius under Augustus to Cn. Piso under Tiberius. Consult especially lib. iv. 3–6, pp. 413–448, on Quirinius and his taxing.

BORGHESI, Sul preside della Siria al tempo della morte di N. S. Gesù Cristo, 1847; reprinted in Oeuvres complètes de Bartolomeo Borghesi, vol. v. 1869, pp. 79–94.

ZUMPT, De Syria Romanorum provincia ab Caesare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum, in Commentationes epigraphicae, Part ii. 1854, pp. 71–150. Compare also, Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1869, pp. 20–89.

GERLACH, Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa von 69 vor Christobis 69 nach Christo. Berlin 1865.

MOMMSEN, De P. Sulpicii Quirinii titulo Tiburtino, in Res gestae divi Augusti, 2 Aufl. 1883, pp. 161–182.

MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp. 415–422, gives a short list of governors.

KELLNER, Die römischen Statthalter von Syrien und Judäa zur Zeit Christi und der Apostel (Zeitschrift für kathol. Theologie, 1888, pp. 460–486).—Treats of the governors of Syria from B.C. 44 to the destruction of Jerusalem.

On the organization, and history of the province of Syria generally, see KUHN, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, Bd. ii. 1865, pp. 161–201.—Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. pp. 392–430.—Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, Bd. v. 1885, pp. 446–552. Compare also, Bormann, De Syriae provinciae Romanae partibus capita nonnulla. Berol. 1865.

On the constitution of the Roman provinces generally, see Bein, art. Provincia in Pauly’a Real-Encyclop. vi. 142–155.—Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Justinians, 2 Bde. 1864–1865.—Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp. 497–567.—Compare also Mommsen, Römisches StaatSrecht, iii. 1 (1887), pp. 590–832.

In connection with the Roman, Jewish, and New Testament history, the history of the province of Syria is treated of in the comprehensive work of Lewin, Fasti Sacri, London 1865. It embraces the period from B.C. 70 to A.D. 70.—In the Index also under Syria there is given, a list of the governors.

The Roman history generally is treated of in the form of chronological tables in: CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii.; Fasti Romani, vol. i.—E. W. Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln von Roms Gründung bis auf Augustus’ Tod, Altona 1846.—Compare also the well-known works of Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, Bd. iii. (5 Aufl. 1869), from Sulla’s death to the battle of Thapsus, B.C. 78–46.—Peter, Geschichte Roms, Bd. ii., 2 Aufl. 1866, Bd. iii. 1867, Bd. iii. 2, 1869, to the death of Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 180.—For the period of the Republic: Drumann, Geschichte Roms in seinem Uebergange von der republik-anischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder Pompeius, Cäsar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen, 6 Bde. 1834–1844. Ludwig Lange, Römische Alterthümer, Bd. iii., 2 Aufl. 1876, treats of the transition from the republic to the monarchy.—For the period of the Empire: HÖCK, Römische Geschichte vom Verfall der Republik bis zur Vollendung der Monarchie unter Constantin, Bd. i. in 3 Abtheil. 1841–1850; reaches only to the death of Nero. Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserseit, Bd. i. in 2 Abtheil. 1883, down to Diocletian; Bd. ii. 1887, down to Theodosius the Great.

The Syrian history during this period falls naturally into two divisions, the one embracing the Period of the Republic, the other the Period of the Empire.

I. THE PERIOD OF THE DECAY OF THE REPUBLIC, B.C. 65–30

1. Syria Under the Predominating Influence of Pompey, B.C. 65–48

M. Aemilius Scaurus, B.C. 65, 62

Sent by Pompey, he arrived at Damascus in B.C. 65, where previously Lollius and Metellus had been stationed (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 2. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 346). From B.C. 64 to B.C. 63 Pompey himself was in Syria. He arrived there in B.C. 64, during the consulship of L. Julius Caesar and C. Marcius Figulus (Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 6). He passed the winter in Aspis (Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 7). He took the city of Jerusalem in B.C. 63, and went in B.C. 62 to Italy (Clinton and Fischer, under the year B.C. 62). On his departure, Pompey left Scaurus in Syria (Appian, Syr. 51; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 5). This governor carried on to its close the campaign against the Arabian prince Aretas, contemplated by Pompey (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1). Reference is made to this on the coins bearing the inscription Rex Arreas, M. Scaurus, Aed. cur., ex S. C. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. v. 131; Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. i. 1885, p. 120 sq.).—A decree of the Tyrians in honour of Scaurus is communicated by Renan in Mission de Phénicie, p. 533 sq. From Joppa Scaurus took with him the skeleton of the sea monster to which Andromeda had been fastened (Pliny, Historia Naturalis, ix. 5. 11).—Compare, in reference to Scaurus generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 28–32; Pauly’s Real-Encycl. i. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 372–374; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 185 ff.; Gaumitz, Leipziger Studien zur class. Philologie, Bd. ii. 1879, pp. 249–289, especially p. 259.

Marcius Philippus, B.C. 61–60

According to Appian, Syr. 51, between Scaurus and Gabinius, Marcius Philippus and Lentulus Marcellinus were, for two years each, governors of Syria (τῶνδε μὲν ἑκατέρῳ διετὴς ἐτρίφθη χρόνος), both with praetorian power. Seeing that Gabinius arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 57, we must assign to Marcius Philippus the years B.C. 61–60, and to Leutulus Marcellinus the years B.C. 59–58. Compare Clinton, iii 346, against Noris, p. 223, and Schöpflin, p. 466, who give to both only the two years B.C. 59–58. The correct statement is also given in: Lewin, Fasti Sacri, n. 101, 103; Godt, Quomodo provinciae Romanae per decennium bello civili Caesariano antecedens administratoe sint (Kiel 1876), pp. 7, 8.

Lentulus Marcellinus, B.C. 59–58

Compare what is said above. He too, like his predecessor, had still to carry on the war against the Arabians (Appian, Syr. 51).

A. Gabinius, B.C. 57–55

On account of the constant disturbances caused in Syria by the Arabs, it was resolved in B.C. 58 to send thither immediately a proconsul (Appian, Syr. 51), and indeed first of all they sent A. Gabinius, one of the consuls of the year B.C. 58 (Plutarch, Cicero, c. 30), who therefore arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 57.—He used his power in an exceedingly oppressive and tyrannical manner (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 55, 56). Cicero also speaks frequently of his boundless rapacity. For example, it is declared in Pro Sestio, c. 43: “Gabinium haurire cotidie ex paratissimis atque opulentissimis Syriae, gazis inumerabile pondus auri, bellum inferre quiescentibus, ut eorum veteres illibatasque divitias in profundissimum libidinum suarum gurgitem profundat.” In De provinciis consularibus, c. 4: “In Syria imperatore illo nihil aliud [neque gestum] neque actum est nisi pactiones pecuniarum cum tyrannis, decisiones, direptiones, latrocinia, caedes.”—Gabinius was a favourite and an unswerving adherent of Pompey, and therefore when Pompey came into conflict with the senate he took the side of his patron, as he showed, for example, in his Egyptian campaign. He had engaged, as early as B.C. 56, in an expedition against the Parthians, well fitted to serve the interests of the republic, when he received instructions from Pompey to reinstate King Ptolemy Auletes, who had been driven out of Alexandria by a popular revolt. Ptolemy himself gave to this command the necessary stimulus by a present of 10,000 talents. These two reasons moved Gabinius more powerfully than the contrary wishes of the senate, and the existing law which forbade the proconsul to overstep the limits of his province. He suspended his operations against the Parthians, pushed forward to Egypt, and conquered the Egyptian army. In this campaign young Marc Antony, the future triumvir, distinguished himself. King Ptolemy was restored to his throne in the beginning of the year B.C. 55 (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 56–58; Cicero, in Pison. c. 21; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6. 2; Plutarch, Anton. c. 3; Appian, Syr. 51; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 244, 247). He was therefore at Rome on this account, mainly at Cicero’s instigation, in B.C. 55, accused de majestate. The trial was already going on when he, in September B.C. 54, after the province had been meanwhile transferred to Crassus, arrived in Rome (Cicero, ad Quint. iii. 1. 5–7). His wealth and the influence of Pompey prevailed in securing for him a favourable judgment in this matter; but on account of his boundless oppressions he was sentenced to exile, although now Cicero himself, induced to do so by Pompey, pled on his behalf (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 59–63, cf. 55; Appian, Syr. 51; Civ. ii. 24; Cicero, ad Quint. fr. iii. 1–4; pro Ralirio Postumo, cc. 8 and 12).—Compare on Gabinius generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iii. 40–62; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. iii. pp. 565–571.

M. Licinius Crassus, B.C. 54–53

In the year B.C. 60, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus had formed what is called the first Triumvirate. In B.C. 56 this arrangement was renewed upon their meeting together at Luca. The result of this was that in B.C. 55 two of the triumvirs, Pompey and Crassus, obtained the rank of consuls. While they held the consulship, Pompey undertook the administration of Spain, Crassus that of Syria, to he entered upon by each in B.C. 55 (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 33–36; Livy, Epitome, 105; Plutarch, Pompeius, 52; Crassus, 15; Appian, Civ. ii. 18). Crassus started from Rome and went to Syria in November B.C. 55, even before the expiry of his consulship (see Clinton, ad ann. B.C. 54; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 250).—In B.C. 54 he fitted out an expedition against the Parthians, and pressed forward till he had crossed the Euphrates, but he then turned back and spent the winter in Syria. In the spring of B.C. 53 he renewed his campaign, crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma, but suffered a serious defeat, and was obliged to withdraw to Carrae. When he could not even here maintain his ground, he continued his retreat, and had reached as far as the Armenian mountain land when the Parthian general Surena offered him terms of peace on the condition that the Romans should confine themselves to the districts on the other side of the Euphrates. Crassus was obliged to agree to these terms; but when going to a conference with Surena, accompanied by a small retinue, he was treacherously set upon by the Parthian troops and murdered in B.C. 53 (according to Ovid, Fast. vi. 465: V. Idus Junias, or 9th June; see Clinton and Fischer, ad ann. B.C. 53). Many of his people were taken prisoners by the Parthians: part succeeded in making their escape; another part had even before this returned to Syria under the leadership of the quaestor Cassius Longinus (Dio Cassius, xl. 12–27; Plutarch, Crassus, 17–31; Livy, Epitome, 106; Justin, xlii. 4).—Compare on Crassus generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iv. 71–115, Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. iv. 1064–1068. On the Parthian campaign, Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und Seiner Nachbarländer (1888), pp. 87–93; and the literature referred to by Gutschmid, p. 171 f.

C. Cassius Longinus, B.C. 53–51

After the death of Crassus the supreme command in Syria fell to Cassius Longinus. The Parthians now made inroads upon the Roman territory, pressed on in B.C. 51 as far as Antioch, but were fortunately again driven back by Cassius in autumn of B.C. 51 (Dio Cassius, xl. 28–29; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Livy, Epitome, 108; Justin, xlii. 4; Cicero, ad Atticum, v. 20; ad Familiares, ii. 10; Philipp. xi. 14; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 117 f.; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 194 ff. On the chronology, see especially, Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 260 f.).

M. Calpurnius Bibulus, B.C. 51–50

Cassius Longinus was succeeded by Bibulus (according to Cicero, ad Familiares, ii. 10; ad Atticum, v. 20; Dio Cassius, xl. 30). He is called Λεύκιος Βύβλος in Appian, Syr. 51. But from the testimony of Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 19, xv. 1 and 3, and Livy, Epitome, 108, and Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 31, it is put beyond dispute that he was M. Bibulus, the colleague of Caesar in the consulship in B.C. 59.—He arrived in Syria in autumn of the year B.C. 51 (Cicero, ad Atticum, v. 18 and 20).—He also had still trouble with the Parthians (compare Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 19), but was able to rid himself of it in great measure by stirring up internal feuds among them. According to Dio Cassius, xl. 30, these civil conflicts took place as early as B.C. 51, during the consulship of M. Marcellus and Sulp. Rufus. Compare Cicero, ad Atticum, vii. 2, sub fin.: Parthi repente Bibulum semivivum reliquerunt.—Cicero, who at this same time administered the neighbouring province of Cilicia, in ad Atticum, vi. 1. 13, mentions Bibulus among those who in the administration of their province “valde honeste se gerunt.”—Compare also Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 264 f. On Bibulus generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 97–105; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 101 f.

Vejento, B.C. 50–49

Bibulus de provincia decessit, Vejentonem praefecit.” So writes Cicero in the beginning of December B.C. 50 (ad Atticum, vii. 3. 5).

Q. Metellus Scipio, B.C. 49–48

When, during the first days of the year B.C. 49, the civil war between Caesar and Pompey broke out, the provinces had just been partitioned among the Pompeian party, and the province of Syria had been conferred on the father-in-law of Pompey, Q. Metellus Scipio, who had held the consulship in the year B.C. 52 (Caesar, Bell. Civ. i. 6; compare Cicero, ad Atticum, ix. 1).—Toward the end of B.C. 49 he withdrew from Syria two legions for the support of Pompey, and wintered with them in the territory of Pergamum (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 4 and 31). In the following year he proceeded to Macedonia, and joined Pompey shortly before the battle of Pharsalia (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 33, 78–82). In the battle of Pharsalia he commanded the centre of Pompey’s army (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 86).—Compare on Metellus Scipio generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 44–49; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 32–34.

2. Syria During the Time of Caesar, B.C. 47–44

Sextus Caesar, B.C. 47–46

After the battle of Pharsalia, 9th August B.C. 48, Caesar followed Pompey by sea to Egypt, which he reached in the beginning of October, shortly after the assassination of Pompey, which had taken place on the 28th September. Contrary to expectation, he became involved in Egypt in a war with King Ptolemy, which detained him there for nine months (Appian, Civ. ii. 90). Not till the end of June B.C. 47 could he get away from Egypt, and then he went as speedily as possible (Dio Cassius, xlii. 47: τάχει πολλῷ χρησάμενος) through Syria to Asia Minor in order to make war upon Pharnaces, king of Pontus (Auct. de Bell. Alexandr. c. 33, 65 ff.; Plutarch, Caesar, 49, 50; Suetonius, Caesar, 35; Appian, Civ. ii. 91). Hitherto Syria, as it would seem, had been left very much to itself. Now for the first time, during his short visit to the province (according to Cicero, ad Atticum, xi. 20, Caesar was at Antioch in the middle of July B.C. 47), Caesar organized the administration of Syria by setting up a relative of his own, Sextus Caesar, as governor (Bell. Alexandr. c. 66; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 26; compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 2).—Many cities of Syria then obtained from Caesar important privileges, and, in consequence, began reckoning from a new era, the aera Caesariana; so, e.g., Antioch, Gabala, Laodicea, Ptolemais (see Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, ed. Lips. pp. 162 sqq., 270 sqq., 293 sqq., 424 sqq.; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 279 sqq., 313 sqq., 315 sqq., 423 sqq.). Compare Bell. Alexandr. 65: commoratus fere in omnibus civitatibus, quae majore sunt dignitate, praemia bene meritis et viritim et publice tribuit. Marquardt. Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 397.

Caecilius Bassus, B.C. 46

While Caesar in the spring of B.C. 46 had still to fight in Africa with the party of Pompey, a Pompeian, Caecilius Bassus, sought to secure to himself the governorship of Syria. He was indeed beaten by Sextus, but he succeeded in getting the governor put out of the way by assassination, won over the soldiers to his side, and made himself master of Syria (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 26–27; Livy, Epitome, 114; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. Diverging in points of detail, Appian, Civ. iii. 77, iv. 58, with whom Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 125–127, and Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 36 f., agree).

C. Antistius Vetus, B.C. 45

In opposition to Caecilius Bassus the party of Caesar was headed by Antistius Vetus. In autumn of the year B.C. 45 he besieged Bassus in Apamea, but could gain no decided advantage over him, because the Parthians brought assistance to Bassus (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. The date is given by Cicero, ad Atticum, xiv. 9. 3, and Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27, as διὰ τὸν χειμῶνα).

L. Statius Murcus, B.C. 44

In order to put down Caecilius Bassus, Caesar sent, probably in the beginning of B.C. 44 L. Statius Marcus to Syria with three legions. He was supported by the governor of Bithynia, Q. Marcius Crispus, who also had three legions under his command. By both Bassus was again besieged in Apamea (Appian, Civ. iii. 77, iv. 58; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. Compare Strabo, xvi. p. 752).

3. Syria Under the Administration of Cassius, B.C. 44–42

C. Cassius Longinus, B.C. 44–42

Affairs took a new turn in consequence of the murder of Caesar on 15th March B.C. 44. Among the conspirators who accomplished that deed was, besides Brutus, the celebrated C. Cassius Longinus, the same man who, in the years B.C. 53–51, had successfully defended Syria against the attack of the Parthians. He had been already nominated by Caesar as governor of Syria for the year B.C. 43 (Appian, Civ. iii. 2, iv. 57). But after Caesar’s death Marc Antony contrived it so that Syria was given to Dolabella, and another province, possibly Cyrene, to Cassius (Appian, Civ. iii. 7–8, iv. 57). Cassius, however, did not agree to these arrangements, but went to Syria as the province assigned to him by Caesar. He arrived there in the end of the year B.C. 44, before Dolabella had made his appearance (Appian, Civ. iii. 24, iv. 58; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 21, 26).—At the time of his arrival Caecilius Bassus was still under siege by Statius Murcus and Marcius Crispus in Apamea. He succeeded in winning over to himself the two besieging generals, where-upon also the legion of Bassus went over to him. Cassius himself relates to Cicero that this occurred in March and May B.C. 43 (Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 11 and 12. Compare ad Brutum, ii. 5; Philippic, xi. 12, 30; Appian, Civ. iii. 78, iv. 59; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 28; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 2; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 128).—Thus Cassius had considerable fighting power at his command before Dolabella, who had meanwhile established himself in the interests of Marc Antony in Asia Minor, made his appearance in Syria in B.C. 43, and pressed forward as far as Laodicea, on the sea-coast south of Antioch (Appian, Civ. iii. 78, iv. 60; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 29–30). Cassius laid siege to him there (Cicero, ad familiares, xii. 13–15), and compelled him to yield, whereupon Dolabella had his head struck off by a soldier of his bodyguard (Appian, Civ. iv. 60–62; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 30; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 129 ff., 514 ff.; Wegehaupt, P. Cornelius Dolabella, 1880).—After the defeat of Dolabella, Cassius intended to turn to Egypt, but instead of this was called by Brutus to Asia Minor in B.C. 42. He therefore left his nephew with a legion in Syria (Appian, Civ. iv. 63), met with Brutus at Smyrna, then undertook an expedition against Rhodes, again joined Brutus at Sardes, and then accompanied him to Macedonia, where, late in autumn of the year B.C. 42, at Philippi, the troops of the conspirators were defeated by Marc Antony and Octavian. Cassius, as well as his confederate Brutus, ended his life by his own hand (Appian, Civ. iv. 63–138; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 31–49; Plutarch, Brutus, 28–53).

4. Syria Under the Rule of Marc Antony, B.C. 41–30

Decidius Saxa, B.C. 41–40

After the battle of Philippi, Octavian went to Italy, while Marc Antony proceeded first of all to Greece and afterwards to Asia (Plutarch, Antonius, 23–24). On his march through Asia, Antony met for the first time, in B.C. 41, at Tarsus, Cleopatra, who managed so to fascinate him by her charms, that he followed her to Egypt, where he spent the winter of B.C. 41–40 in inactivity and self-indulgence (Plutarch, Antonius, 25–28).—During B.C. 41, before he went to Egypt, he arranged the affairs of Syria, exacted on every hand an exorbitant tribute (Appian, Civ. v. 7), and left Decidius Saxa as governor (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 24; Livy, Epitome, 127).

In the spring of B.C. 40, Antony left Egypt, and in the summer of the same year arrived in Italy, with the intention of engaging in conflict with Octavian; but after some unimportant skirmishing, he concluded with him at Brundisium a treaty, according to which the provinces were to be partitioned between Octavian and Antony, in such a way that the former should have the West and the latter the East (Appian, Civ. v. 52–65; Dio Cassius, xlviii. 27–28. The dividing line was at Scodra, now called Scutari, in Illyria, Appian, v. 65). Antony remained for somewhere about a year in Italy, during which time he appointed several vassal kings, among whom was Herod, and then went in autumn of B.C. 39 to Athens (Appian, Civ. v. 75–76; Dio Cassius, xlviii. 39), where, with several intervals of absence, he remained till the spring of B.C. 36 (Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 441 f., 447 f.).

At the time when Antony secured to himself from Octavian the rule over the East, a large portion of the eastern territory, the whole province of Syria, had been taken possession of by the Parthians. These had, in B.C. 42, just about the time when Cassius left Syria (Appian, Civ. iv. 63), been invited by Cassius to join a league against Octavian and Antony. But nothing came of that plan then, for the whole programme fell through at Philippi, and the negotiations that had been for a long while under consideration were brought to an end. But Labienus, the chief of the embassy, remained at the Parthian court, and succeeded by his persistent representations in persuading King Orodes at length to make an inroad upon the Roman territory. As early perhaps as the autumn of B.C. 41, at latest in the spring of B.C. 40, a great Parthian army, under the command of Labienus and Pacorus, the son of King Orodes, invaded Syria, and attacked Decidius Saxa, who fell in the battle. He then conquered all Syria, Phoenicia (with the exception only of Tyre), and Palestine, and finally pressed on to Asia Minor, and even went as fur as the Ionian coast (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 24–26; Appian, Syr. 51; Civ. v. 65; Plutarch, Antonius, 30; Livy, Epitome, 127).—On the chronology, see especially, Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römisch-parthenischen Feldzüge in den Jahren 713–718 d. St. (Leipziger Dissertat. 1879) pp. 49–51. Generally, Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (Tüb. 1888), p. 93 ff., and the literature there referred to by Gutschmid.

P. Ventidius, B.C. 39–38

Toward the end of the year B.C. 40, according to Bürcklein, or, according to the usual reckoning, in B.C. 39, Antony sent P. Ventidius with an army to Asia. This general, in B.C. 39, drove Labienus back to Taurus, and defeated him there in a decisive battle. Labienus was himself taken prisoner and put to death. Ventidius then overran Cilicia, gained a victory over Pharnapates, a general under Pacorus, at Amanus, the mountain boundary between Cilicia and Syria, and took possession now without difficulty of Syria and Palestine (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 39–41; Livy, Epitome, 127; Plutarch, Antonius, 33).—In B.C. 38 the Parthians made a new invasion, but suffered a complete defeat in the district of Cyrrestic at the hands of Ventidius. Pacorus was slain in the battle, on the same day on which Crassus had fallen fifteen years before. This gives as the date of the battle V. Idus Junias, or 9th June (Dio Cassius, xlix. 19–20; Livy, Epitome, 128; Plutarch, Antonius, 34. Compare also Dio Cassius, xlix. 21: ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἑκατέρου τοῦ ἔτους ἀμφότερα συνηνέχθη).—Ventidius now went forth against Antiochus of Comagene. While he laid siege to his enemy in Samosata, Antony himself arrived, dismissed Ventidius, and continued the siege. But he met with little success, was satisfied with an apparent submission on the part of Antiochus, and went back to Athens, leaving C. Sosius governor in Syria (Dio Cassius, xlix. 20–22; Plutarch, Antonius, 34).—On the chronology, see Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie des röm. parth. Feldzüge, pp. 51–61.

C. Sosius, B.C. 38–37

Sosius completed the subjugation of Syria by conquering the Jewish king Antigonus, the confederate of the Parthians, and taking Jerusalem. He then set up Herod as king, who had been nominated before by Antony. Dio Cassius, xlix. 22, assigns this to B.C. 38, under the consulship of Ap. Claudius Pulcher, and C. Norbanus Flaccus. But compare what is said under § 14.

In the year B.C. 36 Antony himself again appeared in the East. Wishing to deal a decisive blow at the Parthians, he advanced against them with a great force, but accomplished nothing, and was obliged, after the beginning of the winter, to retire again with heavy losses (compare Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, pp. 97–101).—But before he went forth against the Parthians, in the spring of B.C. 36, he had again met with Cleopatra in Syria. And after his return from that unfortunate expedition, he gave himself up in Leuke Kome, between Sidon and Berytus, to the usual luxurious indulgences in her company (Dio Cassius, xlix. 23–31; Plutarch, Antonius, 36–51).—He then followed her, before the end of the year B.C. 36 (Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 358 f.), to Egypt, and remained there till B.C. 33, abandoning himself to unbounded revels and pleasures, which were interrupted only by two short campaigns against Armenia in B.C. 34 and B.C. 33 (Dio Cassius, xlix. 33, 39–41, 44; Plutarch, Antonius, 52–53; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 461–467; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. i. 1, 2 Aufl. p, 1178).

During this period and that immediately following, down to the battle of Actium, only two governors of Syria are known to us.

L. Munacius Plancus, B.C. 35

In B.C. 35, while L. Cornificius and Sextus Pompeius were consuls (Dio Cassius, xlix. 18), Sextus Pompeius, who after his defeat by Octavian had fled to Asia Minor, was there put to death. Appian, Civ. v. 144, says that it is uncertain whether the order for his execution was given by Antony himself or by Plancus the governor of Syria (εἰσὶ δʼ οἳ Πλάγκον, οὐκ Ἀντώνιον λέγουσιν ἐπιστεῖλαι, ἄρχοντα Συρίας). We see from this incidental statement that at this time L. Munacius Plancus was governor of Syria. He was one of the most trusty friends of Antony, but went over to the side of Octavian before the outbreak of the war between that prince and Antony in B.C. 32 (Dio Cassius, 1. 3).—Compare also generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iv. 207–213; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. v. 204–208; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 83 ff.

L. Calpurnius Bibulus, B.C. 32–31 (?)

Appian, Civ. iv. 38, makes a passing reference to L. Bibulus among the conspirators who subsequently effected a reconciliation with Octavian and Antony. “But Bibulus reconciled himself [with Antony and Octavian] at the same time as Messala, and served under Antony as the commander of a ship, and was often employed in negotiations for peace between Antony and Octavian, and was appointed by Antony governor of Syria, and died while he held the office of governor.” Since Bibulus is here said to have died during his governorship, but was, according to the evidence of the coins, alive at least in B.C. 33 (Drumann; Geschichte Roms, ii. 106), Noris, Cenot. Pison. p. 286; Schöpflin, p. 477, and others correctly place his term as governor in the period of the wars between Antony and Octavian. Compare also Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 105 f.; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 92 ff.; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 581. The coins in Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. i. 1885, p. 304 sq.

Antony was meanwhile becoming more and more enslaved by the caresses of Cleopatra. He had allowed himself to be persuaded to promise Roman provinces to her and to her children. Thus Cleopatra obtained, among others, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia as far as Eleutherus, with the exception of Tyre and Sidon, portions of Judea and Arabia, which were taken away from their kings Herod and Malchus, and, finally, a part of Iturea, the king of which, Lysanias, had been slain (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3. 8, 4. 1–2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5; Dio Cassius, xlix. 32; Plutarch, Antonius, 36. On the time at which these donations were made, see below at § 15). Cleopatra’s son, Ptolemy, whom she had borne to Antony, at a somewhat later period obtained Syria as far as the Euphrates and Phoenicia, while Coele-Syria continued the portion of his mother (so Plutarch, Antonius, 54; compare Dio Cassius, xlix. 41). See generally, Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, 2 Aufl. p. 118.—These donations were not indeed confirmed by the senate (Dio Cassius, xlix. 41). And the glory of Antony soon came to an end. After the last Armenian campaign of B.C. 33 he went to Greece. While he was there in B.C. 32 the war between him and Octavian broke out, and in the following year, by the battle of Actium of 2nd September B.C. 31, the power of Antony was finally and completely overthrown.

II. THE PERIOD OF THE EMPIRE, B.C. 30–A.D. 70

1. Octavianus Augustus, B.C. 30–19th August A.D. 14

Q. Didius, B.C. 30

After the battle of Actium, Antony fled to Egypt. Octavian pursued him, but was obliged, on account of the unfavourable season, to pass the winter in Samos (Suetonius, Augustus, 17). It was not until the year B.C. 30 that he made a land journey through Asia and Syria (Asiae Syriaeque circuitu Aegyptum petit, Suetonius, Augustus, 17) to Egypt, where, on 1st August B.C. 30, before the gates of Alexandria, he engaged in a battle in which Antony was beaten, while at the same time his fleet went over to Octavian. In consequence of this, Antony and Cleopatra took away their own lives, and Octavian became supreme and absolute sovereign over the whole of the Roman empire (Dio Cassius, li. 1–14; Plutarch, Antonius, 69–86. Compare Clinton, ad ann. 30; Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 370 f.).

During the period that elapsed between the battle of Actium and the death of Antony, from September B.C. 31 to August B.C. 30, a certain Q. Didius is said to have been governor of Syria. He incited the Arab tribes to burn the ships which had been built for Antony in the Arabian Gulf, and prevented the gladiators, who sought to proceed from Cyzicus to the aid of Antony, from passing over into Egypt, in which King Herod also lent him assistance (Dio Cassius, li. 7; Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7).—It seems that this Didius had been appointed by Antony; but after the battle of Actium, when he saw that the cause of Antony was lost, he joined the party of Octavian.

Toward the end of B.C. 30 Octavian returned back again from Egypt to Syria, and now for the first time had affairs there thoroughly well arranged (Dio Cassias, li. 18). The winter of B.C. 30–29 was spent by Octavian in Asia.

M. Messala Corvinus, B.C. 29

Those gladiators whom Didius had prevented from taking part in the campaign in Egypt, were driven about into various places, and ultimately slain by Messala, i.e. M. Messala Corvinus, consul of the year B.C. 31 (Dio Cassius, li. 7). Messala must therefore have been governor of Syria after Didius.

M. Tullius Cicero, B.C. 28(?)

From Appian, Civ. iv. 51, we know that M. Tullius Cicero, the son of the great orator, after he had held the office of consul for the year B.C. 30, was appointed governor of Syria But nothing can with certainty be said about the time of his administration. Schöpflin, p. 478, and Zumpt, ii. 74 sq., make him follow immediately after Messala. Mommsen was formerly disposed to set him down in the period following the year 741 A.U., or B.C. 13 (Res gestae divi Augusti, 1 Aufl. p. 114 f.), but now leaves the date of his governorship undetermined (Res gestae, 2 Aufl. p. 165). The words of Appian are at least favourable to the view of Schöpflin and Zumpt. The inscription on which Cicero is mentioned as governor of Syria (Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 572) has now been proved to be not genuine (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. x. falsae n. 704*; Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, p. 165, note).—Compare generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vi. 711–719; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 2232 ff.).

In B.C. 27 the well-known partition of the Roman provinces between Augustus and the senate was carried out. Augustus had hitherto administered all the provinces through his legates. But now he gave a part of them back to the senate, reserving to himself only the more important, that is, those which were most difficult to manage. Among the latter was Syria, which was in itself one of the most important of the provinces, and which, on account of the attacks which were constantly threatened on its eastern frontier, could not be left without a strong military guard.

Varro, Down to B.C. 23

Immediately before Agrippa had been sent to the East (in B.C. 23), a certain Varro is spoken of as governor of Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4). Whether this was one of the otherwise well-known bearers of that name can no longer be determined. It is equally uncertain when he first went to Syria.—Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 75–78, identifies our Varro with the Terentius Varro referred to by Dio Cassius, liii. 25, and Strabo, iv. 6. 7, p. 205, who in B.C. 25, as legate of Augustus, subdued the Salassi, a nation of Gallia Transpadana, and, at least according to Zumpt’s conjecture, died in B.C. 24. Zumpt therefore assigns his administration of Syria to the years B.C. 28–26. But Josephus affirms decidedly that our Varro was still in Syria when Augustus gifted to Herod the district of Trachonitis, which Zumpt correctly places at the end of B.C. 24 or beginning of B.C. 23. Varro must then have been still in Syria, and so cannot be identical with that Terentius Varro.—On the other hand, Mommsen’s view (Res gestae, p. 165 sq.), that Varro may have been a legate of Agrippa, is also improbable; for Josephus places Varro in the period preceding that of Agrippa’s stay in the East.

M. Agrippa, B.C. 23–13

In B.C. 23 Augustus sent M. Agrippa, his trusted friend and counsellor, who soon after, in B.C. 21, became his son-in-law, to Syria (Dio Cassius, liii. 32). Josephus describes him as “the representative of Caesar in the countries beyond the Ionian Sea” (Antiq. xv. 10. 2: τῶν πέραν Ἰονίου διάδοχος Καίσαρι). He had therefore evidently very extensive powers—more than an ordinary legatus Caesaris. According to Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3, he held this position (the διοίκησις τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας) for ten years, that is, down to B.C. 13.—Agrippa did not, indeed, go to Syria in B.C. 23, but waited from B.C. 23 to B.C. 21 in Mitylene, on the island of Lesbos, and then returned to Rome (Dio Cassius, liii. 32, liv. 6; Suetonius, Augustus, 66; comp. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 2; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 388, 392). Then he was engaged for five years in the West, and did not again go to the East till B.C. 17 or 16, where he remained till B.C. 13 (Dio Cassius, liv. 19, 24, 28; Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1–3. 3, fin.; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 402–408). He was therefore by no means during the ten years always even in the East, let alone in Syria. But since, to use the phrase of Mommsen, Agrippa’s position was more that of a collega minor than that of an adjutor (Res gestae, p. 164), he could discharge his official duties in absentia by means of legates, and so indeed he actually did send his legates in B.C. 23 from Lesbos (τοὺς ὑποστρατήγους), Dio Cassius, liii. 32) to Syria. He is therefore during this period, at least during B.C. 23–21 and B.C. 17–13, to be regarded as governor of Syria.

During the period B.C. 21–19 occurred the two years’ visit of Augustus to the East (Dio Cassius, liv. 7–10; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 392–396. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4).

M. Titius, About B.C. 10

About the time when Herod made his third journey to Rome (probably in B.C. 10; see below at § 15, the Chronology of Herod), M. Titius was appointed governor of Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 6). He was consul in B.C. 31.—Nothing more definite can be said about the date of his administration. Compare regarding him, Strabo, xvi. 1. 28, p. 748; Mommsen, Res gestae div. Aug. p. 166; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 2011 f.

C. Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9–6

Titius was succeeded by Sentius Saturninus (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1), who had held the office of consul in B.C. 19. Josephus names alongside of him also Volumnius as Καίσαρος ἡγεμών. But Volumnius must certainly have been subordinate to Saturninus, since the supreme command in a province was always in one hand. Sentius Saturninus is also referred to in Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10. 8, 11. 3; xvii. 1. 1, 2. 1, 3. 2.

P. Quinctilius Varus, B.C. 6–4

The immediate successor of Saturninus was Quinctilius Varus (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 2), consul in B.C. 13, who at a subsequent period undertook the disastrous campaign against Germany. From evidence afforded by the coins (as shown in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 275; Mionnet, v. 156), it is proved that Varus was governor of Syria in the, years 25, 26, 27 of the aera Actiaca. The twenty-fifth year of the aera Actiaca, as that era begins with 2nd September B.C. 31, extends from autumn B.C. 7 to autumn B.C. 6. Varus must therefore have gone to Syria at least before autumn B.C. 6; but he remained there till after the death of Herod (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 3, 10. 1, 10. 9, 11. 1), i.e. till the summer of B.C. 4, or longer. Compare in regard to him also, Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 166.

P. Sulpicius Quirinius, B.C. 3–2 (?)

During the period B.C. 3–2 there is no direct evidence about any governor of Syria. But it may be concluded with a fair amount of probability from a passage in Tacitus, that about this time P. Sulpicius Quirinius, consul in B.C. 12, was appointed governor of Syria. Tacitus in the Annals, iii. 48, expressly records the death of Quirinius in A.D. 21 (coss. Tiber. iv., Drus. ii.), and on that occasion gives the following account of him: Consulatum sub divo Augusto, mox expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensium castellis insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector Gaio Caesari Armeniam optinenti. Strabo, xii. 6. 5, p. 569, tells the story of the war with the Homonadensians in the following words: Ἐκείνους δὲ (τοὺς Ὁμοναδέας) Κυρίνιος ἐξεπόρθησε λιμῷ καὶ τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας ἐζώγρησε καὶ συνῴκισεν εἰς τὰς ἐγγὺς πόλεις, τὴν δὲ χώραν ἀπέλιπεν ἔρημον τῶν ἐν ἀκμῇ. Quirinius therefore had previously conquered the Homonadensians, on account of which the honour of a triumph had been accorded him, and this indeed took place after his consulship in B.C. 12, but before he had been appointed by C. Caesar, his counsellor, on his arrival in Armenia in A.D. 3 (Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 430). But a war could not at any time be carried on except by the governor of that province in which or from which the war was being conducted. Quirinius must therefore have been then governor of that province to which the Homonadensians belonged, or from which the war against them proceeded. Seeing that the Homonadensians occupied the Taurus Mountains, we might have to do with the provinces of Asia, Pamphylia, Galatia, Cilicia, Syria. But of these the first three must be at once set aside, because they had no legions, so that their governors could not carry on a war. And further, Cilicia was probably at that time only a part of the province of Syria (and with this agrees the judgments of Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 95–98; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 57–61; and Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 172 sq.), at least it was, as also Pamphylia and Galatia were, no consular province, whereas Quirinius led the war against the Homonadensians as one who had been consul. Now, one who had been a consul was never sent to a praetorian province, which was administered by one who had been a praetor. The only conclusion then that remains is that Quirinius at the time of that war with the Homonadensians was governor of Syria. But since this governorship belongs to the period before the year A.D. 3, that is, to the period before he had been appointed counsellor to C. Caesar in Armenia, it cannot be identical with the one of A.D. 6, referred to by Josephus. The only date, therefore, that we can assign to it is the interval between Varus and C. Caesar, that is, B.C. 3–2.

It is wholly on this combination, in regard to which Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 90–98; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 43–62; and Mommsen, Res gestae div. Aug. p. 172 sq., are thoroughly agreed that the assumption of an earlier governorship than that of A.D. 6, referred to by Josephus, is based (for a full statement of Zumpt’s theory, see note in Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 129–135). For the inscription, which some have sought to make use of in this question, cannot prove anything material to the point at issue. It does, indeed, prove that the individual to whom it refers was twice governor of Syria. But whether it is to be applied to Quirinius is open to question, since the name is not given in the inscription. The main ground upon which Mommsen and others have referred it to Quirinius is just that they regard the fact of Quirinius having been twice governor to be proved from other sources, that is, from Tacitus and Josephus. The theory that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria is not therefore to be based upon the inscription, but, on the contrary, the application of the inscription to Quirinius is based upon the proof, elsewhere obtained, that he held the governorship a second time.

C. Caesar, B.C. 1–A.D. 4 (?)

In the year B.C. 1, that is, A.U.C. 753, Augustus sent his grandson, C. Caesar, son of Agrippa and Julia, now eighteen years of age, to the East, in order to compel the Parthians and Armenians, who refused any longer to recognise the authority of Rome, again to yield submission. Caesar went first of all to Egypt, then, probably, still before the end of the year B.C. 1, to Syria, without, however, entering Palestine (Suetonius, Aug. 93). There he remained probably during the year A.D. 1, and then went onward against the Parthians in A.D. 2, and against the Armenians in A.D. 3. After he had succeeded in putting matters right, Augustus called him back to Rome. But he died on his homeward journey, on 21st February A.D. 4, at Limyra in Lycia (Zonaras, x. 36; Dio Cassius, lv. 10a, where he introduces a quotation from Xiphilinus; Velleius Paterculus, ii. 101–102; Tacitus, Annals, i. 3. The date of the death according to the Cenotaphium Pisanum. Compare, Clinton, ad ann. B.C. 1—A.D. 4. Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 426–431).—According to Zonaras, x. 36, C. Caesar had proconsular authority (τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀνθύπατον ἔδωκεν); according to Orosius, vii. 3, he was sent ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provincias; according to Suetonius, Tiberius, 12, he was Orienti praepositus. He must therefore have held during this period the administration of Syria. Compare Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 165.

Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 32–40, decidedly opposes this view, because he assumes that, in addition to C. Caesar, ordinary legati Augusti were also then present in the imperial provinces, only that Caesar had the right of independent action, having authority wherever he went superior to the governors of the provinces concerned. Zumpt depends for support to this opinion mainly upon the fact that, if the case were otherwise, Augustus would have renounced all power in the East, which is not to be supposed. But this argument will not by any means stand the test; for then we should have to suppose that, besides Agrippa, ordinary legati Caesaris were also to be found in the provinces, which, however, even Zumpt does not assume. In favour of Mommsen’s theory (which had previously been for the most part set forth by Baronius in his Annals, and by Schöpflin) is to some extent the circumstance that no legati Augusti of that period are known to us, although, considering the scantiness of our information, this cannot be regarded as by any means conclusive; and also, and much more decidedly, the testimony of Orosius, vii. 3, that C. Caesar had been sent ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provinoias. One cannot see why Augustus should have assigned to him the ordering of the affairs of Egypt and Syria, if there had been already at that very time imperial legates in those provinces.

Apart from these points, the positive conjectures of Zumpt about the legates of Syria during that period are extremely hazardous. He assumes that the counsellors (rectores) appointed for the youthful Caesar were always at the same time governors of Syria. Such rectores were, according to Zumpt, first of all P. Sulpicius Quirinius (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 48); after him, M. Lollius (Suetonius, Tiberius, 12); and last of all, C. Marcius Censorinus (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 102). Compare Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 98–104, 107 sq.; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 40–43, 62–71.—But Quirinius was counsellor of Caesar certainly not before, but after Lollius, viz. in A.D. 3, when Caesar was already in Armenia (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 48: datusque rector Gaio Caesari Armenian optinenti), Lollius having meanwhile died during the Parthian campaign in A.D. 2 (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 102). Compare Mommsen, Res gestae, pp. 173–175. On the chronology, Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 428–430.—It is particularly. questionable whether Censorinus ought to be reckoned among those rectores at all. He is at least never expressly named as such.—And, finally, the hypothesis is utterly without support, that these rectores were at the same time governors of Syria.

L. Volusius Saturninus, A.D. 4–5

Consul suffectus in B.C. 12.—From a coin we know that he was governor of Syria in the year 35 of the Actian era, which corresponds to autumn 757–758 A.U.C., or A.D. 4–5 (Eckhel. Doctr. Num. iii. 275 sq.; Mionnet, v. 156).

P. Sulpicius Quirinius, A.D. 6 ff

After the banishment of Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, in A.D. 6, P. Sulpicius Quirinius went to Syria, and immediately on his arrival took the census in Judea (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5; xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1). How long he continued governor of Syria cannot be determined.—Reference is made to his operations in Syria in an inscription which was long regarded as ungenuine, but has now been proved to be undoubtedly genuine by the discovery of the second half of it in the original (see especially, Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. iv. 1881, pp. 537–542; also, Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, Lausannae 1883, pp. 48–51; a facsimile of the restored piece in De Rossi, Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1880, tav. ix., comp. p. 174).—On the inscription one Q. Aemilius Q. or Pal. Secundus says of himself among other things: jussu Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis millium homin(um) civium CXVII. Idem missu Quirini adversus Ituraeos in Libano monte castellum eorum cepi.

Q. Caecilius Creticus Silanus, A.D. 11–17

Consul in A.D. 7.—That he went to Syria as governor at the latest in A.D. 11, is proved by a coin of the year 41 of the Actian era, that is, autumn 763–764 A.U.C., or A.D. 10–11 (so Sanclemente, p. 348). Other coins for the years 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 of the Actian era were given by Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 276; Mionnet, v. 156–159. The latest of these coins, that of the year 47 of the Actian era, belongs to A.D. 16–17. In accordance with this, Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43, records the recall of Silanus by Tiberius in A.D. 17.—Compare also, Tacitus, Annals, ii. 4; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 4; Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 166.

2. Tiberius, 19th Aug. A.D. 14–16th March A.D. 37

Cn. Calpurnius Piso, A.D. 17–19

In the year A.D. 17, probably toward the end of the year, Tiberius sent his nephew and adopted son Germanicus to the East that he might look to the settlement of various matters. He obtained higher powers than the governors of the provinces to which he went (decreto patrum permissae Germanico provinciae quae mari dividuntur, majusque imperium, quoquo adisset, quam iis qui sorte aut missu principis obtinerent. Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43). At the same time Silanus was recalled, and in his place Cn. Calpurnius Piso, consul in the year B.C. 7, was appointed governor of Syria, a man of a violent and unbending character (ingenio violentus et obsequii ignarus, Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43).

Germanicus went first of all to Greece, where in the beginning of the year A.D. 18 he entered on his second consulship. He then passed over to Byzantium and then to Troy, and proceeded west along the Ionian coast to Rhodes, and from thence to Armenia. After he had put matters there to rights, he went to Syria, where Piso had already arrived before him (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 53–57). Owing to the violent character of Piso, hostilities between them could not long be avoided. Yet these outbursts had at first no ulterior consequences (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 57–58). In the year A.D. 19 Germanicus undertook a journey to Egypt, chiefly to inquire into the antiquities of that country (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 59–61). Soon after he returned to Syria he fell sick, and died on 9th Oct. A.D. 19. Common report charged his death upon Piso (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 69–73; Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. p. 4). Even before the death of Germanicus occurred, Piso had quitted Syria, having been commanded by Germanicus to leave the province (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 70).

Cn. Sentius Saturninus, A.D. 19–21

After the death of Germanicus his generals transferred the supreme command to Cu. Sentius Saturninus, consul in A.D. 4 (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 74). But Piso, on his return voyage, obtained in the neighbourhood of the island of Cos the intelligence of the death of Germanicus, and now resolved to take violent possession of Syria. He landed in Cilicia, gained possession of the stronghold of Celenderis (Κελένδερις, Strabo, pp. 670, 760; compare Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 3), but was obliged there, on surrendering to Sentius, to agree to the condition that he should return to Rome (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 75–81).—He reached Rome in the beginning of the year A.D. 20, was there accused by the friends of Germanicus, but avoided condemnation by committing suicide (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 8–15.)

How long Sentius Saturninus remained in Syria is not known. He is referred to as legatus Caesaris in an inscription found at Nicopolis, on the borders of Syria and Cilicia, on the Gulf of Issus, which at the earliest belongs to the year A.D. 21, Tiber. iv. cos. (Ephemeris epigraph. vol. v. 1884, p. 573, n. 1336). According to this inscription, it would seem that he had been also formally appointed governor of Syria; for it is in this sense probably that the title legatus Caesaris is to be understood (see Mommsen’s remarks as above).

L. Aelius Lamia, Down to A.D. 32

From the Annals of Tacitus, i. 80; Suetonius, Tiberius, 41, 63, we know that Tiberius repeatedly appointed legates without actually allowing them to go to their provinces (Tacitus: qua haesitatione postremo eo provectus est, ut mandaverit quibusdam provincias, quos egredi urbe non erat passurus). By this measure L. Aelius Lamia among others was affected. Tacitus, in his Annals, vi. 27, has given the following particular account of his death: Extremo anni (A.D. 33) mors Aelii Lamiae funere censorio celebrata, qui administrandae Suriae imagine tandem exsolutus urbi praefuerat. Genus illi decorum, vivida senectus; et non permissa provincia dignationem addiderat. We see from this that Aelius Lamia, immediately after he had been released from the imago administrandae Suriae, i.e. from the nominal, not actual, administration of Syria, was appointed praefectus urbi. He did not, however, hold the office of praefectus urbi until after the death of L. Piso, see Dio Cassius, lviii. 19: τόν τε Πίσωνα τὸν πολίαρχον τελευτήσαντα δημοσίᾳ ταφῇ ἐτίμησεν, ὅπερ που καὶ ἄλλοις ἐχαρίζετο• καὶ Λούκιον ἀντʼ αὐτοῦ Λαμίαν ἀνθείλετο, ὃν πρόπαλαι τῇ Συρίᾳ προστάξας κατεῖχεν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ. Seeing then that Piso, according to Tacitus, Annals, vi. 10, and Dio Cassius, lviii. 19, died in A.D. 32, Aelius Lamia must have been appointed praefectus urbi in that year, and was therefore up to that date, at least in name, governor of Syria (Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 131 sq.; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 184, 265).—Josephus, in his Antiq. xviii. 6. 2–3, seems indeed to contradict this view. He makes the statement that Agrippa I., before he became king of Judea, once paid a visit to Pomponius Flaccus, governor of Syria, and successor of Aelius Lamia (see below), and that then, after many adventures by the way, he returned to Rome, and there, after he had been for some time resident in Rome, charged his freedman Eutychus with theft, and had him brought up before Piso as praefectus urbi (Antiq. xviii. 6, 5). It seems therefore at first sight necessary to assume that Flaccus some time before the death of Piso had been made governor of Syria, for apparently Lamia could not have held the office down to that date. But, in truth, on closer examination of the facts this argumentation will not be found convincing. That particular Piso before whom Eutychus was brought (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 5) cannot possibly have been the Piso who died in A.D. 32, since the occurrence referred to took place, as will be shown farther on, under the history of Agrippa, in § 18, in the year A.D. 36. We have here then to do with another Piso, who at a later period, A.D. 36–37, held the office of praefectus urbi, so that mention of him contributes nothing to the solution of the question when Flaccus succeeded Lamia.—We must accordingly confine ourselves wholly to the statements of Tacitus, which represent Lamia as occupying his nominal office of governor of Syria up to the date of his entrance upon his civic prefecture, i.e. up to A.D. 32. When the governorship was conferred upon him we cannot determine. He had held it certainly for a long time, as is evident from the “tandem” of Tacitus and the “πρόπαλαι” of Dio Cassius.

L. Pomponius Flaccus, A.D. 32–35 (?)

Since Lamia withdrew from the office of governor of Syria in A.D. 32, Flaccus, who had been consul in A.D. 17, succeeded him in that year. The death of Flaccus is reported by Tacitus in his Annals, vi. 27, in immediate connection with the above passage about Aelius Lamia in the following words: exim (that is to say, after the death of Aelius Lamia) Flacco Pomponio Suriae pro praetore defuncto recitantur Caesaris literae, quis incusabat egregium quemque et regendis exercitibus idoneum abnuere id munus, seque ea necessitudine ad preces cogi, per quas consularium aliqui capessere provincias adigerentur, oblitus Arruntium, ne in Hispaniam pergeret, decumum jam annum attineri. Since Tacitus, however, mentions this among the events of the year 33, the first suggestion that would occur to the reader is that the death of Flaccus took place during that year. And this is the opinion almost universally entertained. Yet it is not to be regarded as by any means impossible that Tacitus had gathered his facts about Lamia and Flaccus from materials that had been supplied him, and that the death of Flaccus did not occur till a subsequent date. In fact, Keim has raised the supposition to a high degree of probability that Flaccus did not die before A.D. 35. In favour of this view may be alleged:—1. The remark of Tacitus, that then, at the time of Flaccus’ death, Arruntius had been already detained for ten years from going to his province, Spain. By Hispania only Hispania citerior can be intended; for Hispania ulterior was a senatorial province (see Tacitus, Annals, iv. 13). But that province did not become vacant before A.D. 25 (Tacitus, Annals, iv. 45). Accordingly the tenth year of Arruntius must correspond to A.D. 35. 2. Agrippa I. went to Rome in the spring of the year 36 (ἐνιαυτῷ πρότερον ἢ τελευτῆσαι Τιβέριον, Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3), after having not long before visited Flaccus in Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 2–3). If then, allowing for hindrances and delays that may have occurred, we allow for Agrippa’s journey to Rome after his visit to Flaccus a whole year (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 3–4), it must still be assumed that Flaccus was in Syria in A.D. 35.—Finally, it may further be alleged in favour of taking A.D. 35 as the year of the death of Flaccus, that his successor Vitellius, who certainly went to Syria in A.D. 35, is thus made immediately to follow, whereas in the other case a vacancy must have occurred.

A coin of Flaccus of the year 82 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to autumn 786–787 A.U.C., or A.D. 33–34, is given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 279; Mionnet, v. 167.—Compare also generally, Suetonius, Tiberius, 42; Pauly’s Real Encyclopaedie, v. 1878 f.; Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium (1874), Index, p. 195.

L. Vitellius, A.D. 35–39

In A.D. 35 Tiberius sent L. Vitellius, who had been consul in A.D. 34, father of the next emperor, as legate to Syria (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 32). Tacitus bears testimony on his behalf that, in contrast to his subsequent manner of life, he was blameless in his administration of the province (eo de homine haud sum ignarus sinistram in urbe famam, pleraque foeda memorari, ceterum in regendis provinciis prisca virtute egit).—In A.D. 39 he was recalled by Caligula, and Petronius appointed his successor (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2). Compare also generally, Suetonius, Vitellius, 2; Dio Cassius, lix. 27; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xv. 83; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2682 f.; Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des römischen Kaiserreichs, 1 Bd. p. 373.

3. Caligula, 16th March A.D. 37–24th January A.D. 41

P. Petronius, A.D. 39–42

Petronius had been sent by Caligula into Syria in A.D. 39. We know from a coin (given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 167) that he was still governor in the year 90 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to autumn 794–795 A.U.C., or A.D. 41–42; therefore for somewhere about a year after the beginning of the reign of Claudius.—Compare in regard to him Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2–9; xix. 6. 3; Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 31–34, ed. Mangey, ii. 576–584; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 1402.

4. Claudius, 24th January A.D. 41–13th October A.D. 54

C. Vibius Marsus, A.D. 42–44

As successor of Petronius, Claudius sent C. Vibius Marsus, Consul suffectus in A.D. 17, into Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 4). He had occasion repeatedly to protect Roman interests against King Agrippa (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 2, 8. 1). His recall took place soon after the death of Agrippa in A.D. 44, therefore towards the end of A.D. 44 or in the beginning of A.D. 45 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1).—Compare also Tacitus, Annals, xi. 10. This passage does not prove that Marsus was still governor of Syria in A.D. 47; for Tacitus there, under the history of the year 47, recapitulates earlier occurrences in the history of Parthia. See Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 137; Gerlach, p. 67. Compare generally, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2571.

C. Cassius Longinus, A.D. 45–50

Marsus was succeeded by C. Cassius Longinus, Consul suffectus in A.D. 30 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1). He was celebrated in his day as a jurist (ceteros praeminebat peritia legum, Tacitus, Annals, xii. 12), yea, as the founder of a special school of jurisprudence (Cassianae scholae princeps et parens, Pliny, Epist. vii 24. 8). Coins with his name belonging to the years 94 and 96 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to A.D. 45–46 and 47–48, are given by Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 167. Tacitus speaks of him as governor of Syria as late as A.D. 49 (Annals, xii. 11–12). Not long afterwards he seems to have been recalled by Claudius. In regard to his subsequent fortunes, see Tacitus, Annals, xvi. 7 and 9; Suetonius, Nero, 37. Generally, Digest. i. 2. 2. 51; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 201; Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, i. 169 f.; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 298. 3; Mommsen, Index to Pliny’s Epistles, ed. Keil, p. 406; Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, 1 Bd. p. 375 f.

C. Ummidius Quadratus, A.D. 50–60

In A.D. 51, C. Ummidius Quadratus is spoken of by Tacitus, Annals, xii. 45, as governor of Syria. It may therefore be assumed with Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 138, that he went there in A.D. 50. Coins bearing his name belonging to the years 104–108 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to A.D. 55/56–59/60, are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 159. He died while governor of Syria in A.D. 60 (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 26).—His public career (he had been quaestor as early as A.D. 14) is sketched in the inscriptions: Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 3128=Inscr. Regni Neapol. n. 4234=Corp. Inscr. Lat. x. n. 5182. His full name, C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus, is also given on a brazen tablet which contains the oath of the inhabitants of Aritium in Lusitania upon Caligula’s assuming the reins of government (Orelli, n. 3665=Corp. Inscr. Lat. ii. n. 172=Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 155).—Compare also with reference to him, Tacitus, Annals, xii 54, xiii. 8–9; Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 743; Nipperdey on Tacitus, Annals, xii. 45.

5. Nero, 13th October A.D. 54–9th June A.D. 68

Cn. Domitius Corbulo, A.D. 60–63

After the death of Ummidius Quadratus in A.D. 60, Domitius Corbulo went to Syria as governor (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 26). On his doings in that capacity, see Tacitus, Annals, xv. 1–17; Dio Cassius, lxii. 19 ff. He held the position of governor till A.D. 63, in which year a higher office was given him, while another governor was sent to Syria; Tacitus, Annals, xv. 25: Suriae exsecutio Citio (?), copiae militares Corbuloni permissae et quinta decuma legio ducente Mario Celso e Pannonia adjecta est. Scribitur tetrarchis ac regibus praefectisque et procuratoribus et qui praetorum finitimas provincias regebant, jussis Corbulonis obsequi, in tantum ferme modum aucta potestate, quem populus Romanus Cn. Pompeio bellum piraticum gesturo dederat. The name of the individual who obtained the province cannot be determined with certainty. The best manuscript has Citius. The editors make various conjectures: Cincius, C. Itius, Cestius. Most might be said in favour of Cestius, for we certainly meet with him as governor of Syria in A.D. 65 (so, e.g., Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 141).—In regard to Corbulo’s death in A.D. 67, see Dio Cassius, lxiii. 17. An inscription of A.D. 64 has been found in Armenia, on which he is called leg. Aug. pro pr. (see Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 25). Generally, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 1218 f.; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 291. 3, and the monographs there quoted from of Held (1862) and Wolffgramm (1874). Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, 1 Bd. p. 169 f. For an estimate and characterization of Corbulo, see also Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (1888), p. 131, Anm.

C. Cestius Gallus, A.D. 63–66

If the conjecture given above is correct, Cestius Gallus went to Syria as early as A.D. 63. He was there undoubtedly in A.D. 65, for he went up to Jerusalem at the Passover of A.D. 66, in the twelfth year of Nero=October A.D. 65–A.D. 66 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), after having been already for a long time in Syria (Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 3). Coins with his name of the years 114 and 115 of the aera Caesariana=A.D. 65/66–66/67, are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 281 sq.; Mionnet, v. 169; Supplem. viii. 131.—During his governorship in May A.D. 66, the month Artemisios (Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), the Jewish war broke out of which Cestius Gallus lived only to see the opening campaign. For he died in the winter of A.D. 66–67 “by accident or through fatigue” (fato aut taedio occidit, Tacitus, History, v. 10).

C. Licinius Mucianus, A.D. 67–69

When Palestine was separated from Syria and transferred to Vespasian as a distinct province, Syria was assigned to Licinius Mucianus. Josephus speaks of him in A.D. 67 when referring to the siege of Gamala (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 5), and in A.D. 69 when referring to the election of Vespasian as emperor (Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 5–6). Compare also, Tacitus, History, i. 10; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 1. Coins with his name of the time of Galba (9th June A.D. 68–15th January A.D. 69) and of Otho (15th January16th April A.D. 69) are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 282; Mionuet, v. 169; Suppl. viii. 131.—In the autumn of A.D. 69, in order to oppose Vitellius, he brought an army from Syria to Rome (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 1; Tacitus, History, ii. 82 sq.; Suetonius, Vespasian, 6; Dio Cassius, lxv. 9), where he did not, however, arrive until after the death of Vitellius, which occurred on 20th December A.D. 69. He had then for a long time the supreme power in his hands (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4; Tacitus, History, iv. 11, 39, 49, 80; Dio Cassius, lxv. 22, lxvi. 2).—Compare in regard to him also, Borghesi, Oeuvres, iv. 345–353; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 1069 f.; L. Brunn, De C. Licinio Muciano, Lips. 1870; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 314. 1; Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium, Index, p. 190 sq.; Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. 257 f.

The later governors of Syria do not come within the range of our investigation, since from this time forth Palestine continued to be a separate province from. Syria. For the governors of Palestine from the time of Vespasian to Hadrian, see § 21.

JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xiv. 5–13; Wars of the Jews, i. 8–13. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 7–9 (abstract of Josephus).

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 394–412.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 167–189.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 500–523.

STANLEY, History of the Jewish Church, vol. iii. 408–421.

SCHNECKENBURGER, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, pp. 166–173.

HAUSRATH, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. pp. 179–203.

LEWIN, Fasti sacri, pp. 8–54.

OWING to the meagreness of the sources, it is difficult to give an exact account of the position which Palestine at this time occupied in reference to the Romans. This much is certain, that it was tributary (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 7. 6), and lay under the general oversight of the Roman governor of Syria. But the question is, whether it was immediately incorporated or not with the province of Syria. In favour of the latter supposition might be alleged the statement of Josephus, that by the enactment of Gabinius, who divided Palestine into five sections, the country was now freed from monarchical rule: ἀσμένως δὲ τῆς ἐξ ἑνὸς ἐπικρατείας ἐλευθερωθέντες τὸ λοιπὸν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ διῳκοῦντο (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5). Hyrcanus therefore had stood at the head of the government of the country, and was subordinate only to the supervision of the Roman governor.

After the campaign of Pompey there followed for Palestine some years of peace. Scaurus as well as his two successors, Marcius Philippus and Lentulus Marcellinus, had still indeed some skirmishes with the Arabians. But these had no influence upon the fortunes of Palestine. In A.D. 57, however, Aristobulus’ son Alexander, who had escaped from his keepers on his way to Rome, sought to secure to himself the government of Palestine. He succeeded in collecting an army of 10,000 heavy-armed soldiers and 1500 horsemen, and got into his power the fortresses of the Alexandrium, Hyrcania, and Machaerus. Gabinius, who had just then arrived as proconsul in Syria, sent against him, first of all, his lieutenant M. Antonius, afterwards the well-known triumvir, and soon followed with the main body of his troops. Alexander was defeated in an engagement near Jerusalem, and withdrew into the stronghold of the Alexandrium. Here he was besieged by Gabinius, and was compelled to surrender; but it would seem that, on condition of his yielding up the fortresses which were m his possession, he was allowed his freedom. At this time, too, Gabinius made an important change in the political relations of Palestine. He assigned to Hyrcanus only the care of the temple, but took from him the political administration; for he divided the country into five districts (σύνοδοι, συνέδρια), with Jerusalem, Gazara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sepphoris as their capitals. What is to be understood by those five σύνοδοι or συνέδρια is not altogether clear. They may be regarded as either customs, districts, or circuits, making the jurisdiction of law courts (conventus juridici). The term συντελεῖν (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5: οἳ δʼ ἵνα συντελῶσιν εἰς Ἀμαθοῦντα) favours the former view; the term σύνοδοι (Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 5) favours the latter. Possibly the one view may not exclude the other. At least this measure of Gabinius took away the remnant of political independence which Palestine had hitherto enjoyed. Pompey having already deprived Hyrcanus of the title of king, the next step was to strip him of all political prerogatives and to restrict him to his priestly functions. The country was parted into five divisions, which were “delivered” from the dominion of Hyrcanus, i.e. were incorporated in the province of Syria. This arrangement was not indeed of long duration. By the ordinances of Caesar it was again wholly set aside.

Soon after this, in A.D. 56, the country was anew involved in a revolution by Aristobulus and his son Antigonus, who had both escaped from their Roman imprisonment. Aristobulus so completely failed to learn caution from the abortive attempt of his son Alexander, that he made himself a similar endeavour in that direction in which his son had failed. But he himself had no better fortune. A detachment of the Roman army attacked him, and the little band which he had gathered was, without much difficulty, driven across the Jordan. He attempted to defend himself in Machaerus; but was obliged after a two years’ siege to yield, and was sent again as a prisoner to Rome. His children, however, were set at liberty by the senate. Just then Gabinius, against the will of the senate, undertook the Egyptian campaign, in order to set up Ptolemy Auletes again as king (see above, p. 331). When he returned from thence, in A.D. 55, he had once again to deal with a revolt in Judea. Alexander had made a fresh attempt to secure the sovereignty, and had won over to his side at least a part of the people. His proceedings, however, were also this time again brought to a speedy end.

In A.D. 54 the triumvir, M. Licinius Crassus, went to Syria as proconsul in place of Gabinius. While Gabinius had already sorely oppressed the country by his exactions, Crassus at once began to indulge in open robbery. Pompey, upon the taking of the temple, had left its rich treasures untouched. Crassus now laid hold for himself of all these: in pure gold alone, 2000 talents; of other articles of value, 8000 talents. Palestine was soon indeed delivered from his rapacity, for he met his death in A.D. 53 in the war against the Parthians.

During the period B.C. 53–51 C. Cassius Longinus, the quaestor of Crassus, held the supreme authority in Syria. He had not only to be on his guard against the Parthians, but also to suppress the revolutionary elements that were still always present in Palestine. Aristobulus, indeed, was detained in his Roman imprisonment, and his sons had for the time no wish to risk anew sharing his fate. But a certain Pitholaus now undertook to play their role, and gathered together the malcontents. He did not indeed succeed in his aim any better than those who had tried before. For the final issue of his undertaking was this, that he himself was slain, and 30,000 of the disturbers of the peace were sold as slaves.

With the year B.C. 49 begins the period of the civil wars, disastrous for Italy as well as for the provinces, but peculiarly disastrous for the provinces, inasmuch as they were obliged to find the enormous sums which the contesting parties required for carrying on their operations. During these twenty years, from Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon down to the death of Antony, B.C. 49–30, the whole Roman history was reflected in the history of Syria and also in that of Palestine. Every change and turn in the Roman history was answered by a corresponding movement in Syrian history, and during this short period Syria and Palestine changed sides and owned new masters no less than four times.

When, in the beginning of the year B.C. 49, Pompey and the party of the senate had fled from Italy, and Caesar had established himself in Rome, Caesar and his friends wished to make use of the prisoner Aristobulus for their own ends. And so they released him from prison and gave him two legions, in order that with these he might fight in Syria against the party of Pompey. But the adherents of Pompey who still remained in Rome put a stop to the enterprise by ridding themselves of Aristobulus by poison. At the same time also one of Aristobulus’ sons, Alexander, fell a victim to the party strifes of the civil war. He too had made his appearance as an adherent of Caesar, and so he was now, at the express command of Pompey, beheaded at Antioch by Q. Metellus Scipio, Pompey’s father-in-law, who was then proconsul for Syria (see above, p. 334).

After the battle of Pharsalia, on 9th August B.C. 48, and Pompey’s death, on 28th September of the same year, Hyrcanus and his old friend Antipater immediately attached themselves to Caesar’s party. They clearly perceived that their safety depended wholly upon his grace, and therefore they hastened to prove their capacity for serving him. Caesar, after his landing in Egypt, in October B.C. 48, had become involved in a war with King Ptolemy. Mithridates started from Pergamum in the spring of B.C. 47 to go into Egypt with an auxiliary force. When he encountered obstacles at Pelusium, Antipater went to his help, at the command of Hyrcanus, with 3000 Jewish troops, which had been indeed collected for this very purpose, and he had also arranged that the neighbouring powers should contribute auxiliaries. With these Jewish troops Antipater rendered most important service to Mithridates, not merely in the capture of Pelusium, but also throughout the whole of the Egyptian campaign. Not less important was the aid rendered by Hyrcanus in seeing to it that the Egyptian Jews ranged themselves upon Caesar’s side.

When, therefore, Caesar, at the conclusion of the Alexandrian war, in the summer of B.C. 47, went to Syria and rewarded, by proofs of his clemency, the governing families that had favoured him, Hyrcanus and Antipater were treated in the most generous manner. Antigonus indeed appeared before Caesar as the only remaining son of Arietobulus, complained that Hyrcanus and Antipater had violently thrust themselves forward, and sought to show that his claims were older and better. But Caesar estimated the trustworthiness and usefulness of Hyrcanus and Antipater more highly than the professions of Antigonus, ignored the claims of the latter, and showed favour exclusively to the other two. Even before the intervention of Antigonus, Hyrcanus seems to have been established as high priest, and upon Antipater the right of Roman citizenship and immunity from tribute had been conferred. Hyrcanus was now appointed ἐθνάρχης of the Jews, i.e. he was reinstated in the political authority that had been taken from him by Gabinius; but Antipater was made procurator, ἐπίτροπος, of Judea, and so confirmed in the authority with which he had been already invested. At the same time permission was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

We obtain further details with respect to the proceedings of Caesar from documents communicated by Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2–10, which. however, are so slight and fragmentary that in regard to many particulars no certain conclusion can be reached. This, at least, is unquestionable, that the letter of Caesar to the Sidonians, Antiq. xiv. 10. 2, was written in the year B.C. 47, and that the formal decree of Caesar appointing Hyrcanus was issued in that same year. According to this document, Hyrcanus was appointed hereditary ἐθνάρχης and ἀρχιερεύς of the Jews, with all the rights and privileges which belonged to him as high priest according to the Jewish law, and jurisdiction in all Jewish matters was conceded to the Jews. Hyrcanus also, for himself and for his children, was declared the “confederate” of the Romans, and it was stipulated that the Roman troops should not seek winter quarters in his territory, nor should levies of money be exacted. It is uncertain whether some of .the other documents belong to this same year or not, but it is certain that Hyrcanus, not long before Caesar’s death, somewhere about the end of the year B.C. 45, sent an embassy to Rome, which procured a decree of senate granting new concessions to the Jews. The beginning of this decree of senate, under Caesar’s fourth dictatorship and fifteenth consulship, i.e. B.C. 44, is given in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 7. Its date is probably correctly preserved in Antiq. xiv. 10. 10: πρὸ πέντε εἰδῶν Φεβρουαρίων i.e. 9th February. As it was not immediately put down in the tables of the treasury, a new decree of senate was passed, after Caesar’s death, during the consulship of Antony and Dolabella, τῇ πρὸ τριῶν εἰδῶν Ἀπριλλίων i.e. 11th April B.C. 44, by which the recording of the former decree of the senate in the tables of the treasury was now ordered (Antiq. xiv. 10. 9–10). Since the new decree is of a purely formal character, we gain no information from it regarding the contents of the claims conceded to the Jews. Also, the fragment of the earlier decree preserved in Antiq. xiv. 10. 7 contains only the formal introduction. It is extremely probable, however, that other portions of it are contained among the fragments in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 10. 3–6. Yet it is just here that the difficulties of the investigation begin. The question arises as to what pieces belong to the decree of senate of B.C. 44 and what to former years, such as B.C. 47 or other years. Owing to the corruptness of the text, no certain result can ever be reached. The chief portion of the passage peculiarly rich in material, Antiq. xiv. 10. 6, belongs most probably to B.C. 44. Among the concessions there said to have been secured to the Jews, the most important are these: that Joppa, “which the Jews had originally, when they made a league of friendship with the Romans,” was made over to them; that also the villages in the great plain, which they had previously possessed, should be restored to them; and that, finally, also still other places “which belonged to the kings of Syria and Phoenicia, the confederates of the Romans,” should now be given to them. It may be assumed that these were merely possessions that had been taken away from them by Pompey. Of the places thus restored, Joppa, as affording a harbour, was the most important.

The Jews also, through Caesar’s favour, obtained important privileges beyond the limits of Palestine. The Alexandrian Jews gained protection by having the privilege of Roman citizenship conferred upon them; and the Jews of Asia Minor were guaranteed the undisturbed exercise of their religion. It was in accordance with the general course of Caesar’s policy to keep the provincials contented, so as to secure the interests of the empire. But by none of the foreign peoples was so great a lamentation made over his death as by the Jews.

The weak Hyrcanus, who had been installed in Palestine as “Ethnarch” of the Jews, held the government only in name. This was exercised in reality by the crafty and active Antipater. He now even appointed his two sons, Phasaël and Herod, governors, στρατηγοί, the one in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee. Herod, whom we meet with here for the first time, was then a young man twenty-five years of age. But even as early as this he gave proofs of that energy which brought him afterwards to the throne. In Galilee a robber chief named Hezekiah, with his numerous band, made the country insecure. Herod gained possession of his person, and had him executed along with many of his followers. They were little accustomed in Jerusalem with such summary procedure. The aristocracy of that city regarded Herod’s conduct as an infringement of the privileges of the Sanhedrim, to which tribunal alone it belonged to pass a death sentence; and they therefore insisted that Hyrcanus would call young Herod to answer for what he had done. Hyrcanus yielded to their request, and summoned Herod before the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. Herod indeed appeared, not, however, as became an accused person, in mourning garments, but decked in purple, and attended by a bodyguard. When he thus entered the presence of the Sanhedrim, complaints were hushed, and he would undoubtedly have been exculpated, had not the celebrated Pharisee Sameas (Shemaiah ?) arisen and aroused the conscience of his colleagues. They were now disposed to insist upon their prerogatives and condemn Herod. But Hyrcanus had received orders from Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, to secure Herod’s acquittal. When he therefore perceived that things were taking a dangerous turn, he suspended the sitting, and advised Herod to withdraw secretly from the city. Herod did so; but he soon returned with an army against Jerusalem in order to avenge himself for the insult that had been given him. Only the most urgent representations of his father Antipater succeeded in appeasing his wrath, and restraining him from open violence. He then returned to Galilee, comforting himself with the reflection that he had at least given an exhibition of his power, and put a wholesome terror upon his opponents.—During this conflict with the Sanhedrim Herod was appointed, by Sextus Caesar, governor of Coele-Syria, στρατηγὸς τῆς Κοίλης Συρίας.

All this happened in B.C. 47, or in the beginning of B.C. 46. In the spring of B.C. 46, while Caesar had to be away fighting against the adherents of Pompey in Africa, one of Pompey’s party, Caecilius Bassus, succeeded in making himself master of Syria by getting Sextus Caesar put out of the way by the hand of an assassin. He was afterwards besieged in Apamea by the Caesarian party, under the command of C. Antistius Vetus, in the autumn of B.C. 45 (see above, p. 336). To the forces of Vetus were also added the troops of Antipater, which, as a new proof of his serviceableness to Caesar, he had sent to the aid of the Caesarian party. The struggle of the two parties meanwhile continued without yielding any decisive result; and even the new governor, L. Statius Murcus, who arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 44, and was supported by Marcius Crispus, the governor of Bithynia, obtained no decided advantage over Caecilius Bassus.

Meanwhile, on the 15th March B.C. 44, Caesar was murdered. Marc Antony resolved to avenge his death and continue his work. And it was only the fact that just then the fortunes of the party were in a rather backgoing condition that prevented the conspirators from also taking immediate steps in their own interest. It was only after Antony had proceeded against them in an openly hostile manner that the leaders of the conspiracy went to the East in order to collect their forces there: M. Brutus to Macedonia, L. Cassius to Syria. When Cassius, in the end of the year B.C. 44, arrived in Syria, Caecilius Bassus was still besieged by Statius Murcus and Marcius Crispus in Apamea. Although Murcus and Crispus had hitherto belonged to Caesar’s party, they now placed their army at the service of Cassius, and Statius Murcus even offered his own personal aid. The legion of Caecilius Bassus also went over to Cassius. Thus did Cassius become master of Syria, and gained possession of a considerable fighting force. But for the support of the large and now further increasing army immense sums of money were necessary. And to this even the small Jewish land must contribute its share. It was laid by him under an arrestment of 700 talents, in the collection of which Antipater and his son Herod showed themselves particularly useful. For, with the same zeal with which they had once secured to themselves Caesar’s favour, they now sought to win the goodwill of Cassius. How useful this zeal was, some frightful examples in Judea itself showed. The inhabitants of the towns of Gophna, Emmaus, Lydda, and Thamna, because they could not contribute their share, were sold by Cassius as slaves. But young Herod, as a reward for services rendered, was appointed by Cassius, as he had previously been by Sextus Caesar, governor (στρατηγός) of Coele-Syria.

About this time, B.C. 43, Antipater became the victim of personal enmity. A certain Malichus endeavoured, just as Antipater had done, to gain an influential position in Judea. But Antipater, more than any one else, stood in the way of his realizing his ambition. He must therefore, if he was to gain his end, rid himself of that man. By bribery he won over the cupbearer of Hyrcanus, who put Antipater to death by poison as he was one day dining with Hyrcanus.

Herod undertook to avenge the death of his father. While, therefore, Malichus was busying himself in the endeavour to carry out his ambitious plans and secure to himself the government of Judea, he was murdered in the neighbourhood of Tyre by hired assassins, whom Herod, with the connivance of Cassius, had sent.

After Cassius had departed from Syria, in B.C. 42, still harder fortunes befell the province. Cassius had indeed wrung from it the most exorbitant sums, but now that the province was left to itself affairs fell into such a state of utter anarchy that there was no law but the will of the stronger. During this period Antigonus also made an attempt, with the assistance of Ptolemy the son of Mennaeus of Chalcis, to secure the sovereignty of Palestine. Favoured by fate and fortune, Herod indeed frustrated this attempt, but he was not able to prevent Marion, tyrant of Tyre, from snatching to himself certain portions of Galilean territory.

A new crisis arose in Palestine, and especially in the fortunes of the two Idumeans Phasael and Herod, when, late in autumn of the year B.C. 42, Brutus and Cassius were defeated at Philippi by Antony and Octavian. With this one stroke all Asia fell into the hands of Antony. The situation was all the more critical for Phasael and Herod, after an embassy of the Jewish nobility appeared before Antony in Bithynia about the beginning of B.C. 41, and made complaints against these two princes. Yet Herod succeeded by personal explanations in neutralizing for the time being the effect of these charges. Soon after this, while Antony lingered in Ephesus, an embassy from Hyrcanus appeared before him asking that Antony should give orders for the emancipation of the Jews sold into slavery by Cassius, and for the restoration of the places that had been conquered by the Tyrians. Antony readily assumed the role of the protector of all rights and privileges, and issued the orders prayed for, with violent denunciation of the lawless proceedings of Cassius.—Some time afterwards, in the autumn of B.C. 41, when Antony had gone to Antioch, the Jewish nobles renewed their charges against Phasael and Herod. But neither at this time did they lead to any result. Antony, when he was serving in Syria under Gabinius in B.C. 57–55, had been for many years the intimate friend of Antipater. That friendship he did not now forget. And since, besides, Hyrcanus, who had also gone to Antioch, gave a favourable account of the two brothers, Antony appointed Phasael and Herod tetrarchs of the country of the Jews. Hyrcanus was then stripped of his political authority. He did not indeed mourn over the loss, for he had for a long time possessed political authority only in name.

The period of Antony’s residence in Syria was for the province a time of sore oppression. His luxurious style of living consumed enormous sums of money, and these the provinces were required to provide. Thus, wherever Antony went exorbitant taxes were invariably imposed; and Palestine was not by any means allowed to escape.

In the year B.C. 40, while Antony was during part of the time held in thrall by Cleopatra in Egypt, and during another part occupied with the affairs of Italy, the great invasion of the Parthians occurred, who overran all Further Asia with their wild hordes. And in consequence of this occurrence Antigonus succeeded, for a while at least, in securing the end for which he had been striving.

As the Parthians under Pacorus and Barzapharnes, the former the son of King Orodes, the latter a Parthian satrap, had already occupied Northern Syria, Antigonus succeeded in persuading them, by great promises, to aid him in securing possession of the Jewish throne. Pacorus marched along to the Phoenician coast, Barzapharnes advanced into the interior of the country toward the south. Pacorus sent to Jerusalem a detachment under the leadership of the king’s cupbearer, whose name was also Pacorus. Before that company arrived at the city, Antigonus had already succeeded in gathering around him a company of adherents from among the Jews, and had with it advanced upon Jerusalem, where the battle was waged daily between him on the one hand and Phasael and Herod on the other. In the meantime the Parthian troops under Pacorus arrived. The Parthian gave out that he desired to settle terms of peace, and demanded of Phasael that he should go to the camp of Barzapharnes in order that he might put an end to this strife. Although Herod earnestly warned his brother, Phasael walked into the snare, and went along with Hyrcanus and Pacorus, the cupbearer, to the camp of Barzapharnes. A small detachment of Parthian horsemen remained behind in Jerusalem. In the Parthian camp the mask was soon thrown aside, and the two princes, Phasael and Hyrcanus, were put in irons. When Herod was told of this, not being strong enough to offer open opposition, he resolved to escape from Jerusalem by flight. Without attracting the attention of the Parthians, he had the female members of his family and the children carried out of the city and brought to the fortress of Masada, which he put under the charge of his brother Joseph. Meanwhile, on the spot where at a later period he built the fortress Herodium, he had to fight with the Jews, who were still hostile to him. He was able, however, successfully to repel their attack. After he had thus secured all belonging to him in a stronghold, he continued his flight farther southward, and went first of all to Petra in Arabia.

Their friendship for Antigonus did not restrain the Parthians from plundering the country round about the capital. Phasael and Hyrcanus were now placed at the disposal of Antigonus. The ears of Hyrcanus were cut off, so that he might no longer be eligible for the office of high priest. Phasael, on the contrary, escaped the hands of his enemies by dashing his head upon a rock after he had received the joyful tidings of the fortunate flight of his brother.

Afterwards the Parthians carried away Hyrcanus with them as a prisoner, and set up Antigonus as king.

§ 14. ANTIGONUS, B.C. 40–37

JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xiv. 14–16; Wars of the Jews, i. 14–18. 3. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 10–11 (abstract from Josephus).

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 411–416.

STANLEY, Jewish Church, iii. 419–423.

GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 190–197.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 523–533.

SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 173–175.

HAUSRATH, Zeitgeschichte, 2 Aufl. i. 200–210.

LEWIN, Fasti sacri, pp. 52–62.

BÜRCKLEIN, Quellen und Chronologie der römisch-parthischen Feldzüge in den Jahren 713–718 d. St. Dissertat. 1879.

ANTIGONUS, or, as he was called according to the evidence of the coins by his Hebrew name, Mattathias, had thus by the help of the Parthians reached that position after which his father and brother had vainly striven. After the example of his forefathers, from the time of Aristobulus I., he assumed the rank and title of “king” and “high priest” (on the coins: ΒΑΧΙΛΕΩΧ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΟΥ, מתתיה הכהן הגדל).

The hopes of Herod rested simply and wholly on Roman aid. Without going to Petra—for the Arabian prince Malchus had forbidden him to visit his country—he proceeded to Alexandria, and thence took ship for Rome, although already the autumn storms had begun. After passing through various dangers, he managed to reach Rome by Rhodes and Brundusium, and immediately upon his arrival he laid his sad complaint before Antony. Herod knew how to win favour, whenever that had to be gained, by means of money. And so it happened that he, after having secured also the goodwill of Octavian, was declared at a formal session of the senate to be king of Judea. The appointment was celebrated by a sacrifice at the capitol and a banquet by Antony.

From the appointment to the actual possession of the office was now indeed a longer and a more difficult step. For the time being the Parthians, and their protégé Antigonus, still maintained their authority in the country. The Parthians were indeed driven out of Syria in B.C. 39 by Ventidius, the legate of Antony (see above, p. 341). But from Antigonus, Ventidius only exacted a heavy tribute, and left him otherwise undisturbed. And Silo also, his lieutenant, pursued a similar policy after the departure of Ventidius.

This was the state of matters when Herod, in B.C. 39, landed at Ptolemais. He quickly collected an army; and as now Ventidius and Silo, at the command of Antony, supported him, he soon made progress. First of all Joppa fell into his hands. Then also he gained possession of Masada, where his relatives had hitherto been besieged. As he succeeded, the number of his adherents increased, and he could even venture to go to Jerusalem and lay siege to it. He made nothing, however, of this attempt at the time, for the Roman troops of Silo, which were to have supported him, assumed a stubborn and defiant attitude, and insisted upon withdrawing into winter quarters.

In the spring of the year B.C. 38, the Parthians renewed the attack upon Syria. While thus Ventidius and Silo had to go forth to fight against them, Herod sought to subdue the country wholly under him, and to rescue it out of the hands of many adventurers. Vast bands of brigands concealed themselves, especially among the inaccessible caverns in the mountain gorges of Galilee. But even of these Herod knew how to gain possession, for he let down his soldiers in large chests (λάρνακες) from the lofty rocky peak, and thus secured for them an entrance into the caves.

Meanwhile, however, the Parthians were conquered by Ventidius on 9th June B.C. 38. And that general then turned his attention against Antiochus of Commagene, and laid siege to him in his capital of Samosata. During the siege Antony himself arrived at Samosata. Herod could not let this opportunity escape of speaking to his patron; for he had good grounds for complaining of the way in which support had been withheld from him. He therefore now proceeded to Samosata in order to pay his respects to Antony. He received him very graciously, and as the surrender of Samosata soon afterwards took place, Antony instructed Sosius, the successor of Ventidius, to afford efficient assistance to Herod.

In Palestine, during the absence of Herod, matters were in a bad way. Joseph, the brother of Herod, to whom he had in the meantime transferred the chief command, had been attacked by an army of Antigonus, and was himself slain in the battle, and Antigonus had ordered his head to be struck off. In consequence of these events, the Galileans had seized the opportunity to rise again against Herod, and had drowned his adherents in the lake of Gennesareth.

A full report of all these proceedings reached Herod at Antioch, and he now hastened to avenge the death of his brother. Galilee was without difficulty reconquered. At Jericho he encountered the army of Antigonus, but did not, it would seem, venture upon any decisive engagement It was only when Antigonus divided his forces, and sent a portion of his troops under Pappus to Samaria, that Herod courted a regular contest. Pappus and Herod came together near Isana. The first attack was made by Pappus, but he was utterly defeated by Herod, and driven into the city, where all who had not managed to save themselves by flight were ruthlessly cut down. Pappus himself there met his death. With the exception of the capital, all Palestine thereby fell into the hands of Herod. Only the coming on of winter hindered him from beginning immediately the siege of Jerusalem.

In the spring of B.C. 37, so soon as the season of the year admitted of it, Herod laid siege to the capital, and began by the erection of military engines of assault. When these were ready for operating, he left the army for a little while and went to Samaria, in order there to celebrate his marriage with Mariamme, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus, to whom he had been engaged for five years. This engagement had been entered into in B.C. 42 (Antiq. xiv. 12. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 12. 3).

After the celebration of the marriage he returned again to the camp. Sosius also now appeared before Jerusalem with a great army; and Herod and Sosius made a joint attack upon the city. They made their onslaught, as Pompey had done, from the north. On this side mighty ramparts were raised, and against these the battering-rams began to play. Forty days after the beginning of these operations, the first rampart was taken; after fifteen days more the second also fell. But the inner court of the temple and the upper city were always still in the hands of the besieged. At last these too were stormed, and the besiegers now went on murdering in the city all whom they could lay their hands upon. Antigonus himself fell at the feet of Sosius and entreated of him mercy. The Roman looked upon him with scorn, called him Antigone, and had him bound in fetters. It was now Herod’s greatest care to rid himself as soon as possible of his Roman friends. For the murdering and plundering that was going on in what was now again his capital could not possibly be pleasing to him. By means of rich presents he succeeded at last in inducing Sosius and his troops to take their departure.

In this way was Herod, almost three years after his appointment, enabled to enter on the actual possession of his sovereignty. Antigonus was carried away by Sosius to Antioch, and there, in accordance with the wish of Herod, he was by Antony’s orders led to the block. It was the first time that the Romans had executed such a sentence on a king.

The rule of the Asmonean dynasty was thus brought to an end.

§ 15. HEROD THE GREAT, B.C. 37–4

JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xv., xvi., xvii. 1–8; Wars of the Jews, i. 18–33. ZONARAS, Annales, v. 12–26 (summary of Josephus).

On the non-extant works of Herod, Ptolemy, Nicolas of Damascus, and Justus of Tiberias, see above, pp. 56–69.

The Rabbinical traditions are given in DERENBOURG, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine (1867), pp. 149–165.

The Coins are treated of in the most complete manner by MADDEN, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 105–114.

EWALD, History of Israel, v. 417–449.

STANLEY, Lectures on the Jewish Church, iii. 412–448.

GEIKIE, The Life and Words of Christ, 7th ed., 2 vols., London 1879, vol. i. pp. 33–63.

FARRAR, Life of Christ, 18th ed., London, 2 vols., vol. i. pp. 11–48.

HAUSRATH, History of New Testament Times, i. 207–ii. 57.

LEWIN, Fasti sacri; or a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament, 1865, pp. 62–127.

VICKERS, The History of Herod, or another look at a man emerging from twenty centuries of calumny. London 1885. [An apology and defence!]

GRÄTZ, Geschichte des Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. pp. 197–245.

HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 534–559.

SCHNECKENBURGER, Zeitgeschichte, pp. 175–200.

WINER, Realwörterbuch, i. 481–483.

ARNOLD in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. vi. 8–14.

KEIM, Jesus of Nazara, i. 233–253. In Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iii. 27–38.

VAN DER CHIJS, Dissertatio chronologico-historica de Herode Mayno, Judaeorum rege. Lugd. Bat. 1855.

DE SAULCY, Histoire d’Hérode, roi des Juifs. Paris 1867.

SIEFFERT in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. vi. 47–55

REUSS, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften A.T.’s 1881, § 541–545.

MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte, v. 503–507.

KELLNER, Die Regierungszeit des Herodes und ihre Dauer (Katholik, 1867, zweite Hälfte, pp. 64–82, 166–182).

MENKE’S Bibelatlas, Sheet iv. Map of “Judea and Phoenicia after the arrangement of M. Antony,” and Sheet v. Map of “Judea and neighbouring countries at the time of the birth of Christ.”

              CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY.

 

B.C.              A.U.C.

             

 

37              717

              Conquest of Jerusalem, some time in July.

Executions, Josephus, Antiq. xv. 1. 2; compare xiv. 9. 4, fin.; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 4.

 

36              718

              Hyrcanus II. returns from the Parthian imprisonment, Antiq. xv. 2. 1–4.

 

35              719

              Beginning of the year: Aristobulus III., brother of Mariamme, is at the instigation of his mother Alexandra nominated high priest by Herod, Antiq. xv. 2. 5–7, 3. 1.

End of the year : Aristobulus III. is by Herod’s order, soon after the Feast of Tabernacles, drowned in the bath at Jericho, τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην κατασχὼν ἐνιαυτόν, Antiq. xv. 3. 3 Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 2.

 

34              720

              Herod is summoned by Antony to Laodicea to answer for the death of Aristobulus, but is dismissed with Antony’s favour, Antiq. xv. 3. 5 and 8. 9.

 

34              720

              Joseph, the husband of Herod’s sister Salome, is executed, Antiq. xv. 3. 9.

Antony presents to Cleopatra the Phoenician coasts, with the exception of Tyre and Sidon, and portions of Arabia and Judea; the region around Jericho being specially excepted, Antiq. xv. 4. 1–2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5.

Cleopatra with Herod in Jerusalem, Antiq. xv. 4. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5.

 

32              722

              War of Herod with the Arabians, after the out-break of hostilities between Antony and Octavian, Antiq. xv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 1–3.

Earthquake in Palestine, Antiq. xv. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3: κατʼ ἔτος μὲν τῆς βασιλείας ἕβδομον, ἀκμάζοντος δὲ τοῦ περὶ Ἄκτιον πολέμου, ἀρχομένου ἔαρος.

 

32              722

              Herod conquers the Arabians, Antiq. xv. 5. 2–5; Wars of the Jews, i. 19. 3–6.

After the battle at Actium on 2nd September, Herod attached himself to the party of Augustus, for he supported Didius in the struggle with Antony’s gladiators; compare Antiq. xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 2. Also above, p. 345.

 

30              724

              Spring: Hyrcanus II. executed, Antiq. xv. 6. 1–4; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 1; πλείω μὲν ἢ ὀγδοήκοντα γεγονὼς ἐτύγχανεν ἔτη, Antiq. xv. 6. 3.

Herod visits Augustus at Rhodes, and is by him made king, Antiq. xv. 6. 5–7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 1–3.

He attaches himself to Augustus on his march to Egypt at Ptolemais, Antiq. xv. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3.

Autumn: Herod visits Augustus in Egypt, and gets Jericho back from him, as also Gadara, Hippo, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, Straton’s Tower, Antiq. xv. 7. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 3.

End of the year : he accompanies Augustus on his return from Egypt as far as Antioch. Antiq. xv. 7. 4.

 

29              725

              End of the year: Mariamme executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 4–6; Wars of the Jews, i. 22. 3–5 (Antiq. xv. 7. 4: ἥ τε ὑποψία τρεφομένη παρέτεινεν ἐνιαυτοῦ μῆκος, ἐξ οὗ παρὰ Καίσαρος Ἡρώδης ὑποστρέφει).

 

28?

              Alexandra executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 8.

 

25              729

              Costobar, the second husband of Salome, and the sons of Babas, executed, Antiq. xv. 7. 10. The date is discovered from the statement of Salome: ὅτι διασώζοιντο παρʼ αὐτῷ χρόνον ἐνιαυτῶν ἤδη δώδεκα, that is, after the overthrow of Jerusalem in B.C. 37.

 

?

              The four years’ contendings begun. Theatre and amphitheatre built in Jerusalem, Antiq. xv. 8. 1.

 

?

              Conspiracy against Herod, Antiq. xv. 8. 3–4.

 

27              727

              Samaria rebuilt and named in honour of Augustus Sebaste, Antiq. xv. 8. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 21. 2.

 

25              729

              Famine and pestilence (κατὰ τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, τρισκαιδέκατον ὄντα τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας =B.C. 25–24, from Nisan to Nisan), Antiq. xv. 9. 1.

The famine continues also into the following year, B.C. 24–23, Antiq. xv. 9. 1, when Petronius was governor of Egypt, Antiq. xv. 9. 2.

 

25              729

              Herod sends 500 men as auxiliaries to the expedition of Aelius Gallus against Arabia, Antiq. xv. 9. 3 ; compare Strabo, xvi. 4. 23, p. 780: συμμάχων, ὧν ἦσαν Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν πεντακόσιοι.—The campaign ended in the following year, B.C. 24, disastrously, and without any appreciable results.

 

?

              Herod builds for himself a royal palace, and marries the priest’s daughter, Mariamme, Antiq. xv. 9. 3 (the name: Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, 29. 2, 30. 7).

The building of Caesarea is begun, Antiq. xv. 9. 6. Since the building after twelve years’ labour was completed in B.C. 10, the works must have been begun in B.C. 22.

 

23              731

              The sons of the first Mariamme, Alexander and

 

              Aristobulus, are sent to Rome for their education, Antiq. xv. 10. 1.

Augustus bestows upon Herod the provinces of Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis, Antiq. xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4 (μετὰ τὴν πρώτην Ἀκτιάδα).

 

22              732

              Herod visits Agrippa in Mytilene in Lesbos, Antiq. xv. 10. 2.

 

20              734

              Augustus comes to Syria and bestows upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3: ἤδη αὐτοῦ τῆς βασιλείας ἑπτακαιδεκάτου παρελθόντος ἔτους (the seventeenth year of Herod extended to 1st Nisan at the end of the year B.C. 20); Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4: ἔτει δεκάτῳ πάλιν ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν ἐπαρχίαν (also reckoned from the end of the year B.C. 30).—Dio Cassius, liv. 7, places the visit of Augustus to Syria in the consulship of M. Appuleius and P. Silius, A.U.C. 734.—Also Dio Cassius, liv. 9, makes mention of that presentation.

Pheroras appointed tetrarch of Perea, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 5; compare i. 30. 3.

Herod remits one-third of the taxes, Antiq. xv. 10. 4.

Begins the temple building, Antiq. xv. 11. 1: ὀκτωκαιδεκάτου τῆς Ἡρώδου βασιλείας γεγονοτος ἐνιαυτοῦ=B.C. 20–19.

 

18 or 17

              Herod fetches his sons Alexander and Aristobulus home from Rome: the first Roman voyage of Herod, Antiq. xvi. 1. 2.—Since Herod met Augustus in Italy, and as Augustus did not return to Italy before the summer of B.C. 19, the journey of Herod must be placed at the earliest in the middle of the year B.C. 19, and at latest before the summer of B.C. 16, since Augustus was in Gaul from the summer of B.C. 16 till the spring of B.C. 13.

 

15              739

              Agrippa visits Herod in Jerusalem, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1 (Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 37, ed. Mangey, ii. 589).—He left Judea again before the end of the year: ἐπιβαίνοντος τοῦ χειμῶνος.

 

14              740

              Herod with Agrippa in Asia Minor, Antiq. xvi. 2. 2–5 (ἔαρος ἠπείγετο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ). Compare also: Antiq. xii. 3. 2; Nicolas of Damascus in Müller, Fragment. Hist. Graecor. iii. 350.

After his return he remits a fourth part of the taxes, Antiq. xvi. 2. 5.

Beginning of quarrels with the sons of Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus.—Antipater brought to the court, Antiq. xvi. 3. 1–3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 1.

 

13              741

              Antipater is sent with Agrippa to Rome that he might be presented to the emperor, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 2. (On the date compare: Dio Cassius, liv. 28; Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 408.)

 

12              742

              Herod goes with his sons Alexander and Aristobulus to Rome in order to accuse them before the emperor. Herod’s second Roman journey. He meets the emperor at Aquileia. Augustus reconciles the discord.—Antipater returns back with them to Judea, Antiq. xvi. 4. 1–6; Wars of the Jews, i. 23. 3–5.

 

10              744

              The celebration of the completion of the building of Caesarea fell εἰς ὄγδοον καὶ εἰκοστὸν ἔτος τῆς ἀρχῆς=B.C. 10–9, Antiq. xvi. 5. 1; after it had been twelve years in building, Antiq. xv. 9. 6: ἐξετελέσθη δωδεκαετεῖ χρόνῳ (xvi. 5. 1 says: ten years, which is certainly wrong). On the building, compare also Wars of the Jews, i 21. 5–8.

 

?

              The quarrel in Herod’s family becomes more and more bitter and complicated, Antiq. xvi. 7. 2–6; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 1–6.

 

?

              Herod by torturing Alexander’s dependants seeks to fasten guilt upon him; Alexander is cast into prison, Antiq. xvi. 8. 1–5; Wars of the Jews, i. 24. 7–8.

 

10 ?

              Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, Alexander’s father-in-law, effects once more a reconciliation between Herod and his sons, Antiq. xvi. 8. 6; Wars of the Jews, i. 25. 1–6.

Herod’s third journey to Rome, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1.

 

9 ?

              Campaign against the Arabians, Antiq. xvi. 9. 2.

 

8 ?

              Herod in disfavour with Augustus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 3.

Herod having extorted by torture damaging statements against Aristobulus and Alexander, has them cast into prison, and accuses them to Augustus of high treason, Antiq. xvi. 10. 3–7; Wars of the Jews, i. 26. 3, 27. 1.

 

7 ?

              Augustus, having again become favourable to Herod through the good offices of Nicolaus of Damascus (Antiq. xvi. 10. 8–9), gives him full power to deal with his sons according to his own discretion, Antiq. xvi. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 1.

Alexander and Aristobulus condemned to death at Berytus, and strangled at Sebaste (Samaria), Antiq. xvi. 11. 2–7; Wars of the Jews, i. 27. 2–6.

Antipater all-powerful at Herod’s court, Antiq. xvii. 1. 1, 2. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 1, 29. 1.

Executions of suspected Pharisees, Antiq. xvii. 2. 4.

 

6 ?

              Antipater goes to Rome, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 2.

First testament or will of Herod, in which he named Antipater, or if he should die before himself, Herod, the son of the second Mariamme, his successor, Antiq. xvii. 3. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 2.

 

5              749

              Beginning of the year: Pheroras, Herod’s brother, dies, Antiq. xvii. 3. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 29. 4.

Herod discovers Antipater’s hostile designs, Antiq. xvii. 4. 1–2; Wars of the Jews, i. 30. 1–7.

Antipater returns again to Judea, Antiq. xvii. 5. 1–2; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 3–5; seven months after Herod had made that discovery, Antiq. xvii. 4. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 2.

Antipater on his trial; seeks in vain to justify himself, and is put in chains, Antiq. xvii. 5. 3–7; Wars of the Jews, i. 32. 1–5.

Herod reports the matter to the emperor, Antiq. xvii. 5. 7–8; Wars of the Jews, i 32. 5.

Herod is ill and makes his second testament, in which he appoints his youngest son Antipater his successor, Antiq. xvii. 6. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 5.

 

4              750

              Revolt of the people under the rabbis Judas and Matthias rigorously suppressed by Herod, Antiq. xvii 6. 2–4; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 1–4.

Herod’s illness becomes more severe, Antiq. xvii. 6. 5; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 5.

Antipater, after leave had been obtained from the emperor, is executed, Antiq. xvii. 7; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7.

Herod again changes his will, for he appoints Archelaus king, and Antipas and Philip tetrarchs, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 7.

Herod dies five days after the execution of Antipater, βασιλεύσας μεθʼ ὃ μὲν ἀνεῖλεν Ἀντίγονον, ἔτη τέσσαρα καὶ τριάκοντα, μεθʼ ὃ δὲ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων ἀπεδέδεικτο, ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα, Antiq. xvii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 33. 8.

 

Herod was born to be a ruler. Blessed by nature with a powerful body capable of enduring fatigue, he early inured himself to all manner of hardships. He was a skilful rider, and a bold, daring huntsman. He was feared in pugilistic encounters. His lance was unerring, and his arrow seldom missed its mark. He was practised in the art of war from his youth. Even in his twenty-fifth year he had won renown by his expedition against the robbers of Galilee. And then again, in the later period of his life, when over sixty years of age, he led in person the campaign against the Arabians. Rarely did success forsake him where he himself conducted any warlike undertaking.

His character was wild and passionate, harsh and unbending. Fine feelings and tender emotions were strange to him. Wherever his own interests seemed to demand it, he carried matters through with an iron hand, and scrupled not to shed streams of blood that he might reach his object Even his nearest relatives, even his most passionately loved wife, he could not spare, so soon as the wish arose in him.

He was, besides, cunning and adroit, and rich in devices. He understood thoroughly what measures should be taken to suit the circumstances of each changing day. Hard and unpitying as he was toward all who fell into his power, he was cringing and servile before those that were high in place. His glance was wide enough in its range, and his judgment sufficiently keen to perceive that in the circumstances of the world at that time nothing was to be reached except through the favour and by the help of the Romans. It was therefore an unvarying principle of his policy to hold firmly by the Roman alliance under all circumstances and at any cost. And he knew how to carry out this principle happily and cleverly.

Thus in his composition were linked together cunning and energy.

But these most conspicuous characteristics of his nature were set in motion by an insatiable ambition. All his devices and endeavours, all his plans and actions, were aimed directly toward the one end: the extending of his power, his dominion, his glory. This powerful lever kept all his powers in restless activity. Difficulties and hindrances were for him so much greater inducement to put forth more strength. And this indefatigableness, this unwearied striving, continued to characterize him in extreme old age.

Only by a combination of all these characteristics was it possible to attain to such greatness, as he unquestionably reached, amid the perilous circumstances of his times.

His reign falls into three periods. The first period, which reaches from B.C. 37 to B.C. 25, is the period of the consolidation of his power. He has still to contend with many hostile powers, but goes forth at last from the conflict victorious over them all. The second period, from B.C. 25 to B.C. 13, is the period of his prosperity. The friendship of Rome has reached its highest point. Agrippa visits Herod in Jerusalem. Herod is repeatedly received by the emperor. It is at the same time the period of great buildings, preeminently the work of peace. The third period, from B.C. 13 to B.C. 4, is the period of domestic trouble. Everything else now passes out of view in presence of the disturbances in Herod’s own house.

In the first period of his reign Herod had to contend with many powerful adversaries: the people, the nobles, the Asmonean family, and—Cleopatra.

The people, who were wholly in the hands of the Pharisees, tolerated only with deep aversion the dominion of the Idumean, half-Jew and friend of the Romans. It must have been Herod’s first care to secure their obedience. By the utmost rigour he was able to reduce the rebellious elements; while he won the more pliant by bestowing on them favours and honours. Even of the Pharisees themselves two performed good services for Herod—Polio (Abtalion) and his scholar Sameas (Shemaia or Shammai). They saw in the dominion of the foreigner a judgment of God, which as such they were under obligation patiently to bear.

Among the nobles of Jerusalem there were numerous adherents of Antigonus. Herod delivered himself from them by executing forty-five of the most wealthy and the most prominent of their number. By confiscating their property he gained possession of abundance of money, which he employed so as to secure a firmer hold upon his patron Antony.

Of the members of the Asmonean family, it was particularly Alexandra, Herod’s mother-in-law, the mother of Mariamme, who pursued him with unremitting enmity. The aged Hyrcanus had indeed returned from his Parthian exile; but he was before that time on good terms with Herod. And this good understanding still continued undisturbed. Since he could not, owing to his physical mutilation, enter again on the high priest’s office, Herod chose as high priest an utterly unknown and insignificant Babylonian Jew of the saccrdotal family called Ananel. But even this was considered by Alexandra an infringement of Asmonean privileges. According to her view, it was her young son Aristobulus, brother of Mariamme, who alone was entitled to the high priest’s office. She therefore set every wheel in motion in order to secure her rights. In particular, she applied to Cleopatra, urging her to exert her influence upon Antony, so as to force Herod to appoint Aristobulus high priest. Mariamme also pressed her husband with petitions in favour of her brother. Thus Herod at last felt himself obliged to set aside Ananel (which was unlawful, inasmuch as the high priest held his office for life), and in the beginning of B.C. 35 made young Aristobulus high priest, who was now only in his seventeenth year.

The peace, however, was not of long duration. Herod saw, and not without reason, in all the members of the Asmonean family his natural enemies. He could not rid himself of suspicion and distrust, especially in regard to Alexandra, and he kept a careful watch upon her proceedings. This constant espionage Alexandra found intolerable, and thought to escape such supervision by flight. The coffins were already prepared in which she and her son Aristobulus were to have had themselves carried out of the city and thence to the sea-coast, so as to fly to Egypt to Cleopatra. But their secret was betrayed, and so their scheme proved futile, and thus it only served to increase the suspicions of Herod.—When, moreover, the people, at the next Feast of Tabernacles, in B.C. 35, made a public demonstration in favour of young Aristobulus while he officiated as high priest, Herod became thoroughly determined to rid himself, without delay, of Aristobulus as his most dangerous enemy and rival. Soon an opportunity for doing so was given him. Herod had been invited to Jericho to a feast by Alexandra. And after the meal, as young Aristobulus along with others was refreshing himself in the bath, he was pushed under the water as if in sport by some of those with him who had been bribed by Herod, and kept down so long that he was drowned. After the affair was done Herod pretended the most profound grief, and shed tears, which, however, nobody regarded as genuine.

Alexandra, who clearly perceived the true state of matters, agitated again through Cleopatra, so that Herod was summoned to make answer before Antony for the deed. Antony, who since the spring of B.C. 36 had been again residing in the East, and under the spell of Cleopatra, was just then, in the spring of B.C. 34, undertaking a new expedition to the West, ostensibly against the Parthians, really against the Armenian king Artavasdes. When he had now reached Laodicea, that is, Laodicea by the sea, south of Antioch, Herod was summoned to meet him there,—for Alexandra had, through Cleopatra, actually obtained her wish,—to give an account of his conduct. Herod did not dare to refuse, and, no doubt with a heavy heart, presented himself before Antony. But it may be readily supposed he did not go empty-handed. This circumstance and his clever representations soon prevailed in dispelling all clouds. He was pronounced innocent, and returned to Jerusalem.

His absence was the occasion of fresh disturbances. He had on his departure appointed his uncle Joseph, who was also his brother-in-law, for he had married his sister Salome, as his viceroy, and had committed Mariamme to his care. And as he considered his going before Antony as dangerous, he had commanded Joseph, in case he should not return, to kill Mariamme, for his passionate love for her could not brook the thought that any other should ever obtain his beloved. When, then, he did return, Salome calumniated her own husband, charging him with having himself had unlawful intercourse with Mariamme. Herod at first gave no heed to the calumny, as Mariamme maintained her innocence. But when he learned that Mariamme knew about that secret command, which the chattering old man had told her as a proof of the peculiar love of Herod, Herod thought that he had in this a confirmation of those charges, and caused Joseph to be executed, without affording him an opportunity of being heard.

The fourth hostile power during this first period of Herod’s reign was Cleopatra. She had even previously, by her combination with Alexandra, been the means of giving troubled days to Herod. It was still more unfortunate for him that she now sought to use her influence with Antony to obtain an increase of territory. Antony at first gave no heed to her demands. But at length, during that same expedition against Armenia, in B.C. 34, he was induced to bestow upon her the whole of Phoenicia and the coast of the Philistines south of Eleutherus, with exception only of Tyre and Sidon, and besides, a part of the Arabian territory, and the fairest and most fertile part of the kingdom of Herod, the celebrated district of Jericho, with its palm trees and balsams. Opposition on the part of Herod was not to be thought of, and he was now obliged to take his own land in lease from Cleopatra. He had indeed to accept the disagreeable with as good a grace as possible, and to receive Cleopatra with all honour and with royal munificence when she, on her return from the Euphrates, to which point she had accompanied Antony, paid a visit to Judea. But when she sought to draw him also into her net, he was cunning enough not to commit himself any more into her power.

Thus Herod’s first four or five years were spent amid various struggles for his own very existence. The outbreak in B.C. 32 of the war between Antony and Octavian caused fresh anxieties. Herod wished to hasten with a powerful army to the help of Antony; but at the instigation of Cleopatra he was instead ordered by Antony to fight against the Arabian king. That prince had latterly failed to pay regularly his tribute to Cleopatra, and was now to be punished for that fault. And Cleopatra wished that the war should be committed to Herod, in order that the two vassal kings might naturally weaken and reduce one another. And thus Herod was sent against the king of Arabia rather than against Octavian. But as Athenio, Cleopatra’s commander, went to the help of the Arabians, he suffered a crushing defeat, and found himself obliged to stop the great war, and rest satisfied with mere robber raids and plundering expeditions.

Then again in the spring of B.C. 31 a new calamity befell him, for a terrible earthquake visited the country, by which 30,000 men lost their lives. Herod now wished to treat for peace with the Arabians; but these slew his ambassadors and renewed their attack. Herod required to use all his eloquence in order to induce his dispirited troops again to enter into the engagement. But this time his old fortune in war returned to him. He drove before him the Arabian army in utter rout, and compelled its remnants, which had sought refuge in a fortress, soon to surrender. Proud of this brilliant success, he returned home.

Soon thereafter, on 2nd September B.C. 31, the decisive battle at Actium was fought, by which Antony finally lost his power. It was at the same time a sore blow to Herod. But with that adroitness which was characteristic of him, he passed over at the right time into the camp of the conqueror, and soon found an opportunity for proving his change of mind by action. In Cyzicus there was a troop of Antony’s gladiators, who held themselves in readiness for the games, by which Antony had intended to celebrate his victory over Octavian. When these now heard of the defeat and flight of Antony, they wished to hasten to Egypt to the assistance of their master. But Didius, the governor of Syria, hindered their departure, and Herod afforded him in this zealous and efficient aid.

After he had given such a proof of his disposition, he could venture to present himself before Augustus. But in order to secure himself against any miscarriage, he contrived to have the aged Hyrcanus, the only one who might prove a dangerous rival, as nearer to the throne than himself, put out of the way. That Hyrcanus was condemned to death for conspiring with the Arabian king, as was affirmed in Herod’s own journals, is highly improbable when we consider the character and the extreme age of Hyrcanus. Other contemporary writers have expressly declared his innocence. For Herod in his critical position, the mere existence of Hyrcanus was sufficient motive for the bloody deed. Thus fell the last of the Asmoneans, a memorial of past times, an old man more than eighty years of age, a sacrifice to the jealousy and ambition of Herod.

Herod now set out to meet Augustus, who had passed the winter, B.C. 31–30, for the most part in Samos. He met him in the spring of B.C. 30 in Rhodes. At the meeting he played his part skilfully. He boasted of his friendship with Antony, and of the service which he had rendered him, and wished in this way to prove how useful he might be to any one whose party he might join. Augustus was not inclined to give too much heed to this speech, but found it to his advantage to win over to himself the crafty and energetic Idumean who had been the steady friend of the Romans. He was very gracious to him, and confirmed him in his royal rank. With this joyful result Herod returned to his own home.

Soon thereafter, in the summer, Augustus left Asia Minor and touched at the Phoenician coast on his way to Egypt, and Herod failed not to receive him with all pomp at Ptolemais, and took care that during that hot season of the year his army in its march should want for nothing.

After Augustus in Egypt had done with Antony, who, as well as Cleopatra, had committed suicide in August B.C. 30, Herod again visited Augustus, undoubtedly with the intention of wishing him success, and securing for himself as great a reward as possible. In this latter object he was completely successful. Augustus now gave him back, not only the district of Jericho, but also Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Straton’s Tower.—In proof of his gratitude, Herod gave his patron, on his return from Egypt in the end of B.C. 30, the pleasure of his company as far as Antioch.

While thus he had exchanged his outward dangers for good fortune, Herod had nothing but confusion and strife in his own house. Even when he had gone away to Rhodes, he had committed the guardianship of Mariamme to a certain Soemus, and to him again he had given the same command as before to Joseph. Mariamme had also this time again come to know it, and gave to Herod on his return proofs of her aversion. The mother of Herod, Cypros, and his sister Salome, who had both for a long time been disaffected toward the proud Mariamme, were greatly gratified at this misunderstanding, and they knew how to inflame the quarrel by giving currency to the most scandalous calumnies. At last Salome managed to bribe the king’s cupbearer, and got him to declare that Mariamme had given him a poison draught in order that he should give it to Herod. When Herod heard this, he had Mariamme’s eunuch examined by torture in reference to this matter. This servant indeed knew nothing of the poison draught, but confessed that Mariamme hated her husband on account of the command which he had given to Soemus. When, now, Herod heard that Soemus, as well as Joseph, had betrayed the secret of his command, he saw again in this a proof of unlawful intercourse, and cried out saying that he had now evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness. Soemus was immediately executed ; Mariamme, after a judicial investigation, was condemned, and then executed in the end of B.C. 29.

In Herod’s relations with Mariamme were revealed all the savagery and sensuality of his nature. Ungovernable and passionate as his love for her was, such was also his hatred so soon as he thought himself deceived by his wife. But equally ungovernable and passionate was also his yearning over his beloved whom he himself had murdered. In order to drown the pangs of remorse, he sought relief in wild excesses, drinking bouts, and the pleasures of the chase. But even his powerful frame could not endure such an excessive strain. While he was hunting in Samaria he fell ill, and was obliged there to take to his bed. As his recovery was doubtful, Alexandra began to scheme, so that in the event of his death she might secure the throne to herself. She applied herself to those in command of the two fortified places in Jerusalem, and sought to win them over to her side. But they reported the matter to Herod, and Alexandra, who had long deserved that fate far more than others, was then executed some time in B.C. 28.

Gradually Herod recovered, and soon found occasion for further bloodshed. A distinguished Idumean, Costobar, had been, soon after his accession, appointed by Herod governor of Idumea, and had subsequently been married to Salome, whose first husband, Joseph, had been executed in B.C. 34. Even during this first period he had secretly conspired against Herod with Cleopatra, but had been received into Herod’s favour again at the entreaty of Salome. But now Salome herself was tired of her husband, and in order to rid herself of him she had recourse to denunciation. She knew that her husband had preserved the sons of Babas, as it seems, distant relatives of the Asmonean house, whom Herod ever since his conquest of Jerusalem had in vain sought to track out. This information she communicated to her brother. Herod, when he heard this, promptly resolved upon the course he would pursue. Costobar, together with his protégés, whose place of concealment Salome had betrayed, was seized and executed in B.C. 25. And now Herod could console himself with the thought that of all the relatives of the aged Hyrcanus there was no longer one surviving who could dispute with him the occupancy of the throne.—Here then the first period closes, the period of conflict with hostile powers.

The period from B.C. 25 to B.C. 13 is the period of glory and enjoyment, although the enjoyment was not altogether unchequered and undisturbed.

Among the glories of the period are to be reckoned the magnificent buildings which he erected. All the provinces vied with one another in their celebration of the emperor-cultus, and in the lavishness of display every fourth year at the festal games in honour of Caesar. For the former purpose emperor-temples (Καισάρεια) were erected; for the latter, theatres, amphitheatres, race-courses for men and for horses. New cities also were founded in honour of Caesar, and called after his name. “Provinciarum pleraeque super templa et aras ludos quoque quinquennales paene oppidatim constituerunt. Reges amici atque socii et singuli in suo quisque regno Caesareas urbes condiderunt.” All these endeavours were entered upon by Herod with that energy by which he was characterized. But he was also unweariedly active in erecting other buildings for purposes of use and luxury, and in the reconstruction of entire cities.

In Jerusalem a theatre was reared; in the valley near Jerusalem, an amphitheatre. Some time later, about B.C. 24, Herod built for himself a royal palace, upon which marble and gold were lavished with profusion. It was provided with strong fortifications, and thus was made to serve also as a castle for the upper city. Even during the time of Antony he had had the citadel north of the temple rebuilt and named Antonia in honour of his patron.—In the non-Jewish cities of his territory, and farther away in the province of Syria, he built numerous temples, especially such as he built in honour of Caesar (Καισάρεια), and adorned them with statuary of the most beautiful description.

New cities in large number were built under his direction throughout the land. The old Samaria, which after its destruction had been already rebuilt by Gabinius, was now reconstructed by Herod in a magnificent style, and received from him the name of Sebaste. Not satisfied with this, he engaged in the year B.C. 22 on a still more ambitious undertaking, for he erected on the coast, on the site of the ancient Straton’s Tower, a new city of large and imposing dimensions, to which he gave the name of Caesarea. As deserving of special mention, Josephus speaks of the commodious haven attached to the city. In order to secure ships while receiving their cargo from the storms, a powerful breakwater was carried far out into the sea, the material for which had to be brought from a considerable distance. On the breakwater were erected dwellings for the seamen, and in front of these paths were made for pleasure walks. In the midst of the city was a hill, on which a temple in honour of the emperor was built, which could be seen far out at sea. Twelve full years were occupied in the building of the city. And when it had been completed, a grand celebration of the event was made with great pomp in the 28th year of Herod, corresponding to B.C. 10–9.

But Herod’s love of building had not yet received full satisfaction. In place of the ancient Capharsaba, he founded a city, which he named in honour of his father Antipatris. At Jericho he built a citadel which he named after his mother Cypros. In the Jordan valley, north of Jericho, he founded, in a previously unbuilt but fruitful district, a new city, and named it after his brother Phasaelis. The ancient Anthedon he reconstructed, and, in honour of Agrippa, named it Agrippaeum. In honour of himself, he named two new strongholds Herodium; the one lay in the mountainous region toward Arabia; the other on the spot, three leagues south of Jerusalem, where he had conquered the Jews who pursued him after his flight from Jerusalem. The latter fortress was also supplied with rooms beautifully fitted up for the use of the king. The strongholds of Alexandrium and Hyrcania, built by the Armenians but destroyed by Gabinius, were now restored by Herod, and furnished with new fortifications. He dealt similarly also with the fortresses of Machärus and Masada, both of which he adorned with royal palaces. Military requirements also led to the rebuilding of Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in Perea, in which places he established military colonies.

Also far beyond the bounds of Palestine architectural works proclaimed the liberality of Herod. For the Rhodians, Herod built at his own cost the Pythian temple. He aided in the construction of most of the public buildings of the city of Nicopolis, which had been founded by Augustus near Actium. In Antioch he caused colonnades to be erected along both sides of the principal street. Happening on one occasion to visit Chios, he spent a large sum on the rebuilding of the piazza, destroyed during the Mithridatic war. In Ascalon he built baths and fountains. Tyre and Sidon, Byblus and Berytus, Tripolis, Ptolemais, and Damascus were also graced with memorials to the glory of Herod’s name. And even as far as Athens and Lacedæmonia proofs of his liberality were to be found.

But the most magnificent of all his building operations was the restoration of the temple of Jerusalem. The old temple, built by Zerubbabel, was no longer in keeping with the magnificence of the modern structures. The palaces in its neighbourhood quite eclipsed it in grandeur. But now, as was only proper, it was to be brought into harmony with its beautiful surroundings. The rebuilding was begun in the eighteenth year of Herod, corresponding to B.C. 20–19, or A.U.C. 734–735. After the temple proper was completed it was consecrated; but still the building was carried on for a long period, and only a few years before its destruction, in the time of Albinus (A.D. 62–64), was it actually finished. Its beauty was proverbial. “He who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen anything beautiful,” was a common proverb of that day.

Besides the buildings, the games, celebrated with great pomp and magnificence, belonged to the glory of the Augustan period. In this department also Herod was quite abreast of the requirements of the age. Not only in the predominantly pagan Caesarea, but even in Jerusalem, competitive games were celebrated every fourth year. To the eyes of legalistic Jews these pagan exhibitions, with their slight valuation of the life of men and animals, constituted a serious offence, which could be tolerated only under threat of severe measures. The zeal of the king, however, went so far that he even gave liberal grants in support of the old Olympic games.

How unweariedly and extravagantly he also in other ways promoted culture and learning of every kind we are informed from explicit statements by Josephus. Very serviceable indeed was the colonizing of the districts west of the lake of Gennesareth hitherto traversed only by robber nomad tribes. He laid out at great cost the parks and gardens about his palace at Jerusalem. Walks and water canals were made through the gardens; water fountains decorated with iron works of art were to be seen, through which the water gushed. In the neighbourhood of these stood dovecots with tamed pigeons. The king seemed to have a special fondness for pigeon-breeding; it is, indeed, only in connection with this that mention is made of Herod in the Mishna. “Herodian pigeons” is the phrase used for pigeons kept in captivity. It seems, therefore, that Herod was the first in Judea to keep and rear wild pigeons in an enclosed place.

In order that he might pose before the eyes of the Graeco-Roman world as a man of culture, Herod, who continued to the last a barbarian at heart, surrounded himself with a circle of men accomplished in Greek literature and art. The highest offices of state were entrusted to Greek rhetoricians. In all more important matters he availed himself of their counsel and advice. The most distinguished of these was Nicolas of Damascus, a man of wide and varied scholarship, versed in natural science, familiar with Aristotle, and widely celebrated as a historical writer. He enjoyed the unconditional confidence of Herod, and was by him entrusted with all serious and difficult diplomatic missions. Beside him stood his brother Ptolemy, also a trusted friend of the king. Another Ptolemy was at the head of the finance department, and had the king’s signet ring. In addition to these, we find in the circle immediately around the king two Greeks or half-Greeks—Andromachus and Gemellus. The latter of those was also the tutor of Herod’s son Alexander. Finally, in the proceedings after Herod’s death we meet with a Greek rhetorician, Irenaeus. Among those Hellenic counsellors of the king there were indeed some very bad characters, most conspicuous among them that Lacedfæmonian Eurykles, who contributed not a little in fomenting and intensifying the trouble between Herod and his sons.

Herod to all appearance had very little real interest in Judaism. His ambition led him. to foster the liberal arts and culture. But any other form of culture than that of Greece was scarcely recognised by the world of that day. So he himself submitted to receive instructions, under the direction of Nicolas of Damascus, in philosophy, rhetoric, and history, and boasted of being more nearly related to the Greeks than to the Jews. But the culture which he sought to spread throughout his land was essentially Greek and pagan. He even erected heathen temples in the non-Jewish towns of his kingdom.—Under these circumstances it is interesting to observe the place which he gave to the law and the national aspirations of his people. The Pharisaic-national movement had grown up, especially since the reaction under Alexandra, into a power so strong and so firmly rooted in the hearts of the people, that Herod could not possibly think of a violent Hellenizing like that carried on by Antiochus Epiphanes. He was sagacious enough to show respect in many points to the views of the Pharisaic party. Hence it is particularly worthy of notice that his coins bear no human image, but only innocent symbols, like those of the Maccabean coins; at most only one coin, and that belonging probably to Herod’s latest period, bears the figure of an eagle. In the building of the temple he was anxiously careful to avoid giving any offence. He allowed only priests to build the temple proper, and even he himself ventured not to go into the precincts of the inner temple, which should be entered only by the priests. Upon none of the many beautiful buildings in Jerusalem were images placed. And when the people once looked with suspicion on the imperial trophies of victory which were set up in the theatre at Jerusalem, because they took them for statues which were covered with the armour, Herod had the trophies taken down in the presence of the most distinguished men, and showed them to their complete satisfaction the bare wooden frames. When the Arabian Sylläus sought to win for himself the hand of Herod’s sister Salome, it was required of him that he should adopt the Jewish customs (ἐγγραφῆναι τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθεσι), and thereupon the proposed marriage was abandoned. Some of the most famous Pharisees, among whom Polio and Sameas may be specially named, were held by Herod in high esteem, and were not punished even when they refused to take the oath of allegiance.

But clearly a thoroughgoing carrying out of Pharisaic views was impossible under his scheme for the furtherance of culture, and he had no intention of promoting them. For a time, what he raised with the one hand he overthrew with the other. After he had carefully studied the Pharisaic requirements in the building of the temple, he at last had an eagle put up over the temple gate as if in insult. Theatre and amphitheatre were already in themselves heathen abominations. The Greek surroundings of the king, the administration of state business by men of Greek culture, the development of heathen splendour within the Holy Land, the provision for heathen worship within the borders of Judea, in the king’s own territory, all this completely outweighed those concessions to Pharisaism, and in spite of these lent to Herod’s reign more of a heathen than a Jewish character. The Sanhedrim, which according to the opinion of the people was the only court that had any right to exist, under Herod was stripped of all importance, so that doubts have been entertained as to its very existence. The high priests, whom he appointed and removed at his pleasure, were his creatures, and were for the most part Alexandrians, with a veneer therefore of culture, and so offensive to the Pharisees. The treatment of the high-priesthood is quite typical of the home policy of the king. As he had tossed aside with ruthless violence the old Sadducean nobles on the one hand, because of their sympathy with the Asmonean dynasty (see above, p. 420); so, on the other hand, he was just as little satisfied with the Pharisees. Their ideals went far beyond the concessions of the king, and the friendships enjoyed among the Pharisees were only exceptions.

When one considers that in addition to this contempt of the claims and the actual or imagined rights of the people, Herod oppressed them by imposing a heavy taxation, it may be readily supposed that his rule was endured amid much murmuring. All foreign glory could only be distasteful to the people so long as it was secured by the oppression of the citizens and accompanied by the disregarding of the laws of their fathers. Most of the Pharisees regarded the government of the Roman vassal king generally as not existing in right, and refused twice over the oath of allegiance which Herod demanded, first for himself and then for the emperor. The prevailing dissatisfaction sought vent once in the earlier period of his reign, about B.C. 25, in a conspiracy. Ten citizens conspired to murder the king in the theatre. Their plan, indeed, failed, since it was betrayed beforehand. When they were just on the eve of committing the deed, they were seized, dragged before Herod, and immediately condemned to death.

In order to hold the revolting populace in check, Herod had recourse on his part to means of violence; and so his reign the longer it lasted the more despotic it became. The fortresses, which were partly new erections of his own, partly old places made stronger, served not only to protect him from foreign foes, but also for keeping down his own people. The most important were Herodium, Alexandrium, Hyrcania, Machärus, Masada, to which may also be added the military colonies at Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in Perea (compare above, pp. 435–437). Especially to Hyrcania many political offenders were deported in order there to disappear for ever. As props of his government against foreign as well as home foes Herod had dependable mercenary troops, in which there were many Thracians, Germans, and Gauls.—But, finally, he sought by strict police regulations to nip in the bud every attempt at rebellion. All idle loitering about the streets, all common assemblies, yea, even meeting together on the street, was forbidden. And where anything of the kind was nevertheless done, the king had information about it immediately conveyed to him by his secret spies. He is said at times to have in his own person acted the part of the spy.

In order to be just, one must, however, admit that his government had also its good side. Among his buildings many were of a useful description. We need only mention the haven of Caesarea. By his strong hand were conditions created under the protection of which trade and travel became safe. He also for a time at least made attempts to win the hearts of his subjects by proofs of his magnanimity. Once, in the year B.C. 20, he remitted a third of the taxes; at another time, in B.C. 14, he remitted a fourth of them. Quite amazing was the energy with which he sought to put a stop to the famine which spread over the land in B.C. 25. He is said on that occasion to have converted into money even his own table plate.

But the people in presence of prevailing evils had only a very feeble and transitory gratitude for such benefits. And so, while upon the whole his reign was undoubtedly glorious, it was by no means happy.

The chief glory of his reign lay in his foreign policy, and in this department he undeniably achieved great success. He had secured the confidence of Augustus to such a degree, that by imperial favour the extent of his territory was about doubled.

This is the place to estimate, according to its most essential and characteristic feature, the position in the eye of the law of a rex socius in the Roman empire of that day. The dependence, in which all kings on this side of the Euphrates stood to the Roman power, was expressed most strikingly in this, that none could exercise royal authority and use the title of king without the express approval of the emperor, with or without confirmation by the senate. The title was, as a rule, granted only to such princes as reigned over a territory of considerable extent; the smaller princes were obliged to be satisfied with the title of tetrarch or such like. The permission extended only to the person of the individual who then received it, and ceased with his death. Hereditary monarchies were not generally recognised within the domain of the Roman authority. Even the son appointed by his father as his successor could enter upon his government only after his nomination had been confirmed by the emperor. This confirmation was refused if there appeared reasons for so doing, and then the territorial domain of the father was either granted to the son with restricted boundaries and with an inferior title, or given to another, or even taken under direct Roman administration as a province. All this may indeed be learned from the history of the Herodian dynasty, but it is also confirmed by all other records.—The title socius et amicus populi Romani (φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος Ῥωμαίων) seems as a special designation to have been granted only to individuals, so that not all who actually assumed this position had really formally received the title. The possession of Roman citizenship is indeed expressly witnessed to only on behalf of a few, but is to be assumed in regard to all as probable. The family of Herod came into possession of it early through Antipater, the father of Herod. From the time of Caligula, too, honorary senatorial rights (praetorian and consular rank) were for a time conferred upon confederate kings.—Their power was restricted especially in the following particulars: 1. They could neither conclude treaties with other States nor engage in a war on their own account, and so could exercise sovereign rights only within the boundaries of their own land. 2. They had the right of coining money only in a limited degree. The minting of gold coins seems to have been almost entirely forbidden; in many cases also the minting of silver coins. To the latter class belonged Herod and his successors; at least only copper coins have come down to us from the whole line of Herodian princes. This fact is particularly instructive, since it shows us that Herod by no means belonged to the most distinguished of those kings, as by many of his statements Josephus would lead us to suppose. 3. A special obligation resting on them was the providing of auxiliary troops in case of a war, as well as the protection of the frontiers of the empire against foreign attacks. Also contributions in money were on special occasions demanded. But a regular tribute seems not to have been raised for the kings during the time of the empire. Only of Antony is it said that he appointed kings ἐπὶ φόροις τεταγμένοις.—The rights of sovereignty which were left to dependent kings embraced, under the reservations specified, the whole administration of home affairs and the execution of the laws. They had unlimited power of life and death over their subjects. Their whole territory was generally not regarded as belonging to the province. Within the bounds of their territory they could impose taxes at will, and they administered the revenue independently. Their army also was under their own control, and was organized by themselves.

The position thus described, which afforded such abundant scope to the energy of the individual, was taken advantage of by Herod with all his might. He availed himself, as others ought also to have done, of every opportunity of presenting himself to the emperor and proving his devotion to him. Even in B.C. 30 he had several times visited Augustus. Ten years later, in B.C. 20, Augustus went again to Syria, and Herod did not lose the chance of paying him his respects. In B.C. 18 or 17 Herod fetched home his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, who were in Rome for their education, and was on that occasion very graciously received by the emperor. Subsequently he met with Augustus on two occasions, in the years B.C. 12 and 10–9. Herod was also on terms of friendly intercourse with Agrippa, the trusted friend and son-in-law of Augustus. While Agrippa was residing in Mytilene, B.C. 23–21, he there received a visit from Herod. And later still, in B.C. 15, Agrippa himself went to Judea and offered a hecatomb in the temple at Jerusalem. The people were so enthusiastic over the Roman who showed himself so friendly to the Jews, that they accompanied him amid shouts of good-will to his ship, strewing his way with flowers, and expressing admiration at his piety. In the spring of the following year, B.C. 14, Herod returned Agrippa’s visit; and as he knew that Agrippa had planned an expedition to the Crimea, he took with him a fleet in order to afford him assistance. At Sinope he met his noble friend and then went with him, after the warlike operations were finished, over a great part of Asia Minor, dispensing everywhere lavish gifts and granting petitions.—His relations with Augustus and Agrippa were so intimate that flatterers affirmed that Herod was dearest to Augustus next to Agrippa, and to Agrippa next to Augustus.

These Roman friendships also bore their fruits. Even as early as B.C. 30, when Herod was with Augustus in Egypt, he had obtained from him important enlargement of territory (see above, p. 428). New gifts were added at a later period. Herod had in B.C. 25, in the campaign of Aelius Gallus against Arabia, supplied 500 men of select auxiliary troops. There may possibly be some connection between this and the fact that soon afterwards, in B.C. 23, at the time when Herod sent his sons Alexander and Aristobulus for their education to Rome, he received the districts of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis, which previously had been occupied by nomad robber tribes, with whom the neighbouring tetrarch Zenodorus had made common cause. When some years later, in B.C. 20, Augustus visited Syria, he bestowed upon Herod the tetrarchy of Zenodorus, the districts of Ulatha and Panias, and the surrounding territories north and north-west of the lake of Gennesareth. At the same time Herod obtained permission to appoint his brother Pheroras tetrarch of Perea. And the unbounded confidence which Augustus had in him is shown conspicuously in this, that he, perhaps only during the period of Agrippa’s absence from the East (see above, p. 349 f.), gave orders to the procurators of Syria (Coele-Syria ?) to take counsel with Herod in regard to all important matters.

It is not left untold how Herod used his influence with the Roman governors to secure the Jews of the dispersion againat all oppression and infringement of their rights on the part of their non-Jewish neighbours. Thus the power of the Jewish king told in favour even of those Jews who were not immediately under his rule.

The period from B.C. 20 to B.C. 14 was decidedly the most brilliant in his reign. In spite of dependence upon Rome, his court, so far as outward grandeur was concerned, might bear comparison with the best times that the nation had seen. Internal affairs were indeed in a miserable state. Only by force could the people be brought to tolerate the semi-pagan rule of the Idumean; and only his despotic, iron hand prevented an uprising of the fermenting masses.

The last nine years of Herod, B.C. 13–4, constitute the period of domestic misery. Especially his unhappy quarrels with the sons of Mariamme cast a deep, dark shadow over this period.

Herod had a numerous family. In all he had ten wives, which was indeed, as Josephus points out, allowed by the law; but it affords a striking proof of his sensuality. His first wife was Doris, by whom he had one son, Antipater. Both were repudiated by Herod, and Antipater was allowed to appear at Jerusalem only at the great feasts. In the year B.C. 37, Herod married Mariamme, the grand-daughter of Hyrcanus (see above, p. 396), who bore him five children, three sons and two daughters. Of the sons, the youngest died at Rome; the two elder ones, Alexander and Aristobulus, are the heroes of the subsequent history. The third wife, whom Herod married about B.C. 24, was also called Mariamme. She was daughter of a famous priest belonging to Alexandria, who was appointed high priest by Herod just at the time when he married his daughter. By this wife he had a son called Herod. Of the other seven wives, carefully enumerated by Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 1. 3, and Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 4, only the Samaritan Malthoe, mother of Archelaus and Antipas, and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, the mother of Philip, are of interest to us.

About the year B.C. 23, Herod sent the sons of the first Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus, for their education to Rome, where they were hospitably entertained in the house of Asinius Pollio. Some five years later, in B.C. 18 or 17, . he himself fetched them home again, and from that time onward kept them at the court in Jerusalem. They would then be young men about seventeen or eighteen years of age. In accordance with the customs of the age and country, they were soon married. Alexander received a daughter of the Cappadocian king Archelaus, whose name was Glaphyra; Aristobulus had given him a daughter of Herod’s sister Salome, called Berenice. Although in this way the Asmonean and Idumean line of the Herodian family were connected together by affinity in the closest relationship, they still stood over against one another as two hostile camps. The sons of Mariamme, conscious of their royal blood, might well look down with a certain pride upon the Idumean relationship; and the Idumeans, pre-eminently the estimable Salome, returned the haughtiness of those Asmoneans by common abuse. And so even thus early, after the sons had no more than re-entered their father’s house, the knots began to be tied, which afterwards became so twisted that they could not be loosed. For a time, however, Herod did not allow these janglings to interfere with the love he had for his sons.

The evil conscience of the king, however, offered so fruitful a soil for such sowing of slanders, that they could not fail ultimately to take root and to bring forth fruit. He was obliged to admit to himself that the natural heritage of the sons was the desire to avenge the death of their mother. And as now Salome again and again pictured to him the danger which threatened from both, he at last began to believe it, and to look upon his sons with suspicion.

In order to provide what would counterbalance their aspiring projects, and to show them that there was still another in existence who might possibly be heir to the throne, he called back his exiled Antipater, and sent his sons for that reason to Rome, in company with Agrippa, who just then, in B.C. 13, was leaving the East, in order that he might present him to the emperor. But by so doing he put the weapon into the hand of the bitterest foe of his domestic peace. For Antipater from this time forth laboured incessantly, by calumniating his step-brothers, to carve out his way to the throne. The change in their father’s attitude was naturally not without effect upon Alexander and Aristobulus. They returned his suspicion with undisguised aversion, and already openly complained of the death of their mother, and of the injurious treatment to which they were subjected. Thus was the rift between father and sons becoming always deeper, until at last Herod, in B.C. 12, came to the conclusion to accuse his sons before the emperor. Along with the two he started on his journey, and appeared before the emperor at Aquileia as complainant against his sons. The mild earnestness of Augustus succeeded for that time in reconciling the opposing parties, and restoring again domestic peace. With thanks to the emperor, father and sons returned home; and Antipater also himself joined them, and pretended to rejoice in the reconciliation.

Scarcely had they reached home when the old game began afresh. Antipater, who now again was one of those in immediate attendance on the king, continued unweariedly the work of slander, and in this he was faithfully supported by the brother and sister of Herod, Pheroras and Salome. On the other hand, Alexander and Aristobulus assumed a more decidedly hostile attitude. Thus the peace between father and sons was soon again broken. The suspicion of the king, which from day to day received new fuel, became more and more morbid, and by and by reached a climax in a superstitious fear of ghosts. He now caused the adherents of Alexander to be subjected to the torture, at first unsuccessfully, until at last one, under the agony of torture, made injurious admissions. On the ground of these, Alexander was committed to prison.—When the Cappadocian king, Alexander’s father-in-law, heard of the unfortunate state of matters at the Jewish court, he began to fear for his daughter and son-in-law, and made a journey to Jerusalem in order, if at all possible, to bring about a reconciliation. He appeared before Herod very angry over his good-for-nothing son-in-law, threatened to take his daughter back again to his own house, and expressed himself so ferociously that Herod himself espoused the side of his son, and undertook his defence against Archelaus. By such a manœuvre the sly Cappadocian succeeded in bringing about the reconciliation which he desired, and was able to return home quite satisfied. Thus once again the wild storm was broken by a short temporary lull.

In that excited period Herod had also to contend with foreign enemies, and even with imperial disfavour. The free-booting inhabitants of Trachonitis wished to rid themselves of his strict and severe government, and somewhere about forty of the worst disturbers of the peace found ready shelter in the neighbouring parts of Arabia, where a certain Sylleus carried on the government in the place of the weak King Obodas. When Sylleus refused to deliver up these robbers, Herod undertook, with consent of the governor of Syria, Saturninus, a warlike expedition against Arabia, and enforced his rights. But now Sylleus agitated at Rome, represented the matter as an unlawful breach of national peace, and was able thereby to bring Herod seriously into disfavour with the emperor.—In order to justify himself in regard to his conduct, Herod sent an embassy to Rome; and when this was not successful, he sent a second, under the leadership of Nicolas of Damascus.

Meanwhile the family discord was with rapid strides approaching its tragical end. The reconciliation, as might have been expected, was not of long duration. In order to make the unhappiness complete, there now arrived at the court a worthless Lacedæmonian, Eurykles, who inflamed the father against the sons and the sons against the father. At the same time, all the other mischief-makers continued their work. At last matters came to such a pass that Herod cast Alexander and Aristobulus into prison, and laid a complaint against them before the emperor of being concerned in treasonable plots.

Nicolas of Damascus had meanwhile accomplished the task of his mission, and had again won over the emperor to Herod. When, therefore, the messengers bearing the accusation reached Rome, they found Augustus already in a favourable mood, and at once spread out before him their documents. Augustus gave to Herod absolute power to proceed in this matter as he thought best, but advised him to summon to Berytus a justiciary court consisting of Roman officials and his own friends, and to have the charges against his sons investigated by it.

Herod accepted the advice of the emperor. The court almost unanimously pronounced the sentence of death. Only the governor of Syria, Saturninus, and his three sons were of another mind.—Still it was doubtful whether Herod would carry out the sentence. An old soldier, Teron, therefore ventured publicly to sue for favour to the condemned. But the old man and three hundred others, who were denounced as adherents of Alexander and Aristobulus, were put to death, and the sentence was now without delay carried into execution. At Sebaste (Samaria), where thirty years before Mariamme’s marriage had been celebrated, her sons were executed upon the gibbet, probably in B.C. 7.

But such proceedings failed utterly in restoring peace to Herod’s household. Antipater was now indeed all-powerful at court, and enjoyed the unconditional confidence of his father. But this did not satisfy him. He wished to have the government wholly in his own hand, and held secret conferences with Herod’s brother Pheroras, tetrarch of Perea, at which it was suspected that nothing good was done. Salome, the old serpent, had soon discovered these ongoings, and reported the matter to the king. And so the relations of Antipater and his father soon became strained. Antipater, in order to avoid a conflict, found it convenient to allow himself to be sent to Rome. That Herod did not meanwhile entertain any serious suspicion against him is shown by his will, in which even at that time he nominated Autipater his successor on the throne; only in the event of Antipater dying before himself was Herod, the son of Mariamme the high priest’s daughter, named his successor.

While Antipater was in Rome, Pheroras died; and by this also Antipater’s fate was sealed. Some freedmen of Pheroras went to Herod and showed him that there was a suspicion that Pheroras had been poisoned, and that Herod should investigate the matter more closely. On examination it came out that poison certainly had been present, that it was sent by Antipater, but that it was intended, not for Pheroras, but was only given to him by Antipater in order that he might administer it to Herod. Herod also now learned from the female slaves of Pheroras’ household all the utterances which had escaped Antipater at those secret conclaves, his complaining about the long life of the king, about the uncertainty of his prospects, and other such things. Herod could now no longer entertain any doubt as to the deadly intentions of his favourite son. Under all sorts of false pretences, he recalled him from Rome in order to put him on trial at home. Antipater, who anticipated no trouble, returned, and to his great surprise—for although since the discovery of his plots seven months had passed, he had heard nothing of the matter—he was on his arrival committed to prison in the king’s palace. Next day he was brought forth to trial before Varus, the governor of Syria. As in face of the manifest proofs brought against him he could say nothing in defence of himself, Herod had him put in fetters, and made a report of the matter to the emperor.

Herod was now almost seventy years of age. His days were indeed already numbered. He suffered from a disease from which he could not recover. In a new will, which he now executed, he named his youngest son Antipas, the son of the Samaritan Malthace, as his successor.

During his sickness he could not but perceive how anxiously the people longed to be delivered from his yoke, and yearned for the moment when they would be emancipated from his heathenish government. As soon as the news got abroad that his disease was incurable, two rabbis, Judas the son of Sariphäus, and Matthias the son of Margaloth, stirred up the people to tear down the offensive eagle from the temple gate. Only too readily they found an audience, and amid great uproar the work pleasing to God was accomplished. Meanwhile Herod, in spite of his sickness, was still strong enough to pass sentences of death, and to have the principal leaders of the tumult burnt alive.

The days of the old king were now at an end. The disease was always becoming worse, and dissolution rapidly approached. The baths of Callirrhoë, on the other side of the Jordan, to which the king had gone, no longer benefited him. When he had returned to Jericho, he is said to have given orders that upon his death the most distingnished men of the nation, whom he had caused to be that up in the arena of that place, should he cut down, so that there might be a great lamentation as he passed away. Amid all the pains which his disease caused him, he lived long enough to have the satisfaction of accomplishing the death of his son Antipater, the chief instigator of his domestic misery. Just in the last days of his life the permission of the emperor arrived for the execution of Antipater, which soon afterwards was carried out.

A few days before his death Herod once again altered his will, for he named Archelaus, the older son of Malthace, king, his brother Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip, the son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem, tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Panias.

At last, five days after the execution of Antipater, Herod died at Jericho in B.C. 4, unwept by those of his own house, and hated by all the people.—A pompous funeral procession accompanied the royal corpse from Jericho, a distance of eight furlongs, in the direction of Herodium, where it was laid in its last resting-place.

The end of his reign was bloody as its beginning had been. The brighter portion lay in the middle. But even during his better days he was a despot, and upon the whole, with all the glory of his reign, “he was still only a common man” (Hitzig, ii. 559). The title of “the Great,” by which we are accustomed to distinguish him from his more feeble descendants of the same name, is only justified when it is used in this relative sense.








Copyright ©1999-2016 e-Catholic2000.com