[[scanned by Darren Knop and revised by R. A. Kraft, 31 March 2003
and subsequently;
permission for producing an updated electronic copy has been requested
from the publisher]]
[[instructions
for proofreading and editing may be found on the Harnack
TOC page]]
Part I: Judaism from 200 BCE to 200CE
Part II: The Books of the Apocrypha [not included in this project]
Original Foreword
Foreword to the updated edition (Robert A. Kraft)
Formatting and conventions : BCE/CE, ch.v
punctuation,
Content and footnotes:
calculated 1 silver talent = $150,000 USD value minimum (15 years
wages), to a quarter million
Supporting electronic links
The
independence of the Judeans
[see also this simpler
map] came to an end in 586 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar
[for more details see this
article] destroyed Jerusalem and deprived the Davidic dynasty [from
the 10th century BCE] of its throne. Except for the brief
Maccabean interlude (141-63 BCE), the Jews never again (until 1948) had
a government of their own which was not subject to alien
authority. Nevertheless, noteworthy among ancient nations, the
Jews did not lose their sense of identity ("nationality") even when
they were deprived of land and state
A small country on the main line of communication between the valley of the Nile and the lands of the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers [sometimes called "the fertile crescent"], Palestine \1a/ was destined to be the battleground of the great empires surrounding her: Egyptians, Hittites, Syrians, Assyrians, Babylonians fought for the possession of this buffer state, until it passed under the rule of the great empires of the Persians (538-332 BCE), of the Greeks (332-141 BCE), of the Romans (63 BCE-395 CE), of the Byzantines (395-636 CE, except for the period 614-628 when Palestine was ruled by Chosroes II, the last great Sassanian king of Persia), of the Muslim Caliphs (636-1099 CE). Following the ephemeral kingdom of the Crusaders (1099-1187), after various vicissitudes, Palestine was governed by the Muslim Ottoman Turks (1516-1917, except for the brief Egyptian rule in the years 1833-1840) and the British (since 1917; as a mandate of the League of Nations, from April 25, 1920, to May 15, 1948). It was only when no great empire had the urge and the capacity to conquer Palestine that the country enjoyed a breathing spell under its own native rulers: this actually happened only before 1500 BCE ("Canaanite" clans), then while the Israelites and Judeans were in power (ca. 1150-586 BCE) and finally under the Jewish Hasmoneans (141-63 BCE).
\a/"Palestine" is an ancient designation for the area in which early
Judaism developed, and will be retained here without any intention of
fanning contemporary sparks about the appropriateness of the term at
the turn of the 21st century.
The significance of the Jews in history (aside from their contributions to culture) is primarily due to their unparalleled success in preserving a strong ethnic selfconsciousness ("national feeling"), based on literature and religion, after the loss of political independence. We may even say that after 586 BCE the history of the Jews is primarily a process of trial and error leading to ethnic ("national") survival; at last about 200 CE all other means for the preservation of the nation were gradually subsumed by the emergence of rabbinic Judaism. Military uprisings, apocalyptic dreams of a future triumph over the gentiles, avoidance of mixed marriages, punctilious performance of the temple rites, and other [[6]] remedies eventually proved less effective than the study and observance of the law, as promoted in school and synagogue. The Jews survived primarily as a "people of the book"; their history after 70 CE is primarily known through the history of their literature. Their self-preservation as a people depended on the preservation of their national religion, the practice of which included the observance of ancient customs which originally did not always have a direct connection with the worship: thus dietary laws, sabbath, and circumcision were ancient practices the original significance of which had been forgotten for centuries; but by remaining faithful to such customs inherited from their ancestors the Jews incidentally separated themselves from "the gentiles" and in turn often were regarded with scorn or hostility by other subjects of the hellenistic and Roman rulers.
This liberalism of the Persian rulers, nay, their special manifestations of favor toward the Jews,\1/ are conspicuous in Nehemiah's work (444 BCE), when he revived the pitiful congregation in Jerusalem through restoration of the city's fortifications (apparently dismantled by a hostile neighboring people) and through social and spiritual reorganization.
\1/ See B. Meissner, Die Achämenidenkönige und das Judentum (Sitzungber. d. Preuss. Akad., Phil.-hist. Kl., 1938, pp. 6-26). A tragic illustration of Persian concern for the Jews may be detected at Elephantine in Upper Egypt, where a Jewish colony thrived during the Persian rule of Egypt but appears to have been exterminated when Egypt became independent in 404 BCE. [See Elephantine temple, papyri -- cite Grabbe?]
\1a/The debate about the historical basis of the Ezra traditions continues; see ???.
Owing to historical circumstances, two apparently contradictory tendencies appear in Judaism during the Persian period. On the one hand, the "second Isaiah" proclaimed that YHWH ("Jehovah")\1b/ was the only God in existence, hence his worship should eventually become the sole religion of mankind. On the other hand, however, the apocalypses proclaimed the future subjection of all nations to the Jews and the law served to separate the Jews from the gentiles. This contradiction appears in all religions which claim sole and absolute validity: of necessity they are utterly intolerant of other cults, but at the same time zealous in missionary work leading to the conversion of everyone to the true religion. Such attitudes, unless clothed with great tact and circumspection, inevitably provoke animosity on the part of outsiders: the hostility of many Alexandrians and others against the Jews in the hellenistic and Roman periods is in a sense the reaction to Jewish enthusiasm and conviction.
\1b/On the "tetragrammaton" or special four-lettered name of Israel's diety, see ???.
In these remarks on the Palestinian Jews during the Persian period, the familiar traditional topics of the "exile," the "return," and the "restoration" have been deliberately omitted, as also the work of Ezra. These notions we owe to the Chronicler, writing about the middle of the third century BCE. They reflect his dogmas rather than his historical information, and they have prevailed so long simply because few historical sources have been available aside from Haggai, Zechariah, and Nehemiah. These writings, however, sufficiently indicate that the actual course of events probably was far different from the idealized picture conceived by the Chronicler's vivid imagination. All that can be said is that an insignificant minority of the Judeans was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, that even if Cyrus allowed the Babylonian Jews to return, extremely few were [[8]] sufficiently heroic to leave a prosperous country in which they were sinking roots and acquiring wealth to go to the far-from-fruitful ruined homeland around Jerusalem. Thus Judea remained destitute until after Nehemiah had come to reorganize and encourage the dejected congregation depicted in the book of Malachi.
1. Hellenistic Domination
(332-175 BCE)
With lightning speed Alexander of Maccdon conquered the Persian Empire of Darius III. His decisive victories were at the Granicus River near Troy (334), at Issus (333), and at Gaugamela near Arbela (331); Tyre was captured after a siege of seven months and Gaza fell after two months in 332; in the same year Jerusalem surrendered to the Greeks without a struggle.\2/ So Alexander "advanced to the ends of the earth, and took spoils from many peoples; and the earth was quiet before him" (1 Macc. 1.3; cf. Dan. 8.5-7). But the storm broke at the death of the young conqueror in 323. "And when he [the he-goat] was strong, the great horn [Alexander] was broken; and in its place there came up four others [cf. LXX] [Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus I, and Ptolemy I] toward the four winds of heaven" (Dan. 8.8; cf. 11.3f).
During this time (323-301) Palestine, like other buffer states located between contending kingdoms, passed in rapid succession from the possession of Ptolemy (who took it from Laomedon in 320) to that of Antigonus (315), and so forth. Ptolemy defeated Demetrius, son of Antigonus, at Gaza (312), but lost Palestine again a year later: the victory, however, allowed Seleucus to reconquer Babylonia and thus found the Seleucid kingdom. The year 312-311 fixes the Seleucid Era, [[9]] according to which events are dated in 1 Maccabees (1.10; 7.1; 10.1; etc.) and in later histories.
But after the battle of Ipsus, Ptolemy occupied Palestine and Phoenicia, which remained under the rule of the Ptolemies of Egypt for over a century -- until Antiochus III the Great (223-187) conquered these lands for the Seleucids of Syria (Dan. 11.13-16) through his victories at Gaza (200) and Panium or Banias (198), where Caesarea Philippi was to be built.
Jewish history under the Ptolemies is utterly obscure. The author of Dan. 11.6-12 (our best historical source, as explained by Porphyry and Jerome) knows of no events in this century other than matrimonial difficulties and mutual hostilities between Ptolemies and Seleucids. The Jews were apparently granted considerable autonomy and were allowed to develop their culture relatively undisturbed, as long as they paid the taxes and remained submissive.
2. The Maccabean Rebellion (175-142)
In a keen analysis of the historical sources, Elias Bickermann (Der Gott der Makkabäer, pp. 17-35. Berlin, 1937) discovered four conflicting explanations of the Maccabean rebellion, dictated by bias or circulated as propaganda.
1. Pagan Theories.
a. The Seleucid theory justified the oppressive measures of Antiochus
Epiphanes through a previous rebellion of the Jews, who had sided with
the Ptolemies against Antiochus during his Egyptian campaign of 168.
This version transfers the plundering of the temple in 169 to 168, when
Jerusalem was attacked and Judaism proscribed. Thus the sacrilegious
robbing of a temple was justified in the eyes of the Greeks and Romans.
This version was presented presumably [[10]] in lost parts of Polybius,
in allusions by Tacitus, and in sections of 2 Maccabees and Josephus.
b. The Anti-Semitic theory is an interpretation of the preceding one and is found in Diodorus 34.1 and Tacitus, Histories V. 8; it is attacked by Josephus (Against Apion 11.7 [90-97]). According to this version, Antiochus led a crusade against Jewish barbarism as the champion of hellenic culture.
2. Jewish Theories.
a. In opposition to the official Seleucid explanation, Daniel, 2 Macc.
1.7, and in a measure 2 Maccabees in general, regard Antiochus as
insignificant (being merely, in Isaiah's words, "the rod of God's
anger") and attribute the misfortunes of the Jews to a divine judgment
against them: not Antiochus, but the Lord punishes the Jews (cf. 2
Macc. 5.17f).
b. In contrast to the anti-Semitic theory, 1 Maccabees (which was
written to glorify the Maccabees) regards the persecution of the Jews
as an outburst of abominable pagan fury abetted by cooperative Jews:
"And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus
Epiphanes...there went out of Israel wicked men . . ." (1 Macc. 1.10f).
The world is rent asunder into God's righteous people and their wicked
opponents; the gulf between them is impassable. Israel, the innocent
victim of such attack, is certain that God will destroy its foes (1
Macc. 4.8-11).
These four theories, as Bickermann shows (pp. 36-49), have been variously advanced by theologians and historians through the centuries, down to our own time. On the basis of our sources, we may attempt to summarize the course of events impartially (if possible) as follows:
While in 180 Seleucus IV had failed to obtain large sums from the Jews through Heliodorus' ill-fated attempt to plunder the private funds deposited in the temple (assuming a kernel of truth in 2 Macc. 3),\3/ Antiochus IV Epiphanes\4/ found it more profitable to sell the office of Jewish high priest to the highest eligible bidder. Soon after his accession, Antiochus deposed the high priest Onias and appointed in his place his brother Joshua (who took the Greek name of Jason). Onias had faced the opposition of the Jewish Tobiads, strong supporters of the Seleucids and of the hellenization of the Jews. Onias offended his friends, the opponents of the Tobiads, by going to Antioch for help, thus making it easy for Jason, the most ardent of the Jewish hellenizers, to supplant him. Jason collaborated with Antiochus not only in raising funds but also in furthering Greek [[11]] customs among the Jews, in accordance with the king's policy to introduce a uniform Greek culture throughout his realm (1 Macc. 1.41-43). For Jason not only paid to Antiochus 440 talents of silver for the office of high priest, but he also promised 150 more if he were allowed to build a gymnasium and an ephebeum (2 Macc. 4.8f.).\5/
\3/ See E. Bickermann, "Hé1iodore au temple de Jerusalem" (Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientales et slaves VII [1939-44] 5-40).
\4/ "[Theòs] epifanhs" means "[the god] who manifests [or reveals] himself." Polybius (XXVI, 10; quoted by Atheneaus X, p. 439) reports the sarcastic pun "epimanhs" (madman).
\5/ It is generally assumed that the last words of 2 Macc. 4.9 mean that Jason also petitioned for the Jews of Jerusalem the title of "Antiochenes," or citizen of Antioch, the capital of the kingdom. Another explanation is that Jerusalem should be named "Antioch." E. Bickermann (Gott der Makkabäer, pp. 59-65), however, argues that these interpretations are not correct: the text means "to register the Antiochenes in Jerusalem," i.e., to organize them into a políteuma or dhmos (a corporation with certain civic rights), not merely a club or an association.
\6/ When Jason sent a gift of three hundred drachmas to Tyre on the
occasion of the quinquennial games in honor of the divinized Heracles,
the envoys refused to have the money used for the pagan sacrifices and
had it assigned to outfitting the navy (2 Macc. 4.18-20).
\7/ Simon (and consequently Menelaus) was a Benjamite according to the Greek of 2 Macc. 3.4, but a member of the Bilgah (Neh. 12.5) priestly family according to the Latin text. On the other hand, "Benjamin" may be a corruption of "Miniamin" an order of priests (cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. 1, pp. 52-58.) F. M. Abel defends the reading "Bilgah" ("Simon de la tribu de Bilga" in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. 1, pp. 52-58 [Studi e Testi, vol. 121]. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1946).
A year later (168) Antiochus was achieving military success in his second campaign against Egypt when the Roman legate, Popilius Laenas, handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate and forced him to withdraw his troops at once (Polybius 29.11; cf. Dan. 11.29f). The bad temper of Antiochus was not improved by reports that Jerusalem was seething with tumults (2 Macc. 5.11). What actually happened is not entirely clear, but the account in 2 Macc. 5.5-8, which is our sole source of information, is probably based on fact. The Jews were divided into two parties: the great majority, opposed to hellenization and to Antiochus, was pro-Egyptian at heart; the Tobiads and their supporters, under the leadership of Menelaus, were loyal to Antiochus and consequently anti-Egyptian. Under these circumstances it was not difficult for Jason, when Jerusalem was stirred by the false rumor that Antiochus was dead, to seize the city with a force of only one thousand men. He presented himself, we may surmise, as the leader of the legitimate Oniads and forced the usurping Tobiads to seek refuge in the citadel. But, from the partisan perspective of the author of 2 Maccabees and many subsequent tellings, Jason soon threw off the mask and revealed himself as animated by self-seeking ambition rather than by a constructive national program: he soon began to slaughter without mercy the very citizens who were opposed to Menelaus (presumably because they detested Jason's ardor for hellenism). Finally driven out friendless, he wandered about for a time and died among the Spartans in Greece, who were believed to be ancient relatives of the Jews. Whether Antiochus was right or wrong in regarding these disorders as open rebellion against his rule, it is generally admitted that the commotion arose from party politics within Judaism more than from the conflict between Judaism and pagan hellenism.
\8/ The name "Apollonius" is not given in 1 Macc. 1.29, where through an error "collector of tribute" is given instead of "Mysarch" (J. Wellhausen, Nachricht. d. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. zu Göttingen 1905, p. 161).
\9/ On the location of the Acra see E. Schürer, Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 198, n. 37; also the map Plate XVII, C in The Westminster Historical Atlas of the Bible edited by G. E. Wright and F. V. Filson (Philadelphia, 1945).
Soon after (or in 167, a year later, according to E. Bickermann), Antiochus Epiphanes, realizing that ultimately the Jewish opposition to him was rooted in religion, decided to proscribe traditional Judaism. As the Samaritan temple was dedicated to Zeus Xenios, so the temple in Jerusalem became a sanctuary of the Olympian Zeus (2 Macc. 6.1 f). "The abomination of desolation" (Dan. 9.27; 11.31; 12.11; 1 Macc. 1.54) is a sarcastic distortion of the Semitic name ("the Baal of Heaven") of the Olympian Zeus and indicates a small Greek altar in his honor erected over the large altar of sacrifices. Swine were offered thereon in December, 168. The Jewish high priest Menelaus and his subordinate staff ceased to officiate in the Jerusalem temple: the Jewish temple cultus had come to an end.
At the same time all religious observances ordained in the law of Moses were forbidden in Palestine (but not elsewhere in the Seleucid kingdom) under penalty of death -- notably circumcision, sabbath rest, and celebration of the festivals. The mere possession of a scroll of the law was a capital offense, for the edict ordered the destruction of every copy of the Pentateuch. Conversely, the worship of heathen gods became compulsory, and altars for this purpose were erected all over the land.\10/
\10/ For all these measures see especially 1 Macc. 1.41-64 and 2 Macc. 6.1-11; and also Dan. 7.25; 8.11f.; 9.27; 11.31-33; 12.11; Josephus, Antiquities 12.5, 4 (251-254).
The reaction of the observant Jews to these detestable measures and to the resulting religious persecution -- among the first in recorded history -- was three-fold. Some, either through inclination or through fear, forsook the religion of their fathers and complied with the royal edict (1 Macc. 1.43, 52). The Hasidim, or Pious (Asidaioi in 1 Macc. 7.13; 2 Macc. 14.6), on the contrary, offered passive resistance to the new law and, either secretly in the towns or openly in the wilderness, continued to obey the Mosaic statutes, preferring to die rather than violate even the least of the dietary commandments (1 Macc. 1.62f.). Their motto is well expressed in the book of Daniel (3.17 f), which a Hasid composed to [[14]] encourage loyalty to the Lord at any cost during the persecution: whether their God would deliver them from the king's hand or not, they would not serve his gods. Some of the Hasidim died valiantly as martyrs for their traditions (1 Macc. 1.60f.; 2.29-38; Dan. 11.32b-33, 35) and thus became the heroes of the earliest "golden legend" (in 2 Macc. 6.10-7.42; cf. 4 Macc.). Finally, a third group, chiefly rural, under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus decided to defy openly the royal edict and to fight for their traditions.\11/
\11/ In principle there was an irreconcilable difference between the Hasidim, relying on divine help, and the Maccabees, relying on military and diplomatic measures. Consequently, the Hasidim at first mistrusted Judas and his "little help" (Dan. 11.43), observing that he welcomed to his ranks men whose valor excelled their faith and morals. But eventually, during the emergency, the Hasidim gave their support to Judas (1 Macc. 2.42-44; cf. 7.12f.; 2 Macc. 14.6) and even consented to fight in self-defense on the sabbath (1 Macc. 2.40f.): thus, as the "Dream Visions" section of 1 Enoch (90.6-9) says symbolically, horns grew on the little lambs. But after 164 the Hasidim and Maccabees disagreed more and more.
After the king's troops had massacred about a thousand Hasidim on the sabbath (2.29-38), Mattathias and the Hasidim decided to fight for their lives on the sabbath; they went through the country attacking compromised Jews and pagans, pulling down altars, circumcising infants, and generally upholding the observance of the law of Moses (2.39-48).
The Seleucid Greek authorities underestimated the valor of Judas, who "was like a lion in his deeds, like a lion's whelp roaring for his prey" (3.4), and the difficulties of the mountainous terrain, ideally suited to the guerrilla warfare in which Judas excelled. So the Maccabees were successful in defeating the Syrians under Apollonius, whose sword Judas carried henceforth (3.10-12), and in driving back Seron at the pass of Bethhoron (3.13-24). While in 166-165 Antiochus Epiphanes was engaged in a campaign against the Parthians (3.31, 37), Lysias as his regent in Syria (3.32-36) sent Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias, at the head of a considerable army, against Judas (3.38-41). After religious and military preparations for a battle which seemed hopeless, Judas met the enemy at Emmaus (3.42-60). While Gorgias was marching against the Jewish [[15]] position with a strong body of troops, Judas suddenly attacked the enemy camp at Emmaus; Gorgias, upon his return, seeing the camp in flames and Judas ready for battle, fled into Philistia (4.1-25).
\12/ H. Ewald (Geschichte des volkes Israel, 3rd ed., vol. 4, p. 407), followed by J. Wellhausen (Israel. und Jüd. Gesch., 7th ed., p. 245, n. 1), regards Dedication (and the Geman Christmas) as a winter solstice feast. See also R. Kittel, Die hellenistische Mysterienreligion und das Alte Testament, pp. 17-24 (BWAT N.F. 7), Stuttgart, 1924. W. W. Hyde, Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire, pp. 249-256 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1946).
The
achievement of religious restoration should have marked the end of the
hostilities begun for this purpose, particularly since Antiochus
Epiphanes died in 164. It appears, in reality, that the Hasidim
became again pacifists. But the Maccabees, as J. Wellhausen says,
"did not turn immediately from wolves into lambs." They soon had
occasion to wage war again because of pogroms in regions where the Jews
were a small minority, because the Acra continued to dominate
Jerusalem, and because Judea was still subject to the Seleucids.
The book of Daniel reflects only the struggle for religious
freedom before 164, the book of Judith both that and the war for
political independence ended in 141, and finally the book of Esther the
campaigns for vengeance against the enemies of the Jews following 141.
After fortifying the temple hill in Jerusalem and Beth-zur at the southern border of Judea (1 Macc. 4.60f.), Judas fought successfully [[16]] against neighboring peoples, the Idumeans, the "children of Baean" (unknown), and the Ammonites (5.1-8). The gentiles in Gilead (Transjordania) and Galilee countered by persecuting the Jews in their midst, until Simon attacked them in Galilee and Judas in Gilead. The Jews in both regions were brought to Judea for safety (5.9-54). At the same time, however, Joseph and Azarias, who had been left in command in Jerusalem, were defeated by Gorgias when they attempted to attack Jamnia (5.55-64). During a second campaign against the Edomites, Judas took Hebron and, in Philistia, destroyed the temples of Ashdod (Azotus; 5.65-68).
The hellenizing party led by Alcimus was again in control (9.23-27), but the Maccabees chose Judas's brother Jonathan as their military leader (9.28-31). For the moment, however, they could merely live as freebooters in the wilderness of Tekoa (9.32-34), as David had in his outlaw days: once when robbed, they raided in revenge (9.35-42). Bacchides was unable to cope with Jewish guerrilla bands (9.43-49), but he fortified [[17]] a number of garrison towns in Judea and took hostages (9.50-53). Alcimus tore down the wall in the temple courts separating Jews and gentiles, but died soon after; and Bacchides returned to Antioch (9.54-57). At the request of the hellenizers, Bacchides returned two years later (in 158), but could accomplish nothing against Jonathan; so made peace with him and never came back (9.58-72). Thus during five years (158-153) Jonathan was left undisturbed in Michmash and consolidated his power (9.73). Except for a few aristocrats, the Jewish nation was generally opposed to hellenization and accepted more and more the leadership of the Hasmoneans who succeeded Judas. At the same time the Seleucids, through their dynastic quarrels, only became less and less able to lend support to unpopular hellenizing priests, but were forced to make concessions to the Hasmoneans in order to obtain their help.
An Ephesian youth of low birth, Balas, pretended to be the son of Antiochus Epiphanes. Aided by the enemies of Demetrius I (Attalus II king of Pergamum, Ptolemy VI Philometor of Egypt, Ariarathes V of Cappadocia), officially recognized by the Roman Senate, and supported by the Syrians opposed to Demetrius, Balas took the name of Alexander and in 153 began his fight for the Seleucid throne. In this emergency Demetrius granted Jonathan the power to raise troops and free the hostages, withdrew the Seleucid garrisons in Judea except those at Beth-zur and in the Acra, and allowed Jonathan to fortify Jerusalem (10.1-14). But Balas Alexander offered far greater concessions to Jonathan for his help; he appointed him high priest and sent him a purple robe and a golden crown. So Jonathan, clad in the sacred vestments, officiated at Feast of Tabernacles in 153 (10.15-21) and wisely rejected all the other alluring promises of Demetrius I (10.22-47), who died fighting in 150 (10.48-50). In the same year Jonathan was greatly honored: when Balas married Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy Vl, he was appointed strategos and meridarches (military and civil governor) of Judea (10.51-66).
Jonathan remained loyal to his benefactor even after a legitimate claimant to the throne, Demetrius II Nicator (son of Demetrius I), appeared in 147. When Apollonius, the governor of Coele-Syria, passed over to Demetrius and challenged Jonathan, the latter was victorious at Joppa and Ashdod (where the temple of Dagon was destroyed), and received from Balas the city of Ekron as his reward (10.67-89). But when Ptolemy VI turned against his son-in-law Balas and took away from him his daughter Cleopatra, giving her to Demetrius II in marriage, Jonathan's help could not save Balas, and he was assassinated in 145 (11.1-19).
Jonathan, however, felt strong enough to besiege the Acra and to demand of Demetrius, as the price of lifting the siege, three districts of [[18]] Samaria and complete freedom from taxation, except for a payment of 300 talents (11.20-37). Such concessions, soon to be increased, indicated how low had sunk the power of the Seleucids -- and how cleverly Jonathan took advantage of their plight.
\13/ According to 1 Macc. 11.74b-12.23, Jonathan interrupted this
campaign to go to Jerusalem and send friendly embassies to Rome and
Sparta. The dossier in ch. 12 is no less suspect to some scholars
than the one in ch. 8. On Beth-zur see: O.R. Sellers and W. F.
Albright in BASOR No. 43 (October 1931), pp. 12-13; O. R Sellers,
The Citadel of Beth-zur (Philadelphia, 1933).
\14/ The excavations on the site have disclosed a curious sidelight of Simon's occupation of Gezer. One of the gentiles in the city, obviously forced by Simon to work at the construction of a government palace, inscribed an imprecation on a stone that he placed into the wall. The incription, written carelessly in Greek, reads as follows: "(Says) Pampras, 'May fire (?) follow up Simon's palace.'" See: R.A. Stewart Macalister, The Excavations of Gezer, vol. 1, pp. 211f (London, 1912).
3. The Rule of the Hasmoneans (142-63)
The chief merits of Simon (according to 14.4f, and the ode in his honor in 14.6-15) were the securing of Joppa as a Jewish harbor and a conquest of Gazara, Beth-zur, and the Acra: thus he made Israel prosperous, pious, and strong. In September, 141, a grateful nation conferred upon Simon and his descendants the legitimate and permanent authority as ruling high priests (14.25-49):\15/ thus the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty received national recognition. As the first independent ruler of his family, Simon was probably the first to establish an era according to which documents were dated (13.42) -- possibly the era of Jerusalem as an independent city rather than of Simon's first year of rule -- indeed the first to be recognized by the Roman Senate as a friendly, independent ruler (14.16-19, 24; 15.15-24).\16/
\15/ Psalm 110 (109), which in Hebrew has the acrostic "Simeon" and contains the divine oracle, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (the Hasmoneans were not sons of Aaron), may have been composed for this occasion.
\16/ O. R. Sellers and W. F. Albright (BASOR No. 43, p. 13) have concluded from the excavations at Beth-zur that Simon did not coin money, despite 1 Macc. 15.6. H. Willrich (ZAW N.F. 10 [1933] 78f.) agrees with this conclusion.
When in 138 Demetrius II, after long wars with the Parthian king Mithridates I, was taken prisoner, his brother Antiochus VII Sidetes wrote from Rhodes confirming the authority of Simon (15.1-9) and besieged Tryphon in Dor, Phoenicia (15.10-14, 37). Certain of his final victory over Tryphon, Sidetes, however, refused Simon's help and ordered him to return the conquered cities of Joppa and Gazara, as also the Acra in Jerusalem, or pay for them an indemnity of 1,000 talents of silver (15.25-31). Simon offered only 100 talents (15.32-36; estimated value of around 15 million US dollars in the year 2000). So Cendebeus was sent against the Jews, but Judas and John, the sons of Simon, defeated him, and the attack was not renewed in Simon's lifetime (15.38-16.10). Like his brothers, Simon died a violent death: his son-in-law Ptolemy, governor of Jericho, assassinated him together with his two sons Mattathias and Judas in 135 (16.11-17). But John Hyrcanus, who was in Gazara, was warned in time and became high priest in the place of his father (16.18).John Hyrcanus (135-104) \17/ began his rule inauspiciously, but succeeded in ending it with the Jewish state at the height of its power. He failed [[20]] to punish Ptolemy because the latter was holding his mother as a hostage. Worse still, in the year 130 (or, less probably, 134) Antiochus VII Sidetes, who had been defied by Simon, attacked Hyrcanus in person, devastated Judea, besieged Hyrcanus in Jerusalem, and forced his capitulation and the payment of a considerable indemnity. Soon afterward Hyrcanus was forced to accompany Sidetes in his campaign against the Parthians. But Sidetes' death in 129, when he threw himself from a cliff to escape captivity, was fortunate for the Jews. Then ended, however, the rule of the Seleucids east of the Euphrates.
\17/ Our principal sources of information for Hyrcanus (since his history, mentioned in 1 Macc. 16.23f, has not survived) are Josephus, Antiquities 13.8-10 and War 1.2.
The unpopular weakling Demetrius II, who had been freed by the Parthians, now ruled in place of his late able brother, Antiochus VII Sidetes. Stupidly Demetrius began to war against Ptolemy VII Physcon, and the latter, according to accepted tactics, set up against him a fraudulent pretender who, like Balas, called himself Alexander, but in Syria was known as Zabinas (meaning "bought and paid for"). Demetrius was defeated and was assassinated on the point of landing at Tyre (125). His son Antiochus VIII Grypus (125-113, 111-96), however, succeeded in ridding himself of Zabinas (122), but was driven away in 113 by his cousin Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, son of Sidetes (113-111, 111-95). Even when Grypus occupied most of Syria in 111, Cyzicenus remained the master of Coele-Syria until his death in 95.
Such dynastic dissensions were most advantageous to Hyrcanus, who became again an independent ruler at the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes (129) and, as Josephus (Antiquities 13.10.1) says, contributed nothing to later Seleucid kings either as a subject or as a friend. Like his predecessors, he negotiated with the deceitful pretender (Zabinas) rather than with the legitimate Seleucids. In any case, Hyrcanus knew how to take advantage of the plight of that dynasty to enlarge the borders of his limited province. The Hasmoneans had progressed from the attainment of religious freedom to the elimination of the traditional high priestly aristocracy, to political independence, and, after some attempts by Jonathan and Simon with limited results, to conquest under Hyrcanus.
With the manifest intention of restoring to the Jews the kingdom of David in its whole extent, John Hyrcanus fought successfully in the east, north, and south. After conquering Medaba and Samaga in Transjordania, he captured Shechem and the Samaritan temple on Gerizim, subjugating the Samaritan sect. The Idumeans were subjected and forced to become circumcized and to adopt Jewish ways -- and "since that time they have continued to be Jews" (Antiquities 13.[9.1]258). The attack on Samaria, which was a Greek city, caused him more trouble, but after a siege of one year he razed it to the ground (fulfilling the prophecy in Mic. 1.6), in spite of the opposition of Antiochus IX Cyzicenus (whose intervention seems to have been frustrated by the Romans). At the same time he gained possession of Scythopolis (Beth-shean). [[21]]
Hyrcanus was followed at his death by his son Aristobulus (104-103).\18/ According to Josephus, the new ruler imprisoned his brothers (with the exception of Antigonus) and his mother.\19/ The lady he let starve to death in prison; his brother Antigonus, whom he dearly loved, he slew when, through a diabolical plot, he came into his presence fully armed. He is said to have died brokenhearted over this unjust execution. Notwithstanding these family tragedies (if they be historical), he is said to have been an able ruler. He was the first of his line to adopt the royal title, although his coins are inscribed in Hebrew, "Judah the high priest, and the chebar ( = senate or congregation) of the Jews." Aristobulus (or his father) must have secured a foothold in Galilee and begun to Judaize it, for he forcibly circumcised the Itureans in the Lebanon.
\18/ Chief sources of information on Aristobulus: Josephus, Antiquities 13.11; War 1.3.
\19/ J. Wellhausen surmises, not without reason, that they were his stepbrothers and stepmother.
At the death of Aristobulus, Salome Alexandra, his widow, freed the brothers from prison and married the oldest, Janneus (Hebrew, Jonathan) Alexander (103-76), who was then twenty-four years of age (thirteen years younger than she was). \20/ Psalm 2, having the Hebrew acrostic "For Janneus A. and his wife," was probably sung at the wedding and coronation ceremonies; if so, it correctly anticipated the main aim of Janneus -- to break the heathen with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel (Ps. 2.9) in order to restore David's kingdom to its full extent.
\20/ Chief sources for Janneus are Josephus, Antiquities 13.12-15; War 1.4.
He began his campaigns with an attack against Ptolemais (ancient Akko) on the coast. The inhabitants appealed for help to Ptolemy Lathyrus, who was in control of Cyprus after his mother, Cleopatra III, had driven him out of Egypt. Defeated by Lathyrus in 100, Janneus was saved from complete disaster by the forces of Cleopatra, although this queen was at first inclined to retain control of Palestine. Far from discouraged, Janneus began operations east of the Jordan, where he conquered Gadara and Amathus; continued them in Philistia, where he took Raphia and Anthedon; and destroyed Gaza after a year's siege (96). About a year later Janneus returned to Transjordania, but he came into contact with the powerful kingdom of the Nabateans in Edom (the capital was Petra). The Nabatean king, Obadas, objected to Jewish interference in the lands of Moab and Ammon, which be regarded as his own sphere of influence; he completely destroyed the army of Janneus in a ravine (94).
The bitter resentment in Jerusalem against the bellicose high priest, [[22]] whose passion was besieging cities, \21/ broke out in a violent rebellion when Janneus returned to his capital without his army. It is not certain that the Pharisees, usually pacifists, were now the instigators of violence: in any case the rebels hired the Seleucid Demetrius III Eucerus (son of Grypus) and defeated Janneus in a decisive battle (88). A patriotic reaction, at the sight of the Jewish king wandering as a fugitive in the mountains, turned the tables after Demetrius departed: six thousand Jews went over to Janneus and he was able to regain his throne and wreak bloody vengeance on his enemies.
\21/ His coins exhibit his dual function with two types of inscriptions: "Jehonathan the King" (in Hebrew) and "Of King Alexander" (in Greek); other coins have the earlier type of inscription: "Jehonathan (or Jonathan) the high priest and the cheber [senate or congregation] of the Jews" (in Hebrew). [++DSS Jonathan doc]
Hostility from without began anew after the crushing of internal opposition. In 86 Antiochus XII Dionysus (son of Grypus) wished to cross Judea in order to attack the Nabatean king Aretas in his own country. Janneus, instead of helping him defeat their common foe, built a wall fortified with wooden towers and a moat from Joppa inland, to divert the Syrians. Antiochus XII broke through anyhow, but was defeated and slain in battle by Aretas, who thus became master of the country as far as Damascus. He invaded Judea and defeated Janneus at Adida, forcing him to sue for peace. Undeterred by this, Janneus fought with success in Transjordania (83-80), where he captured Pella, Gerasa, Seleucia, Gamala, etc. During the last three years of his life (79-76) he was afflicted by an ailment due to his intemperance and seemed to seek relief in war. When he died while besieging Ragaba in Perea, he had almost restored to the Jews the area of the kingdom of Solomon.
Alexandra (76-67), now the widow of two kings, succeeded her husband Janneus on the throne,\22/ and her eldest son, Hyrcanus II, became high priest (without civil authority). Her abler and more energetic second son, Aristobulus II, she kept in check. Although we do not know whether the stories of the opposition of the Pharisees against John Hyrcanus I and especially against Janneus are historical, and whether Janneus on his deathbed actually advised Alexandra to give some authority to the Pharisees (Josephus, Antiquities 13.15.5), it is certain that under Alexandra (who was the sister of a famous Pharisee, Simon ben Shetach) for the first time the Pharisees were admitted to the Senate (Sanhedrin) and played an important role in the government. Nicholas of Damascus (quoted by Josephus, War 1.5.2), who was not overly fond of the Pharisees, said with some exaggeration that "the advantages of royalty were theirs, the cost and the troubles were Alexandra's....While she governed other people, the Pharisees governed her." Her reign was peaceful and prosperous -- the calm before the storm. By strengthening [[23]] the army and fortifying strategic points she escaped attack. When Tigranes, king of Armenia, was besieging Ptolemais and threatened to put an end to the independence of the Jews (69), she wisely refrained from war and sent him gifts. He was soon compelled to return to Armenia, which the Roman Lucullus was laying waste. Her only military expedition, led by her son Aristobulus II to Damascus, failed completely. When she died at the age of seventy-three, the power of the Hasmoneans and the independence of the Jews were also about to expire.
\22/ On Alexandra see Josephus, Antiquities 14.1-4; War 1.6-7.
Even before the death of his mother, Aristobulus II (67-63)\23/ had taken measures to rule after her. He had the support of the veterans of Janneus, who had felt slighted during the reign of Alexandra. Hyrcanus II, the high priest and legitimate successor, was weak and indolent by nature. When his forces were defeated at Jericho, he surrendered to Aristobulus all his rights to the high priesthood and to the royal crown; thus three months after his mother's death Hyrcanus II was allowed to retire peacefully to private life.
\23/ Our best sources of information on Aristobulus II are: Josephus, Antiquities 14.1-4; War 1.6-7.
The change was far from agreeable to Antipater, who was presumably, like his father Antipater, military governor of Idumea (and perhaps a Jewish Idumean, as a result of the conquest by John Hyrcanus? see Antiquities 13.[9.1]258 cited above); he was the father of Herod the Great. He saw that opportunities for attaining authority and power were far greater under a weakling like Hyrcanus than under an ambitious ruler like Aristobulus. He persuaded Hyrcanus that his life was in danger and brought him to Petra, where Aretas, king of the Nabateans, agreed to place Hyrcanus on the Jewish throne in exchange for twelve frontier towns that had been conquered by Janneus. So Aristobulus, defeated by Aretas and forsaken by many of his troops, fortified himself in the temple at Jerusalem, supported chiefly by the priests (65). The war between the Hasmonean brothers was inviting Roman intervention.
Following Lucullus, who in 69 had checked the conquests of Mithridates king of Pontus, and Tigranes, king of Armenia, Pompey had been sent to the Near East and had broken the power of Mithridates and confined Tigranes to Armenia (66). Pompey's legate Scaurus heard in Damascus of the war between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, and went to Judea, where both sides presented their pleas and promised four-hundred talents (worth perhaps 60 million US dollars, minimum, in the year 2000). Scaurus ordered Aretas to lift the siege and, pending the decision of Pompey, left Aristobulus in power. The latter pursued the Nabateans and inflicted considerable losses on them.
Pompey came to Damascus in the spring of 63. There he listened not only to the pleas of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, but also to those of a delegation from the Jewish people, who wished neither and preferred the abolition of the monarchy in favor of the earlier priestly government. Pompey promised to settle the matter after his campaign against the Nabateans. But [[24]] Aristobulus aroused suspicion: he promised to deliver Jerusalem, but Pompey's general Gabinius found the city's gates locked against him. So the Jewish king was placed under arrest. The followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates to the Romans, but their opponents fortified themselves on the temple hill. Pompey, after a siege of three months, made a breach in the northern fortifications, and a horrible butchery ensued. Pompey entered the holy of holies area in the temple, but he ordered the continuation of the services and did not plunder the temple. The Jewish community thus passed under Roman rule and lost all non-Jewish cities conquered by the Hasmoneans: the Mediterranean coastal harbors, the Transjordanian towns (Pella, Gadara, Hippus, etc.), and Samaria, Scythopolis, as also other districts. The reduced Jewish state was placed under Hyrcanus II, as high priest without the royal title. In 61 Aristobulus was forced to march in Pompey's triumph at Rome. Numerous Jews had been brought there as slaves and, after their manumission, became part of a flourishing Jewish community in Rome.
4. The Rule of the Romans (63 BCE-66 CE)
Antipater was the power behind the throne, while Hyrcanus II was the high priest and ethnarch (ethnic ruler) of the Jews (63-40 BCE).\24/ Antipater, as well as his son Herod later, carried out punctiliously the Roman policies. At the same time, if we may judge from Psalms of Solomon 8, the Pharisees seemed pleased with the passing of bellicose high priests and did not object to Roman rule.
\24/ Our best sources for the rule of Hyrcanus II are: Josephus, Antiquities 14.5-13; War 1.8-13.
After a few years of peace, the storm broke again in 57, when Alexander, the son of Aristobulus II, having previously escaped from Pompey on the way to Rome, took possession of the strongholds of Alexandrium, Hyrcania, and Machaerus. The new proconsul of Syria, Gabinius, sent Mark Antony against him and personally forced his surrender at Alexandrium. Then Gabinius deprived Hyrcanus of civil power and divided the Jewish territory into five districts (Jerusalem, Gazara, Amathus, Jericho, and Sepphoris). The following year (56) Aristobulus (with his son Antigonus) attempted to seize the Jewish state, but was easily recaptured at Machaerus and sent to Rome. In 55 another rebellion of Alexander's was put down by Gabinius on his way back from Egypt. In 54 the successor of Gabinius as proconsul of Syria, M. Licinius Crassus, plundered the treasures in the temple at Jerusalem (valued at about 10,000 talents of silver, roughly 1.5 billion US dollars minimum), but he soon fell at Carrhae (53) in battle against the Parthians. While C. Cassius Longinus was governor of Syria (53-51), Pitholaus (a veteran of the [[25]] rebellion of Aristobulus) attempted a revolt in Galilee; the only result was the sale of a multitude of Jews into slavery.
The Roman civil war that began in 49 with Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon determined the policy of the Jewish leaders, decided primarily by Antipater. Caesar freed Aristobulus in Rome, that he might fight against Pompey, but Aristobulus was poisoned at once, while his son Alexander was beheaded in Antioch on Pompey's orders. But after Pompey's defeat at Pharsalus (48) and his assassination in Egypt the same year (cf. Ps. of Sol. 2), Hyrcanus II and Antipater passed over to Caesar's side and in 47 came to his help while he was fighting in Egypt. Their reward came the same year when Caesar, turning a deaf ear to the pleas of Antigonus (the last surviving son of Aristobulus II), appointed Hyrcanus II again as hereditary high priest and ethnarch of the Jews and made Antipater a Roman citizen free from taxation, and governor of Judea. The harbor of Joppa and other districts were added to Jewish territory. The Jews in the dispersion ("diaspora") were also favored; so that Julius Caesar's death, on the ides of March of 44, was mourned by Jews everywhere under Roman rule as much as by any other non-Roman nation or group.
Antipater, who had gained Caesar's favor for the Jews, was not thanked by them, for they knew that he was concerned chiefly about himself and his sons, Phasael and Herod, whom he appointed prefects of Judea and Galilee, respectively. Herod (the later king of the Jews), though only twenty-five years of age, proved himself a man of energy and initiative: he executed a bandit chief (or perhaps a political rebel) named Hezekiah, together with many of his followers. This perceived or imagined abuse of authority provoked an immediate reaction in Jerusalem: it was argued that legally only the Jewish sanhedrin could impose the death penalty in such cases. But when Herod appeared before that supreme court, be came clad in purple, with a bodyguard, and Hyrcanus (upon the instructions of Sextus Caesar) adjourned the meeting when it seemed that Herod would be condemned. Herod came back with an army, but refrained from violence upon his father's and brother's entreaties: he thought it sufficient for his future to have made a show of strength before the leaders of the Jews, and returned to Galilee. Sextus Caesar appointed him military governor of Coele-Syria at this time (47-46).
Sextus Caesar was assassinated in 46, and C. Bassus, who belonged to the party of Pompey, made himself master of Syria; the war between Caesar's and Pompey's followers continued unabated. As has been noted, Antipater had become an adherent of Caesar. After Caesar's assassination in 44, Mark Antony took up his cause against the assassins, M. Brutus and C. Cassius. Cassius came to Syria and received the support of both contending parties there; he raised an enormous sum for the ongoing civil war (Antipater paid 700 talents). But Antipater was poisoned by the butler of Hyrcanus, bribed by a certain Malichus [[26]] who wished to become master of Judea. Herod promptly avenged his father's death.
The departure of Crassus in 42 left Syria, which had been forced to supply great sums, in a state of anarchy. Antigonus thought the time ripe for another attempt to reconquer Palestine, but Herod frustrated his efforts. When Brutus and Cassius were defeated at Philippi by M. Antony and Octavian in the late fall of 42, Roman Asia passed under the dominion of Antony. With great alacrity Herod -- a protégé of Cassius -- offered his services and allegiance to Antony who, in spite of Jewish objections, eventually appointed Phasael and Herod as tetrarchs of the Jewish state, with the approval of Hyrcanus who had been ruler in name only (fall of 41).
In 40, while Antony was enjoying the hospitality of Cleopatra in Egypt or was occupied with the problems of Italy, the Parthians under Pacorus (son of King Orodes) and Barzaphranes invaded Syria. The Jews welcomed them as deliverers from the Romans and gave their support to Antigonus, who had made an agreement with the Parthians. When Hyrcanus and Phasael went to Barzaphranes to negotiate, they were thrown into a dungeon: Phasael killed himself, and Hyrcanus was taken to Babylonia after Antigonus had bitten off his ears to make him unfit for the high priesthood. Herod succeeded in placing his family in the fortress of Masada and went to Rome to seek help from Antony.
Thus Antigonus became king and high priest of the Jews for three years (40-37), \25/ the last of the Hasmonean line to sit on the throne. Personally he could evoke little enthusiasm,\26/ but so deep was the hatred for Herod and the Romans that he had the backing of Jews of all classes. Through the good offices of Mark Antony and Octavian (Augustus), who recognized Herod's ability and loyalty to Rome, Herod was appointed king of the Jews by the Roman Senate, and left Rome a week after his arrival (late in 40). In 39 Ventidius had driven the Parthians out of Syria, but had left Antigonus unmolested when the latter had made payment of tribute. Herod, through the help of Silo, the lieutenant of Ventidius, conquered Joppa and delivered his family, still besieged in Masada. But the Roman troops went into winter quarters, and in 38 could not help Herod, owing to a new Parthian invasion; Herod was busy pacifying Galilee at the time. After the victory of Ventidius over the Parthians (June, 38), Herod went to see Antony at Samosata. During his absence his brother Joseph had been defeated and killed by Antigonus, and the Galileans had [[27]] rebelled. Nevertheless, Herod succeeded, before winter, in conquering all of Palestine except Jerusalem. Finally in 37, after a laborious siege, Jerusalem was taken with the help of Sosius. At the request of Herod, Antigonus was executed by order of Antony -- apparently the first captured king the Romans had ever put to death.
\25/ On the rule of Antigonus see: Josephus, Antiquities 14.14-16; War 1.14, 1-18, 3. The inscription on his coins reads: "Of king Antigonus" (in Greek) and "Mattathias the high priest" (in Hebrew).
\26/ To gain the throne Antigonus had not only pledged to the Parthians 1,000 talents, but also 500 Jewish women.
Thus, after three years, Herod could ascend his throne; and he ruled from 37 to 4 BCE\27/ Herod proved himself a ruler of ability and energy, although he did not succeed in gaining the respect and affection of the Jews -- who, alluding to his father's Idumean origin, sarcastically called him "half-Jew." From the Roman point of view Herod earned the title of "Great," for he carried out in his corner of the Roman world the great plans of Augustus. His position was that of a rex socius, or allied king, enjoying full autonomy and freedom from tribute, but entirely subservient to Rome in matters of foreign relations and particularly war, when he was expected to furnish military contingents.
\27/ The biography of Herod given by Josephus (Antiquities, books 15-17) is derived for the most part from the lost history of Nicholas of Damascus, Herod's secretary and friend. It is therefore an excellent contemporary source, even though usually showing Herod in the best light. A much briefer, and earlier account of Herod is given by Josephus in War 1.18-33. It is believed that in Antiquities, book 15, Josephus used, in addition to Nicholas, a source unfriendly to Herod, while in War 1 Nicholas was his only source. See H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian, pp. 65-67 (New York, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929).
Early in his reign Herod was faced by the opposition of the aristocracy in Jerusalem, of the surviving Hasmoneans (especially the ladies), Cleopatra, and of the Jewish nation in general. In 37 he frightened the aristocrats by executing forty-five of the richest and noblest among the supporters of Antigonus, and confiscating their patrimony -- thus providing some of the funds needed to preserve Antony's favor. In the spring of that year, after a five-year engagement, Herod married Mariamne, the granddaughter of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. His mother-in-law Alexandra (mother of Mariamne and daughter of Hyrcanus) gave him serious trouble. Herod, who had appointed an obscure Jew from Babylon, Ananel, to the high priesthood (since Hyrcanus after his return from Parthian captivity was not available, having lost his ears), was forced by Alexandra to make her 17-year-old son Aristobulus (III) high priest (early in 35). Herod discovered that Alexandra was planning to flee with Aristobulus to Cleopatra (who had supported her claims) and had prepared caskets in which to get out of Jerusalem; he arranged to have Aristobulus "playfully" drowned by his companions in a swimming pool at Jericho (late in 35). Through Cleopatra, Alexandra induced Antony to summon Herod to explain this murder, but at Laodicea Herod was completely exonorated by Antony, partly through his arguments and partly [[28]] through cash payments (34). Antony told Cleopatra that it was not proper to investigate too closely the official acts of a king, lest he cease to be really a king (Josephus, Antiquities 15.[3.8]76). During his absence Herod had left his wife Mariamne in the charge of his uncle Joseph (the husband of his sister Salome), with instructions that she should be killed if he did not return alive -- so great was his jealous love for her. Upon his return, Salome accused Joseph of illicit intercourse with Mariamne; when Herod discovered that his wife knew of his secret instructions, he had Joseph executed (34).
As for Cleopatra, she obtained from Antony the coastlands south of the Eleutheros (except for Tyre and Sidon), and the region of Jericho, rich in palm trees: Herod was thus obliged to pay tribute to the Egyptian queen from the latter district, which was part of his kingdom (34).
Finally, in regard to the fourth hostile group -- the people -- Herod used a variety of remedies. Knowing of the great influence of the Pharisees on the Jews, he cultivated the friendship of two famous rabbis, Pollio (Abtalion) and his pupil Sameas (Shemaiah), who during the siege of Jerusalem had advised the people to receive Herod.\28/ The Pharisees had no objection to foreign rule, provided the Jews could freely practice their religion and the Pharisees could inculcate the meticulous observance of the law of Moses -- both written and unwritten. Herod showed his favor to the people and tried to gain their loyalty by remitting taxes in years of scarcity and by distributing imported grain in times of famine. On the other hand, Herod instituted drastic repressive measures against his opponents and organized an elaborate secret police.
\28/ The famous last "pair" of teachers of the law, Hillel and Shammai, flourished during the reign of Herod.
Herod's position, however, was not threatened by these four enemies, but by the war between Octavian and Antony. When Antony had given to Cleopatra certain Nabatean districts in 34, she made Herod responsible for the collection of the tribute from the recalcitrant Malichus, thus arousing open hostility between the two strongest rulers on Egypt's Asiatic border. When Herod was preparing an expedition against Malichus, who had refused to pay the tribute, the Roman civil war broke out. Herod wished to bring help to Antony, but (fortunately for him!) Cleopatra forced him to march against Malichus instead and, when Herod had prevailed, she even helped Malichus continue the fight to "destroy one of those kings by means of the other" (Josephus). When in the spring of 31 an earthquake killed, according to Josephus (War 1.19, 3), 30,000 subjects of Herod (10,000 according to Antiquities 15.5, 2), the Nabateans refused to negotiate and were thoroughly beaten by Herod, but with a desperate effort. Antony's downfall at Actium (September of 31) seemed fatal to his friend Herod, but after executing the aged Hyrcanus II, who willy-nilly might become a rival, Herod [[29]] appeared before Octavian (Augustus) at Rhodes and was confirmed as king of the Jews (spring of 30). In the fall of 30, after Antony and Cleopatra had committed suicide following Octavian's invasion of Egypt, Herod saw Octavian in Egypt and received from him, besides Jericho, additional territories: Hippus, Gadara, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato's Tower (later called Caesarea on the Sea). At the end of 29 Herod ordered the trial and execution of his favorite wife Mariamne, accused of infidelity by his mother Kypros and his sister Salome. A passionate nature driven to extremes, Herod after Mariamne's death longed desperately for her, seeking comfort in orgies and hunts until he fell seriously ill. Alexandra his mother-in-law plotted to gain the kingdom if he died, and was executed in 28. The elimination of the relatives of Hyrcanus II was completed when his sister Salome reported that her second husband, the Idumean Kostobar, was sheltering some distant relatives of the Hasmoneans, the sons of Babas (corrected to Sabba by Niese), and Herod had them all executed.
The importance of Herod in the history of the world consists in his successful realization of the plans of Augustus, principally in two spheres. First of all, he brought some order into the wild regions east of the Jordan (lying between the two Arab kingdoms of the Nabateans and the Itureans), inhabited by Bedouins who recognized no alien government. These raiders in Trachonitis hindered the communications with Damascus. In 23 Augustus gave Herod not only Trachonitis, but also Batanea and Auranitis, and three years later even the Iturean tetrarchy of Zenodorus.\29/ Herod proved himself worthy of Roman confidence, in spite of the difficulties of the task, which was continued by his son Philip. This work made possible the organization of the Roman province of Arabia, which became the gateway between East and West.
\29/ Josephus, Antiquities 15.10, 1 and 3; War 1.20, 4.
In the second place, Herod furthered the cultural plans of Augustus, who wished to encourage the development of a uniform Graeco-Roman civilization in the whole empire. Herod was a great admirer of hellenism and profoundly devoted to Augustus his overlord. So he supported the emperor cult and built temples to the divine Augustus in non-Jewish cities. Samaria, destroyed by Hyrcanus I and rebuilt by Gabinius, Herod beautified after renaming it Sebaste (the present name is still Sebastiyye) in honor of Augustus (Greek, Sebasto/s): there the ruins of the Herodian temple to Augustus are still impressive. For the quadrennial (or quinquennial) games in honor of Augustus he built hippodromes, amphitheaters, stadia, and theaters. In Jerusalem he built a theater, and in its vicinity an amphitheater; later (in about 24) he built the fortified royal palace, one tower of which (the so-called David's tower) is still extant, and the Tower Antonia north of the temple.
More important was the rebuilding of Strato's Tower, begun in 22 and [30]] dedicated as Caesarea (on the Sea) in 10-9 BCE The artificial harbor was made safe for ships by means of a long wide breakwater made of heavy stones brought from a considerable distance (Antiquities 15.9, 6). Two of the enormous pillars of the local temple to Augustus now stand in the Piazzetta near the Piazza S. Marco in Venice.\30/
\30/ This is stated by E. Renan (Histoire du peuple d'Israe%l, vol. 5, p. 273. Paris, 1894), but I have been unable to discover his sources of information. The pillars unquestionably were brought from the Near East and were set up in 1180.
Within his kingdom Herod built lavishly. New cities or restored towns were named in honor of his relatives: Antipatris (formerly Kapharsaba), Kypros (a stronghold near Jericho), Phasaelis; or of himself (two fortresses were called Herodeion); or of the family of Augustus (Agrippeion, formerly Anthedon). The old Hasmonean fortresses destroyed by Gabinius were rebuilt on a larger scale: Alexandreion, Hyrcania, Machaerus, and Masada; new ones rose at Gaba in Galilee and Esbon in Perea.
Far beyond his borders Herod left tokens of his building activity: at Rhodes, Nikopolis (near Actium), Antioch, Ashkelon, Tyre, Sidon, Beyrouth, Tripolis, Ptolemais, Damascus, and even at Athens and elsewhere, he contributed to the construction of temples and palaces.
But by far the most famous of his edifices is the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. The reconstruction began in 20 BCE and was still continuing forty-six years later, in the time of Jesus (John 2.20); it was not actually finished until after 62 CE -- a few years before its destruction in 70 CE. Its magnificence became proverbial, even though in reality (as in the case of the temple of Solomon) the royal palace surpassed the temple in size and luxury (Josephus, War 1. 21, 1).\31/ The rebuilding, done mostly by priests and Levites, did not interfere in the least with the sacred services.
\31/ The temple of Herod is described in Josephus, Antiquities 15.11; War 5.5; Philo, De Monarchia II, 2 (II, 223 M.); Mishna Middoth.
The cultural aims of Augustus were likewise furthered in the literary realm. Herod surrounded himself with men having a good Greek training in rhetoric and philosophy. Chief among them was Nicholas of Damascus, whose universal history in 144 volumes was utilized by Josephus, who derived from it most of the biography of Herod (cf. note 27, above). Nicholas was sent by Herod on diplomatic missions. Other well-educated courtiers are mentioned by Josephus.
As in the case of David, the last years (13-4 BCE) of Herod's reign were embittered by family troubles and court intrigues. Herod had ten wives, although not all at one time (according to Mishna Sanhedrin II, 4, a king may have eighteen wives). The members of Herod's family and his descendants may be listed concisely as follows. \32/ [[31]]
\32/ Josephus is our source of information as follows: for the parents, brothers, and sisters of Herod, see Antiquities 14.7, 3; War 1.8, 9; for the wives and children of Herod, see Ant. 17.1, 2-3; War 1.28, 4; in particular, for the descendants of Mariamne, see Ant. 18.5, 4; 19.9, 1; War 2.11, 6.
I.Children of Antipater (d. 43 BCE) and Kypros I\33/
\33/ Abbreviations: b. (brother); d. (date of death); da. (daughter);f (father); h. (husband); m. (mother); s. (son).
1. Phasael (d. 40 BCE). His s. Phasael was h. of Salampsio (da. Of Mariamne I) andf of Kypros III (w. of Agrippa I).
2. Herod the Great (see II, below).
3. Joseph (d. 38 BCE).
4. Pheroras (d. 5 BCE).
5. Salome I (d. ca. 10 CE), her husbands were: a. Joseph (d. 34 BCE), her uncle, b. of herf Antipater; b. Kostobar (d. 25 BCE),f of Berenice I (w. of Aristobulus, s. of Mariamne I); c. Alexas. II. Wives (and descendants) of Herod (d. 4 BCE)
1. Doris (da. of Antigonus s. of Aristobulus II), m. of Antipater (d. 4 BCE).
2. Mariamne I (granddaughter of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II) m. of: a. Alexander (d. 7 BCE; h. of Glaphyra, da. of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia); b. Aristobulus (d. 7 BCE); c. Salampsio (w. of Phasael); m. of Kypros III. d. Kypros II. Aristobulus was the h. of Berenice I (da. of Salome) andf. of Herod of Chalcis (h. of Berenice II), of Agrippa I (d. 44 CE; h. of Kypros III), and of Herodias (w. of: a. Herod s. of Mariamne II; b. Antipas). Agrippa I was thef of: a. Agrippa II (d. 100 CE); b. Berenice II (w. of: a. Herod of Chalcis; b. Polemon of Cilicia); c. Drusilla (w. of: a. Azizus; b. Felix).
3. Mariamne II, m. of Herod (h. of Herodias, andf of Salome II who asked for the head of John the Baptist and later married her uncle Philip).
4. Malthace, m. of Archelaus (third h. of Glaphyra, widow of Alexander [2. a. above] and Juba, king of Lybia) and of Antipas (second h. of Herodias).
5. Cleopatra, m. of Philip (d. 34 CE; h. of his niece Salome II).
Since Herod's family (including his brother and sister) lived in the immense royal palace at the western edge of Jerusalem, together with many courtiers and attendants, and since the ladies moved about the palace at will, jealousies and gossip were rampant. Herod was strongly attached to his kin and yet suspicious of any encroachment on his supreme authority; he wished to hear all the gossip, but was unable to check on its validity.
Within the family, the proud bearing of Mariamne and her sons, who despised those in whose veins did not course the noble Hasmonean blood, aroused the hostility of the rest, particularly of Salome -- although [[32]] one of the sons of Mariamne, Aristobulus, had married Salome's daughter Berenice. Accusations against these two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, began in 14 BCE, three or four years after they had returned from Rome, where they had received their higher education. To counterbalance their arrogance Herod recalled from exile his oldest son, Antipater (14 BCE) and even named him heir apparent. A year later Antipater went to Rome with Agrippa to be introduced to Augustus. From there he continued to sow suspicion against Alexander and Aristobulus in Herod's mind, until the king of the Jews appeared before Augustus, who set his mind at ease (12). But Antipater returned to Judea and there, while pretending to defend his half brothers, he was secretly inciting others to slander them. Herod was again suspicious of them and markedly cold toward them; but he did not fully trust the other side, except Antipater. When Alexander was arrested, his father-in-law Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, succeeded in restoring friendly relations between father and son -- but not for long. Finally Herod accused the sons of Mariamne (Alexander and Aristobulus) before Augustus and received permission to deal with them as he wished, although he was advised to have a tribunal of friends and Roman officials meet at Beyrouth to judge the two young men. Almost unanimously a court so constituted condemned them to death, and they were executed at Samaria (ca. 7 BCE). Antipater began to plot with his uncle Pheroras, tetrarch of Perea, but was accused by Salome. Antipater went to Rome, still the heir apparent by Herod's testament (6), but his plots came to light after the death of Pheroras (5). Without arousing his suspicions, Herod summoned him back: unable to clear himself, he was kept in prison. Herod made a second testament, naming Antipas as his successor (5). Seriously ill, Herod, having received permission from Augustus, executed Antipater five days before his own death.\34/ Herod had previously made a new will in which he designated Archelaus as king of Judea, Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip as tetrarch of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Gaulinitis. So Herod died at Jericho in 4 B,C., not long after the birth of Jesus of Nazareth (6 or 5 BCE).
\34/ Augustus (according to Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4, 11) coined the Greek pun, "It is better to be Herod's pig (hy^n) than his son (hyio/n)."
A verdict on Herod, as on most of the great political personalities in human history,\35/ depends on one's point of view and personal preferences. For the Romans Herod was a trustworthy and able vassal king, a liberal patron of the arts, and a strong champion of law and order; for the Jews, conversely, he was a self-seeking tyrant, a hypocritical "half-Jew" [[33]] wholly pagan at heart, a bloodthirsty oppressor and robber of the people.
\35/ Thus, for instance, A. Manzoni began his ode on Napoleon (Cinque Maggio), composed upon receiving the report of his death, with the words "Fu vera gloria? Ai posteri l'ardua sentenza" (Was it true glory? To posterity [belongs] the difficult verdict). But posterity is almost as prejudiced as the contemporaries!
Although Herod had the right to decide the succession, he stipulated that Augustus should approve his testament. After crushing a rebellion at the cost of many lives, Archelaus went to Rome, followed by Antipas, Salome their aunt, and finally Philip. All, except the last, were animated by mutual jealousy. At the same time an embassy from Jerusalem recited Herod's crimes and begged for self-government under Roman supervision.
While Augustus deliberated, riots broke out again in Judea.\36/ P. Quintilius Varus, the governor of Syria, had left a legion in Jerusalem after Archelaus had departed and the procurator Sabinus had been sent by Augustus to take charge. Sabinus, however, misused his authority and illicitly entered Herod's palace to examine his estate. Attacked by the Jews, particularly by the pilgrims who had come to celebrate Pentecost, Sabinus plundered the temple after setting fire to one of its porches, and was besieged in Herod's palace. The flames of rebellion spread to Idumea, Jericho, Galilee, and Perea. In various places adventurers put themselves at the head of masses which apparently expected the Messianic age imminently. The prompt intervention of Varus at the head of two legions stopped all riots and brought death or slavery to thousands of Jews (4 BCE).
\36/ For the disturbances following Herod's death, see Josephus, Antiquities 17.9-11; War 2.1-6.
Finally Augustus approved Herod's testament, except that he made Archelaus ethnarch until he proved himself worthy of the royal title. Thus the realm of Herod was divided into three parts, each of which now experienced vicissitudes of its own.
Archelaus (4 BCE-6 CE)\37/ was the least liked of Herod's sons; his rule was recklessly despotic. His marriage with Glaphyra (the widow of his half brother Alexander), being illegal according to the Mosaic law because she had three children by Alexander, shocked the faithful, as also his arbitrary removal of high priests. His extensive building operations did not make him popular. Finally, after a delegation of noblemen from Jerusalem and Samaria had complained of his misgovernment to Augustus, he was exiled in 6 CE to Vienna (south of Lyons) in Gaul. Thus Judea became a Roman province ( 6-41 CE).
\37/ On Archelaus, see Josephus, Antiquities 17.13; 18.1-4; War 2.7-10; Philo, Embassy to Gaius.
Herod Antipas (4 BCE-39 CE)\38/ was the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (territories separated by Samaria and the Dekapolis). Like his father he was clever (Jesus called him a fox, Luke 13.32) and vainglorious, [[34]] although more easygoing and indolent. He rebuilt Sepphoris (burned to the ground by Varus) and fortified it for the defense of Galilee. Bethramphtha (renamed Livias in honor of the empress, and later called Julias) was likewise strengthened for the protection of Perea. To secure himself from Nabatean attacks, he married the daughter of their king Aretas. His most ambitious and important building operation was Tiberias, named in honor of Tiberius (14-37). In spite of its magnificence, pious Jews refused to settle there on account of the ancient cemetery on which it was built, and it was occupied by a very mixed population.
\38/ See, on Antipas, Josephus, Antiquities 18.2, 1 and 3; 18.4, 5; 18.5, 1-3; 18.7, 1-2; War 2.9, 1 and 6; Matt. 14.1-11; Mark 6.14-28; Luke 3.19f.; 9.7-9; 13.31f; 23.7-12.
His marriage to Herodias (the former wife of his brother Herod), in whose veins flowed the Hasmonean blood of her grandmother Mariamne I, seems to have been a union based on real affection, but brought much trouble to Antipas. The Nabatean king, Aretas, father of his (repudiated) first wife, engaged in guerrilla warfare against him, and in 36 inflicted a serious defeat on his troops. Vitellius was ordered to punish Aretas, but upon hearing of the death of Tiberius (March of 37) he was glad to leave in the lurch his enemy Antipas (who seems to have acted as a spy in the Near East for Tiberius). The people saw in Antipas's defeat a divine punishment for the previous execution of John the Baptist, who was beheaded for having denounced his marriage with Herodias. \39/ Antipas did not enjoy the favor of Gaius Caligula (37-41) as formerly that of Tiberius. When the new emperor gave to Herodias' brother Agrippa I the tetrarchy of Philip, with the royal title (37), the sister's jealousy knew no bounds. Only a few years before, the young wastrel, pursued by creditors, had gladly accepted from Antipas the position of market overseer (agorano/mos, cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.6, 2 [=A7149]) at Tiberias; now he surpassed her husband in rank and authority! She gave no rest to Antipas until he reluctantly consented to go and request the royal title from Caligula. But as the two appeared before the emperor, a letter from Agrippa accusing Antipas of plotting with the ruler's enemies was delivered to Caligula. Since Antipas could not deny that he had collected a large supply of weapons, he was exiled to Lugdunum (Lyons on the Rhone, or in the Pyrenees); Herodias chose to go with him. His tetrarchy was added to Agrippa's domains.
\39/ So according to the well-known Gospel story (cf. the preceding note). Josephus (Antiquities 18.5, 2), however, attributes the execution to the king's fear of a rebellion, resulting from John's great influence on the masses.
Philip (4 BCE-34 CE) \40/ is called "the tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis" (Luke 3.1); Josephus omits Iturea, but adds Batanea, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and Panias. In these northeastern parts of Herod's kingdom the Jews were in the minority and, to some extent, were recent colonists. Philip is praised for the justice and benevolence of his rule, [[35]] which gained him the affection of his subjects. He married his niece Salome, the daughter of Herodias. He built his capital, Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16.13; Mark 8.27), near one of the sources of the Jordan, not far from the site of Panias, the ancient sanctuary of Pan. \41/ Bethsaida, where the Jordan enters Gennesareth, he rebuilt and called Julias in honor of the daughter of Augustus. His coins, bearing the head of Augustus or of Tiberius, are the first ones struck by a Jewish ruler which have a human image on them. At his death in 34 his tetrarchy was incorporated into the Roman province of Syria, but a few years later (in 37) it was given by Caligula to Agrippa I as his kingdom, to which were added eventually the tetrarchy of Antipas (in 39) and (under Claudius) the ethnarchy of Archelaus (in 41) so that finally Agrippa until his death in 44 ruled over the kingdom of his grandfather Herod except for Iturea.
\40/ See on Philip, Josephus, Antiquities 18.2, 1; 18.4, 6; 18.6, 10; War 2.9, 1 and 6.
\41/ See G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 447-451, 473-476.
From 6 to 41 CE the ethnarchy of Archelaus (i.e., Judea, Samaria, and Idumea) was governed by Roman procurators. \42/ The new prefect of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius ("Cyrenius") came to Judea in 6 CE to enroll the inhabitants as provincials, and thus took a census for purposes of taxation. \43/ This humiliating evidence of Roman rule provoked a violent reaction on the part of the patriots but did not disturb the pious. The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem succeeded in calming the spirits, at least for the moment, but in Galilee -- which, being ruled by Antipas, was not included in the census -- Judas the Galilean (usually regarded on insufficient evidence as the son of Hezekiah whom Herod had executed in 47-46 BCE [Josephus, Antiquities 14.9, 21) called the people to arms against the Romans and the Herods, but he was soon killed (Acts 5.37). \44/ It is by no means certain (although not impossible) that this Judas, together with a Pharisee named Sadduk, founded the party of the Zealots: Josephus (Antiquities 18.1, 6) calls Judas's movement "the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" but reserves the term "Zealot" (cf. [[36]] Luke 6.15; Acts 1.13; the Aramaic form "Cananean" occurs in Matt. 10;4; Mark 3.18) for the rebels of 66. In any case, we may say that as the Pharisees are the heirs of the Hasidim so the Zealots are the heirs of the Maccabees: intolerant of foreign rule, they did not expect, like Daniel and the Pharisees, the Kingdom of God miraculously from heaven, but endeavored to achieve it by fighting the Romans.
\42/ The procurators for this period are the following: Coponius (6-9), Marcus Ambibulus (9-12), Annius Rufus (12-15), Valerius Gratus (15-26), Pontius Pilate (26-36), Marcellus (36-37), Marullus (37-41).
\43/ Josephus, Antiquities 17.13, 5; 18.1, 1; War 7.8, 1. The reference to the "first census made when Quirinius was governor of Syria" in Luke 2.2 has caused much discussion (See E. Schu%rer, Geschichte, vol. 1. pp. 508-543; cf. E. Klostermann, Lukas, in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2, pp. 392-395. Tu%bingen, 1919). It seems probable that in Luke 2.1-5 the reference is to the historical census of Quirinius in 6 CE, but that an error was made in dating it more than ten years too early (when Herod the Great was still alive) and in assuming that it embraced the whole Roman world; in any case Joseph and Mary would not have been required to go from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be enrolled in the census. According to M. S. Enslin (Christian Origins, pp. 409f [cf. p. 155, n. 1]. New York, 1938) the census of Luke 2 is imaginary, and probably "the account is his [Luke's] own creation."
\44/ See J. Spencer Kennard, Jr., "Judas of Galilee and his Clan" (JQR N.S. 36 [1946] 281-286).
Judea (as also all of Palestine after the death of Agrippa I in 44) was an imperial province under a procurator of equestrian rank: he was not subject to the legate of Syria, but directly responsible to the Roman emperor. The procurator resided ordinarily in Caesarea on the Sea, in the praetorium of Herod (Acts 23.35), and came to Jerusalem ordinarily only on the occasion of the annual festivals, to keep order, residing in Herod's palace. The taxes, for which the Sanhedrin was responsible, together with the tolls and customs collected by the publicans, flowed into the fiscus (imperial treasury) not the aerarium (senatorial treasury): "render unto Caesar" (Matt. 22.21 and parallels) had therefore a literal meaning in Judea. Augustus changed the procurators often; Tiberius left them for many years -- out of consideration for the subjects, so that they be not repeatedly fleeced by newly arrived avid procurators (Josephus, Antiquities 18.6, 5).
Josephus has almost no information about the first four procurators (Antiquities 18.2, 2). The best known is the fifth, Pontius Pilate (26-36), who crucified Jesus (ca. 30) to please the mobs. In a letter to Caligula, Agrippa I judged him to be "of nature inflexible, and, owing to stubbornness, harsh" (Philo, Embassy to Gaius 38 [II, 590 M.] ). In contrast with the customary Roman respect for Jewish religious feelings, Pilate smuggled military insignia bearing the emperor's image into Jerusalem by night, but had them removed when the Jews showed themselves ready to die rather than tolerate this violation of the Ten Commandments. Later they even forced him to remove from Herod's palace in Jerusalem some golden shields inscribed with the emperor's name. \45/ On another occasion Pilate was forced to attack and disperse a crowd that protested against the use of temple moneys to pay the costs of an aqueduct for Jerusalem.\46/ Other instances of Pilate's ruthless massacres are recorded (Mark 15.7; Luke 13.1; 23.19). Finally he brought about his own downfall through his harshness; he fell upon large crowds of credulous Samaritans gathered to witness the discovery of the sacred objects allegedly hidden by Moses on Mount Gerizim ( 35 CE). Vitellius, the legate of Syria, sent Pilate to Rome to justify himself of his unwarranted executions (36) and appointed Marcellus in his place (Josephus, Antiq-uities 18.4, 1-2). On this and on later occasions Vitellius showed [[37]] consideration for the feelings of the Jews: thus, for instance, he released to the temple authorities the garments of the high priest, which had been kept in the Tower Antonia.
\45/ Josephus, Antiquities 18.3, 1; War 2.9, 2-3; Philo, Embassy to Gaius =A738 (11, 589f M.).
\46/ Josephus, Antiquities 18.3, 2; War 2.9, 4.
Herod Agrippa I \47/ now took the center of the Jewish stage for a few years (37-44). An inveterate spendthrift in serious financial trouble in his youth, Agrippa was beloved of the patriotic Jews as the heir of the Hasmoneans (through his grandmother Mariamne I), and the favorite of the Pharisees for his observance of the divine ordinances, and allegedly also for his hostility against the early Christians (Acts 12). After many adventures and difficulties, some of which he overcame through the help of his devoted wife and cousin Kypros, his luck changed when Caligula followed Tiberius on the throne (37). The first act of the new emperor was to free Agrippa from prison, giving him the tetrarchy of Philip with the title of king. A year and a half later (38) Agrippa left Rome and went to his kingdom by way of Alexandria. There, innocently or through his grand airs, he became the object of the sarcastic mockeries of the pagan mobs. With insane anti-Semitic hatred, which the Roman governor, A. Avillius Flaccus, did nothing to check, the enemies of the Jews demanded that statues of Caligula be set up in all synagogues and that the Jews be deprived of civic rights. Then a horrible pogrom broke out. Flaccus was exiled and executed; his successor, C. Vitrasius Pollio, restored order. The Jews sent an embassy to Caligula in 40, under the leadership of the famous philosopher Philo; but their enemies sent a rival embassy led by Apion (cf. Josephus, Against Apion), a demagogic orator and anti-Semitic writer. After many humiliations the Jews returned, having accomplished nothing. The civic rights and religious freedom of the Jews were, however, restored by Claudius (41-54) at the beginning of his reign, \48/ and the chief anti-Semitic rabble-rousers were eventually executed.
\47/ See on Agrippa I, Josephus, Antiquities 18.6; 19.5-9; War 2.9, 11; Acts 12 9where he is called Herod). For the anti-Semitic outbreaks in Alexandria after Agrippa's visit there, see Philo, Against Flaccus and Embassy to Gaius.
\48/ Cf. H.A. Wolfson, "Philo on Jewish Citizenship in Alexandria" (JBL 63 [1944] 165-168).
But the Alexandrian outrages had produced serious repercussions in Palestine. When the Jews in Jamnia destroyed an altar in honor of Caligula, the emperor decided that a statue of himself should be erected in the temple. The legate of Syria, Publius Petronius (who later wrote the Satiricon) was ordered to execute this insane commission (winter of 39-40). The reluctant legate did his best to delay matters. He ordered the statue in Sidon and went to Ptolemais. Innumerable Jews came to him there, lamenting and weeping. He wrote to Caligula asking for more time. In November he was still in Tiberias, where thousands of wailing Jews during forty days implored him not to desecrate the temple. Finally Petronius wrote Caligula recommending that his plan be [[38]] abandoned. But before receiving this letter Caligula, upon the entreaties of Agrippa I, had rescinded the order and sent instructions to Petronius not to change anything in the temple, but to allow altars for the emperor's worship to be erected outside of Jerusalem. When Caligula received the letter of Petronius (January of 41), he ordered him to kill himself; but since the news of Caligula's death (January 24, 41) reached Petronius before this letter, he disregarded the order.
When Agrippa I arrived in Palestine after the tumults in Alexandria (38), his first public acts were pious deeds: he presented to the temple the golden chain that Caligula had given him in exchange for the iron chain of his imprisonment, and made other donations. In Palestine Agrippa was a strict Jew. The Pharisees, Josephus, and the Talmud sang his praises; the Jews were devoted to him. But he foolishly dabbled in foreign affairs, as when he started building a mighty wall north of Jerusalem and when he called a conference of Roman vassal princes at Tiberias. In both instances the Roman authorities intervened at once, and he lost their confidence. When he died suddenly (in 44) at the age of about fifty-four, \49/ Claudius reorganized the kingdom of Agrippa into a Roman province (44-66).
\49/ The two independent accounts of his death (Acts 12.19-23; Josephus, Antiquities 19.8, 2) differ in the details, but agree in some of the basic facts. The procurators\50/ failed to reconcile the Jews to Roman rule; even the wisest and best intentioned among them unwittingly offended the religious scruples of the Jews, while the worst of them contributed to precipitate the disastrous war of 66-70.
\50/ These are the procurators from 44 to 66. Cuspius Fadus (44-ca. 46), Tiberius Alexander (ca. 46-48), Ventidius Cumanus (48-52), Antonius Felix (52-60), Porcius Festus (60-62), Albinus (62-64), Gessius Florus (64-66). For the history of this period, see Josephus, Antiquities 20.1 and 5-11; War 2.11-14.
Fadus claimed again the custody of the high priestly vestments, which had been in Roman care from 6 to 36. Granting a petition of the Jews, however, Claudius entrusted Herod of Chalcis and, after his death in 49, Agrippa II with the vestments, and with the appointment of the high priests. A prophet named Theudas attracted a crowd when he promised to cross the Jordan on dry land, but Fadus promptly executed him. \51/
\51/ Josephus, Antiquities 20.5, 1. In Gamaliel's speech (Acts 5.36), allegedly pronounced before the death of Theudas, the movement of Theudas is wrongly dated before that of Judas the Galilean in 6 CE.
Under Tiberius Alexander (a nephew of the philosopher Philo), who had forsworn Judaism, a serious famine caused great suffering in Judea (Josephus; and Acts 11.28-30). Alexander crucified two rebel leaders, James and Simon, the sons of Judas the Galilean.
Tumults continued under Cumanus (48-52). During the Passover celebration, a Roman soldier offended the Jews by an indecent gesture; some [[39]] persons were killed in the ensuing riots. On a plundering expedition, a Roman soldier tore up a scroll of the law: a multitude of Jews came to Caesarea and gave Cumanus no rest until the offender had been executed. Some Galilean Jews were murdered in a Samaritan village and, since Cumanus took no measures, Eleazar and Alexander, at the head of a strong band, laid waste villages and massacred defenseless people in Samaria. Quadratus, the legate of Syria, executed the culprits and sent the leading Jews and Samaritans together with Cumanus to Rome. Claudius, upon the plea of Agrippa II, freed the Jews and executed the Samaritans; Cumanus, however, was exiled.
The time of Felix (51-60) marks the beginning of that constant tension and open hostility between Jews and Romans which inevitably led to war. Even though he was a freedman, he married in succession three royal princesses; Suetonius, however, exaggerates when he calls him "husband of three queens." One of them was Drusilla, daughter of Agrippa I and sister of Agrippa II, whom he persuaded to divorce Azizus, king of Emesa. His drastic measures against the Zealots who advocated war against Rome not only increased their popularity with the masses, but resulted in the rise of the Sicarii, or Assassins, \52/ the most fanatical and homicidal among the Zealots. The high priest Jonathan (like many others) fell by their daggers, being considered (to use modern language) a "collaborationist." It is said that Felix hired Sicarii for this murder. Religious fanaticism was flaming by the side of patriotic ardor, and was similarly repressed by Felix. A Jewish prophet from Egypt gathered a multitude in the wilderness, promising to lead them to the Mount of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall to the ground at his word. But this credulous mob was attacked by Felix, and the Egyptian disappeared in flight (Josephus, Antiquities 20.8, 5; War 2.13, 2; Acts 21.38). Such measures tended to unite both types of fanatics (patriotic and religious), as well as the mass of the people, into a single party pledged to fight Rome through terrorism, plunder, and assassination until final victory was achieved.
\52/ Josephus, Antiquities 20.8, 5 and 10; War 2.13, 3; Acts 21.38.
While the Apostle Paul was a prisoner of Felix in Caesarea (Acts 23-24) about 58-60, riots broke out in that city between Jews and gentiles after the Jews had tried to curtail the civic rights of the gentiles, because the city had been founded by Herod.
Festus (60-62) was an able and honest administrator, but the situation was beyond cure. Nero (54-68) decided the quarrel at Caesarea in favor of the "Hellenes," the masters of the city according to his verdict. The resulting bitterness of the Jews was one of the causes of the war in 66-70. Festus, after several hearings, sent Paul to Rome at his own request (Acts 24.27-27.2). In spite of the efforts of Festus to pacify the country, [[40]] the Sicarii and the religious fanatics were as active as ever. Military forces had to be used against an "impostor" who promised salvation and deliverance from woes to those who followed him into the wilderness.
After Festus died in office, anarchy prevailed in Jerusalem until the arrival of his successor, Albinus (62-64). The high priest Ananus (son of the Annas mentioned in the Gospels) had several of his enemies stoned -- including (according to the report in Josephus, Antiquities 20.9, 1, which may be a Christian interpolation) James "the brother of Jesus called the Christ." Agrippa II deposed Ananus after three months, appointing Jesus the son of Damneus. When the latter was deposed in favor of Jesus the son of Gamaliel, street battles were fought between the followers of the two rival high priests. The avarice, nepotism, and cruelty of the high priests of this period \53/ are denounced in the Talmud (Pesahim 57a, where four families are mentioned: those of Boethus, Annas [or Ananus], Cantherus, and Ishmael son of Phabi): "They are high priests, and their sons are treasurers, and their sons-in-law are superintendents (of the temple), and their servants beat the people with sticks."
\53/ A list of the high priests from 37 BCE to the last one elected by the people in 67 CE, with dates and references to ancient sources, is given in E. Schu%rer, Geschichte, vol. 2, pp. 269-273.
Far from attempting, like Festus, to restore law and order, Albinus deliberately stirred the trouble to his own gain: he arrested indiscriminately the followers of the former high priest Ananias, who was favorable to the Romans, and their enemies the Sicarii, but he released all who paid the required bribe. When Albinus was recalled, he executed convicted criminals, but freed all the other prisoners and thus (according to Josephus) filled the land with robbers.
Gessius Florus (64-66), if we believe Josephus, was so wicked and violent that by comparison Albinus seemed to be a public benefactor: at least Albinus sinned in secret, but Florus ostentatiously exhibited his crimes publicly. He did not limit himself to robbing individuals, but plundered entire towns; and, upon payment of bribes, he allowed robbers full freedom of action. The situation became so intolerable for the Jewish nation that (as Josephus says) it preferred to be destroyed at one stroke rather than bit by bit; and so from 66 to 70 it fought heroically in a war that was doomed to end in tragic defeat. Four years before the war (in 62) a farmer named Jesus the son of Ananus appeared in Jerusalem during the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles and cried aloud continuously, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, a voice against this whole people!" (Josephus, War 6.5, 3). No prophecy was ever fulfilled more tragically. [[41]]
5. The War Against the Romans (66-73)
The spark that started the conflagration, as frequently happens, was an event which did not seem particularly significant at the time. In Caesarea the gentiles had humiliated the Jews by achieving, through Nero's decision, superior civic rights; to this detriment, derision was soon added. The "Hellenes" hindered the access to a synagogue in Caesarea by building shops in front of it and once, during the sabbath services, sacrificed a bird near the entrance of the synagogue. The Jews obtained no satisfaction from Florus, in spite of their bribes (Josephus, War 2.14, 4-5). Jerusalem restrained its fury, but when Florus took 17 talents from the temple treasury, baskets were passed around sarcastically to raise a collection for that indigent Florus! The procurator took bloody vengeance for the insult. When the Syrian legate Cestius Gallus sent to Jerusalem the tribune Neapolitanus, the city was bitter but calm. Agrippa II made an impression when he showed how futile rebellion against Rome would be, but when he was forced to admit that obedience to the emperor meant obedience to Florus he lost his hold on the people (War 2.14.6 ff.). The war party, led by Eleazar, the son of the former high priest Ananias Nedebai (an aristocrat carried away by the movement), gained the upper hand: by stopping the sacrifices in behalf of Nero in 66, Eleazar openly rebelled against Rome. Meanwhile Masada fell into the hands of the rebels, and its Roman garrison there was massacred to the last man (War 2.17, 2).
The authorities and the leaders of the Jews (the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Herodians) joined in an effort to save the people from war and ruin. Their appeals for help brought insufficient forces from Agrippa, but none from Florus. Defeated by the rebels, the Jewish higher classes withdrew into Herod's palace, while the insurgents captured the tower Antonia, and were reinforced by Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean, with his band of Zealots well provided with weapons from Masada. The Jewish leaders and soldiers were allowed free exit from Herod's palace; but the Roman troops, after some resistance in the three strong towers of the palace, capitulated and were butchered on the spot. The aristocracy thus lost all authority, but strife broke out between Jerusalem's rebels, led by Eleazar, and the provincials, led by Menahem (who had slain the high priest Ananias, the father of Eleazar); soon the latter were driven out or killed, and Menahem was slain (Josephus, War 2.17, 3-10).
Riots like these spread to other cities: where the Jews were in the majority, as at Machaerus and Jericho, they dispersed or slew the Roman garrisons; where the gentiles prevailed, as at Caesarea, Ashkelon, Scythopolis, Damascus, and Alexandria, horrible pogroms broke out; only in the [[42]] domains of Agrippa and a few other districts were the Jews safe (War 2.18, 1-8).
In October of 66, Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, began the siege of Jerusalem. Apparently convinced that he lacked the necessary forces, he turned back and when the Jews surrounded him at the pass of Beth-horon he abandoned his war material and fled in panic (War 2.18, 9-2.19, 9).
This victory united all the Jews for war against Rome: the influential men -- the former authorities -- now regained the helm and organized the nation for war. Joseph son of Gorion and the high priest Ananus were put in charge of Jerusalem's defense; Jesus son of Sapphias and Eleazar son of Ananias were sent to Idumea. Joseph son of Matthias (the later historian Flavius Josephus) became the governor of Galilee (War 2.20), where John of Giscala son of Levi stirred up the people against him (War 2.21).
Nero chose his most experienced military commander, Vespasian, to crush the rebellion in Judea. In the spring of 67 Vespasian was at Ptolemais, in command of three legions (the 15th had been brought by his son Titus from Alexandria) and of auxiliary troops, reaching a grand total of 60,000 men (War 3.1-4). During the good season of 67 Vespasian conquered Galilee (War 3.6-4.2), but John of Giscala (i.e., gu^sh halab [mass of milk], a village in Galilee) and his band of Zealots succeeded in escaping to Jerusalem (War 4.2, 2-5). Their arrival plunged the city into a bloody civil war during the winter of 67-68. Through Idumean help, John became the master of Jerusalem, and the former leaders and aristocrats were executed or assassinated (War 4.3-5; 4.6, 1). \54/ Vespasian decided to let the Jews destroy themselves through civil war within the walls of Jerusalem, and in March of 68 began operations in Perea, which was conquered by his lieutenant Placidus, and later he subjected western Judea and Idumea, thus gaining the mastery of the whole territory around Jerusalem, which could now be besieged (War 4.6, 2-8, 1; 4.9, 1). But upon receiving the report of Nero's death (June, 68) Vespasian interrupted the operations for a year. In June of 69, however, he was forced to fight in Judea and became master of all Palestine except Jerusalem, Herodium, Masada, and Machaerus (War 4.9, 2-9). During these operations, the chief of a band of Zealots, Simon Bar-Giora ("son of the proselyte"), who had become master of Idumea during Vespasian's inactivity, found it expedient to enter Jerusalem. In the spring of 69 he was welcomed there by the enemies of John of Giscala, who had been terrorizing the population. As a result the city now had two mutually hostile tyrants instead of one (War 4.9, 10-12). [[43]]
\54/ The Christian community in Jerusalem left the city at this time, or shortly before (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.5, 2-3; Epiphanius, Haeres. 29, 7; de mensuris 15).
When the legions on the Rhine proclaimed Vitellius as emperor, following the ephemeral rule of Galba and Otho, the legions in Egypt and the Near East acclaimed Vespasian as the emperor in July of 69. So, after placing his son Titus in command, Vespasian went to Alexandria, where he heard that Vitellius had been murdered (December 69), and arrived in Rome early in the summer of the following year (War 4.10-11).
In Jerusalem a third leader had sprung up in the meantime: Eleazar the son of Simon. In the battles among the three, considerable amounts of provisions were consumed by fire (War 5.1, 1-5). Titus, at the head of four legions (in addition to the 5th, 10th, and 15th, also the 12th) and auxiliary troops (5.1, 6), arrived at Jerusalem in April of 70; at the time of the Passover celebration John of Giscala overcame Eleazar in the temple court, and henceforth only two masters remained within the city (5.2; 5.3, 1).
The topography of Jerusalem and the siege operations are described by Josephus (War 5.4-5 and 5.6-13; 6.1-3) with considerable detail; it is clear from his account that famine contributed to the fall of the city no less than military operations. Finally the gates were burned on the 9th of Ab (ca. August) of 70, and the following day the battle raged within the temple courts. The sacred buildings were accidentally set on fire -- contrary to the orders of Titus, if we believe Josephus -- and the ensuing butchery of helpless Jews was horrible (War 6.4-6). John of Giscala and his band escaped to Herod's palace, where after a weak resistance they were captured together with Simon and his men. After a siege of five months, all of Jerusalem, plundered and burning, was occupied by Titus on the 8th of Elul (ca. September): only the three towers of Herod's palace were left standing in the leveled city (War 6.7-9; 7.1-2).
Titus celebrated his triumph in Rome in 71. As we can still see sculptured on his triumphal arch, the golden seven-armed candlestick and the table of showbread from the temple were carried in the triumphal procession; later they were deposited in Vespasian's temple to Peace (War 7.5, 3-7). But the war in Palestine was not yet ended. Lucilius Bassus, the successor of Vettulenus Cerealis as governor of Judea, conquered Herodium without great difficulty but Machaerus only after a long siege (War 7.6, 1-4). Finally Masada -- the strongest position of all -- fell to the successor of Bassus, Flavius Silva, in April of 73 after the defenders, on the exhortation of Eleazar, killed their families then themselves (War 7.8-9). Some of the Jewish rebels fled to Alexandria, where the resulting agitation in 73 caused the closing of the Jewish temple fou
