APP. IV diadem (Ant. xx. 10). Aristobulus II. had to adorn as captive the triumphal entry of the conqueror into Rome.1 The civil rule of Hyrcanus as Ethnarch must from the first have been very limited. It was still more contracted when, during the Proconsulate of Gabinius (57– 55 B.C.), Alexander, a son of Aristobulus, who had escaped from captivity, tried to possess himself of the government of Judæa (Ant. xiv. 5. 2-4). The office of Hyrcanus was now limited to the Temple, and the Jewish territory, divided into five districts, was apportioned among five principal cities, ruled by a council of local notables (apiro). Thus, for a short time, monarchical gave place to aristocratic government in Palestine. The renewed attempts of Aristobulus or of his family to recover power only led to fresh troubles, which were sadly diversified by the rapacity and severity of the Romans. The Triumvir Crassus, who succeeded Gabinius (55–53 B.C.), plundered the Temple not only of its treasures but of its precious vessels. A new but not much happier era began with Julius Cæsar. If Aristobulus and his son Alexander had not fallen victims to the party of Pompey, the prospects of Hyrcanus and Antipater might now have been very unpromising. But their death and that of Pompey (whom they had supported) changed the aspect of matters. Antipater not only espoused the cause of the victor of Pharsalus, but made himself eminently useful to Cæsar. In reward, Hyrcanus was confirmed as Pontiff and Ethnarch of Judæa, while Antipater was made a Roman citizen and nominated Epitrophos, or (Roman) administrator of the country. Of course, the real power was in the hands of the Idumæan, who continued to hold it, despite the attempts of Antigonus, the only surviving son of Aristobulus. And from henceforth Cæsar made it part of his policy to favour the Jews (comp. the decrees in their favour, Ant. xiv. 10). Meantime Antipater had, in pursuance of his ambitious plans, appointed his son Phasael Governor of Jerusalem, and Herod Governor of Galilee. The latter, although only twenty-five years of age, soon displayed the vigour and sternness which characterised his after-career. He quelled what probably was a nationalist' rising in Galilee, in the blood of Ezekias, its leader, and of his chief associates. This indeed secured him the favour of Sextus Cæsar, the Governor of Syria, a relative of the great Imperator. But in Jerusalem, and among the extreme Pharisaic party, it excited the utmost indignation. They foresaw the advent of a foe most dangerous to their interests and liberty, and vainly sought to rid themselves of him. It was argued that the government of the country was in the hands of the High-Priest, and that Herod, as Governor of Galilee, appointed by a foreign administrator, had no right to pronounce capital punishment without a sentence of the Sanhedrin. Hyrcanus yielded to the clamour; but Herod appeared before the Sanhedrin, not as a criminal, but arrayed in purple, surrounded by a body-guard, and supported by the express command of Sextus Cæsar to acquit him. The story which is related (though in different version, and with different names), in the Talmud (Sanh. 19 a), and by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 9. 3–5), presents a vivid picture of what passed in the Sanhedrin. The appearance of Herod had so terrified that learned body that none ventured to speak, till their president, Shemajah (Sameas), by his bold speech, rallied their courage. Most truly did he foretell the fate which overtook them ten years later, when Herod ruled in the Holy City. But Hyrcanus adjourned the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and persuaded 1 The captives then brought to Rome and sold as slaves became the nucleus of the Jewish community in the imperial city. 2 Comp. the masterly survey of the state of matters in Syria and Judæa in Marquardt, Handb. d. Röm. Alterth., vol. iv. pp. 247260. TO THE ACCESSION OF HEROD. Herod to withdraw from Jerusalem. His was, however, only a temporary humiliation. Sextus Cæsar named Herod Governor of Cole-Syria, and he soon appeared with an army before Jerusalem, to take vengeance on Hyrcanus and the Sanhedrin. The entreaties of his father and brother induced him, indeed, to desist for the time, but ten years later, alike Hyrcanus and the members of the Sanhedrin fell victims to his revenge. Another turn of affairs seemed imminent when Cæsar fell under the daggers of the conspirators (15 March, 44), and Cassius occupied Syria. But Antipater and Herod proved as willing and able to serve him as formerly Cæsar. Antipater, indeed, perished through a court- or perhaps a 'Nationalist' plot, but his murderers soon experienced the same fate at the hands of those whom Herod had hired for the purpose. And still the star of Herod seemed in the ascendant. Not only did he repel attempted inroads by Antigonus, but when Antonius and Octavianus (in 42 B.C.) took the place of Brutus and Cassius, he succeeded once more in ingratiating himself with the former, on whom the government of Asia devolved. The accusations made by Jewish deputations had no influence on Antony. Indeed, he went beyond his predecessors in appointing Phasael and Herod tetrarchs of Judæa. Thus the civil power was now nominally as well as really in their hands. But the restless Antigonus was determined not to forego his claim. When the power of Antony was fast waning, in consequence of his reckless indulgences, Antigonus seized the opportunity of the incursion of the Parthians into Asia Minor to attain the great object of his ambition. In Jerusalem the adherents of the two parties were engaged in daily conflicts, when a Parthian division appeared. By treachery Phasael and Hyrcanus were lured into the Parthian camp, and finally handed over to Antigonus. Herod, warned in time, had escaped from Jerusalem with his family and armed adherents. Of his other opponents Antigonus made sure. To unfit Hyrcanus for the Pontificate his ears were cut off, while Phasael destroyed himself in his prison. Antigonus was now undisputed High-Priest and king. His brief reign of three years (40-37 B.C.) is marked by coins which bear in Hebrew the device: Matthatjah the High-Priest, and in Greek: King Antigonus. The only hope of Herod lay in Roman help. He found Antony in Rome. What difficulties there were, were removed by gold, and when Octavian gave his consent, a decree of the Senate declared Antigonus the enemy of Rome, and at the same time appointed Herod King of Judæa (40 B.C.). Early in the year 39 B.C. Herod was in Palestine to conquer his new kingdom by help of the Romans But their aid was at first tardy and reluctant, and it was 38, or more probably 37, before Herod could gain possession of Jerusalem itself. Before that he had wedded the beautiful and unhappy Mariamme, the daughter of Alexander and granddaughter of Hyrcanus, to whom he had been betrothed five years before. His conquered capital was desolate indeed, and its people impoverished by exactions. But Herod had reached the goal of his ambition. All opposition was put down, all rivalry rendered impossible. Antigonus was beheaded, as Herod had wished; the feeble and aged Hyrcanus was permanently disqualified for the Pontificate; and any youthful descendants of the Maccabees left were absolutely in the conqueror's power. The long struggle for power had ended, and the Asmonæan family was virtually destroyed. Their sway had lasted about 130 years. Looking back on the rapid rise and decline of the Maccabees, on their speedy degeneration, on the deeds of cruelty with which their history so soon became stained, on the selfishness and reckless ambition which characterised them, and especially on the profoundly anti-nationalist and anti-Pharisaic, we had almost said 679 APP. IV APP. IV anti-Jewish, tendency which marked their sway, we can understand the bitter hatred with which Jewish tradition has followed their memory. The mention of them is of the scantiest. No universal acclamation glorifies even the deeds of Judas the Maccabee; no Talmudic tractate is devoted to that 'feast of the dedication* which celebrated the purging of the Temple and the restoration of Jewish worship. In fact such was the feeling, that the priestly course of Jojarib-to which the Asmonæans belonged-is said to have been on service when the first and the second Temple were destroyed, because 'guilt was to be punished on the guilty. More than that, 'R. Levi saith: Jehojarib [“ Jehovah will contend"], the man [the name of the man or family]; Meron ["rebellion," evidently a play upon Modin, the birthplace of the Maccabees], the town; Massarbey [" the rebels," evidently a play upon Makkabei]—He hath given up the Temple to the enemies.' Rabbi Berachjah saith: 'Jah hariv [Jehojarib], God contended with His children, because they revolted and rebelled against Him' (Jer. Taan. iv. 8, p. 68 d, line 35 from bottom).1 Indeed, the opprobrious designation of Sarbetha, rebellion, and Sarbaney El, rebels against God, became in course of time so identified with the Maccabees, that it was used when its meaning was no longer understood. Thus Origen (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25) speaks of the (Apocryphal) books of the Maccabees as 'inscribed Sarbeth, Sarbane El.' So thoroughly had these terms become identified in popular parlance, that even the tyranny and cruelty of a Herod could not procure a milder judgment on the sway of the Asmonæans. 1 Comp. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 204; Derenbourg, p. 119, note. Comp. Hamburger, u. s. p. 367. Various strange and most unsatisfactory explanations have been proposed of these mysterious words, which yet, on consideration, seem so easy of understanding. Comp. the curious explanations of Grimm, Ewald, and others, in Grimm's Exeget. Handb. zu d. Apokryphen, 3te Lief. p. xvii. CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE HALACHOTH. APPENDIX V. RABBINIC THEOLOGY AND LITERATURE. (Vol. i. Book I. ch. viii.) 1. The Traditional Law.-The brief account given in vol. i. p. 100, of the character and authority claimed for the traditional law may here be supplemented by a chronological arrangement of the Halachoth in the order of their supposed introduction or promulgation. 4 5 In the first class, or 'Halachoth of Moses from Sinai,' tradition enumerates fifty-five, which may be thus designated: religio-agrarian, four; ritual, including questions about 'clean and unclean,' twenty-three; 3 concerning women and intercourse between the sexes, three; concerning formalities to be observed in the copying, fastening, &c., of the Law and the phylacteries, eighteen; exegetical, four; purely superstitious, one; not otherwise included, two. Eighteen ordinances are ascribed to Joshua, of which only one is ritual, the other seventeen being agrarian and police regulations. The other traditions can only be briefly noted. Boaz, or else the tribunal of Samuel,' fixed, that Deut. xxiii. 3 did not apply to alliances with Ammonite and Moabite women. Two ordinances are ascribed to David, two to Solomon, one to Jehoshaphat, and one to Jehoiada. The period of Isaiah and of Hezekiah is described as of immense Rabbinic activity. To the prophets at 1 The numbers given by Maimonides, in his Preface to the Mishnah, and their arrangement, are somewhat different, but I prefer the more critical (not unfrequently hypercritical) enumeration of Herzfeld. They are also enumerated in Peiser's Nachlath Shimoni, Part I. pp. 47-49 b. 2 Peah. ii. 6; Yad. iv. S; Tos. Peah. 3; Orlah iii. 9. 3 Erub. 4a; Nidd. 72 b; Cher. 6b; Ab. d. R. N. 19, 25; Tos. Chall. 1; Shabb. 70 a; Bech. 16a; Nas. 28b; Chull. 27 a, 28 a; 42 a, 43 a; Moed K. 3 b. Of these, the most interesting to the Christian reader are about the 11 ingredients of the sacred incense (Cher. 6b); about the 26 kinds of work prohibited on the Sabbath (Shabb. 70 a); that the father, but not the mother, might dedicate a child under age to the Nasirate (Nas. 28 b); the 7 rules as to slaughtering animals to cut the neck; to cut through the trachea, and, in the case of four-footed animals, also through the gullet; not to pause while slaughtering; to use a knife perfectly free of all notches, and quite sharp; not to strike with the knife; not to cut too near the head; and not to stick the knife into the throat; certain determinations about the Feast of Tabernacles, such as about the pouring out of the water, &c. 5 Jer. Meg. i.9; Shabb. 286; Men. 32a; 35 a. 7 Pes. 110 b. Not to eat two pieces (even numbers) of an egg, a nut, or cucumber, &c. 8 Eduj. viii. 7; Tanch. 60 a. The first of these Halachoth speaks of the activity of Elijah in preparation for the coming of the Messiah (Mal. iii. 23, 24, A. V. iv. 5, 6), as directed to restore those of pure Israelitish descent who had been improperly extruded, and to extrude those who had been improperly admitted. 9 Baba K. 81a; Tos. Baba M. 11; Jer. Baba K. iii. 2. Among the police regulations is this curious one, that all were allowed to fish in the Lake of Galilee, but not to lay down nets, so as not to impede the navigation. 681 APP. APP. V Jerusalem three ritual ordinances are ascribed. Daniel is represented as having prohibited the bread, wine, and oil of the heathen (Dan. i. 5). Two ritual determinations are ascribed to the prophets of the Exile. After the return from Babylon traditionalism rapidly expanded, and its peculiar character more and more clearly developed. No fewer than twelve traditions are traced back to the three prophets who flourished at that period, while four other important legal determinations are attributed to the prophet Haggai individually. It will readily be understood that Ezra occupied a high place in tradition. Fifteen ordinances are ascribed to him, of which some are ritual. Three of his supposed ordinances have a general interest. They enjoin the general education of children, and the exclusion of Samaritans from admission into the Synagogue and from social intercourse. If only one legal determination is assigned to Nehemiah, the men of the Great Synagogue' are credited with fifteen, of which six bear on important critical and exegetical points connected with the text of the Scriptures, the others chiefly on questions connected with ritual and worship. Among the pairs' (Sugoth) which succeeded the 'Great Synagogue,' three 'alleviating' ordinances (of a very punctilious character) are ascribed to José the son of Joezer,1 and two, intended to render all contact with heathens impossible, to him and his colleague. Under the Maccabees the feast of the dedication of the Temple was introduced. To Joshua the son of Perachja, one punctilious legal determination is ascribed. Of the decrees of the Maccabean High-Priest Jochanan we have already spoken in another place; similarly, of those of Simon the son of Shetach and of his learned colleague. Four legal determinations of their successors Shemajah and Abtalion are mentioned. Next in order comes the prohibition of Greek during the war between the Maccabean brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. This brings us to the time of Hillel and Shammai, that is, to the period of Jesus, to which further reference will have to be made in another place. 2. The Canon of Scripture.-Reference has been made in the text (vol. i. p. 107) to the position taken by Traditionalism in reference to the written as compared with what was regarded as the oral Revelation. Still, nominally, the Scriptures were appealed to by the Palestinians as of supreme authority. The views which Josephus expresses in this respect, although in a popular and Grecianised form, were substantially those entertained by the Rabbis and by his countrymen generally (comp. Ag. Apion, i. 7, 8). A sharp distinction was made between canonical and non-canonical books. The test of the former was inspiration, which had ceased in the time of Artaxerxes, that is, with the prophet Malachi. Accordingly, the work of the elder Jesus the son of Sirach (Jeshua ben Sira, ben Elieser) was excluded from the Canon, although it is not unfrequently referred to by Rabbinic authorities in terms with which ordinarily only Biblical quotations are introduced. According to the view propounded by Josephus, not only were the very words inspired in which a prediction was uttered, but the prophets were unconscious and passive vehicles of the Divine message (Ant. iv. 6. 5; comp. generally, Ant. ii. 8. 1; |