ISLE, ISLAND ISRAEL

KITTIM’(Jer. 210, Ezek. 2 7 6 ) ; Phcenicia, too, and v+~ous), and ‘island’ in Job2230 (AV) are corrupt.
Caphtor are ‘isles,’ according to EV of Is. 2 3 2 , and On ‘ wild beasts of the islands ’ see JACKAL (4).
RVmg. of Jer. 47 4. This rendering is defensible in the T. K. C.
passage in Jer. (if CAPHTOR [p.v.] be Crete), but not in ISMACHIAH ($il:?up!, ‘Yahwi: sustains,’ zg
that in Is. The occurrence of ?n : 3 ; ~ in Is. 1111 (6 44 ; cp S EMACHIAH ), a Levite, temp. Hezekiah;
is arbitrary) is a subsidiary argument for making this 2 Ch. 3113f (ca~ax[s]ia[BAL], L adds uexwtas and
verse and its context post-exilic. The writers of the Pro- BaLuwv).
s
phecy of Restoration (Is. 40-55, see I SAIAH ii., 1 6 8 ) ISMAEL ( ICMAHA [BWaAL]). I. Judith 2 23
appeal to the ‘ islands ’ or ‘ far lands ‘ to interest them- (MAHK [H”]), RV I SHMAEL [4.v.]. 2. I Esd. 9 zz
selves in the successes of Cyrus and the rescue of the ( I C M A H ~ O C [BAI). See ISHMAEL (6).
Jews. They even say that the ‘far lands wait’
(longingly) for Yahwb and for the teaching of his ISMAERUS ( I C M ~ H ~ O[A]),
C I Esd. 934 RV=Ezra
1034, AMRAM,2.
servant (Is. 4 2 4 51 5 ; cp Ps. 971). Very different
language is used by a later prophet (Is. 59 IS), who ISMAIAII (?l:Vpp,), I Ch. 1 2 4 , RV ISHMAIAH (q.~).
evidently belonged to a period of disillusionment, when ISPAH, RV ISHPAH(?I!$@), b. Beriah in a gene-
the Gentile world (see G ENTILES ) seemed wholly given
up to wickedness. I Islands ’ in Ecclus. 43 23 (n.:!,
s
alogyof BENJAMIN (q.v., g, ii. p ) , I Ch. 8x6 (CA@AN
[Bl, ec@ax [AI, isc@aL1).

Origin ($5 1.5).
Settlement ($ 6J).
First experiences ($5 8-11
Saul and David (55 12-22];
Solomon (55 23-25).
New civilisation (5 26).
Patriarch legends (5 27).
Disruption (5 2 8 8 ) .
Fall of Israel ($ 32).
ISRAEL
CONTENTS
Parties in Judah : Deuteronomy(5$ 33-38). Seleucida? ($5 67fi).
Assyria yields to Babylon (5 39A). Maccabees (I 7 2 8 ) .
Fall of Judah (55 41-45). Internal affairs (5 818).
Developments a t Babylon : 2 Isaiah ($5 46-49). Herodian dynasty (5 8 5 8 ) .
Movement at Jerusalem (55 50-54). Procurators (5 goA).
Nehemiah and Ezra ($5 55.57). Religions movements : Christianity (5 g2J).
Congregation and Torah ($5 58-64). Philip-Felix ($8 94-100).
Samaria (5 65). Final struggle ($5 101-XIS).
Persian period (B 66). Bibliography (0 1x6).

The mountains of Canaan are world-famous because
they are the scene of the history of the Israelites-a
history. of gradual growth, brief prosperity, and slow
yet glorious decline. For the original roots, however,
of the people of Israel we must look elsewhere than in
the land where its history was lived. It was not till
it had become a growing tree that Israel was trans-
planted to Canaan, nobler already than when it first
appeared, a wilding of the desert. It is true that in
relating their reminiscences the Israelites expressed
themselves as if in the very earliest times their people had 29#.), and (2) in the liturgical formula preserved in Dt. 26 5 it
been a full-grown tree planted in Canaan. Unquestion-
ably in this mode of regarding the facts one can see
the workings of a primitive nature; it makes the task
of ascertaining the historical facts doubly difficult.
Events of the wilderness period, which never come into
the full daylight of history as they actually happened,
are presented in a false light when they are related as
events in the life of a united and settled people living
and thinking under quite other conditions, such as Israel
did not attain until centuries afterwards in Canaan.
Thus the attempt to describe the first beginnings of
Israel demands the exercise of all the skill and tact that
the historian can command. First of all, he must make
it his business to remove the materials of his story out
of the false light in which he finds them. H e must not
carry back the settled and fully organised Israel of the
land of Canaan into the wilderness, but must begin
with separate pastoral tribes such as they were there.
Next, he must constantly bear in mind the peculiarities
of the narratives he works with-their legendary char-
acter, their conformity to a scheme, their didactic
purpose (see H ISTORICAL L ITERATURE , z 8). had inflicted on the Seirites (.ry~i.).Now, the Edomites,
At the same time, he must not allow his readers to
forget the impossibility of reaching conclusions at once
definite and certain about the beginnings of Israel.
What can be done in this obscure period is really
only tentative. It would be perverse, however, to
be altogether silent, and so the attempt must be
made.
The scene of the movement which resulted in the
creation of Israel as a people is the wilderness lying
1 On the name see JESHURUN.
2217
S. and E. of Palestine : more precisely, that portion
of it which borders in the N. and W.
1, original
desert home. on those lands of ancient civilisation,
the regions of the Euphrates and the
Tigris, of Syria and Egypt. The pastoral tribes that
had their abode there, in a s far as they can be reckoned
a s ancestors of Israel, belonged to the North Semitic
stock, probably to the Aramzan group.
This, at least, is the assertion of Israel’s own later tradition
when ( I ) in the patriarchal histories it uniformly represents it;
nearest kinsmen of pure blood as being Aramaeans (Gen. 24
designates its ancestor as a ‘ wandering Aramzan ’ (cp AXAM,
5 3, col. 278). The name ‘ Hebrew,’ far from contradicting this,
actually confirms it, for ’??p means one who comes from the
lands bordering on the Euphrates (l??? ‘pp, Is. 7 Z O ) . ~ N o r
is the philological difficulty, that the Hebrew language is not
Aramaic, of any weight. What we now call Hebrew i s
precisely the language of Canaan (Is. 19 IS), which makes i t s
appearance in the Amlrna tablets as early as 1400 B.C. ; and the
oldest Aramaic with which we are as yet acquainted (cp the
Sam’al-Zen’irli inscription of King Panammu, temp. Tiglath-
pileser 1II.J approaches the Hebrew of the land of Canaan very
closely; the difference is one only of dialect (cp A RAMAIC, 0 2).
It may be conjectured that the language of the Bedouins of that
period, on the borders of the cultivated territory of Syria, was
very similar to this Old Aramaic. If some of their clans or
tribes migrated into Canaan and settled there, the exchan e, as
far as language is concerned, was thus only one of dialect.#
Our earliest notice of these pastoral tribes is met with
on the Egyptian monuments. Within the period of the
nineteenth dynasty certain Edomites
2. In what s
(see EDOM, 3 ) seek admission into
I s ~ ~ ? ~ $ pEgyptian , ~ territory, and Rameses 111.
(20th dyn. ) commemorates a defeat he
as we know, are reckoned in the O T as blood relations
of Israel. It is a matter of indifference whether these
‘shepherds’ (Sasu) found the means of subsistence failing
them in the over-peopled wilderness, or whether the
pressure of other tribes behind forced them westward over
1 See further H EBREW L ANGUAGE $ I and cp EBER.
2 [On the other hand it is most uhlikily that there was any
Aramazai element of importance in Palestine as early even
as the time of;Solomon (cp ARAM): Israel’s theory of a
general Aramaean origin may have arisen from the circumstance
that somnb of the tribes belonged to a N. Semitic stock; cp
GENEALOGIES i., $ 4 ; TRIBES.]
2218
 ISRAEL
the Egyptian border. We must at any rate regard
it as a parallel case when Israel's ancestors sought
admission into Egypt and received permission to feed
their flocks in the land of Goshen-ie., the neighbour-
hood of Saft el-I;Ienne (Gen. 4510 4634, etc., J).l
Ilere they continued to observe the customs and usages
of nomads, and consequently were regarded by the civil-
ised Egyptians as utter barbarians who had neither part
nor lot in their own public life. As to the period of
this immigration into the eastern part of the Nile Delta,
a n d the duration of the sojourn, we have no trustworthy
data. Nor is it easy to say which of the ' twelve
tribes' of Israel took part in it. According to the OT,
indeed, all of them did so ; but it can easily be shown
that this representation is not historical. The number
twelve is itself artificial and conventional, as among other
peoples.2 Nor can it be even plausibly made out from
the narrative that all the ' twelve tribes' were con-
temporaneous (Simeon and Levi, Cen. 49 5-7; Benjamin,
Gen. 35 16-20 ; the ' grandchildren ' of Jacob-Ephraim
and Manasseh, Gen. 488-22). Several of them first
came into being in Palestine itself. It is only of Joseph
that the O T itself predicates any specially close con-
nection with Egypt (cp JOSEPH ii., § 11). In his case
the tradition is clear ; and the connection can hardly be
purely imaginary, though it is now inipossible for us to
discern distinctly the historical nucleus of truth through
the veil with which legend and poetry have enveloped
it. T o Joseph are to be traced back not only Manasseh
and Ephraim, but probably also B ENJAMIN [g. D. $5 I , 31
{the three together being equivalent to Rachel) : in other
words, Israelstrictly so-called. It is probable that Israel,
like Ishmael or Jcrahweel, was originally a tribal name,
assumed (like that of Joseph?) in contradistinction from
,other tribes of Hebrews, by the clans which had
sojourned for some time in Egypt; but, since at a
later date, in Canaan, the name embraced the whole
people, we can understand how the later legend came
to represent all the tribes which had had a share in the
conquest and settlement of Canaan as having also taken
part in the Egyptian sojourn.
The Exodus, historically viewed, is but one in a long
3. The Exodus, series of movements having (in
general) as their common goal the
civilised land of Canaan. See E XODUS i.
Among the Bedouin tribes of that period, M OAB ~ ~ ~ A M M the
( q a . $ 3) seem to have been the first to become sedentary (cp
however G AD 8 7,L-Moab on the E. of the Dead Sea ; Ammo:
on the &E. f. Moab on the Up er Jabbok (Dt.2 ref. .of: . ever, Pharaoh finds himself compelled to give the tribe
Their examp!e was fdllowed by tge Edomites (cp EDOM, 8 41,
who settled on both sides (and cbieflyon the E.) of the Wndy
el-'Araba. Their success exercised an irresistible fascination
upon the tribes of the adjacent wilderness. These felt themselves
touched with the breath of God, and their aimless wanderings
gave way to a planned movement,-they now aimed a t Canaan I
When and where they made their first inroad we
know not, nor are we concerned to do more than trace
the share wbich Israel took in this movement. We
may, however, note in passing that the frequently sug-
gested parallel between the Habiri of the Amilrna
tablets and the cpy~yof the OT does not, from this
point of view, seem wholly inadmissible : only, it must
not be so understood as to make the Habiri identical
with Israel.
From the confused mass of tribes and clans the
august figure of Moses stands out in bold relief. The
name is Egyptian (see MOSES) ; tradition reckons its
bearer (doubtless because he was a priest) to the
tribe of Levi. H e was a shepherd in the service of
Reuel (or, according to another account, of Jethro),
the priest of the Midianites, and was also his son-in-law
(Ex. 216-22; Hobab, son of Reuel, Nu. 1029-32 ; Jethro,
Ex. 31 418 181 8 ; on the other hand, a Kenite,
1 See GOSHENi.
2 The Hebrew genealogists have either to mention Joseph 5s
one tribe, tomake room for Levi (Gen. 46 ~ g f l . ) or
, to omit L e n , of the hands of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the
'80 that Ephraim and Manasseh can be counted separately (Nu.
7 20-47). The number.twelve may be the result of compromise
(see GENEALOGIES i., $ 5).
2219
ISRAEL
Judg. 116 411). It may safely be assumed .that the
Midianite priest exercised an influence on Moses' work
(Ex. 18 Nu. 10). The Midianites are repeatedly spoken
of as merchantmen well acquainted with the trade routes
(Gen. 371836 Nu. 1031) ; and w e may be sure that all
the news brought by caravans, about events i n the
wilderness and in the settled lands on which it bordered,
never failed to reach the ears of their priest. Among
other pieces of information came the news that the warlike
AMOKITES (coming down from the north ; cp col. 1586,
top) bad invaded the territory of the Ammonites and
Moabites in the districts to the E. of Jordan, and after
conquering it for the most part, had founded within it
two kingdoms-a more northerly, with Asht2rath and
Edrei as^ its tw-o great towns, and a more southerly,
with Hesbbon for capital. Perhaps the vanquished may
have called upon the wilderness tribes that were related
to them to assist in doing battle with the victors;
perhaps the tidings of what had occurred may have
been inducement enough to form an expedition against
the cultivated country beside Jordan. At all events, it
was Moses who had the insight to take control of the
movement and who became its leader.
At the mountain of God (Horeb, see S INAI ), the legend
runs, Moses heard the call of Yahw&his tribal god (Ex.
36, ' the god of thy father' : cp 184) tosummon back into
the wilderness the tribe of Israel now sojourning in Egypt,
and to give it a place in the forward movement. Moses
betook himself to Egypt and demanded permission for
the tribe of Israel to depart, the God of the Hebrews
having commanded them to observe at Horeb, in the
wilderness, a sacrificial feast-that of the Passover (Ex.
51-3 825 [ZI] 8 108-10,cp 312 18). This appears to
have been a skilfully chosen pretext. The demand, as
relating to worship, was one that could with good reason
be made, and the refusal of it must put the Egyptians
in the wrong and rouse Israel's anger. Refused, how-
ever, it was. The explanation of this in the legend is
that the Egyptians required the presence of the Israelites
for forced labour on the building of the treasure cities,
PITHOM and RAMSES. Still here and there (Ex. 8 28 [ ~ 4 ]
10 1.3)we catch glimpses of Pharaohs real suspicion.
Not impossibly the Egyptians were acquainted with
what had been happening on the borders of the
Jordan, and with the agitation of the wilderness tribes,
O Ngrowth of which, as being perilous to their suzerainty
over Canaan, they wished to arrest. In the end, how-
of Israel the liberty to migrate that it asks, and Moses
leads his shepherds with all their belongings-after the
manner of pastoral peoples in their migrations-out of
Goshen to the wilderness.
Both the routes which lead across the narrow isthmus
between the marshes of the eastern branch of the Nile
and the northern extremity of the Red Sea (IWT) into
the wilderness were blocked by walls and defensive
works. Accordingly, when the Israelites had reached
the vicinity of Pithom (Heroonpolis)I-at that time
the present Gulf of Suez stretched so far inland-an
Egyptian army suddenly presented itself in their rear.
Escape seemed impossible : the wall and the water cut
them off. The men despaired of deliverance. Moses
alone did not flinch. He led Israel right up to the
shore of the Gulf, the waters of which were being driven
back by a strong east wind. Taking this natural
phenomenon, perhaps already familiar to him, as a
favourable token from YahwB, he caused the forward
march to be continued during the night over the sea-
bed that had been left dry, and the eastern shore
was safely reached. The pnrsuing Egyptians were
embarrassed by their war-chariots, and in the morning
the waters began to return to their natural state and cut
the enemy off. ' Thus YahwB saved Israel that day out
1 See EXODUS i., 0 1 0 8 ; GOSHENi.
2220
 ISRAEL
Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore, and the people
feared Yahwi:, and they believed in YahwB, and in his
servant Moses’ (Ex. 143of:).
Moses had summoned Israel ouf of Egypt, in the
name of Yahwi:, to war, and victory h-ad come to him
before he had lifted a weapon. For all those who had
lived through the experience it was a manifest work of
God. The clans, which were already related by blood,
felt themselves drawn together by a new bond of union
through the common deliverance which God had vouch-
safed to them. By the undreamed-of success he had
achieved, Moses was accredited without question as the
mouthpiece of God, and the people cheerfully yielded
him obedience. H e led them to Horeb (Sinai), the mount
of God ; and that was the scene not only of the sacri-
ficial feast of which he had spoken to Pharaoh, but also of
the institution of the Israelite’ religion. A manifest work
*, The new of God, a prophet of God to interpret it,
religion. ait community of men who had experienced
and understood it-such were the con-
ditions under which the new religion arose. It was
based neither upon the order of nature as a whole nor
upon the manifestation of any particular force of nature,
but was called forth by events in human history, events
in the spiritual life of men.
From this we perceive that in the religion instituted
by Moses we have to do with a new apprehension of
God. The name YahwB, certainly of primitive anti-
quity, and thus no longer capable of explanation by
us, tells us nothing as to the nature of the G0dhead.l
Certain expressions in the O T (e.g., Gen. 1924), and
perhaps also the conception that underlies the C HERUB
(4.n.§ 7 ) , would seem to indicate that Yahwi: was origin-
ally thought of as a divinity of the sky. What was
peculiar to and characteristic of the conception of God
in the new religion was that he was not thought of as a
personification of any natural force whatever, but was be-
lieved in as the lord over nature. H e was not regarded
as the one only God ; but he was thought of as being the
god to whom none of the other gods could be compared
(as is shown by the old proper name Micah ; see N AMES ,
$ 37, M ICHAIAH ). His might, therefore, was terrible ;
he was greatly to be feared. H e was, moreover, con-
tinually present in Israel ; which made his help a cer-
tainty, but was a warning not to neglect him. Israel’s
victories were to be his victories ; Israel‘s disasters
were chastisements from him. The ordering of justice
in Israel was to’ be determined and maintained by
Yahw&; he was Israel’s Lord and owner ( 5 ~ 2see , B AAL ,
3 I ) , for Israel was his handiwork. H e had his abode
in Sinai or Horeb, it is true ; but he was not the deity
of any land or city whose power and enjoyment of the
gifts of civilisation he guaranteed. Being a wilderness
deity, Yahwk was not attached to any definite place in
the same degree as the gods of the more civilised
peop!es : he went wherever his people went.
The community which YahwB created meant more than
a mere natural union of the clan and the tribe. The
whole, it is true, continued to be confined within the
tribal limits and to retain the tribal organisation ; but
the manifest work of God (the deliverance from Egypt)
and the religious construction that was based upon this,
founded all anew on a higher and historical basis,
that had expression and evidence in the divine name,
now filled with a new meaning. What bound the
community together for the future as well as for the
present was the exclusive worship of YAW&(monolatry),
the system of law introduced and practised by Moses,
the source and guardian of which was YahwB, but above
all the hope of possessing the land of Canaan. Moses
made the conquest of Canaan, as a divine command
and promise, an article in the religious constitution.
The name Yahw& thus acquired a strong power of
attraction for the desert tribes, as in its turn it gave the
1 Its occurrence in North Syria-also among Aramzans?-
has recently been proved (see further NAMES, 5 112).
2221
ISRAEL
higher sanction of faith to a movement somewhat re-
sembling that of the Arabs against the Byzantine
empire. The war-cry was in the name of Yahwi: ; the
sacred A RK (q...) instituted by Moses was the symbol
of Y A W &the war-god who went forth with his people
(Nu. 1035f: ; [h1w] nws v5i-i n ? ; zS. 62). How
many tribes at the outset put their faith in YahwKs
summons to war and entered into covenant with him by
oath we do not know ; doubtless Joseph or Israel
(properly so called) formed the kernel of the new
religious community.
Moses was the founder of the religion of Israel and
the leader in YahwB‘s war ; he was priest of the sanctuary
he had set up (Ex. 337-11), and, as such, he was also
supreme judge (Ex. 1 8 Nu. 16156). A later age called
him a -prophet (”23 ; Hos. 1 2 13 [14] Dt. 18 15), and
even unique in his kind (Nu. 126-8); this, too, was
not substantially incorrect. But lawgiver in the
traditional sense, as author of the Pentateuch (nim,
b vbpos, Jn. 117), or as the framer of a particular kind
of government, the theocratic (Jos. c. Ap. 216), Moses
certainly was not.
I n Ex. 24 and 34 we still meet with traces indicating that the
oldest tradition knew of certain ‘words of Yahw+’ or ‘covenant-
words’ which had come down from the times when the religion
was founded. These words, however, have been so mixed up
with non-Mosaic matter in later collections of ordinances that we
are no longer in a Dosition to clear the Mosaic kernel. Sneaking
generally,-we ma$ say there can be no doubt that Moses; during
the period of his judgeship, established legal principles or rules
which became norms and precedents for succeeding times. But
it is impossible, out of the collections of laws that have come
down to us to answer the question what these actually were ;
for every on’e of the collections in question dates from times in
which Israel had already accomplished the transition to the
agricultural life. See LAW L ITE RAT URE .
Nevertheless, Moses remains the founder of Israelite
law, just as much as he is the founder of Israelite
religion. Israelite law-jus and fas-was, in fact, the
essential part of the Israelite religion (?in? 377, Gen.
18 19 ; ’t ap+, Jer. 54). Apart from the fundamental law
that Yahwk alone was to be sacrificially worshipped,
Moses appears to have retained the traditionary and very
simple customs of the wilderness in matters of worship ;
even images were not forbidden. In 2 K. 184, for
example, the brazen serpent is carried back to Moses (cp
Nu. 216-9, see NEHUSHTAN). In fact, we may be
certain that it was in the sphere of worship that
primitive customs (totemism, animism) continued to
survive with greatest tenacity (cp I DOLATRY ). The
worshipping community, strictly so-called, continued
to be the clan, as before (cp GOVERNMENT, § 8). With
the above representation cp MOSES, PROPHECY.
Through the foundation of the religion by Moses the
political and economical currents of the wilderness were
5. Movements directed into a new and deeper channel,
the waters of which were augmented
in the
wilderness. from a new source. The mysterious
source of faith, touched by God, had
opened, and now poured forth its stream with elemental
power ; the flood laid hold of and swept along all that
it could reach. Indeed, if testimony were needed to the
power of Moses’s personality, it would certainly be
found in the fact that he established himself as leader of
the movement, gaining the upper hand over all out-
breaks of impatience or despondency, yet without
quenching the enthusiasm. For there were many
delays. A long waiting-time was devoted to self-
concentration and to experimental efforts at Kadesh
Barnea, now ‘ A n Kudis (Nu. 2016 13 Dt.146; see
K ADESH , 3 I ), from which the mountain of God,’ Sinai
or Horeb, the scene of the founding of the religion, was
probably not far distant. Relations were entered into
and unions formed with the neighbouring or kindred
tribes (e.g., Midianites, Kenites, Kenizzites), while
collisions with hostile tribes (Amalekites) were not
unknown. An attempt to penetrate into Canaan by
the shortest way-i. e . , from the south-proved un-
2222
 ISRAEL ISRAEL
successful (Nu. 13J Dt. 120-45 Nu. 21 I ) : but the con- about the year 1400 B. C. They confirm the knowledge,
jecture may be ventured that the peoples known as previously derived from the Egyptian inscriptions, that
Kain and Kenaz were originally small groups which from the time of the eighteenth dynasty (Thotmes I. and
remained within the limits of Canaan as the result of 'I'hotmes 111.) Syria had been under the suzerainty of
this attempt1 The first real advance was gained by the the Pharaohs, a sovereignty which continued into the
flood of immigrants on the road to the land eastward of tenth century to'he reasserted, though in a fitful way,
Jordan ; thence it was easy to enter Canaan. Again from time to time-then becoming merely nominal,
and again the devastating waters broke through the till finally Palestine fell into the hands of the Assyrians
slight harriers of public order in the civilised territory and the Babylonians. In this way Egyptian civilisation,
-principally, it would seem, in two main irruptions, the beside that of Babylon, acquired a formative influence
second of which was of such force that it covered on Syria ; the country had for long Egyptian governors
Canaan for centuries. and Egyptian garrisons ; and Egyptian monuments were
The details of the movement cannot now be given. erected. It was this twofold fertilising stream-from
I t is hardly possible to trace them, for tradition invariably the Euphrates and from the Nile-that produced the
gives the events of the wilderness life as if they related peculiar civilisation of Syria and gave it the mixed char-
to the entire nation of Israel such as it was when finally
settled in Canaan, and thus distorts the (presumable) facts. acter it possessed, although in the domain of religion
Moreover, all the narratives for the most part spring out of and mythology the Babylonian substratum continued
legend ; many of them, also, have a purely didactic purpose. to prevail throughout.
Legend laid hold of these occurrences with avidity; in the eyes
of the hostswhoactuallytook part in them-animatedand exalted The most important representatives of this civilisation
by religious faith-they were extraordinary, miraculous : how were the Hittites and the Phenicians. Whilst the
much more so they must have been in the memory of the people I political power of the Phenicians was limited to a narrow
W e can, however, perhaps still discern in dim out- strip of coast in Middle Syria (see P H ~ N I C I Athe ),
line the arrival of separate bands upon agricultural H ITTITES (4.v.) moulded between the Orontes and the
soil, and their attempts at settlement there. For if Euphrates a great empire which continued to subsist
we compare the order of the tribes of Israel-the until about 1200 B.C. In the south, in Canaan
twelve sons of Jacob (Gen. 2931 3518)-with the properly so-called, there were, as the 'Am&rna letters
notices we possess of their first appearance, their settle- let us know, many petty princes, kings of cities, who
ments, and in some cases their early disappearance, we ruled over the territory immediately adjacent to their
are led to conjecture that Israelite legend has placed at capitals. They acknowledged the Egyptian suzerainty,
the head of, the list those tribes which were the first to but manifestly regarded it as a means of maintaining
become sedentary, while those which were the last to d o their own petty power, partly zgainst envious riyals who
so are enumerated last. This criterion admits of being were constantly accusing them before the pharaoh as
applied with tolerable certainty in the case of the first rebels, and partly against the hostile inroads of foreign
four Leah tribes (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah), peoples (Amorites, Hittites, and Habiri ; cp C ANAAN ,
as also in that of the tribes of Rachel (Joseph and $5 1 2 8 ,and see above, 3). Thus, for example, we
Benjamin) ; and it may, accordingly, be conjectured that find 'Abd-ljba of. Jerusalem protesting his loyalty to
the younger Leah tribes (Issachar and Zebulun) were the Egyptians, while complaining of neglect on their
placed between these two groups out of regard to the part. Indeed the land seems at this period to have
time of their settlement in Canaan. The position of been denuded of its Egyptian troops, and the sover-
the Bilhah tribes (Dan and Naphthali) and of the eignty of the pharaohs to be falling into decay.
Zilpah tribes (Gad and Asher) is obscure. Why were T h e religion of the inhabitants of Canaan belonged to
some assigned to Rachel, and others to Leah? Only the class of Semitic nature-religions. Originally their
this much can safely be asserted : they had come into deities were simply personified forces of nature (e.g.,
existence not in the wilderness, but in Canaan.2 sky, sun, moon, thunder); but from their close con-
Leaving these questions aside (see the articles on the nection with the civilisation of the country they had
several tribes) let us try, out of what can be discerned, become the protectors of the most important human
to form for ourselves some picture of the manner in which activitities and relations, such as agriculture, vine-
Israel entered Canaan. But, first, as to Canaan itself. culture, law, medicine, and war. The cultus showed
In virtue of its natural situation between such re- manifold variety. The changing scene of life and death
nowned seats of primeval civilisation a s Babylon and reproduced itself now in wild and extravagant sensuous
6, Canaan; its Egypt, Canaan had at an early period revelry, now in the infliction of cruellest pain. Self-
civilisation itself become civilised. The oldest surrender and' self- renunciation before God found ex-
pression even in the sacrifice of children (see FIRST-
politics, .culture of Syria, as a whole, was mani-
BORN). Yet the daily pursuits of the Canaanites-
.* festly derived from Babylon : Northern
religion.
Swca immediatelv borders on the agriculture, gardening, vine-culture, cattle-rearing-.
Euphrates, whilst Egypt, on the otger hand, is separated impressed upon the worship, in the greater part of the
from Southern Syria by a desert journey of several days. country, especially in the ' hill-country' strictly so-
The peaceful influences of trade and the inroads of war called, a very simple, rustic character. Its forms
had, accordingly, brought Babylonian culture to the may be supposed to have been on the whole uniform ;
West as early as the third millennium B. c. (cp C ANAAN , yet, on the other hand, there was no such thing as a
0 9, TRADE). How closely the whole life of the common order, hut rather a multitude of local cults.
inhabitants of Syria about 1400 B . C . was dependent on T h e deities worshipped were for the most part not
the culture of Babylonia and Egypt is attested for us in called by their proper names, but designated as the
a tangible manner by the 'Amgrna tablets3 consisting ' lord ' or ' lady' of the place where they were worshipped
as they do, for the most part, of letters in the Assyrian (e.g.,Baal of Hazor, Baal of Hermon, Baalath of Gebal ;
language written in Babylonian cuneiform characters, see BAAL, I, N AMES , 42). The place of worship
and addressed from Middle and Southern Syria to the had an altar; beside (or upon) which was a sacred
Egyptian kings, Amen-hotep 111. and Amen-hotep IV., pillar (my!, see MASSEBAH), a sacred tree, or its re-
presentative a sacred post (@E : see A SHERAH ), and,
1 [For the view that Caleb and Jerahmeel were among these if the place aspired so high, an image of the god, with
groups, see E XODUS i., 5 6 ; HEBRON, 0 I ;JERAHMEEL, JOSHUA a priest and a house for it (see I DOLATRY ). The more
ii., 5 15 ;KADESH i., $ 3.1
See RACHEL LEAH. level districts of the country, especially those places
3 [Tell el-'Am&rna is the site of the town built by Khu-en-
aten or Amen-hotep IV., near the Nile, ahout 180 m. S. of 1 Thus for example, the so-called Stone of Job in the HaurZn
Memphis. Here the tablets were found in 1888 in the tomb of a was ideniified by Dr. G . Schumacher of Haifa in 1891, a i being
scribe of Amen-hotep 111. and Amen-hotep IV. See an Egyptian monument bearing the portrait of Kameses 11. Cp
CHEDORLAOMER; s' 5 ; CANAAN, 5 IO ; EGYPT', 0 55.1 EGYPT, $ 5 8 , n. I.
2223 2224
 ISRAEL
which were touched by the important trade route
between the Euphrates and the Nile (see T RADE ),
were, properly speaking, the seats of civilisation ; the
mountain country, on the other hand, was the home
of the simplest, peasant-like manners and customs.
In the trans-Jordanic region the frontier between the
settled parts and the area wandered over by Bedouin
shepherds was unstable (G AD , 5f., I O ), and, conse-
quently, the ordinances of the civilised life of Canaan
were much less stringently observed. It has already been
said that at the time of the onslaught of the Israelite
warrior-hordes there were here two Amorite kingdoms,
under kings named Sihon and Og, by whom the territory
of the Ammonites and the Moabites had been seriously
infringed on. These Amorite kingdoms, regarded by
the Israelites as hostile territory, formed the first point
of attack ; the invasion was begun at the southern
frontier on the banks of the Arnon ( Y E d y eL1W5jX6) :
Nu. 2113 Dt. 2 2 4 8 See G AD , 8, 11.
It is probable that the struggle in the trans-Jordanic
-.,
region was begun bv the four Leah tribes-Reuben.
" I
Israelite Simeon, Levi, Judah. The Amorite
immigrations. king Sihon was defeated at Jahaz on the
borders of the wilderness, and Heshbon,
his capital, with the rest of his kingdom, conquered up to
the Jabbok. The king of the more northerly kingdom,
which had its chief seats at Ashtaroth and at Edrei (by
the YurnzGk),the gigantic Og (Dt. ~ I I ) was , vanquished
a t Edrei (Der'&). The tribe of REUBEN appropriated to
itself the southern portion of the conquered territory
(northward from the Arnon), and cattle-breeding con-
tinued to be its chief occupation (Nu. 32 Judg. 5 15f: ).
T h e final settlement of the more northern territory seems
not to have come to pass till a later day ; on the other
hand, Simeon, Levi, and Judah pressed on into the
country to the W. of Jordan, and settled in the district
of Shechem, and to the N. of that. When the in-
dependence of one of their clans (Dinah, called the
daughter of Leah), which had settled in the city of
Shechem itself, was threatened by the Canaanites,
Simeon and Levi broke the compact that had been made
with these, and massacred them wholesale (see D INAH ).
But the outrage brought destruction on their own heads.
The tribe of Levi was scattered, and the few remnants
of Simeon were driven to the extreme southern limits of
the laud, where at a later date they had settlements
alongside of Judah (Gen. 34 495-7 [cp We. C N z 1 3 J
354$]; ,Gen. 37 12 17?). The tribe of Judah migrated-
voluntarily or under compulsion ?-southward, along the
western slope of the hill-country in the neighbourhood of
Timnath and Adullam, formed connections with the
Canaanites, suffered repeated losses, and finally obtained
a permanent footing only by means of alliance with
families that had their seats farther to the south (Perez
and Zerah ; Gen. 38). Cp CALEB, J UDAH .
The first impact of the Hebrew tribes had effected no
permanent changes in the territory west of Jordan;
but it was otherwise with the second. How long the
interval of time between them may have been we are
unable to determine ; perhaps the traditional forty
years of wandering in the wilderness (Am. 525, see
W ANDERINGS ) originally referred to this period. T h e
connection-no doubt there was a connection-be-
tween the two immigrations is obscure. It is even
doubtful what share, if any, Moses had in the first
assault. For, of course, Moses accompanied the ark ;
but this came up only with Israel properly so-called
(the Rachel tribe of Joseph), so that we may take it
that Moses arrived in the territory east of Jordan
later than Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. In
Nu. 16 I 12-15 2 5 $ an obscure reminiscence of disputes
between Moses and certain Reubenite families has been
preserved ; perhaps on this occasion Reuben and other
tribes may have broken loose from the leadership of
Moses and taken their own independent way. Those
who came after had at least one thing to thank their
2225
ISRAEL
predecessors for : the way to the Jordan lay open, the
Amorite power that barred it was destroyed. Yet the
Rachel tribe of Joseph also seems to have paused, or to
have been detained, for some time on the Moahite
borders. For the hostile intentions of the Moabites,
of which at a later date Israel was wont to speak in
connection with the legendary figure of the Aram=an(?)
Balaam (Nu. 2 2 3 Josh. 249). probably concerned this
tribe (hut cp BALAAM, $5 I , 3 8 ) . The Midianites,
too, seem even then to have taken up an unfriendly
attitude towards Israel (Nu. 224725 312-20 ; cp, however,
MIDIAN, 3 ) .
Moses did not himself reach the goal of the move-
ment. Even in legend every trace of him disappears
on Mt. Nebo, from the summit of which he is repre-
sented as having viewed the Promised Land ; his grave
remained unknown. A strange ending which even the
later version in Dt.lg7J 4 x J 3 2 4 8 3 Nu.2712-14 does
not succeed in making historically clearer. H e lived
only to see the first sproutings of the seed he had sown;
a long time had yet to elapse before it took firm root
or brought forth its first-fruits. The OT, indeed,
speaks of Joshua as having been his successor, but only
from the point of view that Israel was led to its goal by
him. That Moses had any single successor is not t o
be supposed ; in point of fact, he had many-warriors,
priests, kings, prophets, scholars-each of whom in his
own time and in his own way advanced or maintained
the great work of the founder.
JOSHUA ( 4 3 . i.), already mentioned in Ex. 33 II as the
' minister ' of Moses a t . the sanctuary, was simply the
leader of the house of Joseph-Israel strictly so-called.
The accounts of the book of Joshua, indeed, represent
him as at the head of all the Hebrew tribes, even of that
of Reuben. And, inasmuch as Joshua's victories laid the
foundation of the possession of Canaan not only for
Joseph but also for all the other tribes, this feature in
the tradition is easily intelligible. But it is not historical;
it is contradicted by what we read in Judg. 1 (cp
J OSHUA ii:, 13 8 ) . What actually happened was
that Israel, escorting its sacred object, crossed the
Jordan to Gilgal (see A RK , 5 4) and conquered Jericho,
Ai, and Bethel (Josh. 2 - 8 Judg. 122-26), the last-
named being a commanding site on the ridge of the
hill-country, and at the same time an ancient
seat of Canaanitish worship. It appears to be a n
original feature in the tradition that Israel under
Joshua waged a ruthless war against the Canaanites,
that it regarded them as ' devoted ' (DTn) to Yahwi, and
therefore extirpated them (see BAN). It is certain, how-
ever, that the ban of YabwA fell only on those who
attempted to offer armed resistance to the victorious
course of his hosts, and not even on these in every case.
In this matter, tradition has on the whole generalised ;
all the more credible and instructive, therefore, are the
exceptions which it records, such as the case of Gibeon
and the surrounding district (Josh. 9 ; cp 2 S. 21 2 ) . T h e
region occupied or subjugated by the house of Joseph
lay, approximately, between the plain of Jezreel on
the N. and the head of what is now called the WBdy
Bet Hanina on the S. ; it was the best part of the hill-
country (cp E PHRAIM , § 3). If the younger Leah tribes
really entered Canaan earlier than the tribe of Israel (=
JOSEPH ; g.v. i. ) and the Bilhah and Zilpah tribes came
into being there (by mixture of race), we may well
suppose that they profited by the victories of the 'house
of Joseph,' and even that in some cases Joseph actually
fought their battles. It is possible to conjecture that
such facts underlie the narratives of Josh. l O J (with
Josh. 11, however, Judg. 4 ought to be compared).
According to the statements of the OT, the Hebrew
tribes never come in Canaan into conflict with a power
of any magnitude-only with minor potentates among ,
whom there was no firm bond of union. It is otber-
wise, however, in an inscription found by Prof. Flinders
Petrie at Karnak, which speaks of a victorious fight
2226
 ISRAEL
of Me(r)neptah the son and successor of Rameses 11.
with ' Israel ' in Palestine itself. Although the style of
the inscription is far from being that of a sober historical
narrative, we may learn from it ( I ) that even in Canaan
itself ' Israel' had to fight with the Egyptians, and (2)
that as early as 1200 B.C. ' Israel ' was already in
Palestine. Much, however, remains not clear. W e are
not told where ' Israel' encountered the Egyptians in
Canaan-W. or E. of the Jordan-and we do not
know whether or not the Israel with whom the Egyp-
tians fought was identical with the ' house of Joseph' ( =
Israel). Rameses 111. also fought in southern Syria
(E. Mey. G A I, § 263, GA 318J). Apparently, how-
.ever, by 1200 R.C. Egyptian suzerainty in Palestine
was no longer a reality but a name. At the same time
the kingdom of the HITTITES (4.v., § 8) was, it seems,
broken up into petty principalities by the onset of the
peoples of the sea' (cp Meyer, G A 1, @ 263, 265).
T h e successful occupation of Canaan by the Hebrew
tribes will, accordingly, have to be assigned to the
period 1230-1200 B.C., a time when a foreign power
to control Syrian affairs and a home power that could
unite the forces of the inhabitants in possession for
purposes of effective resistance were alike wanting.
Amid such favouring circumstances an entrance into
Canaan was effected by Israel ; but it had not yet
8. Gradual become a nation. A confederation of
settlement. wilderness tribes is one thing ; a con-
solidated, settled people is another.
For this last the primary conditions are a permanent
settlement and engagement in agricultural pursuits-
conditions which in this case required more than one
generation for their realisation. The settlement was
carried on partly by warlike and partly by peaceful
methods. The Canaanites were gradually pushed back
(Ex. 232gf: =Dt. 7 z o a z z Judg. 220-36). The Hebrews
had already taken firm hold of the hill-country, while
the Canaanites still dominated the plains by means of
their dreaded war-chariots (Josh. 17 16 Judg. 119). In
each case the details, we may be sure, worked out
differently (cp G OVERNMENT , 5 118).Where the con-
querors had the upper hand entirely they violently took
their possessions from the vanquished ; those who up to
this time had been masters had now to till the soil
as serfs for the victors. Where the balance of power
was more nearly equal, or where it varied, treaties were
no doubt ultimately formed (connubium and commer-
cium), so that Canaanite clans were received into the
Israelite union of tribes, or, conversely, Israelite families
became settlers in Canaanite cities (see ABIMELECH 2 ;
SHECHEM ; and cp Judg. 1 2 7 8 3 5 3 ) .
One consequence of the transition to an agricultural
life now became apparent-the difficulty of maintaining
the original tribal organisation (cp G OVERNMENT , 15).
The land had been divided into communes or districts,
and the new-comers began to reckon in terms of these ;
names were chosen in accordance with dwelling places.
Thus one group of families of the tribe of Joseph which
had become separate from the rest was called ' t h e
Southern ' (Ben-jamin, ]*?;-ia) because it occupied the
most southern part of the whole territory of the tribe.
From its growing importance and especially its valour
in war (Gen. 49 27), it received the rank of a separate tribe
and came to be reckoned as the youngest son of Jacob,
Gen. 3 5 1 6 8 (cp B EN J AMIN , I, 4). The remainder
of the territory of Joseph, again, was divided between
Manasseh (Machir) and Ephraim, who are designated
a s grandsons of Jacob. E PHRAIM ( § 13) was really the
name of a district in Canaan, so that this division of Israel
also was named after its seat. The permanent settle-
ment of the clans loosened the old tribal bonds, and,
more particularly, as one of its results, weakened the
old defensive power. Judg. 1 shows what were the
1 Cp Spiegelberg SifzungsZer. d. B e d Ahad. 1896, p. 593
5 ;Steindorff ZA?W 1896, p. 3 3 0 3 ; Wiedemann, Mus6m
('98), 1-19. S;e also E&T, $5 59f:
2227
ISRAEL
weak points of the Hebrew tribes in western Canaan.
What happened in thecase of D AN ( q . v . ,i. )is particularly
instructive. Unable to hold their own on the plain at
the western base of the hill-country, they were driven
back to the mountain land, but, not feeling secure even
there, had no course but to migrate anew. They
traversed the length of the territory-of Israel, not without
plundering an Ephraimite settlement, and at the source
of the Jordan subdued the district of the city of Laish,
which thenceforth bore the name of Dan (Judg. 1 3 4
1 7 3 Josh. 1947). The northern tribes of Naphtali
and Asher found themselves for long-the latter indeed
permanently-in the minority and at a disadvantage as
compared with the Canaanites (Judg. 1 3 1 j? ; gZiZ hug-
gzzyim = tialilee).
It would seem that much pressure was always required
before the tribes could be got to renew the 'wars of
YahwB' against the Canaanites ; the comforts and the
pursuits of civilised life may well have impaiied the
old ardour and delight in the business of war. Yet the
religious conscience had not altogether gone to sleep.
From time to time clan-chiefs of specially strong per-
sonality appealed to it, and did not fail to arouse the
old heroism. What the call to arms in the name of
YahwB was then able to accomplish is like a reflected
image of the warlike spirit of the earliest days of areligion,
which was characterised equally by self- surrender to
God, immovable conviction of his nearness and help,
death-defying courage in the fight, wild enthusiasm
after victory, and scorn, contempt, and even Gods curse,
for all who refused to take part in the common cause.
The evidence of this is seen in the unfortunately ill-
preserved song known as the Song of Deborah (see
DEBORAH I , 3 3 ; JUDGES, 1 7 ; POETICAL LITERA-
TURE ). Under the leadership of Barak and Deborah,
the tribes bordering on the plain of Jezreel fight the
Caqaanites under Sisera near Taanach. The
Canaanites are defeated, for YahwB comes to the
help of his people in a violent storm. It is remark-
able that no mention is made of Simeon and Levi
or of Judah, though there are references (in praise
or in blame) to all the other tribes (four or five) in
addition to those actually engaged (five or six). Here
Israel already denotes more' than the house of Joseph.
In fact, the song seems to take for granted that all the
ten tribes which are mentioned ought to have obeyed
the war-summons of Yahwb; in other words, that
they all belong to Israel. When and how this more
extended employment of the name of Israel came in-
whether gradually or as the result of a single event-
we do not know ; but the facts of the case seem to
require the assumption that after a successfully ac-
complished occupation of the land the tribes were
united by a solemn compact, as the result of which the
name of Israel acquired a wider meaning. This may
have been the historical occasion of the Elohistic nar-
rative of the folk-moot in Josh. 24 (cp JOSHUA ii., IO).
On the borders of the land also the Israelite tribes
had their work to do-in the first instance. in the E.
The westward migrations out of the
9. Troubles
from without. wilderness were not yet at an end;
other tribes sought to follow in Israel's
footsteps. The Moabites, Ammonites, and Amalelcites
had taken Jericho (Judg. 313) ; the independence of
Reuben was already at an end, and Benjamin had
become tributary to Eglon king of Moab, when Ehud
b. Gera freed his tribe from this imposition. After
assassinating the king in his residence (where?), he
called out the levies of Mt. Ephraim and regained com-
mand of the fords of the Jordan (Judg. 3). So Jephthah
the Gileadite of Mizpah waged successful war, we are
told, agiainst the Ammonites (and Moabites?) who
threatened Gilead (Judg. 11).
1 On the transition from the rule of the heads of the leading
families of the respective cities to that of tribal chiefs or nipavvoL,
see G OVERNMENT , $ 17.
2228
 ISRAEL
Of greater importance, however, and richer in results,
was the stand which Gideon, or Jerubbaal b. Joash, of
Ophrah, a member of the Manassite clan of Abiezer,
made against the Midianites. These nomads had
invaded the territory of Manasseh with their flocks and
tents, plundering and forcing into subjection the
Israelites, who had formerly been their friends (Nu.
lOzgfi)-just as the house of Joseph had at an earlier
date treated the Canaanites. G IDEON (4.v.), filled
with the spirit of Yahwe, led the levies of his clan-
300 warriors-against the Midianites, surprised them,
and put them to flight (Judg. 63-6 11-24 7 I 9-8 3). The
story is a most instructive illustration of that union of
religious feeling with warlike enthusiasm which character-
ises the early period of the national development of Israel
(cp Gideon's war-cry, ' For Yahwe and for Gideon ' ).'
The event enables us to perceive how great was the
-
chanee which in the meanwhile had come over Israel.
Attempts Once marauding shepherds, they had
at consolida- become defenders of the agricultural
tion. country-defenders against the cupidity
of their former allies. Gideon himself
rose to great consideration. His territory embraced the
richest and most fertile part of the country from the
plain of Jezreel southward to Shechem-a petty kingdom,
it is true, yet already signifying more than the power of
the earlier Canaanite kinglets. Here, for the first time
since Israel's coming into Canaan, we observe a move-
ment clearly pointing to a firm fusion of the parts into
one whole ultimately to be gained. Gideon (if Judg.
8 zzJ1: really rests upon genuine tradition) declined any
hereditary lordship over his territory-anything of the
sort seemed to him heathenish-hut after his death his
(70) soils were accepted at first as masters. Soon the
idea that monarchy is better than oligarchy (Judg. 9 z)
found expressioii, .and, relying upon this, Abimelech
b. Gideon, of Shechem, sought to secure for himself the
sovereignty over the Shechemites. The Canaanite
citizens of Shechem decided in favour of their kinsman
by blood, and with their support he hired a band of
armed men,who, under his leadership, massacredGideon's
other descendants in Ophrah, Jotham alone escaping.
Abimelech was now ac!ually made king by the
Shechemites : and for three years he ruled over ' Israel '
--i.e., over the territory of Gideon (Judg. 922). Violence
and injustice were, however, the characteristics of his
rule, and, though his reign may have strengthened
Israel's position in Canaan (for Abimelech doubtless
felt himself to be an Israelite), this unpleasant experience
of regal government cannot have disposed the Israelites
to regard it with much favour (Judg. 97-20). See
ABIMELECH, 2.
The Philistines, like Israel, were immigrants in
Canaan. The Dresent state of inanirv 1
(see P HILISTINES )
> \
ll. Israel justifies the supposition that they first
losesits in- appeared in Palestine in the age of
dependelrce.Rameses III., perhaps somewhat later than
the occupation of Canaan by the Israelites.
They settled on the southern coast, and, as they were
not very numerous, they soon adopted the language,
religion, manners, and customs of the Canaanites.2
Their strength lay in their formidable armour and in
their general military superiority. The slopes of the
neighbouring hill-country, peopled by clans belonging
to Judah (and Dan), became their subjects. Farther
north, too, they pressed on, and advanced into the hill-
country, defeating the tribes of Israel properly so-called
again and again. The last of these defeats reduced
Israel to despair. After an unsuccessful battle the sacred
A RK (g.v., 5), then kept at Shiloh, was brought into
the camp in the belief that Israel would thus become
invincible. Rudely indeed was the illusion shaken (see
E LI). It was an incomprehensible mystery, and morally
as well as materially the power of Israel was broken.
1 See JUDGES $8.
e c p also CAPHTOR, CIHERETHITES.
2229
ISRAEL
The land lay open to the Philistines, who stationed a
governor at Geba ( I S . 133f: ; Gibeah, in 1 0 5 ; see
RV mg.),2and subdued and laid under tribute the more
level country N. of Shechem as far as Carmel and the
plain of Jezreel. It was probably at this time that the
temple of Shiloh was destroyed (Jer. 7 12).
The Ark itself had been carried away by the Philistines,
but did not, according to the narrative in I S. 61,
remain long in their possession. Its return to Israel,
however, is not represented as having produced any
great effect. The tone of feeling was perhaps so closely
akin to despair that the recovery of the symbol of the
presence of YahwB failed to revive the moral courage of
the people. It is a phenomenon which we cannot help
regarding as strange (see A RK , § 5).
From the midst of Israel itself was to proceed that
-
new sense of strencth which could alone nerve it to
12. its task. The youthful people had
been growing to maturity, and only
consolidation
under Saul. needed some one to awaken its
dormant enerev.a, It was the Drivileee
I "
of the seer SAMUEL (q.v., i.) b. Elkanah, we are told,
to find the gifted man who could do this. How early
tradition represented the first meeting of Saul and Samuel
is told elsewhere (see S AUL , I , I). Distinguished
even in outward appearance, the young Benjamite im-
mediately approved himself to the patriotic seer as the
divinely appointed prince ( 1 7 ~ ~ )of Israel. Soon the
hesitation which Saul showed at first was dissipated.
H e was, in fact, changed by the ' spirit of God ' into a
hero and enthusiast, who was successful in arousing a
similar religions and patriotic zeal among his country-
men.
It was in the danger which threatened Jabesh in
Gilead, we read, that Saul first heard the call to action.
Messengers from the besieged city had passed through
all Israel, but found everywhere (we may presume) the
same reception as in Gibeah ; there was much weeping
and lamentation, but no helpful suggestion. Saul alone
knew how to rouse the faint hearts of the Israelites.
Like Deborah and Gideon before him, he proclaimed a
holy war [cp, further, S AUL , I , 5 I , end, and notes], and
the proclamation produced its wonted effect. In warlike
enthusiasm Israel recovered its victorious might, and at
the same time experienced the delivering presence of
Yahwe. Jabesh was relieved, and the question whether
the tribes should submit themselves to regal authority
was decided in the affirmative. The need was indeed
great. Unless some strong will should take command
of such energies as still remained and unite them,
Israel would be ruined. Influences which had thitherto
served to unite its separate elements-faith, worship,
military force, law, order-were not enough to secure
prompt and united action of the aggregate. Monarchy
was the one system already familiar in the life of
Canaan that seemed capable of bringing the tribes
together. There were no doubt some arguments urged
against it-an opposition which, we may safely suppose,
had two roots. For ( I ) the Israelite love of freedom,
an inheritance derived from the desert, was incom-
patible with anything that brought servitude in its train,
and (2)the religion of Yahwh seemed inconsistent with
monarchy, the proudest fruit of heathen civilisation.
Both arguments, indeed, coincided in as far as the old
piety belonged to the same period with the pastoral life.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that, at the time,
the kingship of Saul was welcomed by the majority as a
deliverance, as a saving ordinance of God for Israel.
This view not only lies at the foundatiou of the repre-
sentation of I S . 91-101611, but also appears plainly in
a portion of the younger narrative in I S . 1020-24. A
harmony between the two being nevertheless impossible,
exclusive use is made in the present sketch of the older
narrative.
1 See next col note I.
a.See GEBA, I ; G~BEAH, 8 2 (3).
2230
 ISRAEIL
The effect of Saul's exploit was that he was pro-
claimed king at Gilgal by the warriors. What means
work had he at his disposal for the ac-
13.
&s king.
complishment of his task? They were
not, at the outset, great. At first
his rule extended merely over Israel in the narrower
sense of the word-Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh,
and the more northerly tribes of Western Canaan-and
the army at his command was but small, according to
I S. 132, numbering only 3000 men. Nevertheless Saul
straightway took the field against the Philistines; his
son Jonathan smote their ' governor ' in Gibeah and
thus raised the signal for revolt. But the enemy
advanced in force to suppress the insurrection, and the
courage of all but a faithful few of Saul's followers
failed them. Jonathan changed the position of affairs
by the daring exploit related in I S. 141-14, and it was
Saul and his six hundred who completed the defeat
which Jonathan had begun. Only when the rout was
general did the men of Israel who had hidden them-
selves join their bolder brethren.
This second success of the king was more brilliant
than the first; it had been gained over the dreaded
tyrants of the land, and Yahwb himself had come amidst
the convulsions of nature ( I S.14x5) to Saul's aid.
The kingdom had greatly gained in strength. Un-
fortunately we know but little of what Saul did further
for Israel. It is said that besides carrying on the war
against the Philistines, he fought the Anialekites and
restored the supremacy of Israel in the territory east
of Jordan ( I S. 1447f. 15)-a statement not to be
altogether set aside [cp S AUL, I , 5 31. Saul's chief
concern was, of course, the war with the Philistines.
H e gave the chief command of his army to his cousin
Abner b. Ner ; but brave men from all the tribes were
welcomed to his banner (1452). An independent com-
mand was certainly given for a time to David b. Yishai
(Jesse) of Bethlehem,2 in whom, as far as we know, we
have the first case of a family of Judah coming into
conuection with the kingdom of Israel. Thus the
course of events promoted the unification of Israel ;
even Judah, which until now had had but a very slight
fellow-feeling with the Israelitish tribes, was brought
within the range of the regal authority.
More than one reason is suggested by tradition for
the introduction of the young David to his king (see
Suffice it to remark
14.The breach hereD AVIDthat, I n).
, -5 whilst the melancholy from
with David. which Saul is said to have suffered and
his change of feeling towards David are undisputed
facts, the true grounds of his suspicion of David can no
longer be ascertained from the tradition ( I S. 18-20).
It is possible that a real or supposed intercourse of
David with persons whom the king regarded as his
opponents was the first cause of Saul's dislike of his
son-in-law, and that jealousy of David's success in war
and of his increasing popularity intensified this dislike
into bitter hatred. At the fortress of Adullam, near the
border of Philistia, the exile gathered round him a troop
of 400 men who had nothing to lose and much to gain
by fidelity to his person, and his fortunate marriage
with the widow of Nabal (see DAVID, 5 4, col. 1025 ;
N ABAL ) secured a stable connection with the Calebites.
But he could not long maintain his ground. He became
the feudatory of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath,
finding, however, means to win or retain the good
graces of the chiefs of certain towns in Judah ( I S.
27 30). Cp Kamphausen, Z A T W 6 7 4 8 ('86).
Meantime the Philistines had gained a brilliant victory
over Saul, who had ventured to meet them in the plain
15. Fall of Jezreel. His too slightly equipped troops
were driven back by these formidable
of warriors to the mountain range of Gilboa.
1 So the present writer renders yjj, with Stade. For
another possible view see SAUL, B z, n.
2 [On the question of his real native place, see JUDAH, 5 4.1
2231
ISRAEL
Then this noble king, through whom alone Israel had
gained courage to resist its tyrants, after seeing his sons
fall, perished by his own hand [cp S AUL , I , 5 41. He
could not bear the thought of falling alive into the
hands of ' the uncircumcised.' Well might those hated
foes of Israel triumph at so complete a ruin of Saul's
patriotic enterprise ! And well may we be surprised at
the darkness which closed in upon a champion so heroic !
What was the cause of this blighting of his hopes?
Had he overrated Israel's strength in comparison with
that of the Philistines? Did the bow break in his
hands because he had stretched it too far? We may
venture to think so, and to believe that his morbid
melancholy was partly to blame for this miscalculation
of his powers. [For another view of the course of
events see J U D A H , 5 5, S AUL , 5 4.1
After their victory the Philistines occupied the cities
of the Plain of Jezreel and those by the Jordan' (e.g.,
16. Subjugation Beth-shan) ; the hill-country, however,
and the land beyond Jordan they left
of Israel. unmolested. Probably they were too
weak in numbers to attempt more. We may be sure,
however, that Israel as a whole was in at least as bad
a position after this defeat as before Saul's first victories :
i . e . , the tribes on the W. of the Jordan, in as far as
they had to serve in Saul's army, became once more
tributary to the Philistines. Judah, therefore, shared this
fate. This is not to be proved from the O T ; but the
circumstances in themselves and the subsequent events
under David (2S.5 1 7 3 ) make the theory in a high
degree probable.2 Still, to one acquisition of the preced-
ing period Israel held fast, as a pledge of a better future
-regal government. The victorious contests of Saul
with the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Aramaeaus
provided a sure refuge for royalty on the land to
the E. of Jordan (z S. 28J). It is, the merit of Abuer
to have saved the tribes then beginning to grow
together from the loss of this bond of union. The
tribes of Israel on both sides of Jordan (except Judah)
recognised Ishbosheth (ISHBAAL, I ) as king, while
David, at the direction of an oracle of Yahwb, took up
his abode at Hebron. There he was formally anointed
' king over the house of Judah' (2 S. 21-4).
The unpleasing story of the brief reign of Ishbaal may
be sought elsewhere (see A BNER, I SHBAAL , I ). After
l,. David the deaths of Abner and Ishbaal, David
exchanged his tribal kingdom (which he had
king. ruled, it is said, for 76 years) for the
sovereignty which he had long coveted. With the
general consent of the tribes, he was made king of all
Israel at Hebron ( z S. 51-3). T o this period belongs
the remarkable notice in 2 S. 5 17, ' When the Philistines
heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all
the Philistines went up to seek David.' As king of
Judah, David had still been their vassal ; as king of all
Israel he naturally broke with his past, and so the
Philistines understood the situation. And if, before the
close of his tribal kingship, he had already possessed
himself of the important Jebusite fortress of Zion (above
the Gihon in the Kidron valley at Jerusalem), it becomes
all the easier to understand the conduct of the Philistines.
For it was the conquest of the Jebusites that made free
communication possible between Judah and the northern
tribes, so that we must regard it as one of the means
by which David sought at once to announce and to
achieve his object-the inclusion of the northern tribes
within his kingdom. Now that this object was gained,
the forbearance of the Philistines was exhausted. There
were, it would seem, repeated and violent contests
between them and David (cp z S. 5 17-2521 15-zz239-17),
the traditional stories of which breathe the very spirit
of the old accounts of the ' Wars of Yahwb ' (cp Judg.
1 'And when the men of Israel who were in the cities of the
plain and in the cities of the Jordan saw,' etc. ( I 5.317; read
'ly? for l;p? with Klost.)
2 Cp Kamphausen, Z A T W 6 4 3 f i ('86).
2232
 ISRAEL
7 9 8 I S. 14). Finally, David, who was intimately
acquainted with the military tactics of the Philistines,
achieved the liberation of his people. Whether Israel
freed itself by its own unaided efforts, or whether the
Philistines were simultaneously attacked by the Egyptians
(see D AVID , 7, end), cannot be decided. The fact
remains that David avenged the death of Saul and his
sons, completed his work of delivering Israel from the
Philistines, and even perceptibly curtailed their territory
a t the foot of the hill-country. The monarchy, to which
men had clung even at the worst of their disgrace and
humiliation, had stood the test, and could lay claim to
the divine sanction of success. The goal set by Moses
in constituting the religion had been reached : the tribes
found themselves now in sure possession of the land of
Canaan.
This had, however, involved a struggle of about two
hundred years, in the course of which much that was
18. The new old perished, and much that was new
Israel. came into existence. There were now
many who had little or no connection
with the old state of things, whether from oneness of
blood or from common memories. The old and the
new clans and tribes, especially Judah and its allies-and
perhaps we should here once more include the Bilhah and
the Zilpah tribes (cp above, 35 5 , 7)-were united under
the royal sceptre into a new whole-the people of Israel.
Its roots were in part quite distinct ; but the young stems,
in as far as they maintained themselves, gradually grew
in Canaan into one free. The process had begun im-
mediately on the abandonment of the nomadic life, and
reached its completion under the first kings. Practically,
indeed, it attained its goal when David reconstituted
the tribe of Judah and closely united it with Israel, writh
Jerusalem for the national centre (see D AVID , I O ).
And when, finally, the latest-won of all the cities of
Israel became not only the royal residence but also the
seat of the most venerable of Israel's sacred objects, the
A RK (4.v.. § 6) ( z S . e), the history of the genesis of
Israel as a nation was at an end ; and now we may
say that we have gained the presuppositions on which
the further history of the nation rests.
The chronology of David's reign is uncertain. Let
us, therefore, though this has been done elsewhere
19. Coundary (D AVID ) classify and summarise, from
our present point of view, the events
wars' of David's reign. His wars were not,
generally, wars of conquest ; their aim was the defence
of the boundaries of the kingdom, especially east of the
J0rdan.l BeforeiDavid, Saul had had the same object.
That the Moabites should have been treated with such
cruelty ( z S. 8 2 ; contrast I S. 2Z3J) is surprising, but
may with some plausibility be explained (see D AVID ,
§ 8 a). The occasion of the Ammonite war is expressly
told us ( z S. 101-5),and owing to the connection of
David's misdemeanour with Bathsheba with an episode
in this war, the campaigns against Ammon are described
with some fulness. The war was closed with the con-
quest of Rabbath-ammon and the punishment of the
people (see A MMON ; D AVID , 8 6). Aramaean tribes
took part in the earlier battles, but without any benefit
to their Ammonite allies. These were Z OBAH , BETH-
REHOB, ISH-TOB, and MAACHAH i. ; neighbours of the
Ammonites to the north, and of Israel to the east
(cp D AVID , 8 6). In connection with this we hear
of a victory over Hadadezer, king of Zobah, at Helam
(z S. 1015-19a8 3 J ) . which is probably not to be com-
bined with the encounter described in the previous
passage. This lends support to the statement in z S . 86
that David levied tribute from the Aramzans, even
though we must admit the further statement that the
Aramzan kinqdom of Damascus became a permanent
dependency of Israel to be open to grave And
1 On David's wars as a whole, cp D AVID, 5s 6.8, where refer-
ences to recent works are given.
2 See Budde, Ki. Sa. 2 5 4 and cp DAVID, $ 8 6, A R A M , 5 5f:
72 2233
ISRAEL
it is probably a trustworthy tradition that through these
struggles David's warlike fame spread far and wide, and
that king Toi (Tou, I Ch. 18) of Hamath (Hamath-
zobah, z Ch. 8 3 ; see HAMATH) at this time did homage
to David through his son Joram (Hadoram, I Ch. 18).
Lastly, on the southern frontier, there was a long and
bitter struggle with the Edomites which ended in the
reduction of Idumza to the condition of an Israelite
province (see D AVID , 8 6).
As the land of Israel received no additions under the
reign of Solomon, the limits of the kingdom after the
wars of David may appropriately be
20' Extent Of -glanced at here. The area occupied
the realm' by Israel and Tudah is indicated in
z S.24 1-9; to th; SE., on the Moabite side, the valley
of the Arnon marks the frontier (Josh. 13916 Nu. 21
13J) ; to the E. the boundary is vagne ; northward it
extends as far as to the head of the Jordan at Dan (cp
I K. 1520 z K.1529) ; in the W. it is limited by the
Phcenician territory ; and southward i t reached the
latitude of Beersheba ; the current expression is ' from
Dan to Beersheba.' The kingdom of David
and Solomon, however, certainly extended its authority
and sphere of influence considerably beyond these
limits. The subjugation of Edom opened up the way
to the Red Sea at Elath. Moab was a tributary
state ( z S. S z ) , as was also Ammon ( z S. 1727), unless
from z S. 1231we are to infer complete subjection. The
Aramaeans living towards the Yarmiik, already put under
restraint by Saul, became tributary to David and were
compelled to surrender many districts to Israel. The
boundaries of the Israelite territory eastward of Jordan
were always varying ; in the NE. the people were
really of mixed origin. On the one hand, it seems
plain that in the early period of the monarchy there
was a considerable immigration of clans belonging to
the house of Joseph (Nu. 324rJ) ; on the other hand,
we find an Aramzan of influence (see BAKZILLAI, I)
settled at Mahanaim ( z S . 1727 ; cp 1938 1371). It is
quite impossible at this point of the frontier to draw the
line between Israelite territory, properly so called, and
the sphere of Israelite influence beyond that territory.
On the N. David's rule made itself felt to the border of
the Canaanite kingdom of Hamath, on the Orontes ;
this appears from the current expression ' to (or from)
the entering in of Hamath' (Am. 614 I K. 865 z K.
1425 Judg. 33 Josh. 135). The phrase is elastic, and
has received various interpretations ; but originally it
probably meant the point where the plateau of Ijon
begins to fall away northwards towards the open valley
between Lebanon and Antilibanus. The territory
thus defined, though not in itself large, formed a more im-
portant kingdom than had been known in southern Syria
for centuries, and such as might fitly be regarded as a
splendid proof of the might of the God of Israel. (Note
the enthusiasm which breathes in the oracles of Balaam. )
Let us now turn to David's internal administration.
Some idea of this.may be gained from the two lists of
21. Internal his chief officers ( z S. 815-18 2023-26).
Here special importance attaches to certain
affairs. featmes. ( I )Thebody-guardof600 trained
warriors (see D AVID , § I I a ) , from which we mnst clearly
distinguish the national levy which was placed under the
command of Joab. ( z ) That priests should be included
among the king's officerswas a necessity, as David from
the first had established a royal sanctuary, manifestly with
a view to heightening the prestige of his rule. The
relations between the monarchy and worship went on
steadily extending in process of time until at last, under
Josiah, they were decisive for the history of Jndah (see
below, 38). (3) It fell to the king to administer the
sacred. law of Israel (z S. 815 152-6). This was plainly
his holiest duty, apart from, that of leadership in war ;
in its discharge he was the immediate servant of God.
For this function also, as a layman, he required the
continiial support of priests learned in the law. Unfor-
. 2234
 ISRAEL
tunately, we know very little about the range of the
king's judicial activities ; apart from the legal protection
of the weak and needy ( z K. 62G$ 833), he seems,
in his judicial capacity, to have occupied himself chiefly
in the mitigation and restriction of certain rigours of the
common law (zS. 14 1-11 ; cp I K. 2031). Cp GOVERN-
MENT, § 1 8 8
For David the greatest difficulty unquestionably lay
in resolving- the discord between Israel and Tudah. He
22. David's ys greatly helped, no doubt, by his
policy and Judicious choice of a capita1,l and by
character. the fact that Saul had now no surviving
descendant capable of holding the reins
Y
of government. David also in his later years was
careful to show due consideration for Israel, just as at
an earlier time he had been at pains to figure not as
the enemy but as the heir of Saul. From the account of
the rebellion of his son ABSALOM ( z S. 15-19) it is
evident that the most important accomplices belonged
to Judah, not twkrael (cp, c.g.,z S. 19 11-15 [12-161) ; and
from this, as well as from I K. 1 9 (end), it seems a
legitimate inference that the interests of his own tribe
were subordinated by David to those of Israel. For
obvious reasons, the tension of feeling was greatest in
Benjamin, the tribe of Saul, as the narratives of SHIMEI
( z S. 1 6 5 - 1 2 ) and of the revolt of SHEBA( z S. 20)
sufficiently show. The accounts of the successive
rebellions dimly reflect the vicissitudes of the popular
temper, and if David contrived to maintain himself upon
the throne we may be sure that it was not merely on the
ground of legal right, but mainly by the force of his
strong personality. Marvellous indeed is the incon-
sistent variety of this great man's character. The
reader must have vividly realised for himself the simple
and half-savage manners of the period in order even
to conceive how this man, whose kingly hand was
deeply stained by bloody acts of injustice (not to speak
of less grave errors), could have been of a deeply
religious nature, and a pious Israelite. Yet even the
oldest narratives furnish us with many instructive proofs
that this really was the case ( 2 S. 9-20). How succeeding
generations idealised him need not he retold here. T h e
idealisation was by no means entirely unjustified.
The question of the succession was decided by David
himself amid peculiar circumstances which have been
23. Solomon. described elsewhere (see ADONIJAH).
There were two parties at court-that of
Adonijah and that of Solomon. The latter obtained
the sanction of the aged king by reminding him of a
promise which he had given to Solomon's mother
Bathsheba ( I K. 1 1 3 17) ; the result was that Solomon
was anointed king, by David's order, amid the rejoic-
ings of the people. No blood was shed at the time,
hut after,David's death several lives had to be sacri-
ficed in order to extinguish for ever all hostile personal
interests.2 The vacancies caused by the death of
Joab and the deposition of Abiathar were filled up
by the appointment of BENAIAH . ( I ) and ZADOK
(I I<. 2 3 5 ) .
The few, though doubtless important, facts respecting
Solomon which no critic can gainsay will he collected
elsewhere (see SOLOMON). W e shall here use them
with the special object of illustrating the claim now
made for Israel (unified into a new people by David)
to a share in the civilisation of the neighbouring Asiatic
nations. The internal changes which this involved
were no doubt necessary, but were, for religious reasons,
encompassed with difficulty.
Close relations were maintained by the new king with
Egypt and Tyre. Indeed, as far as the former country
1 See DAVID 6 IO and cp Sta. GVZ 1 z70f:: J U D A H , S 5.
2 The harsh& of Solomon's treatment of Joab was felt by
the narrator of I K. If: himself. In I K. 2 5 3 1 8 we have his
way of accounting for it. Better that Joah should himself
exoiate his deeds of blood than that David's posterity should
suffer for the neglect of blood-vengeance. See, however,
DAVID) 8 11, COl. 1033.
2335
ISRAEL
was concerned, these relations were to some extent
24. Foreign forced upon Solomon. The pharaoh him-
appeared in Palestine, and captured
relations. self
the city of GEZER,which lay not far from
the commercially important road from Egypt to the
Euphrates. He married his daughter to Solomon, and
gave her as a dowry the city which he had conquered
( I K. 916). The O T is silent as to the obligations
towards Egypt assumed by Solomon-for such there
must have been. They would probably include the
protection of the trade route, and the contribution of
Israelitish troops to the pharaohs army (Dt. 171G),-
in a word, the recognition of Egyptian supremacy.
With Hiram I. king of Tyre, who at that time
maintained a certain overlordship over all Phcenicizn
cities (cp Meyer, G A I , § 283&), Solomon had a perma-
nent treaty. Whilst the former supplied materials and
skilled workmen for Solomon's buildings, the latter
repaid him with the produce of his land and the cession
to him of the district of CABUL(4.ZI. ) ( I K.5 10 [24]$
9 10-14). Moreover, the two rulers undertook in partncr-
ship certain commercial enterprises ( I K. 1022). To-
wards the NE. of Israel, on the other hand, the earlier
struggles with Aram were renewed, for Rezon b. Eliada
of Aram-Zobah founded a t Damascus a new kingdom
which involved Israel ih severe contests. In the SE.,
the province of Edom revolted under the leadership of
a scion of its royal house who fled to Egypt, though
he seems to have had no lasting success.
Within Israel Solomon destroyed the last sporxlic
traces of Canaanite independence ( I K. 9 z o f i ) . 'lke
commissariat of the court and-the army
2 6 ; ~ ~was ~ provided
~ 1 for by dividing the land
.~ I: :
into twelve departments ( I I<. 47-1927
see SOLOMON). He imported war-chariots and horscs
from Egypt, and stationed them in selected cities.% He
built fortresses which mark ont clearly the limits of
his territory and the routes that he wished to protcct.
His realm skirted the Mediterranean from Carmel to
Dor (cp D OR , J z ) ( I K.411). Like other great kings,
he was a builder on a large scale ; but he could oidy
carry out his projects (which included palace and teiiiple
in combination, Millo, the walls of Jerusalem, frontier
fortifications, and garrison fortresses) by imposing ruth-
less m w d e on his people. The insurrection of JERO-
BOAM (9.n.. I) was due to the popular indignation at
this forced labour. It failed ; but its energetic leader
found refuge, like other political offenders, at the court
of Sheshonk, in Egypt (see S HISHAK ).
There were three traditional elements in Solomon's
greatness, each of which continued quite late to be
proverbial-wisdom, power, and wealth ( I K. 35-14).
Of these the last can most readily be accounted for ; it
arose out of Solomon's share in the commerce of
Western Asia. T o begin with, he dominated (.probably
in concert with Egypt) a portion of the maritime route
which was the means of communication between Egypt
and Babylonia (Assyria), together with its latcral
branches (Megiddo ; cp TRADE). He had in his power
the trade which centred in ELATH ( P . v . ) , and even
sent ships of his own by the Red Sea to O PHIR
(Southern Arabia?). Finally, he appears ( I K. 1022) to
have joined Hiram in sending ships across the Mediter-
ranean to Tarshish (Spain). How much ground there
may be for the other elements in the legendary picture
of him (see, e.g., I K. 315-28 101-13) we are hardly in a
position to say. Even if we allow for exaggeration, how-
ever, it is certain that the splendour of his reign was
never matched in the history of Israel. He was not in-
deed such a king as the prophetic writers describe by
the name of 'Shepherd' (e.g.,Jer. 234 Ezek. 3423). His
ideal was that of the ordinary Oriental monarch. He
1 Was it perhaps Pisebbdennu? See Xleyer, G A 131, , ,It
was, at any rate, one of the last kings of the zIst (Tanltrc)
dynasty.
2 [See BETH-MARCABOTH, MARCABOTH.1
2236
 ISRAEL
loved display, and his subjects had to defray the cost.
Hence the many overseers of taxes and works who
appear among his officers. Under David we hear
nothing of them, nor can the difference be accidental.
Nevertheless, we must not unduly depreciate what
Solomon contributed towards the accomplishment of the
task allotted to Israel. As long as this people stood
outside the civilised world, it was impossible that its lofty
faculty should hear fruit in the history of mankind. It
was much that Solomon by the material greatness of his
reign gave that compactness to the body politic which
Israel needed as a condition of progress. As for re-
ligion, by building the temple at Jerusalem, which
was at first nothing but the court sanctuary, Solomon
closely associated together monarchy and cultus, while
at the same time he provided a sacred place that became
for a distant future the most precious token of the
divine presence and help.
Israel's transition to civilisation is an event of
great importance, the effects of which may here he
26. The new briefly elucidated. In different spheres
civilisation, there arose the same question : What can
Israel adopt from the heathen civilisation
of Canaan without impairing or losing its faith in God ?
There were not lacking indeed, now and in the centuries
that followed, some who clung to the simple piety of
the wilderness (shepherds, Rechabites, Nazirites) ; hut
theirs was a lost cause ; the mass of the people decided
for civilisation. Along with the agriculture of the
Canaanites, Israel adopted the cultus of the land of
Canaan (holy places, feasts, sacrificial customs), and
transferred it to YahwB. No doubt there were priests
who did the best they could to correct this cultus in
accordance w-ith later religious views (Ex. 34 I?$
23 14-19) ; hut the superstitious multitude certainly
imbibed the fancy that the fruitfulness of t h e . soil
depended on the continuance of the old religious
ceremonies. Here lay the root of that hard struggle
beween Yahwi: and the 'Baalim' which even the
prophets were unable to end.
There were two other influences which Israelitish
religion had to contend with. First, political friend-
ship and commercial intercourse with neighbouring
states involved, according to the ideas of the time,
some recognition of the divinities of those states
and of their cultus; these became guests of Israel
(cp I K. 1 1 7 J ) Thisdidnot accord, however, with the
strict conception of the old ordinance of monolatry
(Ex. 3414). Next, Israelitish law had to undergo a
complete transformation before it could meet the require-
ments of a country of agriculturists. With a view to
this, Israel had again to go to the school of its heathen
neighbonrs, who alone had the knowledge and experi-
ence required for such a reform. ' Criminal laiv ' was
perhaps less affected by these changes ; but ' civil law '
had to be largely modified, in order to suit entirely new
conditions. That this process gradually went forward
in an Israelitish sense is vouched for by the collection
of laws in Ex.21-23, and also by the fact that the
prophets of the eighth century fought for the law of Yahwi:
then in force in Canaan as old and well known. Israel's
peaceful labours and increasing security in Canaan pro-
duced the impression that the ' wars of YahwB' had
achieved their object. Hence more and more Yahwi:
lost his significance as a god of war, and the sacred ark
became a symbol of divinity in general (see A RK ).
The engrafting of Cauaanitish civilisation on the
Israelitish stock produced its fairest fruit in a store
2,. The of legends, large fragments of which are still
Patriarch extant (cp GENESIS,§ 5). It was formerly
supposed that we had here a strictly Israelite
legends* heirloom. But how improbable it is that
Israel should have brought with it from the desert legends
which presuppose civilised conditions ! Add to this that
Assyrio-Babylonian literature has revealed to us similar
stories of such high antiquity that there can be no doubt
2237
ISRAEL
of the dependence of the biblical narratives (J in Gen. 1-
11,)on them.I It is natural to suppose that Israel re-
ceived these legends from the lips of the Canaanites,
transforming them by infusing into them its own religious
ideas. Presumably this was how the stories of the
patriarchs arose. ( S ~ ~ A B R A H IASAAC M , , J ACOB . ) It is
obvious that Abraham is closely connected with the
primitive sanctuary at Hebron, whilst Isaac belongs to
Beersheba, and Jacob to Bethel. The Canaanitish
meaning of these names [the original form of which is
obscure] must he very uncertain. It is clear, however,
that when Jacob received the additional name of
Israel, it was because this patriarch was the first to.
be fully adopted by Israel proper, as a sign of which h e
is represented as father of the twelve Israelitish tribes.
It is clear, too; that in constituting these legendary
figures its own ancestors, Israel attached to them all
that was significant for its own individuality and history
-origin, wanderings, fusions and partings, religion and
cultus. To them was ascribed the divine favour and
the human virtues in which Israel prided itself. The
variety in their treatment, and the specific individuality
that was developed for each, may perhaps be accounted
for by variety of origin. Abraham became a type o r
ideal of Israelitish piety ; Jacob more a picture of the
actual Israelite of history. These transformations
may have been accomplished between the tenth and the
eighth centuries B. c. They teach us not only with what
delight and ease Israel accommodated itself to its new
relations, hut also how strong and yet assimilative a
f z u l t y was a t the service of the religions convictions of
its leaders. That these were to he sought, in the first
instance, among the priests and prophets cannot b e
doubted.
With the death of Solomon, the unity of the monarchy
and of the nation was at an end. Popular sentiment
in Israel was against Rehoboam ; Israel
28. The
did not even come to Shechem at his
request, but he at Israel's; Israel, not
he, laid down the condition; the suppression of the
revolt under Jeroboam had left behind it angry feelings
towards the house of David. The old men, in their
mild wisdom, hoped the best from a policy of com-
pliance. Rehoboam, however, sided with the younger
men, who recommended him to try intimidation. This
was the signal for the open rupture. The excitement
was great. Adoniram, the overseer of the public
works, was stoned; Rehoboam himself had to seek
safety in precipitate flight. That Jeroboam, the former
opponent of Solomon, was proclaimed king over the
northern tribes, including Benjamin, shows clearly the
connection of the movement with earlier events (cp
J EROBOAM , I ).
The division of the nation into two kingdoms was
regarded differently by the two parties. The Judaean
view of it comes out in Is. 7 17 I K. 12 19 (cp m D , n. 15) ;
the Israelite in Dt. 337, and in the Ahijah-story (I K.
1 1 ~ 9 3 ) . Although the latter owes its present form
to Judaean editorial work, it yields the very interesting
fact that an Israelitish prophet took occasion from
Solomon's policy to condemn in the name of Yahwk any
longer domination of Israel by the royal family of Judah :
he regarded, that is, Solomon's proceedings as a viola-
tion of divine ordinances. Rut if the kingship of
Jeroboam was demanded by YahwA through his prophets,
it was legitimate in the best sense of the word, and not
at all a revolt against YahwB. At the same time Israel
reasserted its old right to provide for its own government,
which did not, however, exclude a willingness to recognise
the Davidic rule in Judah ( I K. 12 16)-a remarkable fact
which shows how quickly and haw deeply this new tribe of
David's creation had struck root. Not even the well-
earned popularity of David, however, had been able to fill
up the gulf between Israel and Judah. By his magnetic
[cp C A I N I T E S , CREATION, D E L U G E . ]
2238
 ISRAEL
personality he had drawn and held together the two
parts for a time ; but there had been no real blending.
Whilst Israel, with or without Judah, felt itself to be
complete both in religion and in politics, for Judah the
separation meant a serious loss. Hence the longing
for reunion continued to live in Judah; the weaker
part forgot not the time of its splendour, and after-
wards included the revival of it among its hopes.
It is possible that Jeroboam I. treated the ancient
Tights of the tribes and clans with more consideration
than Solomon ; but evidence is wanting. In matters of
cultus he trod in the footsteps of David and Solomon.
According to I K. l 2 ~ 5 j ? , he turned Bethel (and Dan ?)
into a royal sanctuary (Am. 7 13), erected two golden
oxen (see CALF, GOLDEN) in honour of YahwB,
appointed priests as royal officials in connection with
them, and held at Bethel, as Solomon had held at
Jerusalem (I K. 865), a great harvest thanksgiving
festival for Israel. The capital of the new kingdom was
Shechem.
The disagreement between the two kingdoms made
war inevitable. Rehoboam regarded the Israelites as
rebels ; hence’actual hostilities may have been opened
by him, as the late addition in I K. 1221-24 assumes.
The short statements, I K. 1430 1 5 6 3 16, however, are
certainly to be understood of a state of war, not of a
series of important battles; and matters remained in
this condition under Rehoboam’s immediate successors,
Abijam and Asa, down to Jehoshaphat (some sixty
years). At the same time Rehoboam seems to have
sought to render still more complete the readiness for war
that he owed to Solomon ( z Ch. 115-12), and so to secure
the existence of the weaker kingdom of Judah. If,
however, its position was not seriously endangered by
Israel during his time, this was probably in consequence
of Egypt’s reasserting itself once more as overlord in
Southern Syria. Shishak had, according to I K. 1 4 ~ 5 3 ,
laid Judah under contribution; according to his own
monument, preserved at Karnak, he had traversed the
whole of Palestine, pillaging and plundering (see
SHISHAK). This marauding expedition, however, had
no permanent result : lasting and effective protection for
Judah could be found only in some greater power in Syria
itself. Hence the kings (even Rehoboam?) attached
importance to inducing the Aramwan kingdom of
Damascus to take up an attitude friendly to them and
hostile to Israel. Physical conditions favoured this
endeavour, as the Aramwans-Israel’s enemies from of
old-were cut off from the maritime district by the
intervening Israelitish territory. Besides, the Judaean
king, Asa, appealed ( I K. 1519) to a treaty already formed
between his father Abijah and Tabrimmon (TZb-
RammHn) of Damascus. These attacks from the E.
fully occupied the northern kingdom, and seemed to
guarantee a quiet life for Judah. But appearances were
delusive : the clever calculations of the politicians of
Judah proved incorrect. For the fierce and prolonged
Syrian wars not only most painfully weakened the
northern kingdom, but also drew Judah into the current
of Israelitish politics. And so it happened that the
disruption of the kingdom is closely connected with the
decline of the power of Israel as a whole in Palestine.
The course of events in detail was briefly as follows.
That Israel kept a good watch over its eastern frontier
we see from the measures taken by Baasha, who had
29. Israel, slain Nadab the son of Jeroboam I. dur-
Judah, and ing the siege of the Philistine town of
.-,-.-:-
DyllZZ.
Gibbethon, and was reigning over Israel
with T IRZAH rg.w.1 a s h i s capital. He
prudently came to terms with the A;amzans (IK. 15IS),
and then, taking up the war against Judah with energy,
cut off its people from all communication with the north.
In this extremity king ASA ( q . ~ .sent ) all the treasure
that remained in the royal palace and temple to B EN -
HADAD I. ( p . ~ . ) king
, of Damascus, with the petition
1 Cp Klo. Sa.Kt., adloc.
2239
ISRAEL
that he would break his league with Raasha ’ ( I K.
1 6 19). Benhadad thereupon overran the territory of
Israel at the upper Jordan as far as the W. shore of the
lake of Gennesaret (see C HINNEROTH ), and compelled
Baasha to break off the war with Judah. Asa was thus
enabled to push forward his frontier a little farther N.
(seeAsA). Baasha on his side (we may suppose) prose-
cuted the war with the Aramaeans (cp I K. 1 6 5 ) , and
thus Judah enjoyed comparative peace ( I K. 1516-23).
The rise of the dynasty of Omri was important for
Judah as well as for Israel. The new king was a success-
ful warrior, who, after a sharp struggle for the throne
(ELAH,z ; ZIMRI,3 ; T IBNI ; I K. 16 8-22), was proclaimed
king by the army before Gibbethon. The normal
relation between Israel and Judah had hitherto been
one of hostility. But we find that when Jehoshaphat,
son of Asa king of Judah, went to Samaria to meet
Omri’s son Ahab ( I K. 2 2 ~ 45), 3 there was an alliance
presupposed between the two kingdoms, an alliance,
however, in which it was Israel’s place to dictate and
Judah’s to yield. This dependence of Judah is shown
by the military service rendered to Israel on several
occasions during the Syrian wars ( I K.22 2 K . 8283)
and against Moab ( 2 K. 3 4 8 ) ; probably it did not
extend further. Nor can it he decided whether the
peace between the two kingdoms was brought about
by war or by negotiation, or whether Omri already
had views tending in the direction of reconciliation.
W e know but too little about this king, who had
the wisdom to make Samaria his capital, and also
brought Moab again under tribute, but was not,
it seems, a conspicuously successful king (see O MRI ).
Ahab, at an>-rate, stands out in the meagre narratives of
the Syrian wars as so strong a personality that one feels
inclined to trace the reconciliation with Judah to his
firm and skilful policy. The losses and concessions of
Omri ( I K. 2034) may well have made this step a neces-
sity. The result was that in several successful campaigns
Ahab drove the Aramaeans out of the territory of Isracl
and compelled them to restore the cities which they had
previously conquered ( I K. 202-34). He established
with Benhadad 1I.l ( I K. 2034) a commercial compact,
with equal mutual rights, between Damascus and Israel,
and formed a friendly relation with Ethbaal (Ithuba‘al)
of Tyre, whose daughter Jezebel he received in marriage
( I K. 1631). Meantime the contemporary king of
Judah made an attempt to renew the Red Sea trade
(see JEHOSHAPHAT, I ). Thus for a time internal peace
enabled both kingdoms to revive the famous traditions
of the days of Solomon.
Then there rose out of the north, more and more
audibly, the angry mutterings of a dreadful war storm.
New
30.
Shalmanes& II., king of Assyria (860-
824), following in the footsteps of his
.
plicatioas
.
assyrla’
father Ah-nHsir-pal, had reached in
his victorious career the neiahbourhood
of the middle Orontes. At Karkar (854 B.cy) his course
was indeed checked bya large armyof the allied kingdoms
of middle and southern Syria, the latter represented by
Ahab its overlord ; but the attack was resumed in 849
and 845 (see A HAB ). This was a summons to union
for the southern kingdoms of Syria ; in the presence of
the incessantly advancing power from the north, the old
distinctions between great and small must disappear.
The enmity between Israel and Aram had rooted itself too
deeply, however, to be dispelled forthwith by the recogni-
tion of their common danger. Boundary disputes raked
up the embers of hate and easily fanned them into flame,
and in one of such the heroic Ahab, who bad gone forth
in company with Jehoshaphat of Judah to the reconquest
of the city of Ranioth in Gilead, met his death (see
A HAB , R AMOTH - GILEAD ). Nevertheless, the friendly
relation between Israel and Judah continued. It had
been sealed by the marriage of Jehoshaphat’s son
1 Or was it Benhadad I., as Winckler snpposes? See BF.N-
HADAD, $3.
2240
 ISRAEL
Jehorani with Athaliah the daughter of Ahah. Yet
Israel's star was obviously on the decline. In the reign
of Ahaziah the son of Ahab, MESHAking of Moab threw
off the yoke of Israel (cp the Mesha inscription), and the
attempt made by .Ahaziah's successor Joram, with the
help of Jehoshaphat, to invade and subdue Moab
from the south, failed ( z K. 34-27). Not long after-
wards Edam freed itself from Judah, and even the
Canaanite city of Libnah, on the western frontier of
Judah, asserted its independence ( z K. 820-22). On the
E. frontier of Israel, however, the Syrians were unable to
make any advance, as the attacks of Shalmaneser 11.
were renewed every three or four pears1 When Hazael
had succeeded Benhadad at Damascus (844-843 B . C . ),
Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah encountered him
a t Ramoth in Gilead, the very place where Ahab had
received his death-wound from the Syrians. Now, how-
ever, Israel was in possession of the city, which was not
the case in the time of Ahab. Israel's position had,
therefore, improved in this direction.
The subversion of the dynasty of Omri by Jehu ben-
Nimshi - gave a severe shock to the established order of
The story of this bold warrior's
31. Revolution deeds things. of blood is told elsewhere (see
of Jehu. TEHU). 'Come with me.' he said to
Jehonadab hen-Gechab (see J ONADAR , 3), 'I and see my
zeal for YahwB' ( z K. 10 16). This self-landation was
not entirely groundless. An oracle of Elisha suggzsted
his revolt (see below), and the violent extirpation of
Baal-worship is in the spirit of a traditional action of
Elijah. In external affairs the headstrong usurper had
to moderate his energy. Hazael of Damascus was
defeated (842 ; cp C HRONOLOGY , 28) and besieged by
Shalmaneser 11. ; and, though t h e siege failed, JehJ
found it advisable to buy the favour of the Assyrian by
payment of tribute (cp the ' Black Obelisk' of Shal-
maneser, K B I). In Judah too the sanguinary
measures of Jehu gave the signal for violent disputes
about the crown. On the death of Ahaziah,
Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, had the descendants of
David slain in Jerusalem, one alone escaping the hands
of the assassins. Perhaps she hopcd, as queen of
Judah, to be able to take vengeance for her kindred on
Jehu. W e only hear, however, of the vengeanre by
which she was herself overtaken. After the lapse of six
years the chief priest Jehoiada proclaimed Joash, the one
Davidic prince who had escaped, king, and ordered
Athaliah to he slain in the royal palace. Thus the
kingdom of Judah was, after a brief interruption,
recovered for the family of David. These bloody
revolutions, however, weakened the powers of resistance
of both kingdoms, and loosened the restraints of
religion and morality ; and when Hazael of Damascus
ceased to be disturbed by Shalmaneser (i.e., in 839)
Israel and Judah had to feel the full weight of his
arm. Hazael conquered the east of the Jordan (z K.
1 0 3 2 J 2 ) , and traversed the west as far as Gath ; indeed
he was restrained from an attack on Jerusalem only by
great presents (z K. 1217 [18]f.). This obsequiousness
on the part of Joash was regarded, perhaps, as cowardly
and premature, and he paid the penalty with his life
(z K. 1220 [.I]$ : cp J OASH).
Amaziah, the son of Joash, was indeed admitted to the
throne ; but his courage and daring, although they prob-
ably gained Judah some advantage over Edam, brought,
later, the greatest humiliation on his country. A wanton
challenge, sent to Joash king of Israel, was expiated by
the captivity of the king and the occupation of Jerusalem
by the foe. No wonder that Amaziah fell a prey to the
same fate as his father (z K. 1419; cp AMAZIAH,I ).
1 The narrative 2 K. 6 24-7 20, according to Kuenen, relates t o
the time of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu ; according to Winckler, how-
ever to that of Ahab before 854 R.C. See JEHORAM A HAB.
2 [These verses ari evidently out of their origixal donnection.
Instead of to cut Israel short' (nirps), read 'to be wroth with
.Israel' (r,iri~5),
with Targ. and Hitz.]
2241
ISRAEL
It is, however, surprising that the crown did not now
become the prize of ambitious politicians or daring
soldiers, as was the case in Israel. 'That the people of
Judah did not renounce the Davidic family throws a
fresh light on the popularityof its founder. Amaziah'sson,
Azariah or Uzziah (see U ZZIAH , I ) , was raised to the
throne : and through him a last period of quiet and of
conscious strength was opened for Judah, as it had
already opened for Israel. It is true, Azariah was
probably in some degree dependent on Israel. Still,
we may infer from Is. 2 that his was a prosperous
reign, and we know from z K. 1422 that he extended
the influencc of Judah once more to Elath on the
Red Sea. Of the Israelitish kings Joash and Jeroboam
I I . , we learn that they obtained fresh successes against
the Aramzans when the Assyrian kings Ramm2n-
nirari 111. and A h - d a n 111. fought against Damascus
in 806 (or 803) and 773.l Jeroboam 11.. is even
eulogised as the 'deliverer' of his people; he is
regarded as having restored in its fullest extent the
earlier dominion of Israel (z K.1322-25 1 4 ~ 3 ;3 cp
Am. 6 13).
These years of peace and renewed vigour revived the
pride and courage of the northern Israelites. But they
32. Decline were due, after all, to the weakness and
inertness into which the Assyrian kings
of IsraeL had lapsed (772-746). and when in 745
Tiglath-pileser 111. (on the question of his original name
see PUL) mounted the throne,'the Syrian states could
see that a last life-and-death struggle had begun. The
internal disorganisation was heightened by dissensions
within the parties which recommended, now adhesion to
Assyria or to Egypt, now self-defence in alliance with
the states of Syria, as the one m a n s of escape from
the danger of annihilation. Thus Menahem, who had
marched ' from Tirzah ' (but see T APPUAH) against the
regicide Shallum, and dealt with him as he had.dealt
with Zechariah (z K. 158-15), placing the crown owhis
own head, sought in 738 (on the date see CHRONO-
LOGY, S.33) to prop himself on Assyria by paying tribute
to Tiglath-pileser (z K. 15193). On this'occasion, we
are told, the king of Assyria ' ca"me into the 'land '.of
Israel for the first time. Menahem's son Peltahiah was
made away with, however, hy the Israelitish-Aramaean
party, and Pekah son of Remaliah put in his place (see,
however, P EKAHIAH ). W e learn the aims of this party
from the war begun by its leaders, Rezon of Damascus
and Pekah of Israel, against Ahaz of Judah. They wished
to turn the ruling dynasty out of Jerusalem, and place the
son of THb'Cl (probably=Rezon ; Wi. A T Untersuclt.
74f. ) on the throne of David, because Ahaz of Judah had
shown himself averse to their plan of holding together in
alliance against Assyria (Is. 7). Ahaz flung the warning
of the prophet Isaiah to the winds (cp A HAZ , 5 zf.),
and, like a clever politician, asked Tiglath-pileser 111.
to help him against his too powerful enemies, who
were now joined in the S. by the Edomites ( z K. 1658).
Tiglath-pileser added the northern and eastern frontiers
of Israel to his kingdom, sent the principal inhabitants
into exile in Assyria ( z K. 15zg), marched into the S.
of Palestine, appointed Hoshea, one of the Assyrian
party, king of Israel ( 2 K. 1530), and put an end to
the kingdom of Damascus (734-732). Hoshea sub-
missively paid tribute for some years till he was
seduced from his allegiance by the promises of ' S o ,
king of Egypt.' Hitherto this king has been taken
to be pharaoh Sabako, or some Egyptian petty-king.
But Winckler (Mu+, etc., MVG, '98, i . ) finds in him
an officer of the N. Arabian land of Musr, which was
unwilling to let itself be driven by the Assyrians from
the trade-routes of S. Syria. Shalrnaneser IV. (727-
722) besieged Hoshea in Samaria for three years.
It fell to his successor Sargon, however (7zz-705), to
reduce the city (722). The upper classes (to the number
of 27,290) were deported to Mesopotamia and Media,
1 [Cp ASSYRIA,p 32 ; DAMASCUS, p 9.1
2242
 ISRAEL
whilst foreigners from the banks of the Euphrates were
settled on the vacant lands. By this policy the Assyrian
kings sought not only to break the power of a subjugated
nation, but also to secure the subjection of its country
by filling it with people who could only preserve them-
selves by close adherence to Assyria.
Such was the end of the N. Israelitish kingdom. It
shared the fate of the other states of northern and mid
It fell a prey to the Assyrian
33. Effect on , policy
Syria. of conquest, after the wars with
Judah :
propheticand the Aramaeans had drained a large
popular views. measure of its strength. This must be
our verdict as long as we take into
account only the action and reactionof ordinary forces.
In Israel, however, there were not lacking men who
saw in the fate of Israel a divine judgment. Of such,
we know the prophets Amos and Hosea. They and
their successors have so much importance in the
history of Israel that we cannot be content with a mere
mention of their names ; but, in order to do them justice,
it is necessary to reserve a fuller treatment of their posi-
tion and activity for another place (see PROPHETS).
The chief point to notice respecting the prophets of
the eighth and seventh centuries is this-that with one
accord they took a view of the situation of Israel which
was repugnant in the highest degree to the mass of the
, people. That no less a punishment than annihilation
was impending over Israel (Am 5 I j 9 1-4 Is. 5 1-7) was
a statement that .could. not be reconciled with the
popular view of the nature of YahwB. That men could
be found to cohe forwara with such a message is a
phenomenon which is especially strange in Judah,
because the expeditions of the Assyrians against southern
Syria, subsequently to 734, were not dangerous to that
kingdom. It is true, Assyria had, since 722, become
the next neighbour of Judah, which had to send its
yearly tribute to Nineveh ; but, for all that, Ahaz could
boast that he had secured his land, his capital, and his
throne, whilst his opponents, first Damascus, and then
Israel, had been extinguished by Assyria. Facts spoke
for Ahaz, no’t for Is iah the prophet (Is. 7 J ) ; and
the multitude, as the fashion then was, interpreted this
as showing that Judah had received a guarantee of the
divine goodwill towards it, and a recognition of its
superior piety. The proud and powerfill Israel had
fallen ; the despised Judah had been delivered. For
the present and for the future Judah had become heir
to Israel for good as well as for evil. As people went
up to Jerusalem from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from
Samaria to sacrifice to Yahwk (Jer. 41 5), many-such as
found it possible to do so-would remove their home
from Israel into Judah on the conquest of Samaria (722);
for the hopes of the whole nation naturally rested in
the remnant that had been found worthy of obtaining
deliverance. All tliis raised the self-respect of the men
of Jndah and enhanced the importance of Jerusalem.
34, Inter- But at the same time, just as before in
national the case of Israel (see above, 32), there
politics. arose political parties, which by their
struggles used up what strength remained
to the diminished people. As Hezekiah hen Ahaz (from
720 B . C . onwards, see CHRONOLOGY, § 36) was no
friend of Assyria, we can understand that Jndah did
not throw away opportunities of manifesting its aspira-
tions after independence. About the time of the revolt
of Hamath, Merodach-baladan made himself master of
Babylon and sought (civca 720 B.c. ) to incite Hezekiah
to a common contest with Sargon (cp Wi. A T Unter-
such. 1 3 5 8 ) . T o what extent Hezekiah entered into
these negotiations we are not told; but very soon
Sargon re-established his dominion over Syria, and
therefore over Judah, after defeating at Raphia ,the
Egyptians (or, according to Winckler [see above, 321
the army of the N. Arabian MuSr ; 720 B .c.). The
year 713 found Hezekiah negotiating again with Ashdod
and Egypt (again, according to Winckler, the N.
2243
ISRAEL
Arabian Musr), but the conquest of Ashdod in 711
(Is. 20, see ASHDOD) put a speedy end to the warlike
programmes. Hezekiah no longer held aloof from the
mighty movement that shook the whole Assyrian empire
on the death of Sargon in 705. Indeed, partly with
his own consent, partly against his will, he was re-
garded as the head of the allied forces of southern
Syria, ,which looked on this occasion of revolt with all
the more confidence in a successful issue, because
Babylon had risen once more in the East, and Egypt
(or rather Musr-Meluhba in N. Arabia) too was taking
an active interest in the concert of nations. In 701
Sennacherib, Sargon’s successor (704-682), having first
of all reduced to allegiance the eastern part of his
kingdom, set ont for Syria. There his first step was to.
compel to submission by the battle of Eltekeh (cp Josh.
1943$?), and lay under tribute, the S. Syrian states.
-among them Hezekiah, whose mercenaries refused
obedience (Del. Ass. H W E 171 ; 2 K.18 14-16). Later,
he sent a division of his army from Lachish against.
Jerusalem, and demanded the surrender of the city, so
as to secure his rear. Isaiah exhorted the resourceless.
Hezekiah to hold fast, and predicted the preservation of
Jerusalem ; and in point of fact, perhaps on learning
of disturbances in Babylon, Sennacherib withdrew ( 2 K.
1817-19ga 36J). As it is improbable that Tirhakah,
who apparently did not complete the overthrow of
Egypt until 691, took part in the events of 701, the
conjecture has been advanced that on a later expedition
to the SW. of his kingdom, undertaken against Egypt,
Sennacherib once more threatened Jerusalem in vain,
being compelled to retreat by a severe misfortune, as is.
intimated in 2 K. 1996-3s and Herod. 2141.~
The preservation. of Jerusalem from the Assyrians.
made not the slightest change in Tudah‘s political posi-
On-the &her hand, it Gas a.
35. Effeecton Ition.
religious ideas :success of the greatest moment for the
.. cause of Yahwk. and of far-reaching
imuortance for the establishment in
Judah of the religiois ideas of the prophets. For, whilst
the prophetic movement came to an end in Israel with
the dissolution of the state, in Jndah it had time to
gather strength and prove itself in overcoming internal
opposition. Thus there was formed by degrees that
‘remnant,’ the seed of the future, which could be
entrusted with the intelligent guardianship of Israel’s
historical inheritance. Isaiah was the originator of
this movement in Jndah. With enthusiasm and with
finished eloquence, he spoke of YahwB as the sovereign
of the world, and of the power of faith or trust in him,
also of the vanity of the worship of images (cp H OSEA ,
§ 7) and the transitory nature of all worldly might,
of the imperishable character of YahwB‘s work in
Israel (= Judah, Jerusalem), and the perfection of the
future kingdom of David. Nor were those who
adopted his ideas few or lacking in influence. The
mezsures, too, of Hezekiah, that aimed at a purification
of the cultus ( 2 K. 18 4) owed their inception to the effect
produced by Isaiah’s labours ; though the preference for
Jerusalem as the only place of worship is certainly more
in accord with the popular interpretation of the experi-
ences of the last generation and the interests of the royal
priesthood. On this questlon cp HEZEKlAH.
The broad stream of popular life inclined for the
present to the other or heathen side, if we may so call
In its sense of weakness the people
36. Opposite looked
it. for divine help, and did not omit
party. to propitiate ~ a h w as ~ , popular concep-
tions of him required, with costly sacrifices (MK.66-8).
Political parties demanded close alliance with Assyria
(or Egypt), while the prophetic party taught that Assyria
or Egypt was to be regarded merely as an instrument
in the hand of YahwB. Manasseh b. Hezekiah, who
came to the throne about the same time as Esarhaddon
1 Cp Stade, Z A T W 6 1 7 3 f i [ ‘ 8 6 ] ; Wi. A T Untersuch.
2 6 8 ; Che. Intr. Is. z i z 8 ; also Tiele, BAG 3 1 4 8
2244
 ISRAEL
(681-668) and reigned till 642, joined unreservedly the
ranks of the partisans of Assyria, and was able to carry
out to,the full the policy begun by his grandfather Ahaz.
Perhaps Esarhaddon's expeditions against Egypt in 674
and 672 led him to show marked favour to everything
foreign. In honour of Assyria, he made arrangements
in his temple for the Assyrian star worship ( 2 K. 21 5
23 rz). The approval of his people he hoped to secure
by once more permitting and patronising the traditional
forms of Canaanitish- Israelitish cultus, the so-called
worship of the high places that Hezekiah had restricted.
Even the Canaanitish cult of Moloch ( =Melek, King),
child sacrifice, was transferred to Israel's god YahwB
(Jer. 731 1 9 5 Ez. 2?z6j? 30 f: : cp Dt. 12 29-31), and
the king himself, like Ahaz before him, set his people
the example of this self-sacrificing worship, which was
supposed to be well-pleasing to God ( 2 K. 216 163).
It only indicates the terrible anxiety that oppressed
the minds of the people that men did not refuse to
offer even their own children in sacrifice to the gods.
Manasseh further constituted the temple of YahwB a
sanctuaryfor the most diverse cults, so as to accommodate
with his altars and images the manifold relations of the
international trade into which Judah was now led as a
dependency of the Assyrian empire. Never had the
attempts of the kings of Israel to initiate the people
into the civilisation of W. Asia succeeded as they did
under Manasseh ( 2K. 21 9)-for a considerable time.
In religion, however, the faith and simple piety of the
people were in the greatest danger. Still, their repre-
sentatives knew the meaning of the struggle, and
showed themselves ready not only to contend but also
to suffer for their cause. Neither compulsory measures
nor the prospect of external advantages made them
waver. Manasseh, however, persevered in his policy
throughout his whole reign. If the Chronicler relates
the contrary (zCh. 3311-17),he is only reproducing
the legend that grew up, under the influence of later
theories of divine retribution, out of an incident which
was probably simply this, that Manasseh favoured the
revolt of SamaS-Sum-ukin against his brother ASur-blni-
pal, and then obtained pardon of the latter at Babylon.
Amon ben Manasseh followed in his father's footsteps ;
bot he soon fell a victim (640) to a court conspiracy.
This was, however, suppressed by the people, who came
to the succour of the Davidic dynasty, and proclaimed
Josiah, Amon's eight-years old son, king.
By this revolution the Assyrian party was thrust
aside : it had to give place, in the government and at
3,. Religious the court of the young king, to men of
national sentiment or prophetic ideas.
The fruit of this change was nothing less
than the laws of Deuteronomy and the cultus reform
of Josiah (621 B . c . ) . From z K . 2 2 , f we learn only
how the king was won for the cause, not who it was
that gave the real impulse in this praiseworthy enterprise ;
but we can have no doubt that it was the prophetic
party, though it may seem strange that we see them
putting their own hands to the work of reforming the
existing conditions rather than, as one might expect,
enunciating ideas and principles. It was really neces-
sary, however, for the prophets, if they were not to speak
and suffer in vain, to descend from the bold heights
of their ideals into the sphere of rude reality. In
this they remained true to their old demands with all
their rigidity. Fighting for Yahwe and the true Israel,
they sought to banish every heathenish element from
the popular life, or, where that was impossible, trans-
form it- it., make it Israelitish. From this point
of view we can understand how, despite previous
procedure and their own ideas (e.f., Hos. 812 Is. 112
Jer. 721-23), they made questions of cultus a matter
for legislation. The cultus was, as it were, the open
door thrmgh which heathenism was continually break-
ing in upon Israel, as the experiences of the times
of Manasseh just past had abundantly shown. To
2245
ISRAEL
close this door the prophets certainly needed powerful
allies -namely, the priesthood- of the
38. Rings
royal temple at Jerusalem and the king
re,igious himself.
The priests were needed, be-
cause the future position of the temple and
its officers was in question; and the king, because
without him uniform changes in the cultus of the whole
people would at that time have been quite impossible.
Originally, indeed, the position of prince brought with
it no right to interfere with the cultus : the management
(of the cultus) was the affair of the families and clans,
and later, in Canaan, of the tribes and cantons.1 The
kings, however, without in any way changing the old
state of things, had added royal sanctuaries where, apart
from the cultus of their own clan, they could on special
occasions assemble the entire nation to a great sacrificial
festival. According to the varying exigencies of the
political alliances of the day, they even practised the
cult of foreign deities. Thus it was that the kings
acquired a claim and found an occasion to interfere in
matters of cultus outside the limits of their own clan.
(See the history of Jehu, Joash h. Ahaziah, Hezekiah,
Manasseh.) It was these relations that made it impera-
tive that the originators of the reform of the cultus
should secure the introduction of the laws by the king
himself. (On the nature and significance of the new
law book, see DEUTERONOMY, § 4 8 )
The inception and execution of the religious reforms
of rosiah coincided with Occurrences of the gravest
import within the Assyrian empire.
39.
Of About the year 645 B.C. Psa(m)e:ik I.
:;&
;.;,( had asserted his independence of
Assyria and again reunited Egypt
I under one sceptre. Soon afterWards
pgyps' his army advanced into Svria. If
Herodotus (2157) is to ge believed, siege was laid to
the city of ASHDOD(p.". col. 327) for twenty-nine years
(640-61o?)-whether the defenders were Assyrians or
a native power we do not know. It would not be
astonishing to find that, even thns early, Assyria had
refrained from opposing the forward movement of
Psa(m)etik, for it w a about this time that barbarian
hordes of Scythian origin poured down from the north
of Asia into the Assyrian empire like a devastating
flood (Herod. 1 1 0 3 8 41 ; cp ASSYRIA,J 34, E G Y P T ,
§ 67). Even if in doing so they compelled the Medes,
who were also now threatening Assyria, to look to their
own safety, these wild and rapacious invaders must
inevitably have had the effect of greatly loosening the
reins of Assyrian authority in W. Asia, and probably
also, in some parts, of breaking them altogether. It
would appear that Psa(m)elik I. succeeded by gifts and
entreaties in averting the Scythian irruption from Egypt ;
but Ashkelon was plundered by them. They must
nndoubtedly, therefore, have at least touched on the
borders of Judah also, but without penetrating into the
hill-country properly so called. Under the awe-inspiring
impression produced by these new invaders-they were
Aryans, not Semites-the prophets Zephaniah and
Jeremiah, about 630.626, once more renewed the vati-
cinations of their predecessors as to the coming judg-
ments of YahwB, which, following the new development
in the knowledge of God and of the world, they now
represented as a universal assize or judgment of all
nations. If the Babylonians found it possible to cast
off the Assyrian yoke with impunity and establish a
kingdom of their own under Nabopohssar in 625 (cp
ASSYRIA, 34), assuredly some increased freedom of
movement must have been possible about the same time
also to Syria, which lay so much farther off; and it is,
therefore, not in the least improbable that Josiah was
able to lay hands upon parts of what had formerly been
the kingdom ,of Israel without resistance (cp 2 K. 25 15
198). Everywhere the collapse of the Assyrian power
began to be reckoned upon as certain. As soon as the
" 1 Cp GOVERNMENT, $17f:
2246
 ISRAEL
hordes of the Scythians had passed, or had reached
some point of rest, Cyaxares of Media, in alliance with
Nabopolassar, set out against Nineveh to strike the
decisive blow. That powerful fortress was taken in
607-606 and levelled with the ground. The sovereigns of
Assyria then disappeared from history. Not, however,
t h e empire over which they had ruled ; the victors took
:possession of their heritage. Egypt also claimed its
:share in what the Assyrian kings had been compelled
30 relinquish ; Necho 11. (609-595) led an army against
the lands bordering on the Euphrates. At Megiddo in
the plain of Jezreel h e was opposed (608) by JOSIAH
*(g.v.),who, we may be sure, acted as he did trusting
i n YahwB, and because he regarded it as his mission to
:avert a renewal of foreign dominion over Syria. The
Greek and Carian mercenaries of Necho proved, how-
ever, too powerful for him. H e had to pay the
penalty for his bold endeavour with his life. He was
deeply mourned by his people, who found themselves
misled ( z K. 2329 f: ; cp z Ch. 3520-27 I Esd. 125-32)
b y the hopes (pitched far too high) which the reign
of the pious Josiah had inspired. (See J OSIAH .)
Jehoahaz, son and successor of the lost king, was forced
to do homage to the new master of S. Syria, whom he
-overtookat R IBLAH (p.v.) on the Orontes. Necho, who
was on his northward march, sent him to Egypt as a
prisoner (zK. 2331-34 Jer. 2210 fl), filling his place,
as tributary king of Judah, by the choice of his more
trustworthy elder brother Jehoiakim (Eliakim) (z K. 23
34f: ).
Until the fall of Nineveh Necho was left undisturbed
in the gratification of his ambition : the whole of Syria up
40. Babylon. to the Euphrates became Egyptian. N o
sooner, however, had Nabopolassar seized
supreme* the Babylonian crown than he despatched
his son and successor Nebuchadrezzar 11. (604-562) to
check the Egyptian advance. At the battle of Car-
chemish on the Euphrates (605) Necho was defeated
and compelled to abandon Syria (Jer. 46 2)-perhaps,
however, not all at once, for, according to z K. 241, it
was not till about 600 B. c. that Jehoiakim acknowledged
the suzerainty of Nebuchadrezzar.
Thus the result of these great changes, as far as
Judah was concerned, was disappointing; in spite of
the well-meant reforms of Josiah, and in spite of the
downfall of Nineveh, it found itself politically in no
better case than under Hezekiah and Manasseh; the
only difference was that Babylon had stepped into the
place of Nineveh, and that the Egyptians had once
more, and with emphasis, resumed their old relations
with Syria. The religious disappointment to which we
have referred ( 5 39, end) was followed, as might be ex-
pected, by a strong reaction (Jer. 44 15-19), which vented
its rage especially on the prophets, as the Book of Jere-
miah repeatedly shows. The policy adopted by Man-
:asseh, but consistently opposed by the prophets, of
friendship with foreigners, seemed only too clearly
justified by facts. Once more, therefore, we see renewed
at the close of the history of Judah the old coquetry with
two great foreign powers,-with this difference, that the
bnlance of favour now inclined towards the newly-
recruited Egyptian empire.
Three years passed, and Jehoiakim renounced his
allegiance (598). Nebuchadrezzar's army promptly
41. R~volts. invested Jerusalem ; the boy-king Jehoi-
achin, who had succeeded his father,
quickly surrendered himself and his officers to the
Babylonians. Nebuchadrezzar passed sentence of exile
( L e . , deportation) both upon him and upon the noblest
.of the Jews, assigning to them (among them to the
prophet Ezekiel) new dwelling-places in Babylonia. It
is from this event in the year 597 that Ezekiel reckons
the years of the ' Babylonian captivity ' (Ez. 12 8 I , etc. ;
.on z K. 241-16 cp Klostermann).
Nebuchadrezzar plainly considered this humiliation
.of the little kingdom enough to render it harmless for
2247
ISRAEL
the future. He handed over the government to a son
of Josiah, a full brother of Jehoahaz (Jer. 371 z K. 2331
24 IS), Zedekiah by name, of whom he exacted a solemn
oath of fidelity (Ez. 1 7 1 3 ) ~at the same time causing
the poorer inhabitants to take the places of the richer
owners of the soil whom he had banished. There was
an error, however, in his calculations : the Jews had a
stubbornness and a power of resistance for u-hich he
had not allowed. The poorer people triumphantly
took possession of the estates of their exiled country-
men (Ez. l l r s ) , and many prophets, the opponents of
Jeremiah, foretold a speedy end for the foreign supre-
macy (Jer. 27 1 4 8 28).
As early as in 593, plans were being matured in
Jerusalem for a general rising of Judah and its neigh-
bours (Jer. 2 7 1 8 ) ; the stimulus may have come from
Egypt, where Psa(m)e:ik 11. had succeeded to the
throne in 594. On this occasion Zedekiah came to the
conclusion that it was better to prove his fidelity by
appearing in person before Nebuchadrezzar (Jer. 51 59f. ).
Later, however, he gave way to the persuasions of
Hophra (Apries, 588-570), when that Pharaoh intervened
in the affairs of the Phoenician cities (Herod. 2 I & ) , and
so this weak king dealt a fatal blow to the independence
of Judah and to the house of David.
In 586, after a siege of a year and a half, the army
of Nebuchadrezzar forced Jerusalem to surrender, the
42. Sack of Egyptians who were advancing to its relief
having meantime been repelled (Jer. 375).
Zedekiah sought safety in flight ; but
before he could cross the Jordan he was captured near
Jericho. Nebuchadrezzar, who had remained in his
headquarters at Riblah, received his prisoner sternly,
and sent him in chains to Babylon. Within a month
N EBUZARADAN (4.v.) set fire to the finest buildings in
Jerusalem, including the royal palace and the temple,
made great breaches in the city walls, and sent some
seventy of the higher officers and nobility to Riblah,
where Nebuchadrezzar caused them to be executed.
Once more the inhabitants of Jerusalem suffered the
penalty of exile, their lands being assigned to those of
the poorer class who were left behind.
The sorely weakened people received for their
governor Gedaliah, son of Ahikam. It was a skilful
43, Gedaliah. choice, as Gedaliah was much trusted
and from his father's time had
been on terms of close friendship with Jeremiah
(Jer. 2624). He fixed his residence at MIZPAH( p . ~ . ) ,
and forthwith fugitives from far and wide rallied round
him to strengthen the bonds of national union. How
this promising attempt was ruined by a revengeful
prince of the house of David, who treacherously fell
upon and murdered both Gedaliah and those who were
about him (some of whom were Chaldaeans), is told else-
where (see ISHMAEL, 2). It is an episode the details of
which well deserve special study, and we need only add
here that Johanan b. Kareah delivered the captives
whom Ishmael had carried off from Mizpah, and
afterwards, for their greater security, conducted the
trembling Jews1 to Egypt. The aged Jeremiah was,
against his will, a member'of the party. (See Che.
/eremiah, his L f e and Times, 188-zoo).
Thus came to pass that death of Israel as a nation
of which Amos had long before spoken (Am. 51 L).
The resistance had been brave ; but'the
44.
enemy was not to be denied. The
strength and tenacity which were natural to it had, in the
case of Israel as distinguished from its neighbouring
kinsfolk, been intensified by a faith in God that was
higher than theirs. It was not without reason that men
in the olden time had spoken of the great heroes of the
' wars of Yahwh.' As this highly naturalistic form of
religious enthusiasm gradually gave way before the
1 They had good reason to tremble. A Chaldsean army was
still besieging Tyre (585-579, and in 582 there was a third
deportation of Jews to Babylonia.
2248
 ISRAEL
influences of a peaceful civilisation, there grew up within
Israel itself through the activity of the prophets a
religious opposition which was highly prejudicial to the
national well-being. It is undoubtedly correct to regard
the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries as the
true heroes of the Israelite genius. We must not allow
ourselves to forget, however, that they were responsible
for the destruction of the nation's old satisfaction
with itself, and that the heads of the people often
quite honestly regarded them as troublers of the public
peace (see, e.g., I K. I817 Am. 7 1 o J r ) . Upon this in-
ternal malady supervened external dangers (Hos. 5 12 14),
and thus the effective strength of the nation was
doubly impaired, even quite apart from the internal
jealousies and rancours of the various tribes and Elans :
Ahab, Jehu, the Syrian wars in the north, and Manasseh
in the south are typical instances. In the later
history of Judah the influence of the prophets comes into
the very forefront. What arrests and almost astonishes is
the disproportion between the soaring flight of religious
thought and its practicable impotency. The prophets
felt themselves to be messengers of the God of the
whole world to the nations (Jer.l510), at the same
time that his people were going helplessly t o ruin.
Faith rebels at the irksome limitations of space, and
feels itself strong euough to face the world. Less
attractive to behold is its shadow-like double,-the blind
stubbornness and pride, which in Jeremiah's time cannot
conceive the possibility that YahwB, the God of the
world, could ever cast off his own. Hence the strange
juxtaposition of diffidence and boldness, of courage and
despair. That petty selfishness and personal hatreds
should be added to these at a time when to be or not
to b e ' was the question which let 16ose every passion
need not startle us. For the multitude it was an
unintelligible and depressing destiny, that the people of
Israel should on account of its faith be precluded from
taking a place among the great kingdoms of the world.
To us this is no longer a riddle : we give our pity to
the vanquished brave, our admiration to the little
flock, helpless and despised, which recognises an
inward renewal as the only way of healing, accepts
suffering as a merited chastisement, and, in humble
expectation, waits for the day when God shall bring to
victory the cause of his own in the sight of all the world.
From the midst of such a company a,new Israel did
indeed actually spring up ; but it was not a new people.
W e must not allow ourselves to picture the land of
Tudah after 582 as a mere howling - wilderness. Accord-
45. State of ing to Jer. 5228-30, 4600 men in all were
things in
..
cTarried into exile out of Jerusalem and
udah : this will remesent a total of some
Juaan. ~~.000'-18.000 soh-certainlv but a
modest fraction' of the entire population, although
I ordinary tasks of daily life, and soon, amid the widely
doubtless representing its best and most vigorous
elements. If we take into account also those who had
migrated into Egypt, we may safely assume that among
those who remained behind were included but few
persons who had had experience in the conduct of
public affairs. The necessary consequence was that
the residents felt themselves reduced to a state
of apathy and helplessness. The establishment of
such a condition in the conquered land was no doubt
in the interest of the conqueror ; but it was not a state
of complete desolation. A strong Edomite inroad from
the SE. still further diminished the territory of
what had once been the kingdom of Judah, and forced
the Judahites who still remained into closer contiguity
(see EDOM). T h e Calebites'whom they drove from
Hebron moved up into the neighbourhood of Bethlehem,
which at a later date was spoken of as their native seat
( I Ch. 2 5 0 8 ; see C ALEB , 5 4). Jerusalem remained
throughout the centre of the community, and sacrifice
was even offered among the ruins of the temple (Jer.
415 ; cp Lam. 14). As the resident remnant were now
without any natural head-we hear nothing of any
2249
ISRAEL
Babylonian governor-resort was naturally had to the
ancient division of the people according to families and
clans, or even according to local communities, and the
care of the common interests was handed over to the
heads of families (elders).' Although no doubt thcre
still remained a few who continued to cherish the old
proud spirit (Ez. 3324-2g), the mood of the majority was.
humble, anxious, subdued in the extreme. The com-
muniiy lay helpless, exposed to the insults of its neigh-
hours ; m'en felt that they had been smitten to the earth
by the divine anger ; the proudest hearts were crushed
by trouble (Lam. 2-4). The truth of the prophet's
predictions as to the fate of Israel and Judah had been
personally experienced in the direst measure, and all that
now remained was with sharre and confusion of face
to answer the prophet's summons to' repentance and
amendment : the anniversaries of the sad events of the
downfall were observed with fasting and mourning
(Zech. 71:). In thus turning to God, hearts gradually
began to glow again at thoughts of YahwB's faithfulness
and might. The rights of Zion over against the nations
were no longer despaired o f ; hopes of a vindication,
of a day of vengeance, began to be cherished, and men
to wait on Yahwk (Lam, 5).
For most of the exiles in Babylonia, also, the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem was as startling as it was unexpected.
Relying upon prophetic utterances (Jer.
46. In
Babylonia. 27-29 Ez. 1221-1323), they had, from
597 B . C . onwards, looked forward to a
speedy release and return to Jerusalem. They regarded
themselves as the true Israel, and proudly looked down
on those who had been left behind in the old home
(cp Jer. 24 Ez. 111-21). For this attitude their past
certainly supplied them with good reasons ; but they
did not in the least degree answer the requirements
which had been made of a true Israel by the prophets.
The chiding discourses of Ezekiel (especially 1-24) show
all too clearly that as yet there was no sign of a ' new
heart ' in them. The capture of Jerusalem in 586 seems
at last to have had this consequence, that the exiles, a s
Jeremiah (294-9) had already counselled, began to
lay their account with a more prolonged sojourn in
foreign parts. T o what degree they were distributed
over the country at large we do not know ; in several
localities (Ezek. 138 I , etc., Ezra 8 7) they were settled in
considerable numbers, and here they maintained in full
force the old clan relations, not only defacto but also by
means of registers (Ezra817, cp Ezek. 139). Doubtless
it fared better on the whole with the exiles than with
those who had been allowed to remain behind in the old
country. This holds true very specially of those
who had no desire to assert Israel's loftier place among
the nations, who simply threw themselves into the
ramified trade and commerce of the great^ world-state,
found themselves better off than they had formerly been
among the lonely hills of their highland home. Most
of them, it must, however, be said further, became lost
to their own nation, just as already the descendants of
the exiles of the kingdom of Israel had become absorbed
by their new surroundings in Mesopotamia and Media.
The disadvantages of a life in a foreign country were
felt to the full, on the other hand, by all those who were
unable to forget the God of Israel and
4,. Religion
and literature. his 'holy city' (Is. 521). According
to the ideas then prevailing, it was a
literal impossibility to serve Yahwk in a foreign, unclean
land (Hos. 93-5 ; cp Ps. 1374). All the more did it be-
come incumbent to practise whatever served to maintain
the connection with home. Personal intercourse with
Jerusalem, which at first had been vigorously maintained
(Jer. 29 13 25 51 59 Ezek. 24 26), naturally became less
after the laying waste of the city and the repeated
measures for reducing its population ; the pious-minded
found themselves in the end restricted to the memories,
1 Cp G OVERNMENT , 0 24.
2250
 ISRAEL
the cherished customs, and the writings they possessed.
It being impossible to worship YahwA by sacrifice, they
kept up all the more assiduously such customs as had in
themselves some sort of independent existence apart
from the temple-worship :-prayer (in which the face
was turned towards Jerusalem ; see I K. 848), fasting,
circumcision, Sabbath observance ; the last two, in
particular. came to be distinguishing marks of Israel
as opposed to heathendom. At the same time this
thought found entrance, that renunciation of one's
will and the surrender of the heart to God was the true
sacrifice, well pleasing to God (Ps. 5lr6[18]f:).
Special diligence was devoted to the preserving, edit-
ing, and multiplying of hooks, and, consequently, the
calling of the scribes (03~9~) rose to great imp0rtance.l
It was to the ' law '-;.e., to Deuteronomy and similar
collections, as, for example, Lev. 17-26, which they
edited and transcribed-that their attention was given in
the first instance. Under the leadership of the prophet
Ezekiel, who in chaps. 4 0 8 of his book lays down
specificationsfor the building of the temple, and prescribes
its services after the manner of a legislator, advance
was steadily made along the path indicated in Deuter-
onomy-that of imposing a special stamp upon the
worship of Israel by means of laws. New, hut in full ac-
cordance with the circumstances and temper of the period,
was the express enactment of regular days and sacri-
fices of propitiation (Ezek. 45 18-20). The editing
of works of a historical nature was carried on along the
same lines as those on which it had been begun in Judah
before the Exile-viz., the past was measured by the
standard of the law which had been in force since 621,
and so was found to present little that was good (cp the
books of Kings).2 The thoughts were wholly those
of Judah, though the name was that of Israel. The
conceptions of prophetic circles, as these had developed
and taken root in Judah in consequence of the activity of
the prophets from Isaiah onwards, became victorious in
the religious field, and it was from these that the new
post-exilic Israel took its origin. Judaism, it is true,
developed many noticeable characteristics which we are
not as a rule accustomed to obsexe in the prophets (be-
cause they are there only in rudiment). The law in the
later sense of the word has its roots in Deuteronomy;
hut it is impossible to separate Deuteronomy from the
influence of the prophets. Is. 1~ g f : already confronts
us with the thought that everything depends on Israel's
obedience or disobedience. The idea of retributive
justice in itself is of venerable antiquity, and not confined
to the religion of Israel ; but the prophets had actually
put it forward as the key to an understanding of his-
tory, and with a view to securing the freedom and re-
sponsibility of the individual, had so modified it (Jere-
miah and Ezekiel) as to represent retribution as visiting
the guilty person alone, and even as judging the in-
dividual exclusively according to what might be his
attitude at the moment of judgment. Out of this arose
a new conception of the divine precepts. They became
for Israel the conditions under which it was capable of
receiving the divine gifts (Dt. 2 8 3 Lev. 26) : by fulfil-
ment of the law alone could Israel, whether the nation
or the individual, receive life (Ezek. 2011Lev. 185 Neh.
929). The interest in worship, which henceforth
has free scope in the laws, first meets us in the legisla-
tion of Deuteronomy, and was first aroused by the
prophetic view that the worship of Israel ought to have
its foundation in the proper history of Israel. The
type of personal piety also displayed in Judaism had its
pioneers in the later prophets. What Jeremiah had
begun in his touching dialogues with God-the expres-
sion of the experiences and emotions of the individual
soul-the Israelite, by nature Ipically disposed, now
took up with great warmth as the motive of his religious
poetry. Repentance, supplication, thanksgiving, praise,
1 Cp EDUCATION, $5 5 3 ; SCRIBES.
2 cp H EXATEUCH , 5s ' 8 8 ; H ISTORICAL L ITERATURE. $ 7 .
2251
ISRAEL
doubt, assurance of faith, now find their expression in a
form that will continue to be the form for religious
emotion to the end of time. A closer self-examination, a
recognition and confession of sin-manifestations of the
religious life so frequently met with after the Exile-were
demands of the prophets (Jer. 3 2 1 8 Ezek. 36313) with
which many in Israel learned in exile to comply. For
the exiles were now actually living through and experi-
encing the nation's death in the land of the heathen ; the
pain and the sorrow of it was gradually leading many to
recognise the full truth of what the prophets had judged.
Those thus disciplined learned to bow themselves sub-
missively under the hand of God, and to bear the suffer-
ingwillinglyas amerited punishment ( o v x , ')*m&j, '. my).
I n surh an attitude they became reconciled to God ; out
of the promises of the prophets the aspiration after
deliverance drew strength for hope to live by ; and this
hope became all the livelier in proportion as YahwA came
to be sincerely acknowledged as the only God of heaven
and earth. From him it was possible to expect Israel's
vindication in the sight of the heathen nations even
against the mightiest world-powers.
The first indication of a turn of affairs for the better
was the liberation of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), and the
48. Dawn? bestowal on him of regal honours by
Evil-merodach (561~560; cp 2 K.
2527-30. Or was it not until Nerighssar?). Yet other,
more weighty, indications kept expectation alive for
a considerable time. As there was now peace between
Media and Babylon, the existing relations of the great
powers seemed stable. All the greater was the tension
when at last heavy storm-clouds began to gather over
Babylonia. Cyrus 11. of Persia had become (since 550
B.c. ; see CURUS,3 2) the next neighbour of Babylonia,
and was too insatiably energetic to curb himself at the
frontier of that empire. The kingdom of Lydia-i. e . ,
49. II. Isaiah. all Asia Minor-had been conquered in
a single campaign, and as the conqueror
passed along the northern border of Babylonia the author
of Is. 40-55 discerned in his trinmphant march a pre-
monition of the coming vengeance of God upon proud
Babylon. At last the hour for a message of peace and
comfort to suffering Israel seemed to have come. The
prophet spoke in soul-stirring strains of the mighty
deeds of YahwB the God of the world-deeds by which
he was to free his people from servitude to the heathen,
bring them marvellously back to their own land, and
there, before the astonished gaze of all the nations,
make them great and glorious as never heretofore. H e
designated Cyrus as the instrument, the anointed, of
YahwB, through whom Jerusalem and the temple should
be again restored ; he spoke of the grand mission of
pious Israel, to bring to the heathen the knowledge of
the one true God. He gave exulting expression-he, a
nameless prophet-to his sure confidence in the victory
of the monotheistic faith ; he saw fulfilling itself before
his own eyes and amid the forms surrounding him
that which by all the ordinary laws of human existence
can only be the growth of a long-continued development.
W e turn now to the actual sequel. Nabonidus having
proved himself incapable of defending the country
against the invader, the people of Babylonia
'O' cyrus' hailed Cyrus as a welcome deliverer.
T h e most important cities, including Babylon itself, fell
into the hands of the Persians without any serious
struggle (538 B . C . ) . Cyrus, therefore, had no occasion
to resort to the harsher rigours of war. On the contrary,
although himself a follower of the Zoroastrian religion,
he caused himself to be credited with being also a
favourite and a worshipper of Merodach (see CYRUS,
5 6 ) ,his policy being thus most favourably distinguished
from the fanatical measures of Semitic princes against
the gods and temples of conquered peoples. The Old
Persian religion allowed him, and his successors, not
only to respect, but also to promote the religions of
1 Cp I SAIAH ii., $ 16fi
2252
 ISRAEL
other nations. He was thus in a position to respond
t o the religious wishes of the Jews. He gave orders
to restore the temple of YahwC, ‘ the God of heaven,’
6 ~ Shesh-
. in Jerusalem, and sent S HESHBAZZAR
(p.v.)-doubtless himself a Jew, and per-
bazzar’ haps even a descendant of David-with
suitable powers, as his governor to Judah. There,
we are told, he laid the foundation of the new temple ;
but we learn also that an arrest was soon afterwards
laid upon the enterprise (Ezra5 13-16). There can
hardly be any doubt that Sheshbazzar was accompanied
to Jerusalem by prominent compatriots, such as Zerub-
babel, a descendant of David and Joshua b. Jozadak
the priest, and that they were able to appeal to royal
authority in the prosecution of their aims (cp Ezra6 1-5).
W e may doubt, however, whether, as the Chronicler
affirms (Ezra11-6), Cyrus gave a general permission
for the return of the exiles to their native land.
This was the first event that brought some stir into
the quiet and secluded life of the Jewish population at
62.*+, Jeru- Jerusalem. The impulse, however, seems
to have met at first with opposition and
obstruction rather than support. Al-
though we have no trustworthy information on the sub-
ject, this is certainly intelligible. The returned exiles,
with the powers committed to them, would soon be-
come troublesome to the native-born Jews, with their
rights and privileges. Moreover, it seems very prob-
able (cp Ezra41-4) that the people of Samaria-
among whom, notwithstanding their intermixture with
foreigners ( 2 K.1724 Ezra4z8-10), the worship of
Yahwi: survived ( z K 1 7 ~ 58 )and was later brought
into connection with Jerusalem ( z K. 2315 1 9 3 Jer. 41 5 )
-endeavoured at first to reap some benefit for them-
selves from the permission of Cyrus to rebuild the temple,
by making common cause with the Jews. Hence the
first impulse resulting from the permission of Cyrus
may have led to collisions in which the influence of the
governor and the goodwill of the exiles spent themselves.
Yet the event of 538, in itself unimportant, was like
the little stone flung into a confined sheet of water,
63. Restoration which creates a long-protracted dis-
Nineteen or twenty years
of the temple. laterturbance.
the movement to build the
temple was begun again by the prophets Haggai and
Zechariah. Zerubabbel, who now appears as Persian
governor of Judah, a m a n of Davidic descent, and Joshua
the ‘high priest,’ to whom Zechariah ( 3 7 ) expressly
attributes the control of the temple precincts, begin with
the people of Judah the restoration of the temple in
519. The inactivity of the co-religionists is met by the
prophets with the promise that zeal displayed in building
the temple will bring down the blessing of God-;.e., the
final realisation of the prophetic ideals of pre-exilic and
exilic times--the overthrow of the great heatheuempires,
the gathering of the exiledand dispersed, therehabilitation
of the Davidic monarchy, and the recognition of Yahwi:
a t Jerusalem on the part of the heathen. The temple
was actually completed on the zgrd of Adar 515 (with
Ezra615 cp I Esd. 7 5 and Jos. Ant. xi. 4 7). It had
been built by the people of Judah without help from
the Persian government.
This appears clearly from Ezra53-615, which refers to the
latter part of the period of building. According to Ezra68-io,
indeed Darius directs that the expenditure should be refunded
out of ;he revenues of the province of Syria and Phmnicia, and
that a regular allowance should be paid for the maintenance of
the daily ritual of the temple. But it may be doubted whether
this order was really carried out.
T h e restoration of the temple was an important
achievement. In spite of its unpretentious appearance,
64. Difiiculty of the temple constituted an important
reorganisation. rallying point for the native popula-
tion, and exerted a strong attractive
power on thosewho lived remote from Jerusalem (cpZech.
6 IO). Naturally it became more than ever imperative for
the Jews that they should have+carefor the regular service
2253
ISRAEL
of the sanctuary. Nor was this, in the circumstances of
the time, a simple or easy matter. The duty fell in,
indeed, with the tendency of religious life in the times
immediately preceeding the Exile, as we know from
Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. But neither was there any
longer a king in Jerusalem to maintain the court
sanctuary, nor can we find any trace of the provision of
Darius (Ezra6gf.) having been carried out. Since,
moreover, therc was at that time, as Ezra63 j? shows,
no real Persian governor at Jerusalem, the priesthood,
with Joshua the ‘ high priest,’ a descendant of Zadok,
at their head, were simply dependent on the good u-ill
of the people. But, as appears from expressions in Mal.
and Is. 5 6 8 , this does not seem to have secured them
any adequate provision. Tbere was no fixed order to
unite willing and unwilling in a common contribution
with regularity. The wealthy heads of families cared
only for themselves (Is. 5610-12). T o the utter absence
of any spirit of friendly co-operation were added
calumny, fraud, and violence. The administration of
justice was feeble or subservient to avarice. A large
proportion of the people were poor and suffered actual
distress. The pious, who anxiously endeavoured to be
obedient to the word of Yahwb, felt themselves much
oppressed by these conditions. The promises of a
better time not having been realised, the zeal of the
pious seemed to have been vain ; it was paralysed by
the practices of those who would hear of no sharp dis-
tinction between the service of Yahwi: and their heathen
surroundings. Intermarriage between people of Judah
and Canaanites was by no means rare, and through the
influence of the old family ties a blending of religious
cults was brought about, in which the heathen as the
stronger became victorious (cp Neh. 1323-27). Of these
two tendencies, which might be called Jewish-Canaanite
and Jewish-prophetic respectively, the former maintained
close relations with the people of Samaria-whose
peculiar history had forced them to a similar course
-who now endeavoured to establish rights in the
temple at Jerusalem. Naturally the adherents of the
prophets would acknowledge no such rights ; but.even
those who favoured the cultivation of closer relations
hesitated to change so radically the rights of the temple
(fully recognised as these were) and perhaps thereby to
endanger their stability. The people of Samaria
retorted by resuming an attitude of open enmity, making
the Jews feel their superior power (Is.6285). It is
not strange that in these circumstances a satisfactory
ordering of the temple worship was not attained.
Even external peace was not unbroken. Although
the expeditions of the Persians against Egypt (517.
485, 455) did not affect the Judsean highlands, the
revolt of Megabyzos, satrap of Syria, against Artaxerxes
I. (465-425) would affect the neighbourhoodof Jerusalem.
The condition of things, was therefore, deplorable in
Jerusalem about the middle of the fifth century B.c.
(IS. 59153).
It was by Nehemiah and Ezra that a deliverance was
effected. In firm faith in Israel’s future, with great
65. Nehemiah. dexterity and immovable tenacity, they
fortified the defenceless Jerusalem, and
established the temple worship by the organisation of
the Jews as a religious community.
As to the chronological order of the events that secured this
result difference of opinion prevails ; especially marked is this
in the case of the arrival of Ezra and his caravan at Jerusalem
(Kuen., Ed. Meyer, and others-458 B.c., under Artaxerxes I.;
Kosters-about 430 B.C. under the same king ; van Hooiiacker
-398.397 B.C. under Artaxerxes II., Mnemon). The account
given in the following paragraphs agrees in the main with the
theory of Kosters (Het Herstel, 1894 ; see E ZRA ii., $ 9).
Nehemiah, a cup-bearer of Artaxerxes I., Longimanus
(46 5-42j ) , learned in Susa from some men from J u d z a
that Jerusalem lay in ruins and its people were groaning
under a burden of wretchedness. H e obtained of the
king leave of; absence and authority, as governor of the
district of Judah, to attend to the fortification of Jeru-
salem. Arrived in Jerusalem in 446-445, he devoted
2254
 ISRAEL
his attention in the first place to external relations.
The strenuous efforts of the people of Jerusalem and
its neighbourhood enabled him to restore the walls of
the city in fifty-two days. The people of Samaria, with
Sanballat of Bethhoron at their head, vainly sought by
open threats and hidden craft to put obstacles in his
way. The plunder of the poor by the rich during the
building of the walls he restrained by earnest admoni-
tion and the example of his own unselfish conduct.
H e did not allow himself to be intimidated in his plans
by prophetic threats or by the ambiguous attitude of
leading members of the community actively allied with
Sanballat and his dependants (Neh. 1-6). He took
systematic measures for the safety of Jerusalem, and
secured an increase of the population by immigration
from the surrounding district (Neh. 71-5 11I J ) . Of
his further doings during the twelve years of his first
stay at Jerusalem we have no information; but he
appears even then to have taken in hand the regula-
tion of the temple service (Neh. 1244, cp 134-10). In
434-433 he returned to the Persian court.
Soon, however, he came back to Jerusalem. Hence-
forth he devoted his attention particularly to religious
Arrangements in favour of the
Second affairs.
66. visit. priesthoodherescinded, banished from Jeru-
salem even a member of the high priestly
family who had become allied by marriage to Sanballat,
provided for regular payment being made to Levites and
singers, insisted on strict observance of the Sabbath,
and sought to prevent mixed marriages (Neh. 134-31).
Many indications favour the opinion that the expedi-
tion of Ezra was connected with Nehemiah’s second
57. Ezra. journey ,to Jerusalem, and was perhaps even
occasioned by Nehemiah. At the head of
some 1800 men of Judah ( = 5500-6000 souls), Ezra,
priest and scribe, left Babylon with the two-fold mission
assigned him by the king-(I) of submitting the state of
things in Judah to the test of his lawbook, and regulat-
ing it accordingly [Ezra’ir425J); ( 2 ) of bringing to
Jerusalem the rich presents of the king and his
retinue, of the province of Babylonia, and of the Jews’
co-religionists (Ezra 7 15-19), Ezra’s enterprise aimed
accordingly at pronouncedly religious ends. In the
externally mixed and internally disunited people loosely
congregated round the temple, Ezra’s companions were
to form the solid. kernel of a new ‘ Israel’ that should
render obedience to the law of God, and so could cherish
with a good conscience the hope of being worthy to
experience the fulfilment of the divine promises (cp Dt.
28 1-14 Lev. 26 1-13). In fact, a company of 6000 souls
invested with royal authority might well seem capable
of bringing about a thorough-going reform in Judah.
Yet Ezra encountered great difficulties. These would
spring not only from the religious contrast between
those who came from Babylon and those that were
native born, but also from the sudden increase of
population produced by this inffux of families of the
highest rank. It is only, however, of the religious
movement begun by Ezra that we hear. Learning
with horror and grief of the mixed marriages that were
common in all ranks he assembled the people in front
of the temple and endeavoured to arouse in them the
sentiments he himself felt. His acts and words produced
a profound impression. A resolution was passed that
a searching investigation should be instituted with a
view to dissolving the mixed marriages in the district
of Jerusalem. Whether a real separation, however,
was made a t this early time between ’ holy’ and unholy
is not quite clear from EzralO. At all events, Ezra
had by his religious energy produced a lasting impres-
sion on the multitude.
-
His meatest achievement. accomulished with the
co-operation of Nehemiah, was the
58. The
congregation. organisation of the new Jewish com-
munity (about 430 B.C.). This came
into existence by the heads of families pledging them-
2255
ISRAEL
selves by formal subscription (cp Neh. 9 J ) to the
observance of the law (Xeh. 938-1031 [lo 1-32]) and
other regulations with reference to the temple services
(7’”. 32-39 [33-40]).
The prescri tions quoted from the law (v. 3rJ) point to Ex.23
and Dt. 15. ‘fhe mexsures decreed and imDosed uuon itself bv
the assembly (w. 32-39 [33-401) aim at r<gulating the tempfe
service by contributions made by the community in common
(temple tax, firstlings, firstborn, tithes), and culminate in the
concluding assertion, ‘ W e will not neglect the house of our God.’
It was apparently after this organisation of the
community-not, as the present order of the book of
59. The Nehemiah implies, before it--that Ezra’s
new law. law-book was solemnly read in public (Neh.
81-12). As its first effect is mentioned (vv.
13-18) the new celebration of the feast of ‘Tabernacles,’
which plainlyanswers to the piescription now to be found
in Lev. 2339-43. This leads to the assumption that
the law-book of Ezra contained in the main the Law
of Holiness (PI or H ) and the oldest parts of the Priestly
Code proper (P2 or PG; see H ISTORICAL L ITERATURE ,
5 9). The amplification of this book and its combina-
tion with the older parts of our Pentateuch will have
followed soon after (see CANON, 5 233). How far Ezra
himself had a share in this work we do not know. At all
events, the work undertaken by Nehemiah and Ezra was
thus completed, inasmuch as the laws demanded by the
new conditions of things were accorded authority equal
to that of the older collections (cp 5 61). This fact is
reflected in the later Jewish legend according to which
the Law was written out anew by Ezra (4 Esd. 1419-22
40-47 ; Pi7-4I X&Zh, i. I , 2). W e have another important
monument of the constitution of the post-exilic com-
munity in the list of its families and local communities
(Ezra2 = Neh. 7 = I Esd. 5 ) adopted by the Chronicler as
a list of exiles returned in the time of Cyrns see E ZRA
ii., 5.9). According to it, the number of men in the com-
munity amounted to 42,360-i.e., some 521,000 souls.
Before proceeding with the history of this newly
constituted community, we must briefly set forth its
characteristics and its ;elation to the
60. Idea of pre-exilic people of Israel. The funda-
congregation.
mental idea of Ezra’s new creation is
clearly dependent on those by which it was preceded-
Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, ‘Law of Holiness’ (see LEvrrI-
CUS) :-it is that of a holy people in a holy land. Since
the predominant conception of holiness was in the
ritualistic sense of purity, we have the impression of the
whole community being regarded precisely as a sacrificial
brotherhood of the old times. The stranger (mr-i?, wx)
is excluded ; marriage with him makes unclean ; cir-
cumcision and the Sabbath are the badges of the Jewish
community, and serve, along with the observance of
other prescriptions, to sanctify the land. In fact, it
was the organisation of the Jewish community after the
Exile that for the first time completely abolished the
old sacrificial communion of families or clans. All its
members contributed alike to the maintenance of one
and the same cultus at the single sanctuary. Thus the
post-exilic community in regulating the cultus by law
took up a position completely in harmony with that
sketched by the last representatives of prophecy at the
beginning of the Exile. But, unlike them, it was not
content with expelling from Israel everything heathen.
It sought in the institution of a common cultus a bond,
firm and strong, to unite in a close fellowship the
individual members-an end secured formerly by the
establishment of the monarchy. Hence to the highest
representative of the ecclesiastically reorganised com-
munity-the high priest-were transferred also badges
of royalty of many kinds (e.g.,A NOINTING [p.v.,5 31).
The support and strength of the community was the
new law-book, which was certainly regarded by those
61, The Torah. in authority merely as a seasonable
modification and completion, and
therefore as the legitimate successor, of Deuteronomy.
The application of it became a learned accomplishment.
2256
 ISRAEL
It was written and its provisions were many and varied.
Moreover-and this was the chief difficulty-it was not
enough to know the written law. That contained only
certain prescriptions, namely those which had been
regarded as of special importance when the various
collections~.weremade. The system as a whole, the
mode of procedure, the various legal precedents, were
unwritten. Without a knowledge of the latter, how-
ever, administration of justice in Israel was really im-
possible : the written law could be used only by one who
understood the place and significance of the several
statutes in the whole body of law, and their use in ac-
cordance with the ancient unwritten law of established
usage. Hence the skilled use of the law fell more and
more out of the hands of the priests and became the
affair of the ' scribes ' ( p i D D ) , who, no doubt, not infre-
quently belonged to the priesthood (cp, e&, the case
of Ezra himself). The more influential the scribes
became, the more would the priesthood have to reckon
with them. The sphere of Jewish law and Jewish legal
administration cannot be measured according to the
modern distinction between spiritual and temporal,
ecclesiastical and political. The ' affairs of Yahw8 ' (cp
the antithesis in z Ch. 1911)included besides the cultus
the whole realm of law. In Israel law had always been
counted as a holy affair of YahwB's ; the Jewish coni-
munity could not for a moment give this up if it recog-
nised obedience to the will of Yahw8 as its mission:
according to Ezra 7z5f:, the royal powers,vested in Ezra
do not indicate in this respect any restriction of any kind.
On the other hand, Nehemiah and Ezra tacitly
abandoned political independence, and in so doing gave
62. lacrifice up a vital part of the hopes and ideas of
This very sacrifice, sore as
of political !he prophets.
it was, opened to them a way of escape
limuun.
from a desperate position, and guaranteed
them not only room for their undertakings, but also the
strong support of the imperial power. The followers
and adherents of the prophets, indeed, were offended ;
and there must have been some deeper influence
at work than the mere bribes of his enemies, when
we find Nehemiah complaining even of enmity on
the part of the prophets (Neh. 66-14). The result, how-
ever, confirmed the policy of Nehemiah and Ezra ; and
it is accordingly no matter for surprise that in the sequel
the position of the prophets fell grievously in popular
esteem (Zech. 132-6). The abandonment of political
independence, however, was only a preliminary. The
coming glorification of Israel before all the heathen
was the goal for the sake of which Nehemiah and Ezra
sacrificed their laborious work on points of detail and
minor matters. The old political programme of the
prophets was retained or reconstructed in the form of
eschatology. The position accorded to strangers in the
Jewish community clearly establishes the character of
this sacrifice as a mere preliminary. Following Deuter-
onomy, the law-book of the post-.exilic community
decides (Ex. 1249 Lev. 2422) that there should be onelaw
for native (niiN) and foreigner (le) ; indeed, foreigners
have the option of circumcision, and can thus become
completely merged in the community. This is a fruit
of the universalism of the prophets. On the other
hand, from civil qualifications the ge% is exc1uded.l
This would aim at keeping the civil community pure
as the birthplace of the future nation, preserving a true
' Israel ' for the time of the great crisis. In the Jewish
constitution instituted by Nehemiah and Ezra, accord-
ingly, what we find is a well thought-out attempt to
secure for the remnant of Israel, even witbout political
independence, the enjoyment of their religious inherit-
ance in its fullest extent.
Notwithstanding the emphasis that was, especially
in the beginning, laid on the community, piety was a
concern of the individual. In this respect the views
1 Alfr. Bertholet, Die Stellung d. Israelilen ZL. d. Jwden z. n.
Frfintien ('96), 1 6 0 8 See S TRAN G E R .
2257
ISRAEL
that meet us in the Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra
63. Practical (see EZRA ii.,
5) are instructive.
Every male member of the community
who had passed his twentieth year had
Lo pay the temple tax (Neh. 1032 [33]f: Ex. 30118).
Except where the nature of the case demanded other-
Nise, it was the individual that was aimed at in the
provisions of the law. The sufferings of nearly zoo
years were, indeed, recognised in the true prophetic
spirit as divine punishment for the sins of the nation.
A thoroughgoing reform would, it was hoped, end
the long chastisement and usher in a time of grace.
But, although there was no doubt about the common
Kuilt, everyone was required to acknowledge and confess
his sin (cp E z r a 9 6 3 Neh.9). There thus began to
prevail in the Jewish community a constant conscious-
ness of sin. The stiffneckedness so often spoken of
must give place to self-abasement and humility before
God ( m y ) . As obedience to God came to be obedience
to the law, to be solicitous (1-15) about the law was
accounted specially praiseworthy. Certainly we have
coming to us from post-exilic times the noblest testimony
to the supreme blessing of communion with God (e.g.,
Ps. 7 3 2 3 8 ) , and touching descriptions of a soul's con-
flict with unmerited suffering (Job). They show us that
personal piety then flourished in strength. Still, under
the dominion of law religion could not fail to become
prevailingly a matter of form and outward act. The
contrast was similar in another respect. The mono-
theistic attitude of mind toward God was assured ; i t
directed men's eyes beyond the Jewish community on
to the other nations. The worship, however, to which
men were devoted moved in narrower bounds on the
ruins of a popular religion that wds no more.
The formation of the Jewish community did not impose
on their land anewconstitution. The law accommodated
64. Political itselftotraditionalrelations,supplenienting
constitution. them and filling them with the new spirit.
If no suecial aovernor for Terusalem were
appointed, the district was administered- from Samaria
by the resident Persian officer, who appears to have
had an adviser at Jerusalem (Neh. 1124). Taxation
and military service were in his hands. The highest
place among the nativQpopulation was occupied by the
' elders ' or ' nobles,' the hereditary representatives of
the families settled in the capital. In their hands was
the civil and, in conjunction with special judges, appar-
ently also the judicial administration, except in as far
as these matters were attended to locally(cp Ezra53J).
From this, it seems, arose the yepouufa, senate or
synedrium, the existence of which, however, we are not
able to prove till the Greek age (198 B.c.; Jos. Ant.
xii. 33). An officer, however, whoat first ranked along-
side these, soon rose above them all, even above the de-
scendants of David,-the high priest. H e ruled in the'
sanctuary and administered temple dues paid by all
alike. The sacred office, therefore, easily became a
prize for the ambitious and avaricious, and occasion-
ally an object of sanguinary struggle. As Josephus
says ( A n t . xi. 48 xx. l o ) , the constitution was accord-
ingly 'an aristocratic oligarchy.
I n the country towns also there were 'elders and jnd es ' the
latter of whom were probably subject to appointment (%t?1618
kzra725). The basis for this new arrangement was plainly
provided by the old organisation of the nation by clans.
officers often mentioned by Nehemiah (szganim ; EV 'rulers ;TF
RVmg. deputies ') were persons appointed by and subordinate
to the Persian governor (Neh. 5 17).
Nothing shows more clearly the deep impression
made by the constitution of the rewish community than
the imitation of i t in the land of old
65.
Israel, at Shechem. The alliance of the
leading families in Samaria and JudEa had found in
Nehemiah at1 undaunted opponent. He did not shrink
from expelling from Jerusalem a descendant of the
high priest Eliashib who had married a daughter of
Sanballat (Neh. 1328), and all prospect of nearer rela-
1258
 ISRAEL
tions was excluded by the organisation of the community.
What they had not been able to attain in common
with the Jews, the Samaritans accomplished, however,
for themselves, with the assistance of the Jewish
fugitives. They installed the Zadokite from Jerusalem
as their high priest, built a temple on Mt. Gerizim,
and adopted the Pentateuch, with certain alterations, as
their law (see C ANON , § 25).
By Josephus, indeed(Ant.xi. 8), these events are brought into
connection with the expedition of Alexander the Great ; but,
since there can hardly be any doubt that Josephus has incor-
orated in his narrative the statements of Neh. 13 28, he must
g ave assigned them too late a date (see C ANON , 5 25).
The organisation of the Samaritan community must
have been completed not later than the first half of ,the
fourth century B.C.
The history of the Jewish community after the Exile
is known to us only in part. About the close of the
Persian and the beginning of the Greek
66.period. period we know very little. During the
long struggle of the Egyptians for freedom
from Persia (408-343B .c.) not only was Syria often
traversed by Persian armies, but also it was itself the
scene of battles fought under Artaxerxes 111. Ochus
(358-338)with great vigour and ferocity. The Jewish
community would certainly suffer. It appears, how-
ever, also to have made common cause with the in-
surgents in Egypt and Syria. For, about 351,Ochus
seems to have had part of the populace of Jndzea con-
veyed, apparently by Orophernes (the HOLOFERNES the Seleucidze is explained by the fact that it was there
[q...] of the Book of Judith), to Hyrcania (and
Babylonia), and it was presumably in the years 348- The Egyptians were so set and fixed in their way of life
340 that the persecutions inflicted on the Jews by
Ochus’s notorious general, the Egyptian eunuch Bagoas
( =Bagoses, Jos. Ant. xi.7 I), fell.’ Undoubted allusions the Great, and other places in the Delta, became
to these events are not to be found in the O T ; but
passages in Is. 24-27, also 637-84 IZ [I.], Pss. 44 74 79 it was otherwise in W. Asia. The natural boundaries
89, have lately been referred to
The weight of the intolerable oppression led the
Jewish community to hail the wonderful triumphal
67. Seleucidse. progress of Alexander the Great as a
divinely sent deliverance (cp Is. 2414-16
Ps. 46?). The change of rule seems to have been
accomplished peaceably as far as Jerusalem was con-
cerned, though hardly with the Special favour personally
shown by Alexander that Josephus mentions (Ant. xi. 8 j.
But Alexander’s brilliant victories were not followed by
peace. After varying contests between Antigonus,
Seleucus, and Ptolemy, including even a conquest of
Jerusalem by the last-mentioned ruler, probably after
the battle of Gaza 312, the S. part of Syria was, in
consequence of the battle of Ipsus (301B. c. ), assigned
t o Ptolemy I.
Under the wise and judicious rule of the first three
Ptolemies (306-221) the Jewish community, probably
for the first time, enjoyed a considerable period of peace
and quiet. The battles fought against the Seleucidse
in the middle of the third century (cp Dan. 1 1 6 8 ) did
not, it would seem, affect the highland district, and the
religious peculiarities of the Jews were respected by the
Ptolemies. W e must, accordingly, suppose that at
this time there was a strengthening and extension of
the community. The advance of the Seleucidze in
Syria did not at first produce any change in the favonr-
able position of the Jews. The victory of Ptolemy IV.
Philopator over Antiochus 111. the Great at Raphia (217 the leading commercial towns. Here they learned to
B.c. ) was, indeed, hailed by the Jews with joy. When,
however, after 202, Antiochus 111. resumed and pursued
with better success his plans of conquest, the inclinations
of the Jews were transferred to him. After he had
defeated the Egyptian general at the sources of the
Jordan in 198, the Jews made voluntary submission to
him and assisted him in driving out the Egyptian
garrison from the citadel (Akra) of Jerusalem. W e can
1 Cp W. Judeich, KZeinasiatischeStudicn (‘gz),pp. 170f: 175f:
[For the name cp BAGOAS, BIGVAI.]
a Che. Intr. Is. 35’8#: Cp I S A I A H ii., $5 13, 21.
2259
ISRAEL
hardly credit all that Josephus tells of the consequent
favour shown by Antiochus (Ant. xii. 3 3 J ) ; hut we may
infer from it that the Jewish community prospered under
this representative of the house of Seleucns. From that
time onwards (198-7 B .c.) J u d z a belonged to the
kingdom of the Seleucidze.
We come here upon the surprising phenomenon of
a Syrian party-i. e . , one friendly to the Greelcs-con-
68. trolling opinion in Jerusalem. The
Chronicler, who compiled the books of
with
Hellenism. Chronicles and also Ezra and Nehemiah
(see HISTORICAL L ITERATURE , 5 1s) in
the first half of the third century, proves beyond a doubt
the complete victory of the ideas for which Nehemiah
and Ezra had fought. The history of the past is there
recast as if the standards of the present had always
prevailed in Israel. This directly concerns also the
estimation in which foreign innovation was held. But
it would be wrong to conclude that there were none but
orthodox (so to speak) in the Jewish community. The
Psalms show that such as remained true to the law had
much to complain of in the way of calumny and violence
on the part of the ‘godless,’.whom, it was hoped,
Yahw&would sometime cut off from the community in
judgment. These were such members of the community
as favoured the foreigner. According to the descriptions
in the Psalms, they were to be found in the more
wealthy classes. Their reliance on the kingdom of
that Greek life was able to get a hold and root itself.
and their civilisation that even the Ptolemies could not
move them. Alexandria, the creation of Alexander
famous seats of Greek culture and commerce. But
of the nations had already been abolished by the
Assyrians and Chaldeans (Is. lO13f: ), and through-
out their empire there had been a blending of races
and religions. The equalising influences of trade and
commerce increased under the rule of the Persians,
who opened new routes. But the state created by
the Asiatic conquerors was only a loose collection
of separate groups in which the old native forms
survived. When the Greek cenquerors had forced an
entrance for themselves, a great swarm of peaceable
stragglers followed in their train, and had no difficulty
in making their way into the loose groups and forming
alliances with them. Naturally it was in the newly-
founded or newly-colonised Greek cities that this process
began, and it was even later confined in general to the
towns (the settled country was now Aramaic, the
desert Arabian). Greek education, art, and trade were
pursued ; new markets were opened up ; luxury and
unstinted self-indulgence gave life a seductive lustre. It
6 9 8. Diaspora.was the Jews outside of Jerusalem, in
the Diaspora, that made the first
acquaintance with Hellenism (cp DISPERSION, H EL -
LENISM). W e cannot trace with any certainty the
rise of Jewish communities in foreign lands. The
accounts in Josephus (Ant. xii. 1 3 4 ) , of forcible settle-
ments in Egypt and Asia Minor have been called in
question. It is more likely that trade interests led the
Jews abroad, and that allied families joined them in
speak, think, and live as Greeks. They were sought
out by anyone who came from Jerusalem (Ecclus.
319-11); and they in their turn visited Jerusalem, their
spiritual mother, and told how greatly the world was
changed. And for Jews the outer world had long ago
come to have a two-fold significance: it was not only
the power that was hostile to YahwB, who would yet
break its strength, but also the multitude of those who
would sometime bow themselves before him and bring
offerings to him at Jerusalem. Hence it was not simply
a sign of unbelief or apostacy if men had regard for the
2260
 ISRAEL
new forms of the world, and did not forget the man in
the Jew-and the man at that time was the Greek,'fairly
launched on his career of cosmopolitanism. Writings
such as Koheleth, Jonah, Ecclesiasticus testify to this-
each in its own way. Ecclesiasticus allows even the
external demands of Judaism to fall into the background
in order to lay the emphasis on the demand for fear of
God and moral conduct. Such a conception of life ap-
proximated to that of the Greek popular philosophy of
those times. In the far-reaching current of universalism
such inner relations must not be under-estimated. I n
the intercourse between Judaism and Hellenism it is
certainly the lower motives of conduct that come more
clearly forward-vanity, greed, lust of power, licentious-
ness. For the men of distinction and wealth at Jeru-
salem this was the main thing (cp Jos. Ant. xii. 4).
There were at this time two among the priestly
families at Terusalem that contended for the 1eadershiD-
69 6. Two the Oniadre and the T0biadre.l The
OniadE were the pious guardians of
the prophetic inheritance rescued from the exile, and
set their hopes on the mild rule of the Ptolemies. The
'Tobiadre, on the other hand, regarded the strict separa-
tion of Israel from other nations, especially from the
dominant Greeks, as hurtful ; they were, therefore, in
favour of the Seleucidre. Rut perhaps the qnestion
was one of political ascendancy more than of religious
antagonism. Matters came to an open conflict when
Ptolemy VI. Philometor planned the subjugation of
southern Syria ( 1 7 3 B.c.). The high priest Onias2
felt himself so strong that he drove the Tobiadae and
their partisans from Jerusalem (Jos. BJi. 11). These
sought help of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes ( 1 7 5 - 1 6 4 ) , who
gladly seized the opportunity to get the better of
Ptolemy's friends in Jerusalem. Any compendious
account of the struggles in 173-170 for the high-priest-
hood in Jerusalem is difficult owing to the frequent
contradictions of our two sources -Josephus and 2
Maccabees. The course of events was perhaps sonie-
what as follows : Antiochns IV. displaced ONIASin
favour of his hellenizing brother JASON. The latter in
turn had to make way for MENELAUSin 171. In
the first campaign of Antiochus IV. against Ptolemy,
Jason came back and drove out Menelaus, but was
unable to retain his position. He was perhaps slain by
Onias ( 1 7 0 B . C . ) . Onias found an asylum for himself
and his followers in Egypt (cp 7 1 below). Menelaus
was restored by Antiochus to the high-priesthood, and,
as years passed, was the better able to ensure the king's
protection since the latter had incensed against himself
all the more seriously-minded Jews.
On returning from Egypt in 170 B.C., Antiochus
made his way into the temule and Dlundered it. This
70. Antiochus desecration of the Sanctuary aroused
the religious feeling of the Jews, and
Epiphanes. showed them that thev had nothing
to expect in the way of appreciation of (not to speak
- 3 8). This remarkable undertaking was fitted to draw
of consideration for) their peculiarities. Even the more
shortsighted and careless recognised the danger that
threatened the Jewish community from the side of
Greek civilisation. Any prospect of accommodation
or even reconciliation vanished. The tension on both
sides increased ; even at this time there may perhaps
have been bloody encounters in Jerusalem. But
Antiochus did not on this account give up his plan
of getting the little group of strange enthusiasts on the
southern border of his kingdom out of his way; for
him Jerusalem was nothing but an inconvenient focus
of disturbance and insubordination. When, in 168 B. c.,
he had to retire before the Romans from Egypt, he sent
a n officer (Apollonius? 2 Macc. 524), who took the city
1 C H. Willrich, Jude%u. Gnkchen VOY der makkudaischen
E ~ h e L (Gijtt.
q ['95]).
2 The Onias 11. and Onias 111. of Josephus are robably
originally one and the same person. Cp further We&. GGA,
'95, PP. 947'957.
2261
ISRAEL
by surprise, and turned the ancient city of David into a
military fort (Acra, I Macc. 1 3 3 J ) , the garrison of which
held the inhabitants in terrified submission.
Antiochus wished to destroy with a firm hand the
real roots of opposition, and, accordingly, directed his
measures against the Jewish religion. The cultus was
suppressed ; the altar of burnt offering was changed into
a place of sacrifice to Zeus ( I Macc. 15459) : the Torah
rolls were burnt : Jewish customs (Sabbath, circum-
cision, etc. ) w'ere forbidden ; those who remained faithful
to the law in spite of the pressure brought to hear on
them were executed (December 168 B .c.). The high
priest submitted. He plainly regarded it as possible to
retain, as a Hellenistic Jew, the position of head of the
Jewish community. With the energy which had been
manifested at Jerusalem, the king's officers attempted
also in the country districts to compel the Jews to offer
heathen sacrifices and adopt heathen usages. Thus the
work of Nehemiah and Ezra, moderate and conciliatory
as it was, which offered a last retreat for the religion of
Israel, was dissolved.
The fall of the power of Persia had left the way to
the East open to Greece and all that it brought with it,
and this it was that stifled the life of Judaism. Having
nothing like it to oppose to it, Judaism was powerless
against it : devout persons fled for their faith before
it. To combat this faith in itself was not the inten-
tion of Antiochus; he did not understand it or even
perceive that it was, just as at that time the Jews were.
nowhere understood by the Greeks. All that Antiochus
saw in the Jewish faith was the source of passionate
quarrels that he had to compose. As the priestly nobility
were ready to fall in with him, we niust not wonder that
Antiochus imagined that he could win the compliance
of the people also. But this calculation proved to be
false: the Jews resisted. In virtue of his sovereign
rights, he demanded of the Jews by force what other
Syrian peoples had yielded to the Greek power without
difficulty. And here we find his fundamental mistake :
he saw nothing more in Yahwh the god of the Jews
than in (say) Dagon the god of the Philistines, or in
Melkarth the god of the Phoenicians.
The attitude of the Jews towards the violent measures
of Antiochus was very various. .The priestly aristocracy
71. Effect of in Jerusalem submitted ; for them prob-
his policy. ably the question of influence and their
revenue was all-important. Onias the
high priest, who had fled to Egypt, became the originator
of a religions schism by which he seems to have meant
to remove the ground from under the feet of the
Palestinian Jews. With the permission of Ptolemy VI.
Philometor ( 1 8 1 - 1 4 6 ) , he built (in 170) on the ruins of
an Egyptian sanctuary at Leontopolis in the district of
Heliopolis ( = Tell e l - Yehz&!gyu) a Jewish temple
(Jos. Ant. xii. 9 7 133, BY vii. 1 0 ~ 8 cp , DISPERSION,
the Jews of Judaea who had remained true to the law in
the same direction as the legitimate high-priesthood had
gone-namely, to Egypt (cp Is. 1919). There can be
no doubt that at that time many went this way; it
seemed a way out of the hopeless night. Most, how-
ever, of the devout-minded people could not bring
themselves to abandon YahwB's holy city, and its claim
to be the holy city for a11 nations. They fled into the
wilderness and hid themselves in clefts and caves. If
attacked on the Sabbath they would quietly submit to
death rather than desecrate the day by fighting.
This passive resistance, however,was suddenly changed
into active. An aged and honoured country priest at
,2. Revolt. Modeip, a place between Bethhoron and
Lydda, slew a Jew who was offering
sacrifice according to heathen ritual, killing the Syrian
officer at the same time. Fleeing eastwards, Mattathias
made his way in safety with his five sons over the
mountains, and there in the wilderness entered into
an agreement with others of like mind to fight, if
2262
 ISRAEL
attacked, even on the Sabbath. This was the
signal for a religious war (167B.C. ). It was a desperate
act, the most foolhardy in the whole history of Israel.
Faith and holy indignation, exasperation and burn-
ing hate, drove the Jew-s to strain their powers to
the utmost. They achieved indeed remarkable feats,
aided by the natural advantages afforded them by
their native mountains. The Maccabees, however,
would have succumbed to the armies of the Seleucidze
had not the latter by their endless contests for the throne
themselves provided an escape.
The example of Mattathias and his sons won over
the adherents of the Law. Many sufferers from
persecution, along with the union of the Assidzeans
(HZsidim, p ’ i i D n ; I Macc. 2 4 2 ) , joined them. Their
first step was to use force against the renegade Jews,
destroy the signs of heathenism in the land, and restore
the customs of Israel. Meanwhile Mattathias died after
73, Judas. handing over the work to his sons Simon
and Judas. The latter, Judas ‘Mac-
cabaeus’( ~ ~ ~ M A C C A BTEHE ES),,undertook theleadership
in the war (166B .c.), and proved himself a devout and
courageous man. equal to the task he had undertaken.
It was only under him that the war with the Syrians
themselves began. He first .defeated Apollonius
( I Macc. 3 1 08 ; cp 2 Macc. 5 24) ; then, at Beth-horon,
Seron the military commander of Coele-Syria ; then, at
Emmaus ( = ‘ A m w i ~ )Gorgias,
, supported by the viceroy
Lysias ; and lastly, at Beth-zur, Lysias himself (165B. c. ).
The generalship as well as the success of Judas reminds
one vividly of the battles fought by Saul and David
against the Philistines ; faith-inspired enthusiasm, fool-
hardy valour, and judicious tactics, taking advantage of
the natural difficulties of the ground, helped the Jews to
victory. Thus, master of the open country between
Bethzur and Beth-horon. Tudas determined to make the
the religious centre of revolt.
74. cultus capital
reorganised, (Mizpeh, north of Jerusalem, had hitherto
been the d a c e of resort for common
prayer and lamentation. ) The temple site was secured
against attack from the Syrian garrison in the Acra;
new priests were installed, upholders of the law ; the
signs of heathenism were removed from the sacred
precincts ; the legal cultus was restored in its full
extent. On the 25th Kislev (December) 165 B . C .
(exactly three years after its profanation) the temple was
formally dedicated-a ceremony that was afterwards
commemorated by a yearly feast ( n q n nsjn, Ps. 30 title).
For Judas and his party these achievements were very
important. They not only dismayed the friends of the
Greeks and animated the hopes of the supporters of the
law, hut also robbed the schismatic attempt of Onias
of all danger as far as Palestine was concerned. What
a revolution in men’s frame of mind had already occurred
in Judah we learn from the Apocalypse of Daniel,
which was written about this time (see D ANIEL , 5 8 J ,
and cp DEDICATION, FEAST O F ).
The religious feeling of the author had already recovered its
equilibrium ; the leaders of the heathen party are derided ’ the
faithful adherents ofYahw&arecomforted. Yahwit himselfbhngs
to an end the rule of the heathen. his etlrnal kingship over the
world passes to pions Israel ; who;ver has died without partici-
pating in the divine reward will receive it after the resurrection ;
the great distress is the pledge that the longed-for time, the
glorification of Israel in the eyes of all nations, is at hand. The
prophetic picture of Israel’s future, repressed by Nehemiah and
Ezra has powerfully affected the author’s thoughts. The
victories of Jndascount for little with him (Dan. 1134); it is not
success of human power that he desires for Israel ; what he saw
a t hand is wrought by God himself-it is the end, the consum-
mation. The ideas of the prophets appear in him in an eschato-
logical form ; the goal of his hopes I S heaven a d earth ; the
glory of Israel is the work and gift of God, not the fruit of the
toil and labour of man.
The thoughts of the Maccabees led, as very soon
appenred, to a different goal. The garrison of the Acra
in Jerusalem, which was threatened by the growing power
of Judas, sent word of their straits to King Anti.ochus
V. Eupator about 163 B.C. The regent Lysias ac-
2263
ISRAEL
cordingly marched forth with the young king at the head
of a large army against the insurgents,
75. Religious
i c tbe- drove
c o ~political., them hack from the south
to Jerusalem, and shut them,up on
the fortified temple-plateau. Matters
threatened to go hard with Judas, when unexpectedly
an arrangement was come to, by which the king allowed
the Maccabees the free exercise of their religion, aud
promised them indemnity, while they in exchange were
to hand over the sanctuary,-in addition to which, how-
ever, they had subsequently to consent to the dismantling
of their fortresses.
The occasion for the religious war was thus removed,
and the disastrous step of Antiochus IV. in 168 retraced.
In consequence the question naturally arose : Ought not
Judas and his followers to lay down their arms ? Many
thought so ; in particular the Assideans ; and so when
ALCIMUS ( q . ~ . )who
, was a priest of legitimate descent
and had been nominated by Demetrius I. to the high-
priesthood in succession to Menelaus, now at last
deposed (171-164B .c.), was about to be brought into
Jerusalem by Bacchides the governor by military force,
they declared themselves ready for peace ( I Macc.
7 1 2 8 ). Following the example of Nehemiah and Ezra,
they for the present asked nothing more than religious
freedom. Judas, on the other hand, would not hear
of any such end to the war ; for the sake of religious
freedom, and in addition to it, he was determined to
achieve political liberty. This too was a revival of
prophetic ideas, yet without any such eschatological
transformation as is met with in Daniel. The antithesis
of the two tendencies, which was not at the outset
absolute and irreconcilable, arose in part from divergent
views of the situation at the moment, a situation in
which Judas had no confidence. However this may
be, it is at this date (162 B. c. ) that the war of religion
may be said to close, and the Maccabean struggles for
secular power to begin.
Judas’s distrust of Bacchides and Alcimns soon
proved to have been justified. The confidence that had
been reposed in them they rewarded with violence and
blood ; as ruler of the capital and of the country,
Alcimus favoured the friends of the Greeks, and the
situation once more became similar to what it had been
between 173 and 168. After the withdrawal of Bacchides,
however, Alcimus was unable to maintain his authority,
and Demetrius I. ordered Nicanor to break the power of
Judas. But an ineffective campaign ended in the
defeat and death of that general in a battle between
Beth-horon and Adasa on the 13th Adar (March) 161.
Bacchides, on the other hand, once more joined by
Alcimus, had better success. He routed the army of
Judas near Eleasa (?), and Judas himself fell in the battle
(161 B.C.).
The cause of the insurgents seemed utterly ruined
( I Macc. 9 2 3 8 ) ; all they could do was to maintain
76. Jonathan. themselves in the wilderness of Tekoa as
a party of freebooters. Bacchides mean-
while sought by comprehensive measures to give peaceand
security to the country in the interests of Alcimus and his
followers, yet without interfering with religious liberty.
When, however, after the death of Alcimus (160 B. c. ),
a renewed effort to bring Jonathan and his followers
under his power had proved abortive, Bacchides decided
to enter into the negotiations for peace that Jonathan
had proposed. In other words, he now sought to
restore order in the country by the help of the very man
whom, in common with the Grecian party, he had
regarded as the arch disturber. The hellenizing priestly
aristocracy thus lost their external support. Jonathan
dispensed justice at Michmash and cleansed the land of
Hellenisers. Only in Jerusalem and other strongholdsdid
the foreign garrisons and their Jewish supporters retain
command. The land itself now finally emerged from a
state of war (158 B.c.). This was the first political
success of Jonathan.
2264
 ISRAEL
From this time onwards the rule of the Maccabees
or Hasmonaeans advanced steadily, as Jonathan was
able to secure one advantage after another for himself
from the contentions between the various claimants for
the throne of the Seleucidz. Moreover, the majority
of the people were manifestly on his side. When, in
153, Alexander Balas was set up as king in opposition
to Demetrius I., the latter sought the friendship of
Jonathan by giving him permission to surround himself
with an armed force. Jonathan transferred his abode
to Jerusalem, and fortified the temple hill, and, except
from the Acra and Bethzur, the Syrian garrisons were
withdrawn. Demetrius was, however, outbidden by
Alexander Balas, who designated Jonathan high priest
and sent him a purple robe and a crown. Jonathan's
ambition was stronger than his fidelity. At the Feast
of Tabernacles in 153 B.C. he assumed the high-priestly
office which had for seven years been, vacant (Jos. Ant.
xx. 10). Since Demetrius I., as it fell out, was worsted,
Jonathan was able actually to enjoy the fruits of his
crafty policy. In 150 B . C . Alexander showed him great
honour at Ptolemais, and designated him a high official
( U ~ ~ U T ? Yand
~ S pepcGdpx9s) of the kingdom of Syria.
Attempts to bring him into suspicion failed of their
object. The contentions for the throne between
Demetrius 11. (see above, col. 1068)and Alexander Balas
in 147 B.c. brought Jonathan new advantages ; defeat-
ing Apollonius, the governor of Ccele-Syria appointed
by Demetrius II., he received the town and district of
Ekron. After the death of Alexander Balas (145)
Jonathan bid defiance to Demetrius 11. and besieged
the Acra at Jerusalem, and when the king summoned
him to Ptolemais in indignation Jonathan contrived to
turn his anger into good will. His present dignities
were confirmed, and the province of Judah, to which
three districts (Apherema, Lydda, and Ramathaim) were
added in the north, was declared free of tribute. What
engagements Jonathan entered into on his side we d o
not know ( I Macc. llzS$). Anyhow, he was unable
to get further concessions from Demetrius II., although
it was by his soldiers that the king was rescued from
the insurrectionary populace of his own capital. I t is
easy, accordingly, to understand Jonathan's taking the
earliest opportunity of joining the side of the king's
enemies. A former officer of Balas, Trypho
(Diodotus) of Apamea, came forward as guardian of
Balas's young son, still a minor, and proclaimed
him king as Antiochus VI. (145 B . c . ) . In return for
valuable presents and confirmation in all his dignities,
Jonathan undertook, along with his brother Simon, to
drive out the troops and other supporters of Demetrius
11. from southern and middle Syria, and assume posses-
sion of the land in the interest of Antiochus VI. T h e
carrying out of this commission meant nothing more
than the stamping out by force of any opposition the
two brothers might encounter. This, however, did
not satisfy Trypho, who was aiming at the crown for
himself. H e decoyed Jonathan to Ptolemais and con-
,7. Simon. fined him there. Simon made his way to
Jerusalem, where the people, supposing that
Jonathan was already dead, elected him leader. H e
prepared to resist Trypho, who attempted to force
his way into J u d e a but had to withdraw without
success after pretending to treat about handing over
Jonathan. T h e execution of the latter at the command
of Trypho at Baskama in Gilead left a free field to
Simon (142-135 B.C.). H e carried on the measures
for securing the land, and concluded formal peace with
Demetrius II., which not only put an end to war, but
also secured absolute freedom from tribute, an event of
such importance that Jewish dates were thenceforth
reckoned from it (Sel. 170 = 143/142 B.C. ). Next year,
too, Simon forced the Syrian garrison to withdraw from
the Acra. Thus disappeared from Jerusalem and
Judaea the last mark of foreign supremacy. In 141 the
people solemnly conferred on Simon the hereditary rule
73 2265
ISRAEL
as high priest, commander-in-chief, and ethnarch (cp
I Macc. 14253). Simon struck the first Jewish coins
( I Macc. 156). Thus out of the war against Greek
civilisation there had arisen a new Jewish state.
Simon and his successors not only maintained the
position they had won, but also extended its influence.
This was the easier that the kingdom of the Seleucidz
was more and more falling apart. Simon must also
be regarded as the first of the Maccabees to gain the
friendship of the Romans with a view to securing his
position in Asia (142 B.C. ; I Macc. 142440 ; Jos. Ant.
xiii. 7 3 ; Justin xxxvi. 3). From a contest with
Antiochus VII. SidEtes (of 2167 in Pamphylia), who,
after unavailing negotiations, entrusted his general
Cendebaeus with the war, Simon came out victorious.
H e was honoured as a circumspect and righteous ruler.
His violent death, however, was like a presage of the
end the new line of rulers was to meet. Along with
two of his sons he was murdered at the castle of Dok
(Docus), near Jericho, by his son-in-law Ptolemy, who
sought to make himself master of the land. But John
Hyrcanus, Simon's third son, anticipated him and
secured the support of the people of Jerusalem, where
he ruled from 134 to 104.
In the beginning of his reign Hyrcanus was hard
beset by Antiochus VII., who subjected Jerusalem
78. John to a long siege. That Hyrcanus came
off after all without loss of terrjtory may
Hyrcanus' be attributed perhaps to Antiochus's policy,
perhaps to the influence of the Romans in Hyrcanus's
favour (cp Jos. Ant. xiii. 84 92). On his expedition
against the Parthians Antiochus VII. lost his life
(128 B .c.), and Hyrcanus once more asserted his
independence. H e maintained a standing army of
mercenaries, built the so-called Baris on the NW. of
the temple site (Ant.xviii. 43), and concluded a firm
alliance with Rome (Ant.xiv. 1022). H e extended
by conquest the narrow limits of his rule towards the
E., S., and N. H e destroyed the temple of the
Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, subjugated the Idumaeans
in the S., and compelled them to accept the Jewish
Torah. The siege of the city of Samaria brought him
once more, however, into serious conflict with the
Seleucidae, a conflict from which it was probably the
powerful word of Rome that delivered him. Hyrcanus
still regarded himself as in the first place high priest.
and also enjoyed a high degree of popular favour.
Yet even in his time emerged the opposition of the
Pharisees against his family, which was only furthered
by the closer connection between the Hasmonaeans
and the Sadducees. Hyrcanus's son and successor,
Aristobdus I. (Judas), saw no means of securing his
power save that of putting out of the way several
members of his own family. H e subjugated and
made Jews of the Ituraeans at what had till then
been the N. limit of his domain (in Galilee?), and
assumed the title of king. " -
After a reign of one
,9. Alexander year (103 B . c . ) he was succeeded by
his brother Alexander Janneus (see
JannE?us'
TANNBUS~. who secured the throne bv
the murder of a &other ( I&-76 B. c. ). In his reign thk
complete secularisation and transformation of the ruling
priestly family became very obvious. H e bad coins
struck, for example, not only with inscriptions in
Hebrew characters, but also with bilingual inscriptions in
Greek characters, in which he designated himself simply
king. His aim was to extend as much as possible the
bounds of his kingdom, and so he was almost constantly
in the field or besieging fortified positions. His opera-
tions against Ptolemais involved him in a disadvantage-
ous war with Ptolemy Lathyrus, from which he finally
escaped only through the intervention of Ptolemy's
mother, queen Cleopatra of Egypt. East of the Jordan,
he subdued Gadara and Amathus ; on the coast, Raphia,
Anthedon, and Gaza.
The changing fortune of war, but still more his
2266
 ISRAEL
strained relations with the Pharisees, deprived him of
the favour of the people. At first he sought to quench
in blood every appearance of hostile feeling. When,
however, he was defeated by the Arabian chief Obadas
and lost his whole army, the popular fury broke into
open revolt. People were not afraid even to go the
length of rousing against the Hasmonaeans Demetrius
Aczerus (Euczerus), one of the last of the Seleucidze.
Alexander Jannzeus was defeated at Shechem and fled to
the hills. Then the shame and regret of his people
came to his succour. A considerable body of armed
men gathered about him, with whom he cut his way
through the opposing forces ; and he came to temporary
terms with Demetrius. Blood then flowed in streams
to secnre peace at home for this inhuman high priest.
The last years of his reign Alexander spent once more
in foreign wars, especially with the Arahiars. These
had now for several centuries been slowly pressing
forward out of the desert into the cultivated land, had
already settled at certain points (Edom and Lebanon),
and were now trying, like the Hebrews more than a
thousand years before, to push forward into the heart
of the country. Alexander Jannaeus encountered them
repeatedly on his military expeditions-successfully east
of the Jordan, where he conquered Gerasa (?), Golan,
and Seleucia. It was on one of these expeditions that
he met his death (76 B.C. ). His career strikes one as
strange-it is as if the Hasmonzan had assumed
something of the wildness and ferocity of the
Seleucidze. At all events, the inner contradiction
inherent from the first in the Hasmonzan priest-
kingship was now undeniable. If the advice he is said
to have given his wife just before his death with regard
to the conduct of the government (Jos. Ant. xiii. 155)
be authentic, something of this contradiction must have
been felt by Alexander Jannzeus himself. He is repre-
sented as having advised his wife Alexandra (Hebr.
Salomb or perhaps more correctly Salma) to concede
greater influence to the Pharisees-ie., to go farther
in giving spiritual affairs their rightful place.
Alexandra ruled from 75 to 67. She made over the
- -
high-priesthood to her oldest son Hvrcanus. an irresolute
80.
Alexandra. indolent man, andheld back her second
son. the daring Aristobfilus. from anv
share in public affairs. The- power and extent df
the kingdom-which was, roughly, equal to what
it was in the days of David-she maintained intact,
without entering on wars of any seriousness. In internal
affairs the Pharisees were supreme (see below, § 83).
Their feeling of satisfaction with the rule of Alexandra
found expression in edifying fables, in which they
extolled those days as a time of special felicity. Scarcely,
however, had Alexandra closed her eyes, when there
broke out between her sons that struggle for the succes-
sion in the course of which the kingdom of the
Maccabees went down. AristobElus 11. defeated
Hyrcanus 11. at Jericho, and forced him to enter into
an agreement acknowledging Aristobdus as king and
high priest. But this peace was short-lived.
Soon there appeared at the head of the opposition
to Aristobnlus an Idumzan named Antipater, whose
father of the same name had been governor of Idumza
under Alexander Jannzus. This man, the father of
the future king Herod, acquired great influence, and
contracted alliances widely, in particular with Arbtas
king of the Nabatzeans. He persuaded Hyrcanus to
seek refuge with him, and induced Arbtas, in con-
sideration of promised cessions of territory, to make
Hyrcanus king of Judzea by force. ArCtas actually
defeated Aristobiilus, and drove him, supported by the
Jews, to take refuge in the temple stronghold, where,
with the priests, he defended himself boldly.
Such was the state of affairs in the Maccabzan
kingdom when Pompey sent his legate Scaurus to Syria
abont Easter 65 B. e. The rival brothers made him the
same offer as the price of his support. Scaurus decided
2267
ISRAEL
in favour of Aristobtilus, and ordered Ardtas to return
to his country ; Hyrcanus had to content himself with
a diminished territory. But Pompey himself had not
yet spoken the final word. He was assailed with
presents and embassies, and finally the two brothers
themselves, as also representatives of the people who
wished the ancient priesthood restored,received a hearing
at Damascus in the spring of 63 B.c. Pompey wished
to defer sentence ; but when Aristobfilus appeared to
be preparing to resist, Pompey pursued him with his
army to his stronghoId of Alexandrium, and then
on by way of Jericho to before Jerusalem. Aristo-
bolus wavered, swaying between defiance and dejection.
Pompey had him taken prisoner. The party of Hyr-
canus gave over the city, while the supporters of
Aristobiilus maintained the temple stronghold. Pompey
found himself compelled to subdue this by a regular
siege. After three months the Romans forced their
way through a breach into the sacred enclosure, where a
frightful massacre ensued, the Jews even slaughtering
one another. Accompanied by his followers, Pompey
visited the interior of the temple, without, however,
touching the sacred furniture, and next day gave
instructions that the regular sacrificial cultus was to
he restored. Hyrcanus received the high-priestly office
and with it a principality of diminished extent, and
subject to tribute, while Aristobfilus had, with his
family, including his two sons Alexander and Antigonus,
to follow the conqueror to Rome. The freedom of
the Jews had lasted but eighty years (142-63B.c.):
Its end was lamentable. The spirit that gave it birth
had long been gone.
Before investigating the last fortunes of the Jews in
Palestine under the Romans, we have to notice some
81. Synedrium.internal events which occurred during
the rule of the Maccabees. The latter
had practically changed the religious community of
Nehemiah and Ezra into a secular state ; but they were
far from subverting the institutions which had arisen out
of that community. The high priest remained-they
themselves were the high priests ; and side by side with
them there was still the college of elders (yepouula), an
aristocracy in which the social organism culminated.
It is probably to this body, with the high priest, that the
phrase ‘communityofthe Jews,’ o’!rn;? l?p, on the coins of the
Maccabees from the reign of John Hyrcanus onward refers.
At a later date the council usually received the Greek designa-
tion sylredmion, Hebraised as sanhedrln (1’
However, though this supreme council remained, the
seats in it were filled by supporters of the Hasmonzeans.
In the previous period (§§ 7 6 8 ) the members had been
the heads of the clerical and the lay nobility (besides the
high priest) ; the ruling class thus formed received the
name of Sadducee (from Zadok ; cp Ezek. 4415f:). It
may be asked whether any of these old families attached
themselves to the Hasmonaeans. All that we know is
that, by the favour of the Hasmonaeans, a new aris-
tocracy arose, and, to a large extent, monopolised the
seats in the Synedrium. This was the share of power
accorded to them. That Alexander Jannzeus gave the
council but little scope is not surprising. They had
ample compensation, however, under his successor
Alexandra. The president of the council was the high
priest, and Alexandra was a woman. Besides recognis-
ing the independence of the council, Alexandra gave
seats and votes in it to the long-repressed party of the
Pharisees. Their conceptions of religion and law thus
received complete recognition, and the function of public
judgment was transferred to the so-called Scribes, the
sCpiph&<m or masters of legal science. This was no
slight curtailment of power for the once omnipotent
lay nobility.
The leadership of the Synedrium remained with the
priests-in the last instance with the high priest-but
these found themselves compelled at all points to take
account of the scribes who enjoyed the popular favour.
2268
 ISRAEL
The membership of the supreme council reached the
number of seventy-one.
The two parties .brought into prominence by the
changes in the Synedrium under Alexandra, the Pharisees
82. Sadducees, and thz Sadducees, claim our special
attention. The Sadducees, in the strict
sense of the word, indeed, were, as already stated (I S I ),
displaced by the Hasmonaeans. As the name persisted,
however, we must suppose it to have been transferred
to the new priestly aristocracy and their followers.
This is not difficult to understand for on the one hand the
ascendancy of priestly families remaded and on the other hand
the same antitheses which had manifesteh themselves before 'the
wars of religion reappeared in an altered form. Before the
wars, the priest$ regime, by its friendliness to Hellenism had
imperilled religion, and now it seemed as if the secular r i l e of certain towns on the coast and in Persea, which soon
the Hasmonzans wereabout to overwhelm it altogether. Before
the wars the AssidEans with the scribes at their head had been
drawn together for the defence of the heritage left by Nehemiah
and Ezra ; now it was the Pharisees who came forward on behalf
of the law and against the national state which was breaking n p
the foundations of the law and of the religious community.
' The Sadducees represent the new state which grew therefore, if some resistance was offered : and so strong
out of the Maccabean rising, the Pharisees, the com-
83. Pharisees. munity of which the Torah was the first
and final cause ' (Wellhausen, Phar. u.
Sadd. 24J). The Pharisees were energetic in the
assertion of their principles certainly ; but they renounced
all political aims. They were not political like the
Sadducees ; like the Assidseans, whose heirs they may
probably be said to be, they held by the ideals of
Nehemiah and Ezra. The Pharisees were the ' scribes '
who in dead earnest sought to turn the law into practice
with the utmost literality, and thus, if they did not
create a new type of piety, they at least remodelled the
old on much sharper lines.
It is in this sense that the name Pharisees ought to be taken
(see SCRIBES A N D PHARISEES) ; whether assumed by themselves
or bestowed by others it well expresses their arrogant claim to
be the true Israel. In particular, they put the sanctity of the
sabbath upon a new level, and exacted an outward purity by a
constantly increasing number ofprecepts so that religious fellow-
ship became more and mo:e the fellowsbjp of a school, and piety
a highly specialised art. The unlearned cannot guard himself
against sin, and the layman can never be truly pious' (Hillel).
Ignorance of the Pharisaic teaching was in itself an evidence of
want of righteousness ; acquaintance with their legal precepts
was held to be the only means for the attainment of true righteous-
ness. Hence it is written in the Mishna (Sad.113) : ' I t is a
graver sin to say aught against the learned in the law than to
say aught against the law itself.'
As regarded the future of their people (see the Book of
Daniel, and cp ESCHATOLOGY, 55 47,58$ ), the Pharisees
expected to see the world-supremacy of Israel established
by the immediate hand of God from heaven, and deemed
it an impertinence to try human means of establishing it.
The foreign rule of the Greeks (and afterwards of the
Romans) they also considered contrary to the will of
God ; yet they held it more tolerable than the existence
of a national state by which everything was secularised ;
in point of fact they could not dispense with foreign
rule, for its disappearance would take away the con-
dition on which their very existence depended-the law
of the post-exilic community. T o the national and
political questions of the day they had no answer ready ; before he could leave Rome (49 B. c. ). Shortly after-
they simply pointed to the future which God was to give.
That a party like this should have been able to acquire
so great an influence over the people is extraordinary ;
it is only partially explained by the secular rule of the
Maccabean priestly kings. W e must also bear in mind
that the people longed for a spiritual food which their
priestly leaders could not give them, and so betook
themselves to the Pharisees who claimed, not without
right, to be champions of the law.
Besides these two parties Josephus (Ant. xiii. 59)
mentions a third a@curs or ' sect '-that of the ESSENES pressed his claims ; the only result, however, was that
In point of fact these were a
84* k;kerhood, somewhat of the nature of
a monastic order. Josephus (Z.C.) introduces them
about the middle of the second century B.C. (cp Ant.
xiii 112). The name signifies ' the pious ones' (Aram.
2269
ISRAEL
m ~ and
) , seems to point to an origin similar to that of
the Pharisees. The part they played in the history of
Israel was quite unimporiant. One of the leaders
in the war against Rome was an Essene (Jos. BJ ii.
204).
T o return now to the narrative. In 63 B.c. Pompey
constituted Syria a Roman province, thus establishing
85. Hyrcanus the Roman hold upon the western por-
and Antipatera tion of the kingdom of the Seleucidae.
The Jewish portion properly so called
-Jud=a, Galilee, and Persea-he left under the high
priest, Hyrcanus, who, however, was subordinate to
the governor of the province and paid taxes to him. At
the same time Pompey ' liberated ' from the Jewish rule
united themselves into a league, the so-called DECAPOLIS
(4.v.). Aristobiilus and his children Pompey took with
him to Rome. These arrangements were a severe
blow to the power of the Hasmonsean dynasty and its
supporters, the Sadducees. It need not surprise us,
was the attachment of the people to the native house
that in every attempt at revolt a native army was always.
at command. Jewish history henceforward, accordingly,
down to the accession of Herod, is mainly a record of
the rebellions against the Romans and of the disturbances
connected with the Roman civil wars so far as these
affected Syria.
Aristobiilus's eldest son, Alexandkr, had escaped
from Pompey and summoned the Jews to arms against his
uncle Hyrcanus, the nominee of Rome. The governor
of Syria, Gabinius, however, in 57 B.c., shut him up in
the stronghold of Alexandrium and compelled him to
lay down his arms. In the revolt, Gabinius, plainly
with the view of further weakening the Jewish power
and lessening the influence of Jerusalem, the capital,
broke up the Hasmonsean territory into five adminis-
trative divisions-those of Jerusalem, Jericho, Gazara,
Amathus, and Sepphoris. A second revolt was headed
by Aristobalus himself, who, with his younger son
Antigonus, had escaped from Rome ; but he was taken
prisoner in Machzrus and sent back to the imperiaL
capital. Whilst Gabinius was engaged on an Egyptian
expedition, a third rising was led by Alexander ; but his
army was dispersed in 55 B.C. by Gabinius, who had
hastened back and now rewarded Hyrcanus and Anti-
pater for their fidelity to Rome by cancelling the arrange-
ment made two years before, and restoring Hyrcanus
to his former authority. M. Licinius Crassns, the
triumvir, who succeeded Gabinius in the following year,
seized the temple treasure of Jerusalem ; and after his
death the quzstor Cassius Longinus suppressed a fourth
revolt of the Hasmonsean party which had broken out,
under the leadership of Pitholaus, on the shores of the
Sea of Galilee (Taricheae). Pitholaus was put to death
and Alexander brought under pledges to keep the peace
(cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 5 3 , BJ i. 8). Julius Czesar's purpose
of sending Aristobiilus against the followers of Pompey
in Syria was frustrated by the poisoning of Aristobiilus
wards Alexander the son of Aristobiilus also was put to
death, by Pompey's orders, at Antioch. Antipater was
more fortunate when, after the battle of Pharsalus and
the death of Pompey (48 B. c.),the victorious Cacsar was
pressed hard in Alexandria. So useful was Antipater to
him that Czsar acknowledged his debt to the Idumsean
by the gift of the Roman citizenship and immunity from
taxes. At the same time he confirmed Hyrcanus in his
high-priestly office. Antigonus too, the son of Aristo-
biilus, presented himself before Czsar in Syria and
C m a r bestowed still more signal marks of favour upcn
Antipater, whom he appointed ' steward ' or procurator
( 6 d r p o r r o s ) of Judsea. At the same time he constituted
Hyrcanus and his sons hereditary allies of the Romans,
guaranteeing them immunity from imposts, with other
2270
 ISRAEL
-privileges, and granting permission to rebuild the walls
.of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xiv. 8-10, B l i . 9 J ) .
Thus the Jewish aristocracy gained nothing by all its
scheming. 'The power of the hated Idumaean, Anti-
pater, went on increasing, and although he was astute
enough to pose always as the faithful servant of his lord,
in point of fact, under the languid administration of
Hyrcanus, he had a free hand. He carried on the
-rebuilding of the Yalls of Jerusalem and established good
,order throughout the country, committing the adminis-
tration of Jerusalem and the south to his son Phasael,
.and that of Galilee to his son Herod. The Jewish
.aristocracy, from their own point of view, were fully
justified when they sought to get rid of both him and
his sons. For this a pretext was supplied them by a
high-handed proceeding of Herod, who, in Galilee, had
caused to be executed without reference to the council
.a certain Hasmonaean commander, Ezekias, and certain
.of his followers who had sought at their own hand to
.continue the opposition against the Roman supremacy.
The dominant party in Jerusalem persuaded Hyrcanus
to call Herod to account before the council in Jerusalem.
Herod duly appeared, but not as a culprit, and, supported
.by Sextus Caesar, the governor of Syria, succeeded in
overawing the council so that no judgment was given.
Once more he returned at the head of an army and
threatened the city ; but Antipater was able to appease
his wrath. The aristocratic party, however, did not
Test content witH this. Some years later when C.
Cassius Longinus, one of the murderers of Caesar, was
living in Syria (44-42 B .c.), Antipater was poisoned,
-probably with the connivance of Hyrcanus, by an Arabian
prince (Malichus) who seems to have been in his service.
Whilst Malichus was still seeking to gain time, how-
.ever, before striking again, Herod got rid of him by an
86. Herod. assassin's hand (Jos. Ant. xiv. 11, BJi. 10
4 3 ) . Though Antipater had fallen, his
'family retained or even increased its power. Herod
-earned on all hands thanks and praise when, in 42
B. c., he successfully repelled, on the borders of Judaea,
:an attack made by Antigonus with the support of
Ptolemy Mennai of Chalcis (Lebanon). Hyrcanus him-
:self publicly showed his favour for him by giving him in
marriage his granddaughter Mariamme, a daughter of
Alexander. By liberal presents Herod strengthened his
.hold on Antony, who made Syria his headquarters for
s o m e time after the battle of Philippi (42B .c.), in spite
of adverse deputations from the hostile party in Jeru-
salem. Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs and
charged with the government of the Jewish provinces of
Palestine(41 B.C. ; cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 1 2 1 3 ) . How-
ever, though all promised well for Herod, it was only
to last for a short time. This was how the change
,occurred. Lysanias of Chalcis, son and successor of
Ptolemy Mennai, had carried on negotiations between
Antigonus and the Parthians under Pacorns who, in
40 B.C., had pressed into the province of Syria, with
the result that the conquering invaders were induced by
great promises to make Antigonus king of Judza. The
:stroke succeeded ; Antigonus found a sufficient number
of anti-Roman followers ; in Jerusalem itself the parties
came to blows. The Parthians induced Hyrcanus and
Phasael to go for purposes of negotiation into the camp
.of the Parthian satrap Barzaphranes; at his instance
-they were made prisoners at Ecdippon (Achzib) by the
.sea-side. Herod escaped the machinations of his enemies
by a timely flight to the fortress of Masada by the Dead
Sea, where also his family found safety. In this way
Antigonus (Heb. Mattathias) came once more into the
heritage of his ancestors (40.37 B . C . ) . Hyrcanus and
Phasael were handed over to him by the Parthians ; the
former he caused to be incapacitated (by mutilation) for
the high - priestly office ; Phasael committed suicide.
The Parthians, after seeking to compensate themselves
for their services by extensive raids, carried Hyrcanus
off to Parthia, where, however, at the intercession of the
2271
ISRAEL
Jews in that country he was set at liberty (Jos. Ant, xiv.
1 3 3 3 , Bli. 13).
Herod, however, did not give up his cause for lost.
His request for money being rejected by Mnlichus (the
*,. Herod, Nabataean prince), he applied to Antony,
king. journeying
Rome.
by Alexandria and Rhodus to.
By large promises he induccd
Antony, who saw how useful he might become, to
nominate him through the Senate (with the support of
Octavian) king of the Jews. After only seven days Herod
was able to set ont for his new kingdom (40 B.C. ). His
way to the throne, however, was not to be as smooth as
he hoped. In 39 B.C. he landed at Ptolemais. With
the help of Ventidius, the governor. of Syria, he first
relieved his brother Joseph in Masada and then appeared
with his army before Jerusalem. Antigonus, however.
had bribed the Roman general Silo, and Herod was
soon compelled to retire to Galilee; nor did he again
resume operations in Galilee and Judaea (where mean-
while his brother Joseph had fallen) till after he had
received fresh encouragement from Antony who was
hurrying through to the siege of SamosHta in Comma-
gene. In the spring of 37, however, Herod again
attacked Jerusalem, and with the help of Sosius the
governor captured it after a five months' siege. Anti-
gonns, who had surrendered to Sosius, was, at the
instance of Herod, beheaded in Antioch. Thus, after
three long years from his nomination, Herod actually
came to his throne (37-4B.c.). The Idumaean house
of Antipater had by Roman help vanquished the party
of the Sadducees (Jos. Ant. xiv. 14-16, BJi. 14 183).
Two things Herod considered to be indispensable
for his government-the continued friendship of the
Romans and the extinction of the Hasmonaean party.
The former object he sought to secure by princely gifts
of money ; the latter he came near attaining by putting
many of the adherents of Antigonus to death : he also
lowered the dignity of the high-priesthood by filling the
office at his pleasure. TO keep on good terms with
Antony was an anxious task, as Cleopatra of Egypt
coveted southern Syria, and Alexandra, widow of the
murdered Alexander (see above), found it to her interest
to intrigue with Cleopatra against Herod. T h e latter
had conferred the high-priesthood upon an ' obscure '
priest from Babylon named Ananel (Jos. Ant. xv. 2 4 ) .
thereby giving great umbrage to his mother-in-law
Alexandra, who had wished to secure the office for her
son Aristobtius. T o avoid losing Antony's favour
through Cleopatra, Herod forthwith deposed Ananel,
and appointed the handsome and popular Aristobiilus
in his place. Nevertheless Alexandra still found came
to complain of Herod, and was meditating a secret
flight to Cleopatra with her son, when the scheme was
betrayed, and Aristobiilus was put to death (35 B . c . ) .
The end of the long story is that Herod's good fortune
did not desert him even when Alexandra complained to
Cleopatra: Herod once more pacified his patron.
Cleopatra made sure of large tracts in Palestine ceded
to her by her lover, including the fruitful region of
Jericho. All this was on the eve of the decisive battle
of Actium. To please Cleopatra Herod had to take the
field against the Arabs, whose tribute he had to collect
for the queen. He succeeded in conquering them ; but
it was a hard struggle. Then came the fresh difficulty
of winning over to his side the new master of the world,
for Antony's cause was ruined. His cunning suggested
to him what to do. First, he put out of the way the
aged Hyrcanus (whom in the beginning of his reign he
had brought back from Babylonia) as an alleged con-
spirator, and then he went in person to Rhodus and laid
his crown at the feet of the victorious Octavian. The
result was as he had calculated. Octavian not only
confirmed him in his position, but soon after the death
of Cleopatra bestowed upon him her domains, as well
as other important places in S. Syria. With a single
break (Jos. Ant. xvi. 9f:) Herod retained the favour of
2272
 ISRAEL
Augustus down to the end of his reign; Josephus
declares that he ‘was beloved by Caesar next aft&
Agrippa, and by Agrippa next after Czesar’ (Jos. BY
i. 204) Some years later (circa 25 B.C.) he removed
the last danger to his crown. The only remaining male
descendants of the Asmonaean faniily were the sons of
Baba (Sabba?). H e accused them of treason and
caused them to be s1ain.l
The position of Herod in the Roman Empire was
that of a rex socius. His title and authority he held
from Caesar and the Senate. He had to defend the
imperial frontier and to furnish auxiliary troops, but
was not allowed to make treaties or wage wars at
pleasure. On the other hand, he had full freedom in
the management of domestic affairs, and was not laid
under any tribute, or made subject to the authority of
the Roman governor of the province of Syria. The
confidence placed by Augustus in his capacities he fully
justified. The ravages committed by the Arabs of
Trachonitis had caused great complaints. With great
skill Herod penetrated into this difficult region, and
,enforced peace,2 receiving from Caesar a large territory
t o the NE. (Batanea, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis). In
20 B.C. Herod was also endowed with the tetrarchy of
.Zenodorus (Ulatha and P a n i a ~ ) . ~
Favoured by the p a x Komana, Herod did much for
t h e cultivation of the land. H e created magnificent
88. Herod’s cities (Samaria=Sebaste ; Strato’s Tower
= Caesarea)and built numerous fortresses,
temples, theatres, and baths. H e ex-
tended and beautified the temple site at Jerusalem, and
built anew the temple itself. H e helped %is people in
many ways (see, e.g., the account of the f a n ~ i n e )and ,~
yet he could only now and then secure their full approval.
Never did the Jews feel affection for his person ; they
rightly saw in him the obedient servant of Rome, and
were all the less ready to forget that he was only a
‘half Jew.’ His reign did nothing to lessen the tension
between Jew and Greek ; it rather increased the tension,
although he made extraordinary efforts to introduce the
seductions of Hellenism into the ‘ holy mountain.’ In
a certain sense his aims were those of Antiochus
Epiphanes; but he more nearly reached them. He
knew the Jews well, and generally speaking spared
their religious feelings ; the affair of the high-priesthood
is an exception. To Helleuise such a people as the
Jewish, however, was no longer possible; neither by
gentleness nor by severity could the effects of the great
Religious War be obliterated. Besides, Herod had
really no skill in the arts of compromise and concili-
ation. He was too passionate, too suspicious, too
domineering to he able to inspire confidence. To the
,end he never lost the tyrant’s lust for power, never
enjoyed the settled stability of a really strong monarch.
Indeed, one may doubt whether he had any wish beyond
keeping his power over the Jews ; their Hellenisation
he did not seriously care for. His entire policy can be
,explained from this point of view-even to some extent
his abominable murders, though it must be admitted
that these were partly stimulated by circumstances
which could not but excite his jealousy.
Herod‘s reign was not wanting in splendour. His
love of display manifested itself in the magnificent
buildings which he erected both within his kingdom
and beyond it (cp Jos. BY i. 21). He had connections
with prominent representatives of the culture of the
time-notably Nicolaus Damwscenus. The visit of M.
Vipsanius Agrippa to Jerusalem threw the Jews into
veritable transports of joy (Ant. xvi. 2). The foundation
of Herod’s power, however, was hollow. His extraction
indeed made him unfit to be a national king, and in
1 On this period see Jos. Ant. xv. 1-6,BJi. 18 4-20.
2 Note the story of the 500 Jews from Babylon who could
shoot arrows when riding on horseback (Jos. Apztt. xvii. 2 I).
For t h e e h o l e episode see Ant. xv. 10 I xvi. 9 z xvii. 2.
3 16.xv.103, BJi.204. 4 Ant.xv.913
5 A n t . xvi. 2 5.
2273
ISRAEL
his heart he was more Greek than Jew (Ant.xix. 7 3 ) .
What is more, a national kingdom’was no longer what
the Jewish community desired. Religion had taken a
new turn under the influence of the Pharisees; it was
now much more supramundane; the law and the
monarchy it held to be irreconcilable. However
zealously Herod may have sought at first to meet
the Pharisees’ views, they could nevcr become his
friends. They refused to take the oath of allegiance,
just as the Essenes did (Jos. Ant. xv. IO4 xvii. 24).
The old aristocracy he himself had deprived of its
influence ; to support his rule he had therefore nothing
to rely on hut force. H e never shrank from employing
any means, however ghastly, to gain this end (Ant. xv.
8 10 4 xvii. 6, B/i. 336). Cp further, HEROD,9 3fi
In his first will, made after the execution of Alexander
and Aristobtilus, his two sons by the Hasmonaeau
Mariamme (6 B.C.), Herod had appointed
89. The Antipater his son by his first marriage
succession.
to succeed him. Even before the execu-
tion of Antipater in 5 B. c., however, this arrangement
had been ekchanged .;for another according to which
Antipas, his youngest son, by his marriage with the
Samaritan Malthacb, was to be his heir. Shortly
before his death ( 4 B .c.), he cancelled this settle-
ment also, and designated Archelaus as king, Antipas
and Philipa tetrarchs-the former of Galilee and
Perza, the latter of Trachonitis, Batan&, Gaulanitis
and Paneas. The validity of this will he himself
made to depend on its confirmation by Augustus.
Hence his heirs one after the other betook themselves to
Rome to find safe anchorage for their ship while the
storni of revolt was already raging at home. Before
Augustus gave his decision, fresh petitioners arrived.
It was a deputation of Jews deprecating the continuance
of the existing order of things, and desiring that the
whole country might be brought immediately under the
Roman sway. Augustus, however, decided in favour of
Herod’s last will. Archelaus as ethnarch became ruler
over Idumxa, Judaea, and Samaria, with the exception
of the cities of Gam, Gadara, and Hippus, which were
incorporated with the province of Syria; Antipas became
tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, and Philip tetrarch of
Trachonitis as far as the Jordan (Jos. Ant. xvii. 9-16),
This apportionment of Herod’s dominions did not
last long, so far as the realm of Archelaus was concerned
( 4 B. c.-6 A. D. ). A deputation of Jews and Samaritans
complained to Augustus of his arbitrariness and cruelty,
and Augustus, the emperor, summoned him to Rome
and deposed him, relegating him to Vienna in Gaul.
His dominions became part of Syria, but under the
special charge of a procurator (i?rlTpo?ros) of equestrian
rank (6-41A . D . ) .
The procurators were so called, originally, from the
duty which fell to them of collecting the revenues for the
Procurator- imperial treasury. As administrators ‘
of a given district they had at the same
ship* time the military command, and also
judicial prerogatives. These last the procurators of
Judaea used but seldom. The ordinary dispensation of
justice was left in the hands of the highest native court,
the Synedrium, whose position received thereby fresh
importance. The jus gZadii, however, remained ex-
clusively with the procurator. For military purposes
he had not, like, the legate-governor of Syria, Roman
legions at his disposal, but only auxiliary troops raised
in the country itself (Karaapeis K U ~Z e ~ u a ~ ~ p The l).
military headquarters were at the residence of the
procurator-Caesarea; but there were garrisons all
over the country : in the citadel Antonia at Jerusalem,
for example, a cohort was stationed. The impel-in1
taxes the procurator collected through the native
authorities ; how wide were the ramifications of these
is shown by the list of eleven toparchies enumerated by
1 An elder son by Malthack.
2 Son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem.
2274
 ISRAEL
Joseplius (BJiii.35),, The local taxes, on the other
hand, were farmed out to contractors (publican&
T E X L ~ Y U L ) ,who, as a rule, doubtless, were Jews. The
Jews had to take an oath of allegiance to the emperor ;
and though worship of the emperor was not exacted of
them, sacrifice for him was offered in the temple twice
daily. The Jewish worship stood under the protection
of the Roman state ; but this did not exclude a certain
amount of supervision of temple matters by the Roman
officials. As a rule it was customary to spare Jerusalem
the sight of the imperial emblems ( ' effigies ') carried by
the troops (cp ENSIGN).
Such in brief were the arrangements set up in the
domains of Archelaus in 6 A. D. -arrangements which
had been desired by the Jews at the death of Herod.
The system conferred upon them a higher degree of
self-government, and therefore of liberty to follow their
own laws and customs, than they had previously
enjoyed. An aristocratic constitution with the high
priest at its head (Jos. Ant. xx. 10) again cameinto being.
The aristocratic families reaped the chief advantage
from this, although in the Synedrium they had to share
the power with the Pharisees. The high priests were
named, however, 'by the Roman governors, and it only
too soon became evident that the immediate rule of the
Romans did not tend to tone down but rather to ex-
aggerate points of difference.
The procurators who held office in Judzea from
6 to 41 A.D. were: Coponius, M. Ambivins, Annius
Rufus, Valerius Gratus (15-26), Pontius Pilate (26-36),
Marcellus (36-37), and Marullus (37-41). (Jos. Ant.
xviii. 22 42 610). At first no doubt unwittingly, but
afterwards certainly of malice, they often wounded the
religious susceptibilities of the Jews. Pontius Pilate
went so far in this that a complaint laid by the
Samaritans before the legate L. Vitellius (35-39 A.D. )
proved effectual ; Vitellius sent Pilate on his defence to
Rome and took measures to quiet the agitated spirits in
Jerusalem. H e handed over to the priests the high-
priestly robes which had been kept in Baris-Antonia
since the days of John Hyrcanus, and caused his army
on its march against the Nabatzeans to avoid Jerusalem
so that the holy land of the Jews might not be
desecrated by the imperial emblems (37 A.D., cp Jos.
Ant. xviii. 4 3 5 3 ) . These littlecourtesies, however, were
wholly inadequate to heal the ominous breach which
was daily driving Jews and Romans farther apart.
With the first procurator Coponius the imperial
legate P. Sulpicius Quirinius (Lk. 2 1 8 ) had come as
91.Quirinius: governor to Syria, and in 6-7 A . D . carried
Zealots. out the Roman census in Judzea. This
new method of taxation excited great
horror and aversion. The high priest Joazar, a son of
Boethus (Ant.xv. 03), was able indeed to turn aside the
threatened storm ; but the proceeding left a deep mark
behind it in the rise of the Zealots-a political party which
regarded the payment of taxes to the foreigner as the
token of a sinful servitude (God alone requiring to be
honoured as king and lord), and therefore advocated
war to the death for the establishment of the divine king-
ship, according to the promise. The founders of the
party were Sadduk the Pharisee and Judas the Galilmm
(of Gamala) who may probably be regarded as son of
the so-called 'robber' Ezekias who was put to death
by Herod (Jos. Ant. xvii. 105 xiv. 9 3 8 xviii. 1). The
very designations of the two leaders would lead us to
expect to find in this new party a combination of the
doctrines of Pharisaism with the practical aims of
Hasmonzean patriotism ; and this expectation is realised
in the attitude the Zealots actually took. From the
Pharisees they took over the then current form of
prophetic eschatology-the divine kingship, destruction
of tne enemies of the nation, freedom, the Messiah,
etc. ; from the Hasmonzans, the precepts which enjoined
a bold fight for religion and fatherland. T o expect the
divine kingship yet quietly to accept the kingship of the
2275
ISRAEL
godless, they regarded as a sinful absurdity. The
Pharisees repudiated this departure from the purity of
their principles (cp Jos. Ant. xviii. 1);hut the intensified
religious interest which had been diffused throughout
the nation by their own influence had prepared the soil
for the seed of the Zealots. Between the Sadducean
aristocrats (who had again come to the helm after the
deposition of Archelaus) and the Zealots, collision was
inevitable ; the two parties were mutually irreconcilable,
as had already been seen at the census of Quirinius.
The more the Jews had experience of the harshness of
the Roman rule, the more numerous did the Zealot
party become. As contrasted with the half-hearted
they came forward as thoroughs, as the out-and-out
party who not only taught about the kingdom of God
but also were willing to put their lives into jeopardy t o
set it up. Their immediate result was to keep their
own people and the Romans in a state of unrest ; but
their ultimate aim was to secure the mastery of the
capital. So soon as they had reached it, the hour
would have struck for the last decisive struggle with
the Romans.
In this position of parties there arose once more,
unexpectedly, the prophetic summons : Turn ye (?>id;
92. John p e ~ a v o e k ) . Since Mal. 3 7 had been
the Baptist. uttered, it had fallen into oblivion ; it
seemed indeed to have become unneces-
sary. However, John the Baptist (28-29 A.D. ) with his
call to repentance presented a picture of the future quite
different from that cherished by his contemporaries.
The alternative to repentance was judgment, and if he
was right, it was on the Scribes and Pharisees that the
divine judgment would fall first. His preaching found
much acceptance, and before his career was cut short
by Herod Antipas (see below, § 95) Jesus of Nazareth
had raised the same cry, not in the wilderness, but in
the haunts of men.
T o Jesus the right way to God was clear ; he himself
exemplified that way, and he so taught concerning it
93. Jesus. as to make it easy for any one to find it.
His thoughts show the closest contact with
the religious tendencies of the time; evidently they
took shape under the pressure of the questions which
were stirring his contemporaries. They had their own
roots, however, in a supramundank sphere, and there-
fore could not be confined by the narrow limits of
Judaism. To the call to repentance Jesus added as a
motive that the kingdom of God was at hand, thereby
characterising the traditional piety as powerless to reach
that divine goal. In his teaching he used the same
terms as the popular leaders of the time; but he put
other ideas into them. Without discarding the current
conceptions of a coming judgment and regeneration
of the world, he substituted for a,Jewish world-theo-
cracy, the idea of a kingdom of kindred souls bound
together by their common faith in God and love to
man. H e dissolved the strange combination of heavenly
and earthly elements which formed the latest Jewish
eschatology, and thus cleared away the last remnants
of the popular religion, -including of course the popular
conception of the Messiah. He taught men to appre-
hend not only God but also the fellowship of man with
God in a spiritual manner. For him as for them, the
kingdom of God was a divine institution, a divine gift ;
but it was for men themselves ever to create it afresh
and extend it among themselves day by day. All this
and more may be historically said of the teaching of
the Master (see JESUS, 5 I I ~ ) who , at length crowned
his work by enduring a shameful and painful death as
of God's ordering, and as the way to complete ultimate
success.
All this meant an open breach with Judaism. The
ruling classes scorned the means of raising their religion
to a higher plane pointed out to them by ems of
Nazareth. Nay, more : they pronounced him a hlas- &
phemer when in his appearance before the high priest
2276
 ISRAEL
he acknowledged himself to be the Messiah-not of
course in the sense attached to the word by current Juda-
s
ism (see M ESSIAH , 6), but in the sense of being the
final exponent of the full divine meaning of the religion
of Israel. This new forthsetting by his ministry ob-
tained such a degree of independence and strength as
no longer to require the shelter of a nationality or of a
national religion, aqd became capable of forming a
society of its own, drawn from humanity at large.
Judaism, in isolating itself from the course of this
development, had to take the consequences. When
Christianity and Judaism gradually separated, it was
as if a mighty river had changed its bed : a feeble
current still crept along the old channel ; but the main,
the perennial, stream flowed elsewhere.
W e turn now to the northern portion of Herod's
divided kingdom. As we have seen, the north-eastern
part had been assigned to Philip,
the94.Tetrarch, Herod's son by Cleopatra of Jerusalem.
' Philip ' built himself a new capital,
Caesarea (Philippi), near the most easterly of the Jordan
sources on the site of theancient Paneas, and with the title
of tetrarch governed the eastward-lying territory, mainly
inhabited by Gentiles, a s far as the mountains of the
Haurgn. It was to his zeal for building that the fishing
village Bethsaida (called by him Julias after the daughter
of Augustus) owed its promotion to the rank of city.
He married Salome (see § 95), and died without issue
in 33-34 A.D. Josephus speaks of him as a wise and
just prince (Ant. xviii. 46). After his death his do-
minions were thrown into the province of Syria till
37 A.D.. when Caligula bestowed them, with the tetrarchy
of Lysanias (Abilene), upon a grandson of Herod and
Mariamme-Agrippa I., the son of Aristobuhis,-with
the title of king (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2 I 46 6 IO).
The territory assigned to Herod Antipas, on the
other hand-Galilee and Perzea-was mainly peopled
For the protection of the main
95. Antipas. by Jews.
road through Galilee he fortified Sep-
phoris, while towards the S., as a frontier fortress
against the Arabs, he builr Betharamphtha (Beth-haran)
which he named Livias or Julias; but in this line of
activity his greatest work was the foundation and
adornment of Tiberias. His first wife, whom he
married for political motives, was a daughter of the
Nabataean King Aretas ; after his repudiation of
her he allied himself with the ambitious Herodias (see
HEROD,5 7). Through her daughter Salome she
procured the death of John the Baptist (29 A . D . ) , whom
Herod Antipas had caused to be imprisoned in the
fortress of Machaerus (see J OHN THE BAPTIST, MACH-
~ R U S ) . Kiug Aretas began hostilities on account of
the repncliation of his daughter, and inflicted a severe
blow upon Herod (36 A . D . ) . At the instance of thc
latter, Tiberius ordered his legate Vitellins to sup-
press Aretas ; but while halting at Jerusalem on his
way to Nabatwa, Vitellius (37 A . D . ) heard of the death
of Tiberius and forthwith abandoned the expedition.
The bestowal of Philip's tetrarchy on Agrippa I. by
Caligula led Herodias to urge her hushand to go to
Rome for a royal title also. At the same time, how-
ever, Fortunatus, an ambassador of Agrippa, arrived
in the capital with heavy charges affecting the fidelity
of Antipas; and as the latter was not able entirely
to clear himself, he was deposed by the emperor and
banished to 1,ugdunum in Gaul, whither he was
followed by Herodias, his territory being added to the
dominions of King Agrippa I. (39-40 A. D. ; see HEROD,
B 12).
Under Caligula (37-41 A . D . ) a heavy storm-cloud
gathered over Jerusalem. In 39 An-thus immediately
after the outbreak of the bloody per-
96. secution of the Jews in A LEXANDRIA
(q,v.)-a conflict between the Gentile and the Jewish in-
habitants of the emperor's city of Jamnia gave occnsion
for a command by Caligula to P. Petronius, the governor
2277
ISRAEL
of Syria, to have the statue of the emperor set'up by
force in the temple at Jerusalem. If the Jews refused
compliance they exposed themselves to the wrath of
the emperor, who sought the customary divine worship
for his own person in good earnest ; but compliance
would involve disloyalty to their law. They proceeded
accordingly in troops to Ptolemais where Petronius was
collecting his army, and laid before him solemn protests
against what was being proposed. In Tiberias, whither
Petronius had betaken himself, the Jews convinced him
still further of their inflexibility in this matter, and he
accordingly came to the resolution to try to change the
emperor's mind. This had in point of fact already
been accomplished by Agrippa I. who was then staying
in Rome; but when the report of Petronius reached
the emperor's hands he was thrown into such a furious
passion by the obstinacy of the Jews that he sentenced
Petronius to death for disobedience. Tidings of the
murder of Caligula (Jan. 41) arrived, however, in time
to prevent the execution of this order. Thus the storm-
cloud passed away and the outlook of Judaea became
brighter than even the boldest had ventured to hope
(Phil. Leg. nd Caizlm, § 3 0 8 ; Jos. Ant. xviii. 8).
One of the first acts of the emperor Claudius (41-54
-
A. D. ) was not onlv to confirm AZriDoa in his former
9,. *grippa I. dominions but also to add to them
Tudaea and Samaria. Thus without ~ ~~~ ~ ~
once drawing sword this gay and showy knight of fortune
had come into the entire kingdom of his grandfather
Herod. H e held it for three years (41-44 A.D.). He
knew how to ntilise with skill both persons and circum'-
stances alike in Rome and in Palestine. In Jerusalem
and elsewhere, where it seemed expedient, he hela
himself up as the patron and supporter of the approved
Pharisaic Judaism of the day. In Caesarea, as every-
where else among foreigners, he was the man of Greek
culture, the friend of the Romans. During his brief
reign the land had rest. He even received the praise
of the Pharisees, who, we may be sure, would hardly
have remained permanently his supporters. Against
the heads of the young and growing Christian Church
he took violent measures (Acts 121-19). He even made
faint tentative efforts to give an anti-Roman character
to his reign. He began the building of a strong wall
round the northern suburb of Jerusalem ; but the legate
Marsus procured the imperial prohibition. He also
summoned five Roman vassal princes of Syria and Asia
Minor to Tiberias ; but Marsus again ordered them
back to their places. Agrippa I. died suddenly in
Caesarea ; his Gentile soldiers welcomed the tidings
with joy (Jos. Ant. xix. 4-9).
Claudius, yielding to the representations of those
around him, decided not to nominate the son of
98. Procurators. Agrippa I. (also called Agrippa), now
seventeen years of age, to the vacant
throne, but to place the whole territory under procurators
subordinate to the governor of Syria. Very soon again
ihere arose the strained rrlntions which had been found so
ntolerable in Judaea :.nd Samaria under the previous
xocurators from 6 A. D. onwards. The first procurator,
luspius Fadus, revived the old controversy as to the
:ustody of the high-priestly vestments; but, by the
2mperor's command, the arrangement arrived at b y
Vitellius in 36 A. D. was adhered to (Jos. Ant. xx. l),
ind the supervision of the temple, as well as the right
.o nominate the high priest, was now bestowed upon
Herod of Chalcis (41-48 A. D . ) , a brother of the deceased
4grippa. What the disposition of the Jews was is
ndicated by the appearance of the prophet-adventurer
rheudas, with whom, however, Cuspius Fadus made
ihort work (Jos. Ant. xx. 5 1 ; cp Acts 536). His suc-
:essor Tiberius Alexander, of Jewish-Alexandrian crigin,
:aused the sons of Judas of Gamala, Jacob and Simon,
o be crucified-no doubt as being prominent miong
he Zealots (Ant. xx. 5 2 ) . After the ravages of a great
amine, the exasperation of the Jews against the ad-
2278
 ISRAEL
ministration of Ventidius Cumanus (48-52) began to
show itself in open insurrection. During the feast of
the Passover, a soldier of the Roman guard had insulted
the Jews ; their complaints led the procurator to take
certain defensive measures which in their turn caused
a great panic in which many lives were lost (Ant. xx.
53). A Roman soldier seized hold of a roll of the
Law ; the excitement of the Jews over this was so great
that Cumanus caused the soldier to be beheaded (Ant.
xx. 54). Festival ,pilgrims from Galilee were attacked
by Samaritans, the Jews retaliated, and when Cumanus
sternly interfered, the leading people in Jerusalem had
the utmost difficulty in averting a general outbreak.
The dispute was referred by the governor Ummidius
Quadratus to the judgment of the emperor, who at the
instance of young Agrippa sentenced Cumanus to banish-
ment (Ant. xx. 61 8 ; B/ ii. 123 $; otherwise Tac.
Ann. 1254).
The successor of Cumanus, Antonius Felix (52-60 A.D.,
see F ELIX), was so arbitrary and cruel that discipline
99. Felix : broke down and public order threatened
sicarii. to disappear. The Zealots from their
hiding-places made the country insecure ;
it ava,iled little that Felix effected numerous executions
and caused their leader Eleazar, who had been taken
captive, to be sent to Rome. They began to be looked
upon a s the champions of liberation from the Roman
yoke ; their following increased and thcy secretly
leavened the masses with the spirit of revolt. They
were named, from the weapon (sica) which they carried
concealed under their garment, Sicarii. They assas-
sinated at their own choice, but also at the instigation
of others; for example, at the instigation of Felix
himself they murdered Jonathan the high priest, who
had become an inconvenient monitor. Fanatics, both
honest and dishonest, possessed by the eschatological
ideas of the time, were continually throwing the sparks of
religious enthusiasm among the excited and inflammable
masses (cp Acts 2138 ; BY ii. 134f:). Even the Jewish
governing class, the priestly and the lay aristocracy,
became disintegrated, each fragment using such power
a i it had for selfish ends (Jos. Ant. xx. 85-8 ; BJ ii.
132-6). Meanwhile, the oversight of the temple, and the
right to nominate the high priest, after the death of
Herod of Chalcis, was conferred by Claudius upon his
nephew Agrippa 11. (about 50 A.D.), who also received
the territory of Chalcis and afterwards (about 53 A . D . ) ,
in place of this, the former tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanias, as well as the territory of Varus (Noarus)
with the title of king (Ant. xx. 5 2 7 1 97).
The flame of avowed revolt burst forth not in Jeru-
salem but in Caesarea. Here in this half-Gentile,
Festus. half-Jewish city a dispute for supremacy
had arisen between the two classes. After
Antonius Felix (52-60)had been recalled by Nero and a
successor (Porcius Festus, 60-62) appointed in his place,
the Gentiles of Caesarea succeeded in procuring from
Nero a decision by which the Jews were deprived of
their equality of standing ( i a o ~ o A t ~ e iwith
a ) the Gentiles.
To the Jew-s this gave occasion for the great insurrection.
For some years indeed it remained confined to Caesarea
and the surrounding country, and did not in the first
instance spread as far as to the capital. Porcius Festns
(see FESTUS) exerted himself in vain, however, to quell
the rising. His successors Albinus (62-64) and Gessins
Florus (64-66) disregarded all law and justice to such
a degree that pacification became impossible. T h e
Sicarii could not be exterminated; those who could
entered into arrangements with them for securing life
and position (so, for example, the wealthy Ananias of
Jerusalem, who at one time had been high priest);
other influential people surrounded themselves with a
sort of bodyguard so as not to be helpless at a time
when everyone was taking the law into his own hand.
Albinus indeed took some trouble to conceal his mis-
doings; but Gessius Florus did not shrink from the
2279
ISRAEL
employment of open violence and thus drove even the
peaceably disposed of the Jews to retaliation. A coarse
insult to the Jews in Caesarea had again led to street
riots. As even the native soldiers took part against
the Jews the latter quitted the city, taking their books
of the Law with them-an occurrence which for Josephus
marks the beginning of the war (BY ii. 144).
The anger excited in Jerusalem by these events had
not yet died down when Florus caused seventeen talents
lol. war to be taken from the temple treasure, plainly
Dhreatens.because the Jews had failed to pay their
taxes ( H i165). Popular indignation now
expressed itself in intemperate speech against Florns,
who thereupon appeared in Jerusalem with his soldiers,
would grant no terms, and gave orders to plunder the
Upper City, also causing many inhabitants of Jerusalem
-among them Roman citizens-to be crucified. Soldiers
summoned from Czsarea answered the friendly greeting
of the Jews, by his orders, with coldness and rudeness,
and attempted by a coup de main to seize the Antonia
and the temple. This plan, however, was not success-
ful ; Florus returned to Cdsarea and sought to stir up
the Syrian governor Cestius Gallus against the Jews.
The prudent bearing of Gallus at this juncture, com-
bined with the appearance of Agrippa 11. in Jerusalem,
produced a short lull; but when Agrippa spoke not
only of obedience to the emperor, but also of submission
to Florus, the anger of the people burst forth against
him also, so that he had to leave the city. A band of
Zealots established themselves in the fortress of Masada
by the Dead Sea. At the instance of Eleazar, son of
Ananias, it was determined that henceforth offerings of
those who were not Jews should no longer be received
in the temple-and thus that the daily sacrifice by and
for the Roman emperor should be discontinued.
The supreme council of Jernsalem exerted itself to the
utmost against this rebellious decision. Florus left it
to itself; but Agrippa sent to its aid 3000 horsemen
with whose help it carried on a struggle for four weeks
against the war party who held the temple. The party
of rebellion soon began to gain ground, burned the
archives containing the records of indebtedness, obtained
possession of the Antonia citadel, and shut the adversary
up in the royal palace. A son of Judas of Galilee the
founder of the Zealot party, Manaem (Menahem)' by
name, conducted the siege. The garrison-Roman
and native alike-desired to capitulate ; but free exit
was allowed only to the natives, among them the troopers
sent by Agrippa. The former high priest, Ananias.
was put to death and soon afterwards Manaem also,
who had made himself hated for his cruelty. At last
the Roman garrison also had to surrender ; though their
lives had been promised them on oath, all were
massacred, their captain alone excepted. On that same
day the Jews who had remained in Caesarea were put
to death or thrown into prison by the Gentile inhabit-
ants. In retaliation armed bands of Jews went round
the border places inhabited by Gentiles plundering and
massacring. The Gentiles replied with a persecution of
the Jews which extended as far as Tyre and Ashkelon
and even Alexandria. As Florus was helpless, Cestius
Gallus now marched into the Jewish territory with an
army. Galilee he soon subdued ; and during the feast
of Tabernacles he made his appearance in the neigh-
bourhood of Jerusalem. After some skirmishes before
the gates the army gained possession of portions of the
city and began to attack the north side of the temple.
The rebels had already given iip their cause for lost,
when suddenly Cestius Gallus ordered the retreat. The
Jews followed him and inflicted heavy losses. Once
more songs of victory were sung by her own people
within the capital. This was the prelude to the war of
May-November, 66 ; the war party had triumphed
both at home and abroad.
Formal preparations for war were now begun on both
1 Cp MANAEN.
2280
 ISRAEL
sides. In Jerusalem everything had to bend before the
102. Formal zeal of the war party, or else take its
departure. The aristocracy themselves
war* took in hand the defences of the countrv.
The Jewish territory from Lydda to Perzea and frdm
Idumaea to Galilee was divided into seven districts, each
under its own commander ; thus for example Galilee
was assigned to Josephns the Pharisee, destined after-
wards to become the friend of the Romans, and the
historian of the war. He has himself described the
measures he took for the defence of Galilee (BJ ii. 20J ;
Vit. 7 5 ) . I t is quite clear from what he says how hard
-even to impossibility-was the task of uniting in
common defence against the Romans those who had
been so long accustomed to deeds of violence. N o
wonder that the more thoughtful spirits were filled with
anxiety. Nero, whom Cestius Gallus had betimes
apprised of the state of affairs, summoned his proved
general T. Flavius Vespasianus to Achaia and charged
him with the conduct of the war against the Jews in
revolt. Vespasian caused his son Titus to bring the
fifth and the tenth legions from Alexandria while he
himself proceeded to Antioch and took command of the
fifteenth legion along with the auxiliary troops supplied
by three kings in alliance with Rome-Antiochus of
Commagene, Soemus of Emesa, and Agrippa 11.
Father and son met in Ptolemais %,here they began
operations.
The first measures taken were against Galilee. The
city of Sepphoris had already received a Roman garrison
103. Galilee. and was being held against Josephus. As
soon as the army of Vespasian appeared
upon the scene, the Jews withdrew into the fortified
cities. Of these the first to succumb to the Romans
was Jotapata ( I Panemos= July 67). Josephus himself,
who had already reported to headquarters the evil case
of his army, conducted the defence and was seized in a
hiding-place by the victors. H e ingratiated himself
with Vespasian by the prophecy that both he and his
son were destined for the imperial throne, and was
detained in friendly captivity. After having advanced
along the coast as far as Joppa, Vespasian made his
headquarters with Agrippa 11. at Czesarea Philippi,
whence he caused Tiberias and Taricheae-both cities
belonging to Agrippa-to be brought back to their
obedience. The storming of the fortress of Gamala in
Gaulanitis proved no easy task (Sept.-Oct. 67). But
when in addition to this the garrison of Mount Itabyrion
(Tabor) had also been overcome and Giscala the home
of the Zealots had opened its gates to Titus, the whole
of Galilee was at the feet of the Romans, though John
of Giscala, the leader of the rebels in the last named
city, had indeed eluded Titus by a ruse and made his
escape to Jerusalem. Vespasian fixed the winter
quarters of the fifth and fifteenth legions in Czesarea
Pakestinze and those of the tenth in Scythopolis.
The tidings of the unprosperous course of events in
Galilee, when they reached Jerusalem, where the high
priest Ananias and Joseph son of Gorion
104. At
Jerusalem. were nominally in command, had the effect
of letting loose the full storm of rage and
fanaticism against the Romans. The arrival of John of
Giscala with his Zealots added fuel to the flames. With
the fanatics, to be old or prudent was to be indolent
m d weak. In the country about Jernsalem the struggle
of parties came to bloodshed ; the issue soon declared
itself in favour of the fanatics. The conflagration now
reached Jerusalem itself. It directed itself in the first
instance against those who, there was some reason to
fear, might seek to quench it-against the high-priestly
nobility and their adherents, and in particular against
the Synedrium as it had hitherto existed. It had
hitherto been unfortunate enough in its efforts against
the enemies of the fatherland, and in the judgment of
the excited masses this constituted a fault which in
those stirring times demanded instant punishment. The
2281
ISRAEL
ordinary processes of law and justice seemed too long
or too uncertain, and the power of those who admin-
istered them as dangerous to the sacred cause. Accord-
ingly, no trial was conceded to those priestly nobles
who in the meantime had been arrested and cast into
prison ; they were put to death where they were and
the cruel perpetrators of this crime (Ex. 2227) were
praised as deliverers of the people out of the hands of
traitors. Regard for their own safety bade the Zealots
take into their own hands the supreme authority. As,
however, the populace, under the influence of Ananus,
assumed a threatening attitude, the Zealots withdrew
themselves to the temple area, the strong walls of which
afforded them protection, The priority of claim to the
high-priestly office asserted by’ certain priestly families
they declared to be abolished, and, appealing to an.
ancient custom, they reintroduced election of the high
priest by lot.
The leading members of the Synedrinm showed
unwillingness to accept such a reversal of ,existing
arrangements without a struggle. The people sided
with them and actually forced the Zealots back from
the outer temple enclosure into the sanctuary itself. In
order to save the latter from desecration Ananus opened
negotiations and in doing so gave his confidence to
John of Giscala who already on previous occasions had
acted as negotiator for the Zealots and now finally went
over to their side, accusing Ananus of acting in pre-
arranged concert with the Romans. He counselled the
Zealots to call in the aid of the Idhmzeans if they
wished to escape certain death at the hand of Ananus
or the enraged people. His advice was taken and
soon 20,ooo Idumaeans, eager for war, stood befort
the walls of Jerusalem. Ananus sought to bring them
to reason; but under cover of a dark and stormy
night, the Zealots slipped from the temple and led the
Idumaeans through the sleeping city up to the temple
hill and into the inner precincts, whence they now com-
menced the attack upon the outer temple court and the
city. Ananus and his associates were slain and many
citizens with them; others %ere thrown into prison.
T h e triumphant Zealots introduced a new council
(Synedrium) of 70 persons, but again dispersed it at
the point of the sword when it proved unconformable to
their wishes. The Idumzeans perceived too late the
r e d nature of the work for which their aid had
been invited. Filled with shame, they left the blood-
saturated city in the hands of the Zealots, who put to
the sword all suspected persons, and reduced Jerusalem
to helpless subjection (Jos. I?’ iv. 3-6).
Vespasian watched this feverish outburst with the
coolness of a practised general. He very well knew
105. Vespasiai. that themore the strengih of the city
was wasted by this internal strupple.
the feebler would be the resistance he would at-Yast
have to overcome. The reports by numerous deserters
a s to the ambition of John and the envy and ill-will with
which he was looked upon by others confirmed him in
his watching attitude. The revolution in the capital
made itself felt, however, also in the surrounding
country. The Sicarii extended their predatory raids as.
far as from Masada to Engedi. Following their
example others also banded themselves together for
plundering the cities and villages, amongst them in
particular the desperado Simon bar Giora of Gerasa
(BJ iv. 72 9 3 ) . At last, in March 68, Vespasian
resumed the war. He reduced Perza as far as to
Machzerus and thereafter occupied the districts of
Thamna, Lydda, Jamnia, Ammans, Bethneptepha and
Idnmzea. Next he marched by way of Ammaus (where
the fifth legion had its camp) and Neapolis (Sichem)
down into the Jordan valley and threw a garrison into
Jericho (June 6 8 ) , thus drawing, however widely, the
first line of investiture round the centre of the rebellion.
At this juncture, tidings of the death of Nero (9th
1 [BcfJhinqv4;v, Niese, Jos. BJiv. 8 I.]
2282
 ISRAEL
J.une, 68) reached Vespasian in Czsarea. He deter-
mined to delay the siege of Jerusalem and await the
orders of the new Emperor, Galba. Thus the summer
passed away, as also the succeeding winter, Galba
having been murdered in Jan. 69 and Otho named as his
successor. This inaction was, to the Jews eager for
battle, hard to bear ; but in the meantime they kept
-their swords in practice in fratricidal conflicts, and
thinned their own ranks by all kinds of jealousy, envy,
a n d evil passion. Simon bar Giora plundered right
a n d left through the whole of the territory still un-
.occupied by the Roman troops, from the district of
.Akrabattene in the N. down to 1dum;ea in the
S., drove the Zealots back to the shelter of the walls
of Jerusalem and made himself master of 1dum;ea and
its capital Hebron. In Jerusalem itself a mutiny broke
out against John ; his Idumaean soldiers resolved to
call in the help of Simon against the Zealots, who had
again retreated to the temple hill. Simon ,in this
manner became master of the city in April 69, and
exerted himself to get the Zealots expelled from the
temple also (BJ iv. 9 is).
Vespasian now drew his lines more closely round the
city. In June 69 he advanced from the N. as far as
Bethel and E PHR A IM ( q . ~ .ii.),
, and in the S. his general
Cerealis subjugated Idumaea and held it in check by
garrisons. The way to Jerusalem was noy open ; but
once more grave tidings from Rome hindered him from
taking the decisive step. Vitellius had taken the place
of Otho on the imperial throne. The news roused the
disapprobation of the legions stationed in the E., and in
July 69 Vespasian himself was acclaimed emperor from
the Nile to the Danube, and hastened to Rome. The
siege- of Jerusalem was thus left to Vespasian's son
'Titcis, who had at his side Tiberius Alexander, formerly
procurator of Judaea, now governor of Egypt, and
Jozephus, now freed from his captivity.
Titus marched upon Jerusalem from CEsarea at the
head of the fifteenth and twelfth legions by way of
Samaria, while the fifth legion advanced
106.
from its camp at Ammaus and the tenth
from Jericho. Titus pitched his camp one and a half
hours northwards of Jerusalem (April 70). The leaders
of the revolt within the city had in the meantime
gone on with the building of the outer wall which had
been begun by Agrippa 11. (see 97), and had even
sent messengers to the many Jewish colonies on the
Euphrates to stir them to revolt (BJvi. 6 2 ) . Jerusalem
itself was full of the numerous visitors who had come up
for the Passover feast. so that feeling was highly strung ;
it expressed itself in loud shouts of joy when Titus at the
head of a body of horsemen was almost surrounded by
a band of Jews close by the northern wall of the city.
T h e Zealots had in the meantime split into two factions :
Eleazar son of Simon had made himself master of the
inner sanctuary and confined John of Giscala to the
outer temple precinct and its immediate southern neigh-
bourhood, so that John had to defend himself on two
sides-against Eleazar and against Simon bar Giora who
was master in thecity. When, however, Titus proceeded
to place the fifteenth, twelfth, and fifth legions on the
height to the north (Mt. Scopus ; see NOR)and the tenth
legion on the Mt. of Olives to the east, the Jews com-
bined: A vigorous attack was made upon the tenth legion
while it was engaged in the work of entrenchment ; but
it was repulsed by the bold intervention of Titus. While
Titns was making preparations for the investment
properly so-called, John succeeded in getting the better
.of Eleazar and his people in the inner sanctuary, and
thus Jerusalem no longer had three parties, but only
two-John with 8000 men and Simon with 15,000.
Titus directed his first attack, with embankments,
towers, and battering rams, against the first wall in the
neighbourhood of the Tower of Hippicus. Not until
the blows of the rams had begun to fall did the con-
tending parties within the city begin to come to their
2283
ISRAEL
senses and think of uniting in a common defence. By
the fifteenth day of the siege, the seventh day of
Artemisius (approximately May 70), the Romans had
already forced their way into the northern quarter of
the city enclosed by the first wall. Immediately Titus
pushed forward his camp and began to breach the
second wall. After five days his troops were able to
advance through it ; but in the vigorous street fight
which ensued they were repelled by the Jews and con-
strained to fight for three days more for the reconquest
of the walls.
Meanwhile the siege operations now began to be
directed against the citadel of Antonia and the Upper
City. Titus sent Josephus a second time to summon the
Jews to surrender (BJv. 33 9 2 8 ) . He knew that
pestilence had already broken out in the overcrowded
city, and also that famine was beginning to make itself
felt, and he wished, if possible, to preserve the city
and especially the temple from destruction. The leaders,
however, refused to negotiate ; they proudly placed their
reliance on the temple and the almighty power of God.
The inclination of the people was in the other direction ;
whoever saw a convenient opportunity stole away from
the city and went over to the Romans. Those in coml
mand were roused by this to all the greater vigilance.
Intimidation was not spared, and stringent measures
were taken to exact provisions for the soldiers from the
wealthier inhabitants. T o add to these difficulties Titus
now put into force with greater strictness the military
law regarding deserters. Yet all these untoward cir-
cumstances together could not break the spirit of the
defenders. How great was their resourcefulness and
how desperate their courage the Romans found by ex-
perience. After seventeen days' labour four embank-
ments had been raised-two against Antonia and two
against the Upper City. Those before Antonia the
Jews undermined and destroyed by fire : those before
the Upper City with the machines were also set on fire
by them during a hard-fought struggle.
These losses had their effect on the besiegers, and
raised grave doubts whether the means hitherto em-
107. Blockade. ployed would suffice for the reduction
of the city. Hence Titus resolved on
a strict blockade. A rampart-39 stadia in circumfer-
ence, with thirteen watch towers-was completed by
the legions in three days (BJv. 122).
The position of affairs in the city daily grew worse ;
famine led to the most inhuman acts. The preter-
natural suspiciousness of the Zealots was always dis-
covering new traitors who had to lay down their lives
that the city might sleep secure. Still, the hope of a
divine intervention and of the Messianic empire (BJ
vi. 5 2 8 ) still held its own through all the pangs of
hunger, all the shouts of combatants, and all the blood-
thirsty jealousy of opposing parties. What amazing
abysses does not human nature here disclose !
In twenty-one days the Romans had raised four new
embankments which were watched with the utmost
vigilance. Shaken by the rams a part of the wall at
the Antonia citadel collapsed ; but the Jews had already
erected a second behind the breach. This also the
Romans surmounted on the 5th of Panemos (approx.
July), and accordingly could assert the mastery in the
citadel. On the 15th of Panemos the daily sacrifice in
the temple ( ~ mceased) to be offered. Well might the
courage of many sink. Titus, first through Josephus
and afterwards personally, pleaded that the temple
might be spared ; but all in vain. Nothing was left for
it but that the struggle should be carried out to its issue
within the sacred enclosure. The first battle being
indecisive, the Romans built a new embankment against
the wall of the inner precinct, while the Jews destroyed
the chambers between the Antonia and the inner temple
enclosure-partly by fire.
On the 8th of Lous (ca. August) the rams were
brought to bear on the walls of the inner forecourt.
2284
 ISRAEL
As nothing, however, could be effected either by their
Burning means or by scaling ladders, the gates
of the gates, were set on fire. When these actually
temple, etc. began to burn horror paralysed the
defenders. Titus, however, on the
following day, caused the flames to be extinguished. His
sole object had been to secure a freer path for the
larger attack which he had planned for the 10th of Lous.
Before this could quite be carried out by the soldiers,
however, one of the party tossed a burning brand into
one of the chambers surrounding the temple. The
wildest consternation ensued among the Jews. Titus
ordered the extinction of the fire ; but the Roman soldiers
pressed on, and put the horror-stricken Jews to the
sword. Scarcely had Titus for the first time cast eyes
on the Holy of Holies when the flames were already
crackling under the door ; soon they sprang aloft and
enveloped all. On this very clay a prophet had
sunimoned the people to the temple to see the fulfil-
ment of the signs of deliverance. The raging flames,
the infuriated soldiers, the groans of the wounded and
the dying, all spoke with another voice. It was the
judgment. The words of John the Baptist and of Jesus
of Nazareth had come true.
Thoiisands perished in the temple flames ; some of
thc Zealots sought safety in the Upper City. The
Romans set up their standards in the sanctuary, sacri-
ficed before them, and hailed Titus as Imperator. After
.an ineffectual attempt at an arrangement with the
authorities he ordered the city to be burned. The
Jews now retired into the palace of Herod and gave up
the rest of the city to the spoiler. Once more the
legions had to set about engineering works, and on the
7th of Gorpiaius (cu. September) 70 A . D . , machines
were brought to bear. It was now plain that the
powers of resistance of the besieged .had'been broken at
last ; when the wall fell their pride turned into helpless-
ness and cowardice, and they sought to hide themselves
i n the subterranean passages. On the same day the
Roman soldiers made their way through the Upper
City, burning, plundering, and massacring. Of the
Jews who survived, the leaders were put to death, and
the finest-looking of the youths were preserved to grace
the triumph ; of the remainder, some were sent to the
Egyptian mines, many were sent as presents into the
provinces for use in scenic displays. Death or captivity
was also the lot of those who had hidden themselves in
the subterranean passages ; John of Giscala was sen-
tenced to imprisonment for life, Simon bar Giora was set
apart for the triumph. City and temple were destroyed,
only the western portion of the city wall with the three
towers of the palace of Herod was left standing, so as
to admit of the loth legion and some auxiliary troops
having their camp there. Of the rich plunder, there
were afterwards exhibited to the Romans in the joint
triumph of Vespasian and Titus the Golden Altar of
incense, the golden candlestick, and also the book of
the Law.
Three strongholds still remained in the hands of the
.Jews ; Herodeion and Masada to the W., Machaerus
109. Judsea. to the E. of the Dead Sea. Herodeion
surrendered to Lucilius Bassus, who now
commanded the 10th legion, without a struggle :
Machaerus, only after a protracted siege. As Bassus
.died soon afterwards, the siege of Masada fell to the lot
of his successor, L. Flavius Silva. This fortress stood
at a height of more than 1500 ft. above the level of the
Dead Sea, on the almost inaccessible summit of a
mountain (now es-Sebbeh), and since the commencement
.of the war had been held by the Sicarii under Eleazar,
a relation of Judas of Galilee. After great exertions the
soldiers of Silva at last succeeded in making a breach
in the walls ; but the defenders had already constructed
behind it another wall of timber and earth. This
withstood the blows of the ram better than the stone
wall had done; but it was capable of being set on
2285
ISRAEL
fire by the besiegers.. Hereupon Eleazar persuaded his
band to a solemn resolution to commit suicide together.
When, accordingly, on the 15th of Xanthicus (ca.
April) 73, the Romans made their way over the burning
wall into the fortress, they did not find a single man
alive. Masada was afterwards held by a Roman
garrison.
Vespasian had already settled what was to be done
with Judzea, by an order addressed to L. Bassus. The
whole scene of the rebellion, as it had
llo. ves- been handed over by Nero to Vespasian
pasianIs as a special province, he now claimed as
measures' his private property. Caesarea Pakstinae
was converted into a Roman colony (Colonia Prima
Flavia Augusta Caesarea) and continued to be the seat
of a governor (who at the same time commanded the
10th legion) as well as the administrative capital. The
10th legion lay for the most part at Jerusalem. Eight
hundred veterans were settled at Emmaus near Jeru-
salem. All Jews within the Roman empire were re-
quired to pay the traditional temple tax, the didrachma
(Mt. l'iq),into the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. This
determination unquestionably was a very deep wound
to Jewish susceptibilities. As a general rule, however,
the position of the Jewish religion as a religio l i c i h
within the Roman empire was not assailed. Nowhere
except in Egypt wds violence resorted to. Fugitive
Sicarii had fomented disturbances in the Jewish com-
munity in Alexandria, and this led Vespasian to order
Lupus the governor to destroy the Jewish temple founded
by Onias (see HERES). Lupus and his successor,
Paulinus, plundered the temple of its dedicated gifts and
sacred vessels, closed it and rendered it inaccessible.
The Jewish worship had been. carried on here for the
space of 243 years (Jos. Blvii. 104 has 343 years, by an
error). .
It was but natural that a paralysing reaction should
__
follovr the fearful struggle of the Tews with the Romans.
Not only were their physical forces
lll.
ation of the exhausted ; the community had-a
Jews in J u a ~ a .more serious matter-been deprived
of its religions centre. Its highest
authority, the Synedrinm, had even before the siege of
Jerusalem been destroyed by the war party (I 104).
Now, with the destruction of the temple, the cnltus also
had been brought to an end ; the priests had been de-
prived of their vocation, the community of its appointed
representation in the presence of God. The mother-
country itself was now compelled to live after the
manner of the Jewish diaspora. The Pharisees, with
Johanan b. Zakkai at their head, settled in Jamnia and
addressed themselves to the task of once more rallying
the dispersed of Israel around the Law. They revived
the Synedrium into new life by the formation of a court
of justice consisting of seventy-two members (n.p),
which disposed of civil causes arising between Jews in
Judaea and, so far as was practicable without conspicuous
disregard of Roman rights, also dealt with criminal
cases. This court of justice could not pretend to any
legal title ; it owed its existence to the necessities of the
case ; but it seems in all probability to have been ulti-
mately recognised by the Romans. Soon it rose in
importance to such a degree that its pronouncements
were recognised by the whole diaspora. Its head, who
bore the title of misi', ethnarch, or patriarch, received
from every Jewish community yearly dues, which were
brought by so-called ' apostles.' The study of the Law
and the practice of Pharisaic piety were also carried on
with all the zeal proper to persecuted causes. What had
been lost-temple and worship-every effort was made
to preserve, so far as was possible by means of writing ;
the ancient precepts for the regulation of Jewish social
life in Judaea were modified in such a way as to admit
of their being applied under the altered conditions.
The Jews in Palestine adapted themselves to the new
circumstances with remarkable rapidity. This can be
2286
 ISRAEL
explained to a great extent by the reaction which
followed the feverish days of the siege and destruction
of Jerusalem. The Jews were glad to take refuge under
the shelter of any new arrangement, however temporary
and inadequate. They sought for comfort in their
abiding sorrow, certainty in their doubt, some fixed
point towards which they could direct their thoughts
and hopes. This they found in the teachings of their
rabbins, versed in the Scriptures, from whom they
learned to accept their misfortunes submissively as a
chastisement from God. This was certahly a whole-
some salve for broken spirits. Nevertheless the rabbins
had not learned from the terrible divine judgment the
thing which in truth most concerned their peace. They
impressed upon the Jews the old transcendental hope
that at the time appointed by God the redemption--i.e.,
the world- theocracy-would come (cp Apocalypse of
Baruch, and 4 Esd.). It was the very depth of thcir
unprecedented humiliation which seemed to justify the
expectation that the hour of deliverance was not far
off. Nor was it long before the determination \vas
again arrived at to seek to hasten the event by their own
efforts.
The Emperor Domitian caused the didrachma tax
(which, as we have seen, had from 70 A.D. onwards to
lla. New be paid to Jupiter Capitolinus) to be ex-
rebellion. acted with particular strictness, and for-
bade conversion to Judaism (which st:ll
had ! its supporters even within the precincts of the
imperial palace). ,He is .said also to have sought, like
Ve'spasian before him and Trajan after him, to exter-
minate the Dsiv,idic family by persecution. These
measures show hqw grkatly the power, of the Jewish
diaspora was still felt by the Roman empire. It was in
the places where the diaspora was strong that the first
risings took place when Trajan waged war on the
Parthians on the eastern frontier of the empire. Egypt,
from the Thebaid to Alexandria, trembled before the
wild outburst of Jewish hatred against the Greeks and
the Romans. In Cyrene also it burst forth with blood-
thirsty ferocity. In Cyprus the Jews carried out a fearful
massacre and destroyed the city of Salamis (circa
116 A.D.). Trajan sent one of his ablest generals,
Marcius Turbo, to Egypt ; but it was only by degrees
that he succeeded in quenching the fire of rebellion in
the blood of its instigators. Even in Mesopotamia the
Jews rose and threatened to bar the emperor's return
from Ctesiphon. Here it was Lucius Quietus who
restored order with remorseless firmness. Even down
to the first year of the emperor Hadrian (117-138 A . D .)
the agitation seems to have shown itself-perhaps even
in Palestine-in commotions of diminishing intensity.
Towards the end of his reign Hadrian unintentionally
furnished the occasion for a rising. of the Tews in Tudza
Circum&ion hkd beeen for-
struggle bidden
113. Hadrian.
with itself. by law in the Roman empire,
being. Dlaced in the same caterorv
',, with
castration. The progiiition was regarded by the Jews
-though by no means levelled exclusively at them--as
a prohibition of the exercise of their religion. Further,
Hadrian issued orders that the now deserted Jerusalem
should again be rebuilt as a Roman colony. This
expression of imperial goodwill towards their ancient
capital the Jews regarded as the worst of injuries, the
deathblow to all their dearest hopes ; for the execution
of the emperor's command would mean nothing less
than the conversion of Jerusalem into a Gentile city.
The zeal of the Jews was accordingly kindled once more
on behalf of the city of their God, and they flew to arms
on the sacred soil of Judaea. Probably the disturbances
first began about 132, after the emperor's second visit
to Syria in 131. So far as we can learn from the scanty
notices preserved to us, the struggle took the form of a
guerilla war only ; the insurgents fixed their quarters in
fastnesses, caves, and subterranean dens, and sought as
best they could to expel the Romans from Judaea.
2287
ISRAEL
The leader was a certain Simon, better known by
his surname, Bar Kosiba or Bar Kocheba ; the first' of
114. Revolt of these two forms indicates his origin
Bar Kocheba. geneaIogically or locally (cp I Ch. 42z),
the second his dignity (see Nu. 24 17)
as Messiah; he was doubtless of Davidic descent:
His coins bear the legend 'Simon Prince of Israel.'
T h e Roman Governor Tineius Rufus was unable to
quell the rebellion which burst out on all sides and
spread even beyond the boundaries of Judaea. Jeru-
salem was 'liberated,' as the legend on the coins of
Simon has it, and the sacrificial system was probably
again revived ; perhaps an attempt was also made to
rebuild the temple. The entire Jewish diaspora sup-
ported the movement, so that 'the whole world was
thrown into commotion ' (Dio Cassins 69 13). It seems.
probable that Hadrian himself lingered for a while near
the scene of the struggle ; and he summoned his best
generals to deal with it. Julius Severus, who came
from Britain, brought it to a triumphant end. The
closing scene took place not a t Jerusalem but at BETHER
(4.v.. cp Ezra220 6 , see G IBB A R ), now Bittir, to the
south-west of Jerusalem. In the eighteenth year of
Hadrian (134-5) the little fortress was captured after iv
brave resistance, Bar Kocheba himself having already
been slain. The whole war probably lasted 39 years
(132-135 A.D.). It was bloody in the extreme, and
brought Judaea to the lowest ebb. The captive Jews
were offered for sale at nominal prices on the market
place beside Abraham's oak at Hebron, or sent off to.
the slave markets of Gam and Egypt.
What the rebellion ,had been intended to prevent now
took d a c e without resistance. Terusalem was built as a
115. Jeruealem Gentile city and received the name of
becomes ~ E l ai lai a Capitolina, with the rights of a
Capitolina. ?man colony but without the jus
taZz'cicunz. On the former site of the
temple was built a temple of Jupiter Capitolinus with an
equestrian statue of the emperor Hadrian. No Jew
was permitted to enter the precincts of the city ; once
more it was to be the possession of heathen deities and
their worshippers. Such was the end of the history of
Israel on the mountains of Judaea.
I. For ancient history of the East in general:-Max
Duncker, Gesch. des AZterthu~ns(41,Bd. I f : 4(51, '80; Ed.
Meyer,' Gesch. des A lferthunrs,Bd. 1, '84 ;
116.Litel'atUre. A. Wiedemann, 2 ypfische Gesch. von den
aZtesfen Zeifen an Alexander den.
Grossen '84 * Ed. Meyer Gesch. des A lfen Agypfens, '87 ; Fr.
Hornmll Gisch. Bab. ukd Ass. 85; C. P. Tiele, Bah.-ass.
$hch., fid. lx,'86-'87; H. Windkler, Gesch. Bab. und Ass.,
92'; H. Winckler, Altorient. Forschungen, '93 3 ;J. F.
M Curdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monumnents, 1 5 , '94-'96 ;
F.Justi, Gesch.des alfen Persiens, '79 Th. Nlildeke, Aufiufze
z. pers. Gesch '87 ; W . Robertson Smith, The Religion o f the
Semites(!4, '9;'; W. 'Baudissin, Studien zur sem. ReL-gesch.,
l$, '76-'78; Baethgen, Beifr. z. scm. Rel. -gesch., '88.
11. For history of Israel in g e n e r a l t H . Ewald, Gesch. des
Volkes IsraeZ(3),Bd. 1-7, '64-'68 ; H. Graetz, Gesch. der 3uden
von den &?testen Zeiten bisan die Gegenwart, 1-13, '53 fi
English edition abridged by author, 5 vols., gr-'gz ; F. Hitzig
Gesch. des VoZkes Israels, lf:, '69; Abr. Kuenen, De Gods!
dienst von lsrall tot den Ondeergang van den j$odschrn
Staat, lJ, '69-'70; Jul. Wellhausen, Gesch. Israels, 1, 78, from
second edition onwards entitled ProZeg. zur Gesch. IsrneZsP),
'99 ; Ed. Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schrifien des A Tl?, '90 ; B.
Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, lx, '87f:, (2)'89 (1) ; R. Kittel,
Gesch. der Hebrier If: '88-'92 ET 2 vols., '95-'96 ; E. Renan,
Histoire du Peu$le'd'Is;ael Bh. l-;, '87-'98 ; Jul. Wellhausen,
IJG (a), '97 ; H. Winckle;, Gesch. lsraels in EinzeZdar-
stellungen, 1, '95, 2, 1900; Aug. Klostermann, Gesch. d e r
Volkes Israel dis zur Restauration rnter Ezra und Neh.
'96 ; Piepenbring, Histoire d'Israel, '98 ; C. H. Cornill, Gesch.
des Volkes IsraeZ, '98, ET History of the People of Israel, '98 ;
H. Guthe, Gesch. des VolkLsIsrael, '99 ; C . F. Kent, A History
of the Hebrew People 2 vols '96'97 and C. F. Kent and J.
S. Riggs, A History &thcJ&ish Pe&e, '99-1900.
111. On sflecialperiods orpoints:-W. Max Muller, As. und
Ear. nach altdxypt. DbnEntiilern, '93 ; H.Zimmern, Palastina
urn das Jahr 1400 vor Chr. nach neuen Quellen' in ZDPV, 13
['go] 133-147; H. Winckler, Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-
A m a m a (Keilschriftliche Bibliofhek, Bd. 5, '96); Ed. Meyer,
Glossen zu den Thontafeln non Tell el Amama: f:om.
Aegyjfiaca (Festschrift fur Georg Ebers zum I M a n , 97,.
pp. 62-76) ; Jul. Wellhausen, Camp. des Hex. und der hrsf.
2288