History of the Jews, Vol. II (of 6)

The Crowning Point of the Period?-?War with Antiochus Sidetes?-?Siege of Jerusalem?-?Treaty of Peace?-?The Parthian War?-?Hyrcanus joins Antiochus?-?Successful campaigns of Hyrcanus against the Samaritans and Idum?ans?-?The Idum?ans forced to embrace Judaism?-?Destruction of the Samaritan Temple at Gerizim and of the Capital, Samaria?-?Internal Affairs?-?The Parties: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, their Rise and Constitution?-?Their Doctrines and their Relations to one another?-?The Synhedrion?-?Strained Relations between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees?-?Death of Hyrcanus.

135–106 B. C. E.

The reign of Hyrcanus is at once the pinnacle and the turning-point of this period. He not only carried on his father's work, but completed it. Under his predecessors Jud?a was confined to a narrow space, and even within these bounds there were territories in the possession of foreign foes. Hyrcanus enlarged the boundaries to the north and to the south, and thus released the State from the external pressure that had been restricting its growth. His genius for war was aided by fortunate circumstances in bringing about these happy results.

If the reign of Hyrcanus corresponds in brilliancy to that of Solomon, it resembles it also in another respect: both reigns commenced and ended amid disturbance, sadness and gloom, while the middle of each reign was happy and prosperous. When Solomon first came to the throne he was opposed by Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, whom he had to subdue; and upon Hyrcanus a similar but more difficult task devolved-that of carrying on a struggle with several opponents. One of these opponents was his brother-in-law, Ptolemy ben Habub, the murderer of his father, who had also sought after Hyrcanus's own life. It was only the support of the Syrian army, however, which could make Ptolemy dangerous, the inhabitants of Jerusalem having instantly declared themselves in favor of Hyrcanus as the successor of the murdered Simon. Still, both his safety and his duty called upon him to punish this unscrupulous enemy, and to avenge his father's death. Hyrcanus hastened, therefore, to attack him in his fortress before Antiochus could bring his troops to his relief. There is some uncertainty as to the progress of this siege and its result; according to one account, evidently somewhat embellished, Hyrcanus could not put his whole strength against the fortress, because his mother (by some it is said, together with his brothers) had been placed on the walls by Ptolemy, and was there horribly tortured. Like a true Hasmon?an, the heroic woman is said to have encouraged her son to continue the siege, without heeding her sufferings, and to persevere in his efforts until the murderer of her family should receive the chastisement due to his crimes. Hyrcanus's heart was torn by conflicting feelings; revenge towards his reckless foe urged him on, whilst tender pity for his mother held him back. The fact is, however, that Hyrcanus withdrew without accomplishing his purpose. It may have been the Sabbatical year which prevented him from proceeding with the siege, or, as is much more likely, his operations may have been interrupted by the approach of the Syrian king, who was advancing with his army to glean some advantage for himself from the troubles and the confusion in Jud?a. After the withdrawal of Hyrcanus's troops, it is said that his mother and brothers were put to death by Ptolemy, who fled to Philadelphia, the former Ammonite capital (Rabbath Ammon), where he was favorably received by the governor, Zeno Cotylas. The name of Ptolemy is no more mentioned, and he disappears altogether from the page of history.

A far greater danger now threatened Hyrcanus from Antiochus Sidetes, who was eager to avenge the recent defeat sustained by the Syrians (autumn 135). He marched forth with a large army, devastated the country round about, and approached the capital. Hyrcanus, doubtless feeling himself unable to cope with his enemy in the open field, shut himself up behind the strong walls of Jerusalem. Antiochus laid regular siege to the city and encircled it with elaborate preparations for its conquest. Seven camps were stationed around the city; on the north side, where the country is flat, a hundred three-storied towers were erected from which the walls could be stormed. A broad double trench was likewise made to prevent the sallies of the Jud?ans, who contrived nevertheless to come forth, thus bravely impeding the work of the enemy, and obstructing the progress of the siege. The Syrian army suffered much from the want of water and from sickness, the natural consequence of that deficiency. The besieged were well supplied with water, but food became scarce, and Hyrcanus found himself compelled to commit an act of cruelty. In order to husband the failing provisions, the inhabitants who could not bear arms were sent out of the city. Perhaps the hope was entertained that the enemy would take pity on them. But to the defenseless, foes are seldom generous. They were not allowed to pass the lines of the besieging army, and were thus exposed to death from both sides. In the meantime the summer passed, and still no prospect of storming the walls offered itself to the Syrians, whilst the Jud?ans, on account of the scarcity of provisions and the approaching holidays, were anxious for a truce. Hyrcanus made the first overtures, and asked for a cessation of arms during the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles. Antiochus not only granted that request, but sent him presents of animals with gilded horns for sacrificial purposes, and golden vessels filled with incense. Negotiations for peace followed upon this truce. Antiochus was urged by his advisers to show the greatest severity in his demands upon the Jud?ans. They reminded him of the policy of Antiochus Epiphanes, who knew no other way of crushing out the hatred of mankind felt by the Jud?ans than that of obliging them to renounce their peculiar laws. If Antiochus Sidetes had listened to these prejudiced counselors, who saw, according to the biased views of that time, nothing but cynical exclusiveness in the singular customs of the Jud?ans, the cruel wars in which the people had fought for their faith would have been repeated. Happily for them, Antiochus had neither the harshness nor the strength to venture upon so dangerous a game. Antiochus contented himself with destroying the battlements of Jerusalem (autumn 134). With that act the dark cloud which had menaced the independence of Jud?a passed away.

No great injury had been inflicted upon the State, and even the traces of disaster that had been left were soon obliterated. For Hyrcanus now sent an embassy to Rome consisting of three delegates: Simon, the son of Dositheus, Apollonius, the son of Alexander, and Diodorus, the son of Jason, to entreat the Senate to renew, with the Jewish commonwealth, the friendly treaties, which Rome lavishly accorded to the smallest nations. At the same time they were to complain that Antiochus Sidetes had taken possession of several places in Jud?a, and among them the important fortresses of Joppa and Gazara. Rome always sided with the weak against the strong, not from a sense of justice but from self-interested calculation. She desired especially to humble the royal house of the Seleucid?, which had occasionally shown her a defiant, or at least a haughty mien. The Jud?an ambassadors were consequently most favorably received, their requests listened to with attention, and a decree issued by which Antiochus was called upon to restore the fortresses he had taken, and to forbid his troops to march through Jud?a; nor was he to treat its inhabitants as his subjects (about 133). Antiochus appears to have acquiesced in this decision.

He was, moreover, obliged to assume a friendly demeanor towards Hyrcanus; for at that moment he was meditating an attack against Parthia, which had formerly belonged to, but had since separated itself from the kingdom of his ancestors. His brother, Demetrius Nicator, had likewise undertaken an expedition against the Parthians, but had sustained a defeat, and was kept in imprisonment for nearly ten years. Antiochus believed that he would be more fortunate than his brother. In addition to the army of 80,000 which he had assembled, he requested the aid of Jud?an troops and of the forces of other surrounding nations, and Hyrcanus consented to join with his army in the expedition. The Syrian king treated his Jud?an allies with the greatest regard. After a victory gained on the banks of the river Zab (Lycus), he ordered, according to the desire of Hyrcanus, that a two days' respite should take place, so that the Jud?ans might celebrate their Sabbath and the festival of the Feast of Weeks which followed it (129).

Fortune, however, had changed sides since the time of Antiochus the Great, and no longer favored the Seleucid?an dynasty. Antiochus lost his life in this campaign, and his brother Demetrius, who had been set at liberty by the king of Parthia at the time of the invasion of Antiochus, to be opposed to him as a rival monarch, now reigned in his brother's stead (from 128–125). Hated by the Syrians on account of his long imprisonment in Parthia, Demetrius was opposed by a rival, Alexander Zabina, whom Ptolemy Physcon had set up against him. Demetrius was obliged to flee before Zabina, and could not even find a refuge in Accho, where his wife Cleopatra resided. Syria fell into a state of still greater confusion under his successors, when Zabina disputed the throne with the legitimate heir, Antiochus VIII, the latter finding likewise a competitor in his brother on the mother's side, Antiochus IX. The last pages of the history of Syria are stained with crimes caused by the deadly hatred of the various members of the Seleucid?an house against each other, and with the murders they committed. Soon after the death of her husband Demetrius, Cleopatra had one of her sons, Seleucus, killed, and mixed the poisoned cup for the other one, Antiochus Grypus, who forced her to drink it herself.

Hyrcanus took advantage of this state of anarchy and weakness in Syria, which lasted several years, to enlarge the boundaries of Jud?a, until his country attained its former limits. Soon after the death of Antiochus Sidetes, the last traces of vassalage to which the siege of Jerusalem had reduced Jud?a were completely wiped out, and even the bonds of alliance were canceled, whilst Alexander Zabina was grateful to be acknowledged by Hyrcanus as king of Syria. It was at this period (124) that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, particularly those included in the great council, made an appeal to the Egyptian community and to the priest, Judas Aristobulus, teacher to the king, and of priestly lineage, to allow the anniversaries of the consecration of the Temple and of the victory over the sinners to be numbered among the memorial holidays of the nation. To strengthen their request they referred to the unexpected help which God had given His people in the evil days of Antiochus, enabling them to restore the sanctuary to its former purity. This appeal from Jud?a was at the same time a hint to the Alexandrian community to acknowledge the new conditions that had arisen.

John Hyrcanus, who until then had acted only in self-defense, was now, after the fall of Alexander Zabina (123), ready to strike energetically at Syria. Jud?a at that time was encompassed on three sides by foreign tribes: on the south by the Idum?ans, on the north by the hated Samaritans, and beyond the Jordan by the Greeks, who had never been friendly to the Jud?ans. Hyrcanus therefore considered it his mission to reconquer all those lands, and either to expel their inhabitants or to incorporate them with the Jud?ans; for so long as foreign and hostile tribes existed in the very heart of the country, its political independence and religious stability would be in constant danger. Not only were these hostile peoples ever ready to join surrounding nations, and assist them in their greed for conquest, but they also often interfered with the religious worship of the Jud?ans, thus frequently giving rise to acts of violence and bloodshed. Hyrcanus was consequently impelled by religious as well as by political motives to tear up these hotbeds of constant disturbance and hostility.

To accomplish so great a task Hyrcanus required all the strength he could muster, and, in order not to tax too heavily the military resources of the nation, he employed mercenaries, whom, it is said, he paid out of the treasures he had found in David's sepulcher. The first place he attacked was Medaba, in the Jordan district. That city was taken after a six months' siege. Then the army moved on towards Samega, which, situated on the southern end of the Sea of Tiberias, must have been a place of great importance to the Jud?ans. Next in turn came the towns of Samaria; its capital, Shechem, as well as the temple erected on Mount Gerizim, which had always been a thorn in the side of the Jud?ans, were destroyed (21 Kislev, about 120). The anniversary of the destruction of this temple (Yom har Gerizim) was to be kept with great rejoicing, as the commemoration of a peculiarly happy event, and no fasting or mourning was ever to mar the brightness of the festival. From this time forth the glory of the Samaritans waned; for, although centuries to come still found them a peculiar people, and, at the present day even, they continue to exist and to offer sacrifice on Mount Gerizim, still, from the want of a central rallying point, they gradually decreased in numbers and prosperity.

After his victory over the Samaritans, Hyrcanus marched against the Idum?ans. This people, although fallen very low during the many vicissitudes of fortune attending the constant changes of the Macedonian and Asiatic dynasties, and forced by the Nabath?ans to leave their dwellings, had alone, among all the tribes related by blood to the Jud?ans, been able to maintain themselves, and had preserved their ancient bitter animosity against them undiminished. Hyrcanus laid siege to their two fortresses, Adora and Marissa, and after having demolished them, gave the Idum?ans the choice between acceptance of Judaism and exile. They chose the former alternative, and became, outwardly, followers of that faith. The temples of the Idum?an idols were, of course, destroyed, but the priests secretly adhered to their worship. Thus, after more than a thousand years of enmity, Jacob and Esau were again united-the elder serving the younger brother. For the first time Judaism, in the person of its head, John Hyrcanus, practised intolerance against other faiths, but it soon found out with deep pain how highly injurious it is to allow religious zeal for the preservation of the faith to degenerate into the desire to effect violent conversion of others. The enforced union of the sons of Edom with the sons of Jacob was fraught only with disaster to the latter. It was through the Idum?ans and the Romans that the Hasmon?an dynasty was overthrown and the Jud?an state destroyed.

The first result of the conquest of the Idum?ans and of their adoption of Judaism was a new contest with the city of Samaria, now chiefly inhabited by Macedonians and Syrians. A colony of Idum?ans had been transplanted from Marissa to the vicinity of Samaria. They were attacked and ill-treated by their neighbors, who were urged on to their acts of aggression by the Syrian kings, Grypus and Cyzicenus. The latter, who resembled Antiochus Epiphanes in his folly and extravagance, manifested in particular a fierce hatred against Hyrcanus. His generals invaded Jud?a, took several fortresses near the sea-coast, and placed a garrison in Joppa. Hyrcanus thereupon complained to the Roman Senate, which had guaranteed to Jud?a the possession of this seaport, and sent five ambassadors to plead the justice of his cause at Rome. Among these was Apollonius, the son of Alexander, who had appeared before the Senate in a former embassy. Rome replied in fair words to the petition of Hyrcanus, and promulgated a decree forbidding Antiochus Cyzicenus to molest the Jud?ans, who were the allies of Rome, and commanding him to restore all the fortresses, seaports and territories which he had seized. It was further ordered that the Jud?ans should be allowed to ship their goods duty free from their ports, a favor not granted to any other allied nation or king, excepting the king of Egypt, who was regarded as the peculiar friend of Rome, and finally that the Syrian garrison should evacuate Joppa. Whether the sentence pronounced by Rome had any great effect upon Antiochus Cyzicenus or not, the fact that it was not adverse to Hyrcanus was so far a boon that it strengthened his cause. It appears to have restrained Cyzicenus within certain bounds.

When, however, Hyrcanus, bent upon punishing Samaria for its enmity to the people of Marissa, besieged that city, causing famine within its walls by closely surrounding it with trenches and ramparts, and thus cutting off every possibility of exit, Cyzicenus came to its assistance. In an engagement with Aristobulus, the eldest son of Hyrcanus, who was conducting the siege conjointly with his younger brother Antigonus, Cyzicenus was defeated and forced to flee to Bethshean (Scythopolis). Too weak to confront the Jud?ans alone, he called to his help the co-regent of Egypt, Ptolemy VIII (Lathurus), who, inspired by the hatred entertained by the Egyptians against the Jud?ans, readily complied with that request. His mother Cleopatra, with whom the people had obliged him to share the government, was secretly in league against him, befriending, like her parents, the cause of Jud?a. Two sons of Onias IV, Helkias and Ananias, sided with her. It was doubtless on that account that her son took an aversion to the Jud?ans, and gladly came forth at the call of Cyzicenus to compel Hyrcanus to withdraw from the siege of Samaria. Despite the wishes of his mother, Lathurus sent an army of six thousand men to support Cyzicenus against Jud?a. Too weak to venture on meeting the Jud?an troops in the open field, the operations were confined to laying waste the country around, in the hope of thus impeding the work of the besiegers. The Jud?an princes, however, instead of being forced to abandon the siege, contrived by various man?uvres to compel the king of Syria to leave the scene of action and to withdraw to Tripolis. During one of the battles in which Cyzicenus was beaten, it is said that a voice from the Holy of Holies was heard announcing to Hyrcanus, at the very moment in which it took place, the victory achieved by his sons. He is said to have heard the following words pronounced in Aramaic: "The young princes have defeated Antiochus." The two generals, Callimandrus and Epicrates, whom Lathurus had left behind to continue the hostilities, were not more fortunate than himself, for the first lost his life in some engagement, the second succumbed to bribery, and delivered into the hands of the Jud?an princes the town of Bethshean, as well as other places in the plain of Jezreel, as far as Mount Carmel, which had been held by the Greeks or the Syrians. The heathen inhabitants were instantly expelled from the newly conquered cities, and the anniversaries of the recovery of Bethshean and of the Plain (Bekaata), 15–16 Sivan (June, 109), were added henceforth to the days of victory. Samaria, no longer able to rely upon foreign help, was obliged to capitulate, and after a year's siege was given up to the conqueror. Actuated either by revenge or prudence, Hyrcanus caused Samaria to be utterly destroyed, and ditches and canals to be dug through the place, so that not a trace should remain of the once flourishing city. The day of its surrender was added to the number of days of thanksgiving (25th Marcheshvan, November, 109).

Thus Hyrcanus had carried out the comprehensive plans of the Hasmon?ans and crowned them with success. The independence of Jud?a was assured, and the country raised to the level of the neighboring states. The enemies who had menaced it from every side, Syrians, Idum?ans, Samaritans, were nearly all conquered, and the land was delivered from the bonds which had hitherto prevented its development. The glorious era of David and Solomon seemed to have returned, foreign tribes were obliged to do homage to the ruler of Jud?a, the old hatred between the latter and Idum?a was blotted out, and Jacob and Esau again became twin brothers. Moabitis, the daughter of Arnon, again sent presents to the mountain of the daughter of Zion. The banks of the Jordan, the sea-coast, the caravan tracks that passed from Egypt through Syria, were all under the dominion of Jud?a. She saw also the humiliation of her enemy, Ptolemy Lathurus. The latter was living in constant discord with his mother, the co-regent, who at last aroused the anger of the people against him to such a degree that he was obliged to flee from Alexandria (108). He took refuge in the island of Cyprus, whither Cleopatra despatched an army in pursuit of him. But the troops sent to destroy him went over to his side. The Jud?an soldiers who came from the province of Onion, commanded by the generals Helkias and Ananias, the sons of Onias, alone remained faithful to the Queen, and vigorously attacked Ptolemy to force him to leave the island. In Alexandria as in Jud?a, at that time, the Jud?ans played a leading role, and worked together in a common cause for mutual advantage. They fought against common foes, against Lathurus and his ally, Antiochus Cyzicenus.

After all he had achieved for his country, it was only natural that Hyrcanus should cause Jud?an coins to be struck, and should inscribe them in old Hebrew characters, but he abandoned the modest example of his father and allowed his own name to appear on them, "Jochanan, High Priest." Upon some of the coins we find, next his name, the inscription "and the Commonwealth of the Jud?ans" (Cheber ha-Jehudim), as though he felt it necessary to indicate that it was in the name of the people that he had exercised the right of coinage. Upon other coins, however, we find the following words inscribed: "Jochanan, High Priest, and head of the Commonwealth of the Jud?ans" (Rosch Cheber ha-Jehudim). Instead of the lily which was graven on his father's coins, he chose an emblem similar to that of the Macedonian conquerors-the horn of plenty. Towards the end of his reign Hyrcanus assumed more the character of a worldly potentate, and became more and more ambitious. His constant aim was to enlarge his country and to increase his own power. Hyrcanus appears to have cast a wistful eye upon the widely-extended territory which commanded the route to Damascus. The conquest of Itur?a, a tract of country lying to the east of Mount Hermon, which his successors completed, appears to have been planned by him. But a formidable disturbance in the land, which he was unable to suppress, speedily followed by his own death, prevented him from carrying out this undertaking. And this disturbance, apparently insignificant in its beginning, took so unfortunate a turn that the great Hasmon?an edifice, built up with so much labor and care, was completely destroyed. For the second time the Jud?an State, having reached its highest pinnacle of prosperity, ascertained that it was not to maintain itself in external greatness.

The high tide of political development, which swept over Jud?a whilst that country was under the dominion of John Hyrcanus and his predecessors, could not fail to permeate the life of the people, and in particular to stimulate all their spiritual powers. With only short interruptions they had, during half a century, been continually engaged in a warfare in which they were alternately victorious and defeated, and in which, being brought into contact with various nations, now as friends, now as foes, they attained a greater maturity, and their former simple existence rose to a more complex and a higher life. The hard struggles by which they had achieved independence caused them to examine more curiously into their own condition, and to hold fast to their national traits; but it led them also to adopt those foreign views and practices which appeared to blend harmoniously with their own. If the pious Jud?ans had formerly opposed with all their might everything that bore the Hellenic impress, many of them were now convinced that among the customs of Greece there might occasionally be something which they could adopt without prejudice or injury to their own faith. The Hasmon?ans had not only learnt from their neighbors the arts of war, how to fashion arms and construct fortresses, but also the peaceful arts of coining money with artistic ornamentation, and the rules of Greek architecture. A magnificent palace, evidently built in the Grecian style, arose in Jerusalem. In front of the Hasmon?an Palace, near the valley-like hollow which divided the higher town from the Temple, there was a wide covered colonnade, called the "Xystum," where the people assembled. A bridge led across from the Xystum to the west gate of the furthest court of the Temple. There was likewise a building erected in the higher town, devoted to judicial meetings, constructed according to Grecian art; with it was combined a Record Office, where important archives were kept. John Hyrcanus also erected, in the Grecian style, a family mausoleum in Modin, the birthplace of the Hasmon?ans. It consisted of a lofty building of white polished marble. Around it was a colonnade, and on the columns were beautiful carvings of various weapons and figureheads of ships. Seven pyramids crowned the edifice, in memory of the progenitors of the Hasmon?ans and their five heroic sons. The Hasmon?an mausoleum was of so great a height that it was visible from the sea.

The tendency of the Jud?ans of that period, however, was more especially directed to the maintenance and development of all that belonged peculiarly to themselves than to the acquiring of the arts of foreign civilization. The Hebrew language, which, since the close contact of the people with Asiatic nations, had been almost superseded by the Aramaic, appeared now to be celebrating to a certain extent its renaissance; it was rejuvenated and became, for the second time, though in an altered form, the language of the people. It was rendered precious to them through the Holy Scriptural records which they had preserved from destruction, and which had ever been the source of their zeal and enthusiasm. Their coins were, as mentioned before, stamped in Hebrew, public records were written in Hebrew, and the songs of the people were sung in the same language. Though some prevalent Aramaic names were still retained, and Grecian numbers were adopted, the Hebrew language showed its strong vitality by enriching its vocabulary with new forms of words, and stamping the foreign elements it admitted with its own mark. The form that Hebrew assumed from this time forth is called the "New Hebrew." It was distinguished from the old Hebrew by greater clearness and facility, even though it lacked the depth and poetical fervor of the latter. At the same time Greek was understood by all the leaders and statesmen of the community. It was the language made use of in their intercourse with the Syrian kings, and was likewise spoken by their ambassadors to the Roman Senate. Along with Jewish names, Greek names appeared now more frequently than before. The character of the literature was also marked by the change which took place in the spirit of the people at this period of its revival. The sweet note of song was mute; not a trace of poetical creation has come down to us from this and the next epoch. The nation called no longer for the fiery inspiration which flows through the lyric songs of the Psalms, and it could not furnish matter for mournful elegies. What it required to promote religious sentiment and fervor was already provided by the poetry of the Temple, and in the rich stores of the Scriptures the people found knowledge and instruction. Sober history now took the place of triumphant hymns, and related facts and deeds for the use of posterity. History was the only branch of literature which was cultivated, and the recent past and the immediate present furnished the historian's pen with ample subjects. That Hebrew was used in historical writings is shown by the fragments which have come down to us. The so-called first book of the Maccabees, which was written in Hebrew, (but is now extant only in a Greek translation) is a proof of the inherent power of rejuvenescence belonging to the language.

The change in the current of life, caused by political events, showed itself even more in the sphere of religion than in the literature and habits of the people in general. The victory over the Syrians, the expulsion of the Hellenists, the subjection of the Idum?ans, the humiliation of the Samaritans, culminating in the destruction of the Temple of Gerizim, were so many triumphs of Judaism over its enemies, and were sanctioned as such by the champions of the religious party. In order to stamp them indelibly on the memory of future generations, their anniversaries were to be kept like the days of the consecration of the Temple. Religion was still the great underlying impulse in all movements, and showed its strength even in the abuse to which it gave rise when it forced Judaism upon the heathens. In the meantime the religious consciousness of the people shone with a clearer light in consequence of the wider field upon which it had entered; the wider view which had been gained into the various relations of life, the advance out of the narrow circle of tradition and inherited customs, produced schism and separation amongst the Jud?ans themselves. The strict religious party of Assid?ans withdrew from the scene of passing events, and, in order to avoid mixing in public life, they sought a secluded retreat where they could give themselves up to undisturbed meditation. In this solitude they formed themselves into a distinct order, with strange customs and new views, and received the name of Essenes. Their example, however, of giving up all active share in the public weal was not followed by all the strictly devout Jud?ans, the majority of whom, on the contrary, whilst firmly adhering to the precepts of their faith, considered it a religious duty to further the independence of their country. Thus there arose a division among the pious, and a national party separated itself from the Assid?ans or Essenes, which did not avoid public life, but, according to its strength and ability, took an active part in public affairs. The members of this numerous sect began at this time to bear the name of Pharisees (Perushim). But this sect, the very center, as it were, of the nation, having above all things at heart the preservation of Judaism in the exact form in which it had been handed down, insisted upon all political undertakings, all public transactions, every national act being tried by the standard of religion. To these demands, however, those who stood at the head of military or diplomatic affairs, and who saw how difficult it was always to deal with political matters according to the strict claims of their faith, would not or could not reconcile themselves. Thus a third party was formed-that of the Sadducees (Zadukim)-the members of which, without forsaking the religion, yet made the interests of the nation their chief care and object. Of these sects-the Assid?an-Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees-only the last two exerted a powerful influence upon the course of events. At what precise period opposition began to show itself among these several parties cannot be determined, as indeed the birth of new spiritual tendencies must ever remain shrouded from view. According to one account, the adverse parties first appeared at the time of Jonathan.

The Pharisees (Perushim) can only be called a party figuratively and by way of distinction from the other two, for the mass of the nation was inclined to Phariseeism, and it was only in the national leaders that its peculiarities became marked. The Pharisees received their name from the fact of their explaining the Scriptures in a peculiar manner, and of deriving new laws from this new interpretation. As expounders of the law the Pharisees formed the learned body of the nation. Their opinions were framed, their actions governed by one cardinal principle-the necessity of preserving Judaism. The individual and the State were to be ruled alike by the laws and customs of their fathers. Every deviation from this principle appeared to the Pharisees as treason to all that was most precious and holy. To their opponents, the Sadducees, who argued that, unless other measures were used for political purposes, weighty national interests would be often wrecked by religious scruples, the Pharisees replied that the fate of the State, like that of the individual, depended not upon man but upon God. It was not human strength, nor human wisdom, nor the warrior's prowess that could determine the weal or the woe of the Jud?an people, but Divine Providence alone. Everything happened according to the eternal decrees of the Divine will. Man was responsible only for his moral conduct and the individual path he trod. The results of all human endeavors lay outside the range of human calculation. From this, the Pharisees' view of life, the rival opinion of the Sadducees diverged; whilst the Essenes, on the contrary, exaggerated it. Another view of the Pharisees was probably directed against the following objection urged by the Sadducees: If the fate of the individual or of the State did not depend upon the actions of the one or the policy of the other, there would be an end to Divine justice; misfortune might then assail the righteous man, whilst the sun of happiness smiled upon the sinner. This reproach the Pharisees set aside by the doctrine, borrowed from another source, which taught that Divine justice would manifest itself not during life but after death. God will rouse the dead out of the sleep of the grave; He will reward the righteous according to their works, and punish the wicked for their evil deeds. "Those will rise up to everlasting life, and these to everlasting shame."

These views, however, precisely because they concerned only the inner convictions of men, did not mark the opposition between the parties so clearly as did the third dogma of the Pharisees, establishing the importance and all-embracing influence of religious injunctions. In a nation whose breath of life was religion, many customs whose origin was lost in the dim twilight of the past had taken their place by the side of the written Law. If these customs were not found in the books of the Law they were ascribed to the great teachers (the Sopherim and the great assembly-Keneseth hagedolah), which, at the time of the return of the Captivity, had given form and new vigor to the religious sentiment, and at the head of which stands the illustrious expounder of Scripture, Ezra. Such religious customs were called the legacies of the teachers of the Law (Dibre Sopherim). All these unwritten customs, which lived in the heart of the nation and, as it were, grew with its growth, gained an extraordinary degree of importance from the dangers that Judaism had encountered and the victories that it had achieved. The people had risked, in behalf of these very customs, their property and their life; and the martyrdom that many of the faithful had undergone, and the antagonism they felt towards the renegade and frivolous Hellenists, had much increased the reverence and attachment with which these customs were regarded. The Temple, especially, which had been so ruthlessly defiled and afterwards been reconsecrated in so marvelous a manner, had become doubly precious to the whole people, who were determined to keep it free from the faintest breath of desecration. The Levitical rules of purity, so far as they related to the Temple, were therefore observed with peculiar care and rigorous strictness.

But this devotion to outward forms and ceremonies by no means excluded the religion of the heart. The Pharisees were acknowledged to be moral, chaste, temperate and benevolent. In their administration of justice they allowed mercy to prevail, and judged the accused not from the point of view of moral depravity but from that of human weakness. The following maxim was given by Joshua, the son of Perachia, one of the leaders of the sect, who, with his companion, Matthai of Arbela, lived in the time of Hyrcanus: "Take a teacher, win a friend, and judge every man from the presumption of innocence." His high moral temperament is indicated by this maxim. Their rigid adherence to the Law, and their lenient mildness and indulgence in other matters, gained for the Pharisees the deep veneration of the whole people. Of this sect were the pious priests, the teachers of the Law, and, above all, the magistrates, civil and religious, who at that time often combined both offices in one. The whole inner direction of the State and the Temple was in their hands. But the Pharisees owed their influence chiefly to their knowledge of the Law and to the application they made of it to the affairs of daily life, and they alone were called the interpreters and teachers of the Law. The degrading charge of hypocrisy, which was applied to them by their enemies in later times, they by no means merited, and, indeed, it is altogether preposterous to stigmatize a whole class of men as dissemblers. They were rather, in their origin, the noblest guardians and representatives of Judaism and strict morality. Even their rivals, the Sadducees, could not but bear witness to the fact that "they denied themselves in this world, but would hardly receive a reward in a future world."

This party of the Sadducees, so sharply opposed to the Pharisees, pursued a national-political policy. It was composed of the Jud?an aristocracy, the brave soldiers, the generals and the statesmen who had acquired wealth and authority at home, or who had returned from foreign embassies, all having gained, from closer intercourse with the outer world and other lands, freer thought and more worldly views. They formed the kernel of the Hasmon?an following, which in peace or war faithfully served their leaders. This sect doubtless included also some Hellenists, who, shrinking from the desertion of their faith, had returned to Judaism. The Sadducees probably derived their name from one of their leaders, Zadok. The national interests of the Jud?an community were placed by the Sadducees above the Law. Burning patriotism was their ruling sentiment, and piety occupied but the second place in their hearts. As experienced men of the world, they felt that the independence of the State could not be upheld by the strictest observance of the laws of religion alone, nor by mere reliance upon Divine protection. They proceeded from this fundamental principle: man must exert his bodily strength and his spiritual powers; he must not allow himself to be kept back by religious scruples from forming political alliances, or from taking part in wars, although by so doing he must inevitably infringe some of the injunctions of religion. According to the Sadduc?an views, it was for that purpose that God bestowed free will upon man so that he himself should work out his own well-being; he is master of his fate, and human concerns are not at all swayed by Divine interposition. Reward and punishment are the natural consequences of our actions, and are therefore quite independent of resurrection. Without exactly denying the immortality of the soul, the Sadducees completely repudiated the idea of judgment after death. Oppressed by the abundance of religious ordinances, they would not admit their general applicability nor the obligation of keeping them. Pressed to give some standard by which the really important decrees might be recognized, they laid down the following rule: that only the ordinances which appeared clearly expressed in the Pentateuch were binding. Those which rested upon oral tradition, or had sprung up at various times, had a subordinate value and could not claim to be inviolable. Still they could not help occasionally recognizing the value of traditional interpretations.

From a number of individual instances in which the Sadducees separated themselves from their rivals, one can mark the extent of their opposition to the latter. This appeared in their judiciary and penal laws and in the ritual they adopted, their worship in the Temple being in particular a subject of angry controversy. The Sadducees thought that the punishment ordered by the Pentateuch for the infliction of any bodily injury-"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"-should be literally interpreted and followed out, and obtained in consequence the reputation of being cruel administrators of justice; whilst the Pharisees, appealing to traditional interpretations of the Scriptures, allowed mercy to preponderate, and only required a pecuniary compensation from the offender. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were more lenient in their judgment of those false witnesses whose evidence might have occasioned a judicial murder, as they only inflicted punishment if the execution of the defendant had actually taken place. There were many points relating to the ritual which were warmly disputed by the two parties; for instance, the date of the Feast of Weeks, which, according to the Sadducees, should always fall upon a Sunday, fifty days from the Sabbath after the Passover; so also the pouring of water on the altar and the processions round it with willow branches during the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles, which the Pharisees advocated and the Sadducees rejected. The latter objected to the providing of the national offerings out of the treasury of the Temple, and insisted that the required sacrifices should be left to the care and zeal of individuals. The manner in which the frankincense should be kindled on the Day of Atonement, whether before or after the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies, was also the cause of bitter strife. On these and other points of dispute the Sadducees invariably followed the exact letter of the Law, which resulted in their occasionally enforcing stricter rules than the Pharisees, who have been so much abused for their rigid austerity. To one Levitical injunction, however, they paid but little attention-that of carefully avoiding the touch of any person or thing considered unclean-and when their rivals purified the vessels of the Temple after they had been subject to any contact of the sort, they ridiculed them, saying, "It wants but little, and the Pharisees will try and cleanse the sun."

In spite of the relief which these less stringent views gave the people, the Sadducees were not popular; the feeling of the time was against laxity and in favor of strict religious observance. Besides, the Sadducees repelled their countrymen by their proud, haughty demeanor and their severe judicial sentences. They never gained the heart of the public, and it was only by force and authority that they were able to make their principles prevail. At that period the religious sentiment was so active that it gave birth to a religious order which far surpassed even the Pharisees in strictness and painful scrupulousness, and which became the basis of a movement that, mixing with new elements, produced a revolution in the history of the world. This order, which, from a small and apparently insignificant origin, grew into a mighty power, destined to exert an irresistible influence, was that of the Essenes.

The origin of this remarkable Essene order, which called forth the admiration even of the Greeks and the Romans, can be dated from the period of great religious enthusiasm excited by the tyranny and persecutions of the Syrians. The Essenes had never formed a political party, but, on the contrary, avoided the glare and tumult of public life. They did not place themselves in harsh antagonism to the Pharisees, but rather assumed the position of a higher grade of Pharisaism, to which party they originally belonged. They sprang without doubt from the Assid?ans, whom they resembled in their strict observance of the Sabbath. In their eyes the mere act of moving a vessel from one place to another would count as a desecration of that holy day. Even the calls of nature were not attended to on that day. They lived in all respects like the Nazarites, whose ideal it was to attain the highest sanctity of priestly consecration. It was their constant endeavor, not only to observe all the outward Levitical laws, but to attain through them to inward sanctity and consecration, to deaden their passions and to lead a holy life. The Levitical laws of cleanliness had, through custom and tradition, developed to such a pitch that their austere observers must have been in constant danger of being defiled by contact with persons and objects; and bathing and sacrifices were prescribed, through which they might recover a state of purity. A life-long Nazarite, or, what is the same thing, an Essene, was consequently obliged to avoid any intercourse with those who were less strict than himself, lest he should be contaminated by their proximity. Such considerations compelled him to frequent the society of, and to unite himself with, those only who shared his views. To keep their purity unspotted, the Essenes were thus induced to form themselves into a separate order, the first rule of which commanded implicit obedience to the laws of scrupulous cleanliness. It was only those whose views coincided with their own who could be allowed to cook food for them, and from such likewise had to be procured their clothes, tools, implements of trade and other things, in order to ensure that, in their manufacture, the laws of cleanliness had been duly carried out. They were thus completely set apart by themselves; and, in order to keep clear of any less strictly rigid observers, they thought it advisable to have their meals in common. Thus the Passover supper, which could be partaken of only in a circle of fellow-worshipers, must have been their ideal repast. It was almost impossible for Essenes to mix with women, as by the slightest contact with them they risked coming under the Levitical condemnation of uncleanliness, and, led on from one deduction to another, they began to avoid, if not to despise, the married state. How was it possible for the Essenes to maintain their excessive rigidity, especially in those warlike times? Not only the pagan enemy, but even the Jud?an warriors returning from the battle-field, defiled by the touch of a corpse, might bring all their precautions to naught. These fears may have induced the Essenes to seek seclusion in some retired place, where they could remain unvexed by the sounds of war and undisturbed in their mode of life by any of its necessary incidents. They chose for their residence the desert to the west of the Dead Sea, and settled in the oasis of Engadi. The fruit of palm trees, which abound in this district, partly furnished their simple fare. All the Assid?ans did not join in the asceticism of the Essenes, nor did all the Essenes betake themselves to the desert. Some continued to live in their own family circles and did not renounce marriage; but, in consequence of their rigid scruples, they were met by many difficulties.

Thus it was that celibacy and repasts held in common came to be considered as the general and most important characteristics of the Essenes. This mode of living led the Essenes to divest themselves of all their private possessions. To a member of their sect private property could be of no use; each one placed his fortune in the common treasury, out of which the wants of the various members of the order were supplied. Hence the proverb, "A Chassid says, 'Mine and thine belong to thee'" (not to me). There were consequently neither rich nor poor among them, and this lack of all concern about material matters naturally led them to abstract their attention from everything mundane and to concentrate it upon religious matters. They thus avoided more and more all that pertained merely to the world, and followed with the enthusiasm of recluses a visionary, ideal tendency. The Essenes were distinguished also by other peculiarities. They were always clothed in white linen. Each of them carried a small shovel, with which, like the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert, they would cover their excrements with earth and thus hide impurity from sight. They also wore a sort of apron or handkerchief (knaphaim), with which to dry themselves after their frequent ablutions. In order to remove even unperceived impurities, they, like the priests before officiating in the Temple, bathed every morning in fresh spring water; and from these daily baths they were called "Morning Baptists" (Toble Shacharith). The name Essene appears likewise to have been derived from this peculiarity, as in the Chaldaic language it means a bather (Aschai, pronounced Assai).

These outward forms were, however, only the steps that were to lead to inward purity and righteousness-the symbols of their close communion with God; to which, according to the opinion of antiquity, man could only attain by fleeing from the world, and devoting himself to an ascetic mode of life. The utmost simplicity in food and dress, abstinence, and the practice of morality and self-sacrifice were certainly virtues which adorned the Essenes, but were not peculiar to their sect, as they belonged equally to the Pharisees. The distinguishing traits of the Essenes, however, were their frequent prayers, their aversion to taking an oath, and their devoted pursuit of a kind of mystic doctrine. Before saying their prayers no profane word was permitted, and at the first dawn of day, after the Shema had been read, they assembled for quiet meditation, preparatory to what was considered their real prayer, which was always to be a spontaneous effusion of the heart. To the Essenes their repasts were a kind of divine service, the table on which their food was spread, an altar, and the fare which they partook of, a holy sacrifice, which they ate in deep and pious meditation. No language of a worldly nature passed their lips during their meals, and these were generally partaken of in complete silence. This strange silence doubtless produced a great impression upon those who did not belong to the order; the more so, because the real nature of this exclusive sect was not known to its contemporaries, and everything concerning it assumed a mysterious and awful aspect.

It was not, perhaps, at first the object of the Essenes to become absorbed in mystic lore; but their asceticism, their intensely quiet life, which gave them so much opportunity for meditation, their freedom from family cares, and, lastly, their religious visionariness, made them seek for other truths in Judaism than appear to less subtle minds. The name of God was to them a subject of deep contemplation, justified in some degree by the dread which existed among the Jud?ans of pronouncing the name of the Almighty, formed of the four letters J h w h. If the name of God be thus holy, surely something mysterious must belong to the letters themselves. Thus reasoned the Essenes, whose seclusion from the world gave them abundant leisure to ponder over this sacred enigma. So holy was the name of God in their estimation that they refused to take any oath which called for its use, and their statements were attested by a simple "yes" or "no." In close connection with the mystery attaching to the name of God was that which they applied to the names of angels. The Essenes faithfully handed down in their theosophic system the names, as well as the importance and position of the various angels. When they endeavored to explain the meaning of Holy Writ by their fantastic and newly discovered ideas, what fresh phases must have presented themselves to their distorted vision! Every word, every expression must have revealed a hitherto unsuspected meaning; the most difficult questions as to the being of God, and His relations to the heavenly powers and the lower creatures, were explained. Through their indifference to all that concerned the State, as well as the affairs of daily life, they gradually led Judaism (dependent as it was on the establishment of national prosperity) into the darkness and exaggerations of Mysticism. Their deep and mystic reverence for the Prophet and Lawgiver Moses carried them to the greatest excesses. His memory and name were endeared to all the Jud?ans within and beyond Palestine. They took oaths in the name of Moses, and bestowed that name on no other man. But the Essenes carried their devotion to such an extreme that he who spoke against the name of Moses was treated as one who blasphemed God.

The final aim of the Essenes was, without doubt, the attainment to prophetic ecstasy so that they might become worthy of the Divine Spirit (Ruach Kodesh). The Essenes believed that through an ascetic life they might re-awaken the long-silent echo of the Heavenly voice, and this end gained, prophecy would be renewed, men and youths would again behold Divine visions, once more see the uplifting of the veil which hides the future, and the great Messianic kingdom would be revealed. The kingdom of Heaven (Malchuth Shamaim) would commence, and all the pain and trouble of the times would, at one stroke, be at an end.

The Essenes were considered not only holy men (on account of their peculiar mode of life and visionary views), but they were also admired as workers of miracles. People hung upon their words and hoped for the removal of impending evils through their means. Some of the Essenes bore the reputation of being able to reveal the future and interpret dreams; they were reverenced yet more by the ignorant, on account of their miraculous cures of so-called "possessed" persons. The intercourse of the Jud?ans with the Persians had brought with it, together with a belief in the existence of angels, a superstitious belief in malicious demons (Shedim, Mazikin). Imbeciles were thought to be possessed by evil demons, who could only be exorcised by a magic formula; and all extraordinary illnesses were attributed to such demons, for which the advice of the wonder-worker, and not that of the doctor, was sought. The Essenes occupied themselves with cures, exorcisms, etc., and sought their remedies in a book (Sefer Refuoth) which was attributed to King Solomon, whom the nation considered as the master of evil spirits. Their curative remedies consisted partly in softly-spoken incantations and verses (Lechis'ha), and partly in the use of certain roots and stones supposed to possess magic power. Thus the Essenes united the highest and the lowest aims,-the endeavor to lead a pious life and the most vulgar superstitions. Their exaggerated asceticism and fear of contact with others of a different mode of life caused a morbidly unhealthy development among them.

The more rationally-minded Pharisees paid them but little attention; they made sport of the "foolish Chassid." Although sprung from a common root, the more the Pharisees and Essenes developed, the more widely they diverged. The one party saw in marriage a holy institution appointed for the good of mankind, and the other an obstacle to a thoroughly religious life. The Pharisees recognized man's free will in thought and action, and consequently deemed him responsible for his moral conduct. The Essenes, on the contrary, confined to the narrow circle of their self-same, daily-repeated duties, came to believe in a sort of divine fatalism, which not only governed the destiny of mankind but also ruled the acts of each individual. The Essenes avoided the Temple, the worship practised there being framed according to the doctrines of the Pharisees and unable to satisfy their ideals. They sent their offerings to the Temple, and thus fulfilled the duty of sacrificing without being themselves present at the ceremony. With them, patriotism became more and more subordinate to the devotion they felt towards their own order, and thus by degrees they loosed themselves from the strong bands of nationality. There lay concealed in Essenism an element antagonistic to existing Judaism, unsuspected by friends or foes.

The Essenes had no influence whatever upon political events. Their number was small, and even at the time of their greatest prosperity the order consisted only of about four thousand members. Consequent upon the life of celibacy which they adopted, the losses made by death in their ranks could not naturally be replaced. To avoid dwindling away entirely, they had recourse to the expedient of enrolling novices and making proselytes. The new member was admitted with great solemnity, and presented with the white garment, the apron, and the shovel, the symbols of Essenism. The novice was not allowed, however, to enter immediately into the community, but was subjected by degrees to an ever stricter observance of the laws of abstinence and purity. There were three probationary degrees to be passed through before a new member was received into complete brotherhood. At his admission the novice swore to follow the mode of life of the Essenes, to keep conscientiously and to deliver faithfully the secret teachings of their order. He who was found to be unworthy was expelled.

The unfriendly relationship between the Pharisees and Sadducees did not exist in the time of Hyrcanus. He made use of both parties according to their capabilities-the Sadducees as soldiers or diplomatists, and the Pharisees as teachers of the Law, judges, and functionaries in civil affairs. The one honored Hyrcanus as the head of the State, the other as the pious high priest. In fact, Hyrcanus personally favored the Pharisees, but as prince he could not quarrel with the Sadducees, among whom he found his soldiers, his generals and his counselors. Their leader Jonathan was his devoted friend. Until old age crept on him, Hyrcanus managed to solve the difficult problem of keeping in a state of amity two parties that were always on the verge of quarreling. He understood how to prevent either party from gaining the upper hand and persecuting its rival. But (as too often happens in such difficult situations) a word, a breath can upset the best-arranged plans, bringing to naught the most skilful calculations, and the slowly, carefully built edifice falls and crumbles in a day. A heedless word of this kind turned the zealous follower of Pharisaism into its bitter opponent. In the last years of his life Hyrcanus went quite over to the Sadducees.

The cause of this change, which brought such unspeakable misery to the Jud?an nation, was trivial in comparison with its results; but the antagonism of the two parties, which could only with the utmost difficulty be kept from breaking out into open discord, gave it a terrible and far-reaching importance. Hyrcanus had just returned from a glorious victory over one of the many nations in the northeast of Per?a (Kochalit?). Rejoicing in the happy result of his arms and in the flourishing state of his country, he ordered a feast to be held, to which he invited without distinction the leaders of the Sadducees and Pharisees. Around golden dishes laden with food were placed various plants that grew in the desert, to remind the guests of the hardships they had endured under the Syrian yoke, when the nobles of the land were obliged to hide themselves in the wilderness. Whilst the guests were feasting, Hyrcanus asked if the Pharisees could reproach him for any transgression of the Law? If so, he desired to be told in what he had failed. Was this apparent humility only a cunningly-devised plan to discover the real disposition of the Pharisees towards him? Had the Sadducees inspired him with suspicion against the Pharisees, and advised him to find some way of proving the sincerity of their attachment? In reply to the challenge thus thrown out, a certain Eleazer ben Poira arose and bluntly answered, "Hyrcanus should content himself with the crown of royalty, and should place on a worthier head the high priest's diadem. During an attack on Modin by the Syrians his mother, before his birth, was taken prisoner, and it is not fitting for the son of a prisoner to be a priest-much less the High Priest!" Although inwardly wounded by so outspoken an insult to his pride, Hyrcanus had sufficient self-possession to appear to agree with the bold speaker and ordered the matter to be examined. It was, however, proved to be an empty report; in fact, without the slightest foundation.

Hyrcanus's anger was doubly roused against the Pharisees through the care taken by the Sadducees and his devoted friend Jonathan to persuade him that the former had invented the story purposely to lower him in the eyes of the people. Anxious to find out if the aspersion cast on his fitness for the high-priesthood was the act of the whole party or only the slander of an individual, he demanded that their leading men should punish the calumniator, and expected that the chastisement inflicted would be in proportion to his own exalted rank. But the Pharisees knew of no special penalty for the slanderer of royalty, and their judges only awarded him the lawful punishment of thirty-nine lashes. Jonathan, the leader of the Sadducees, failed not to use this circumstance as a means to rake up the fire in Hyrcanus's breast. He led him to see in this mild judgment of the court a deep-rooted aversion entertained by the Pharisees against him, thus estranging him completely from his former friends, and binding him heart and soul to the Sadducees. There is probably some exaggeration in the account of Hyrcanus's persecution of the adherents of the Pharisees, and of his setting aside all the decrees of the latter. There is, however, more truth in another report, from which we learn that Hyrcanus had deposed the Pharisees from the various high posts they had filled. The offices belonging to the Temple, to the courts of law and to the high council were given to the followers of the Sadducees. But this stroke of policy produced the saddest results. Naturally enough it awakened in the hearts of the Pharisees, and of the people who sided with them, a deep hatred against the house of the Hasmon?ans, which bore civil war in its train and hastened the nation's decline. One act had been sufficient to cast a cloud over the brilliant days of the Hasmon?ans.

Hyrcanus lived but a short time after these events. He died in the thirty-first year of his reign, the sixtieth year of his age (106), leaving five sons, Aristobulus, Antigonus, Alexander, Absalom, and one other, whose name has not come down to us. Hyrcanus bore some resemblance to his prototype Solomon, inasmuch as that, after the death of both, dissensions broke out and the country became a prey to constant strife and discord.

Character of Aristobulus?-?Antigonus?-?Mythical Account of his Death?-?Alexander Jann?us: his Character and Enterprises?-?His Support of the Pharisees?-?Simon ben Shetach?-?Alexander's Breach with the Pharisees, and its Consequences?-?His last Wars and Death?-?Salome Alexandra's Relations to the Opposing Parties?-?The Synhedrion?-?Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetach?-?Institutions against the Sadducees?-?Party Hatred?-?Diogenes?-?Persecution of the Sadducees?-?Death of Alexandra.

106–69 B. C. E.

John Hyrcanus had proclaimed his wife queen, and his eldest son, Judah, high priest. The latter is better known by his Greek name Aristobulus, for he, like his brothers and successors, bore a Greek as well as a Hebrew name. But it was soon evident that the Greek custom of placing a female ruler at the head of the State was not looked upon with favor in Jud?a. Thus Aristobulus was able to remove his mother from her official position without creating any disturbance, and he then united in his own person the two dignities of ruler and high priest. It is said that he was the first of the Hasmon?ans to assume the royal title; but this title did not add in any way to his power or his importance. His coins, indeed, which have since been discovered, bear only the following inscription, "The High Priest Judah, and the Commonwealth of the Jud?ans," and they are engraved with the same emblem as those of his father, viz., a cornucopia, although this symbol of plenty was hardly a truthful characteristic of the times.

The seed of discord sown by Hyrcanus grew and spread alarmingly in the reigns of his descendants. In vain did the successive rulers attempt to raise the importance of the royal dignity, in vain did they surround themselves with a body-guard of trusty hirelings and perform the most brilliant feats of valor, the breach between them and their subjects became irreparable, and no remedy proved effectual. The royal house and the people were no longer at one; political life was separated from religious life, and the two were pursuing opposite paths.

The king, Aristobulus, not only supplanted his mother upon the throne, but he also imprisoned her with three of his brothers. His brother Antigonus alone, of like temperament to himself and his companion-in-arms, whom he tenderly loved, was permitted to take part in the government. In spite of the meager and unsatisfactory accounts of his short reign, we may gather from them that he followed the example of his father's last years, in remaining closely connected with the Sadducees, and in keeping the Pharisees from all power and influence. Aristobulus had but few friends in his own family, and he does not appear to have been beloved by his subjects. The fact of his having had a decided preference for Hellenism accounts for his surname, which was honored by the Greeks and hated by the Jud?ans-"Friend of the Hellenes." This one characteristic gave such offense to the people that they were ready to ascribe to him the authorship of any evil deed that might occur in the kingdom. Whilst the Greeks called him fair-minded and modest, the Jud?ans accused him of heartlessness and cruelty. His mother expired during her imprisonment, possibly of old age; evil report whispered that her own son was guilty of having allowed her to die of starvation. His favorite brother, Antigonus, was foully murdered (probably through the intrigues of the party hostile to the Hasmon?ans); sharp-tongued calumny affirmed that the king, jealous of him, was the author of the foul deed, and tradition has woven a web of tragic incidents round the sad fate of Antigonus. But of this later.

Aristobulus had inherited not only his father's military ability, but also his plans of extending Jud?a in a northeasterly direction. The Itur?ans and the Trachonites, who often left their mild, pastoral pursuits for the rougher trade of war, occupied the district surrounding the gigantic Mount Hermon, and eastwards as far as the lovely plain of Damascus. Against these half-barbaric tribes Aristobulus undertook a campaign, probably continuing what his father had commenced. His brother Antigonus, in whose company he had won his first laurels when fighting against the Samaritans and the Syrians, was once more his companion-in-arms. The fortunes of war were favorable to Aristobulus, as they had been to his father; he acquired new territory for Jud?a, and, like his father, forced the Jud?an religion upon the conquered people. Continued conquests in the same direction would have put the caravan roads leading from the land of the Euphrates to Egypt into the hands of the Jud?ans; which possession, combined with the warlike courage of the inhabitants and the defensive condition of the fortresses, might have permitted Jud?a to attain an important position among the nations. But, as though it had been decreed by Providence that Jud?a should not gain influence in such a manner, Aristobulus was forced by severe illness to abandon his conquests and to return to Jerusalem. Antigonus, it is true, carried on the war successfully for some little time; but after his return to the capital, for the celebration of the festivals in the approaching month of Tishri, neither he nor his royal brother was fated ever again to tread the arena of war. Antigonus fell, as was mentioned previously, by the hand of an assassin, and Aristobulus died of a malignant disease, after a reign of one year (106–105).

The deaths of the two brothers following in close succession gave evil-tongued calumny the opportunity of inventing the following fearful tragedy: It was said that the opponents of Antigonus seized the occasion of his triumphal return to excite the suffering king's jealousy. Aristobulus, while still reposing confidence in his brother, sent for Antigonus, and intimated that he should appear unarmed. For greater protection he had his body-guard stationed in one of the passages, and gave orders that Antigonus was to be dispatched forthwith if he should enter armed. The queen, who hated Antigonus, made use of this order for the destruction of her brother-in-law, for she persuaded him to go fully equipped to the king's chamber, and in one of the dark passages of the tower of Straton the foul deed was executed. When the king heard that his commands had been carried out he was violently affected, and his grief caused a hemorrhage. His servant, in carrying away a vessel filled with the blood that he had lost, slipped upon the floor of the antechamber, still wet with the blood of the assassinated man, and, dropping the vessel, caused the blood of the two brothers to mingle. This accident was said to have had so overpowering an effect upon the king's mind that he instantly declared himself to be his brother's murderer, and the agony of remorse was the final cause of his death. Tradition adds that an Essene seer of the name of Judah had not only predicted the violent death of Antigonus, but also that it would take place in the tower of Straton.

The commencement of the reign of Aristobulus's successor is involved in legend. From this we gather that Alexander, whose Jud?an name Janna? (Jann?us) is the abbreviation of Jonathan, had not only been imprisoned by his brother, but had been so hated by his father that he had been banished to Galilee. This was the result of a dream, in which it had been revealed to John Hyrcanus that his third son would one day be king of Jud?a. The widow of Aristobulus is said to have released him from prison, and to have given him her hand with the crown. But in that case Alexander would have married a widow, which it was unlawful for him, as high priest, to do. It is more probable that Alexander ascended the throne, being the nearest heir to it, without the aid of the widow of Aristobulus. Nor is there any foundation for the story that Alexander commenced his reign by the murder of a brother with whom he had actually shared the sufferings of his captivity. Alexander appears to have begun by studying the people's wishes, for the Pharisees were once more allowed to appear at court. Simon ben Shetach, the brother of his wife, Queen Salome, the champion of the Pharisees, was constantly in the king's presence.

Alexander Jann?us, who came to the throne at the age of twenty-three, was as warlike as the family from which he sprung, but he was wanting in the generalship and the judgment of his ancestors. He rushed madly into military undertakings, thus weakening the power of the people, and bringing the State more than once to the verge of destruction. The seven and twenty years of his reign were passed in foreign and civil wars, and were not calculated to increase the material prosperity of the nation. His good luck, however, was greater than his ability, for it enabled him to extricate himself from many a critical position into which he had brought himself, and also, upon the whole, to enlarge the territory of Jud?a. Like his father, he employed mercenaries for his wars, whom he hired from Pisidia and Cilicia. He did not dare enroll Syrian troops, the hatred that existed between Jud?ans and Syrians being too deeply ingrained to permit the harmonious working of the two to be counted upon.

Alexander's attention was principally directed to the seaports which had managed to free themselves from Syrian rule, owing to the rivalry that existed between the two half-brothers, Antiochus Grypus and Cyzicenus. He was particularly anxious to possess himself of the thickly-populated and important seaport town of Ptolema?s, colonized by Jud?ans. Whilst his troops overran the district of Gaza, then under the dominion of Zo?lus, a captain of mercenaries, he pressed the seaport town himself with a persistent siege. The inhabitants of Ptolema?s turned for help to the Egyptian prince Ptolemy Lathurus, who, at open warfare with his mother, had seized upon Cyprus. Lathurus, glad to have found an opportunity of acquiring greater power, and of being able at the same time to approach the caravan roads of Egypt, hastened to send thirty thousand men to the Jud?an coast. He chose a Sabbath day for victoriously driving the Jud?an army, consisting of at least fifty thousand men, from Asochis, near Sepphoris, back to the Jordan. More than thirty thousand of Alexander's troops remained on the field of battle, many were taken prisoners, whilst the others fled. Lathurus, with part of his army, marched through Jud?a, slaughtering the inhabitants, without sparing women or children. He wished not only to revenge himself upon Alexander, but also upon the Jud?ans, for had they not been his enemies in Egypt? Accho likewise surrendered, and Gaza voluntarily opened its gates to him.

This crushing defeat would doubtless have brought Jud?a into the most revolting slavery, had not Cleopatra attempted to snatch the fruit of her son's triumphs from him before he could turn them against herself. She sent a mighty army against Lathurus, under the command of two Jud?an generals, Helkias and Ananias, the two sons of Onias, to whom she was indebted for the integrity of her crown. Helkias died during the campaign, and his brother took his place in the council and in the field. The position of trust occupied by Ananias was of distinct advantage to his compatriots in Jud?a. Cleopatra had been urged not to lose the favorable opportunity, when Jud?a was unable to forego her help, of invading that country and of dethroning Alexander. But Ananias was indignant at this advice. He not only pointed out the disgrace of such faithlessness, but he made the queen understand the evil consequences that would follow upon such a step. Many Egyptian Jud?ans, who were the upholders of her throne against the threatened attacks of her son, would make common cause with her enemies, were she to strike a blow at the independence of their country. His words even contained the menace that he would, in such case, not only withhold his political knowledge and his generalship from her interests, but that he might possibly devote them to the cause of her opponents. This language had its desired effect upon the queen; she rejected the cunning advice of the enemies of the Jews, and made an offensive and defensive league with Alexander at Bethzur (98). Lathurus was obliged to leave Jud?a and to retreat with his army to Cyprus. All the cities that had resisted the arms of the Jud?an king were now visited by his wrath.

But he was, above all things, determined upon retaking Gaza. This object was accomplished only after a year of desperate fighting, and was finally brought about by an act of treachery. All the cruelty inherent in Alexander was poured out upon the besieged inhabitants of Gaza. He executed some of the most distinguished amongst them, and the terror he inspired was so great that many of the men killed their own wives and children to prevent them from falling into Jud?an slavery (96).

The nine years of Alexander's reign had been too prolific in dangerous and perplexing situations to allow of his disturbing the internal harmony of his country. He appears to have been strictly neutral in the strife that was raging between the Pharisees and Sadducees. His wife Salome may have exercised her influence in urging him to maintain this neutral position, as she was a warm partisan of the once-hated Pharisees.

Alexander appears to have made Simon ben Shetach the mediator between the two parties; the Pharisees being still somewhat in the background, and the Sadducees holding posts of trust. Ever since John Hyrcanus's secession from Pharisaism, the Great Council had been composed of Sadduc?an members, and as long as one party was thus openly preferred to the other, peace and reconciliation seemed impossible. The king may, therefore, have been inspired by the wish to bring about some kind of equality between the two parties by dividing offices and dignities between them. But the Pharisees positively refused to act conjointly with their opponents and offered the most active resistance. Simon ben Shetach alone allowed himself to be chosen member of the Council, secretly determining to purge it by degrees of its Sadduc?an element.

Alexander's impartial conduct continued only so long as the critical position drew his attention away from home affairs. It changed visibly when he returned from his campaign, the conqueror of cities and provinces deeming himself the despotic master of his people. Either the newly acquired influence of the Pharisees threatened to be an obstacle in his path, or he may have wished to reward and attract the Sadducees upon whom he might rely for carrying on his campaigns, or he may have been influenced by his favorite, the Sadducee Diogenes; at all events, Alexander appeared as the inveterate opponent of Pharisaic teaching, and made his views public in a most insulting manner. Whilst officiating as high priest, during the Feast of Tabernacles, it was his duty, in accordance with an ancient custom, to pour the contents of a ewer of water upon the altar as an emblem of fruitfulness. But in order to show his contempt for a ceremony considered by the Pharisees as a religious one, Alexander poured the water at his feet. Nothing more was required to ignite the wrath of the congregation assembled in the outer court of the Temple. With reckless indignation they threw the branches and the fruit, which they carried in their hands in honor of the festival, at the heretical king, denouncing him as an unworthy high priest. Alexander would certainly have paid for this disgraceful action with his life had he not called in the help of the Pisidian and Cilician mercenaries, who had been ordered to be in waiting, and who fell upon the congregation, slaughtering 6000 within the precincts of the Temple (95). In order to avoid a repetition of such scenes, Alexander thenceforth prevented the worshipers from entering the court of sacrifices, by building up a partition wall. But these events gave rise to an implacable hatred between the king and the Pharisees. Thus, after three generations, the descendants of the great Hasmon?ans had so far weakened the edifice raised at the expense of their ancestors' lives, that it appears marvelous how it could have continued to resist such repeated attacks. The bitter rivalry of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel in the days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam was repeated in the history of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

But Alexander did not see the breach that his hand had childishly and ruthlessly made; absorbed in magnificent schemes of future conquest he ignored the fact that if the harmonious intercourse between the king and his subjects, the very life of the State, were to cease, greater possessions would but weaken and not strengthen the kingdom. He had set his heart upon invading the trans-Jordanic land, still called Moabitis, and the southeastern provinces of the sea of Tiberias, called Galaditis or Gaulonitis. But his progress in this campaign was checked by the Nabath?an king Obeda, who lured him into a pathless country broken up by ravines, where Alexander's army found its destruction, and where the king himself escaped only with his life to Jerusalem (about 94). There the wrath of the Pharisees awaited him. They had excited the people to revolt, and six years of bloody uprisings against him were the consequence (94–89). Alexander succeeded in putting down one revolt after another by the aid of his mercenaries, but the horrible butcheries that took place on these occasions were a perpetual incentive to fresh uprisings. Alexander, worn out at length by these sanguinary proceedings, offered to make peace with the Pharisees. It was now, however, their turn to reject the proffered hand of peace, and to be guilty of an act of treachery towards their country which must remain as an indelible stain upon their party. Upon Alexander's question as to what conditions of peace they required, the Pharisaic leaders answered that the first condition was the death of the king. They had, in fact, secretly offered their aid to the Syrian monarch Euc?rus to humble Alexander. Summoned by their promises, Euc?rus advanced upon Jud?a with 40,000 infantry and 3000 cavalry. Upon the news of this impending danger, Alexander marched out at the head of 20,000 infantry and 1000 cavalry. In the terrible encounter that ensued at Shechem, Jud?an fought against Jud?an, Greek against Greek, for each army remained true to its leader and could not be bribed into desertion. The battle, disastrous for both sides, was finally gained by Euc?rus, and Alexander was driven, through the loss of his mercenaries, to wander among the mountain-passes of Ephraim. There, his solitary position moved his people to pity, and six thousand of his Pharisaic opponents left the Syrian camp and went over to their king, who was now able to force Euc?rus's retreat from Jud?a.

But the more relentless amongst the Pharisees still held out against Alexander, and after an unsuccessful battle in the open field, threw themselves for safety into the fortress of Bethome, which, however, they were obliged to surrender. Urged by his Sadduc?an favorite Diogenes, and impelled by his own thirst for revenge, the king had eight hundred Pharisees crucified in one day. Tradition even relates that the wives and children of the victims were butchered before their eyes, and that Alexander, surrounded by his minions, feasted in the presence of this scene of carnage. But this exaggeration of cruelty was not required to brand him with the name of "Thracian"; the crucifixion of eight hundred men was enough to stigmatize him as a heartless butcher, and this action alone was to bring forth bitter fruits for the Sadducees who had witnessed it with malicious joy. During the civil wars that had lasted for six years, fifty thousand men of both parties had been sacrificed, but the Pharisees had suffered most. The remaining Pharisees trembled for their lives, and the night after the crucifixion of the eight hundred, eight thousand fled from Jud?a, part of them to Syria and part to Egypt.

The weakness of Alexander's position may readily be gauged by the fact of his powerlessness to prevent Jud?a from being made the seat of war by the kings of Nabath?a and Syria. Yet his good fortune did not forsake him, for a sudden change in the affairs of Syria, resulting in the overthrow of its king, Aretas, worked to Alexander's advantage. Thereby he was enabled to engage in the siege of some important towns, colonized by Greeks and subject to Aretas: Diospolis, Pella and Gerasa. Marching north, he invaded the lower Gaulonitis, with its capital, Gamala, the upper province, with the town of Sogane, and the city of Seleucia. He forced the inhabitants of these towns to accept Judaism and the sign of the covenant. The city of Pella, making a show of resistance, was destroyed. He also recovered the cities lying east of the Red Sea, which had been taken from him by Aretas. The territory of Jud?a now embraced within its circumference a number of important towns; it extended on the other side of the Jordan, from Seleucia in the north to Zoar, the city of palms, south of the Dead Sea; from Rhinokolura and Raphia in the south, on the shores of the Mediterranean, to the mountains of Carmel in the northwest. The cities on the sea-coast were of the most importance. Alexander ordered some coins to be struck for his Greek subjects, with the Greek inscription, "King Alexander," while an anchor was stamped upon one side, and upon the other, in Hebrew characters, "Jonathan the King" (Jehonathan ha-Melech). His coins of an earlier date bore the same inscription as those of his predecessors, "The High Priest Jonathan, the Commonwealth of the Jud?ans."

After a campaign of three years' duration Alexander returned to Jerusalem, where he was received with the honors due to a conqueror. He had caused his crimes in part to be forgiven. In the very center of the kingdom, on a mount near the Jordan, he built a strong fortress, called after him, Alexandrion; and in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea, upon a towering height, protected on all sides by deep ravines, he raised the citadel of Mach?rus, the formidable guardian of his trans-Jordanic conquests. These two mountain fortresses, together with the third, Hyrcanion, built by John Hyrcanus, on Middle Mountain, were so amply fortified by nature and by art that they were considered impregnable.

Even in the last years of Alexander's reign, although he was suffering from an intermittent fever, he undertook the siege of some of the yet unconquered fortresses of the trans-Jordanic territory. During the siege of Argob, however, he was seized with so severe an attack that he was forced to prepare himself for death. The solemnity of his last hours led him to look upon his former actions in a new light. He was horror-stricken to think how cruelly and foolishly he had persecuted the Pharisees, and how in consequence he had alienated himself from his people. He earnestly enjoined upon his queen, whom he declared regent, to connect herself closely with the Pharisees, to surround herself with counselors from their ranks, and not to embark in any undertaking without having their consent. He also impressed upon her to keep his death secret from his army until the beleaguered fortress should have fallen, and then to resign his body to the Pharisees, that they might either vent their rage upon it or else generously inter it. From an obscure but more authentic source we gather that Alexander sought to allay the queen's anxiety with regard to the party strife rampant in Jerusalem by the following words: "Do not fear either the true Pharisees or their honest opponents, but be on your guard against hypocrites of both sides (the counterfeit ones), who, when they commit sins, like the dissolute Prince Zimri, expect to be rewarded like Phineas, who was zealous for the Law." Alexander died in the forty-ninth year of his life and the twenty-seventh of his reign (79), and left two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. The Pharisees ungenerously appointed the anniversary of his death as a day of rejoicing.

It was indeed most fortunate for the Jud?an nation that a woman of gentle nature and sincere piety should have been called to the head of the State after it had been torn asunder by the recklessness of its former ruler. She came like the refreshing dew to an arid and sunburnt soil. The excited passions and the bitter hatred of the two parties had time to abate during her reign, and the country rose above narrow partisanship to the worthier occupation of advancing the common welfare of the nation. Although Queen Salome, or, as she was called, Alexandra, was devoted with her whole soul to the Pharisees, entrusting them with the management of home affairs, yet she was far from persecuting the opposing party. Her authority was so greatly respected by the neighboring princes that they did not dare make war with Jud?a, and she shrewdly succeeded in keeping a mighty conqueror, who had possessed himself of Syria, from the confines of her own kingdom. Even the heavens, during the nine years of her reign, showered their blessings upon the land. The extraordinarily large grains of wheat gathered during this time in the fields of Jud?a were kept and exhibited during many subsequent years. The queen ordered coins to be struck, bearing the same emblems as her predecessors, with the Greek inscription, "Queen Alexandra." On the whole, her reign passed peacefully and happily. The Law, which had fallen into great neglect, became a fixed institution, and if it occasionally affected the Sadducees, who were constantly breaking it, they could not consider themselves victims of caprice. The crowded prisons were opened; the Pharisees returned from exile, with their narrowed vision widened by the experience they had gained in foreign lands.

Salome Alexandra proclaimed her eldest son Hyrcanus high priest; he was a weak prince, whose private life was irreproachable, but who was not fitted for a public post of importance.

Simon ben Shetach, the brother of the queen, the oracle of the Pharisaic party, stood high in her favor. So great a part did he play in the history of that time that it was called by many "the days of Simon ben Shetach and of Queen Salome." The chief post in the Council of Seventy, hitherto possessed by the high priest, was now, however, given up to the Pharisees by order of the queen. The Nasi, or president of the Great Council, was from this time on, as a rule, the most learned and the most respected of the Pharisees. No one, of course, could lay juster claim to this distinction than Simon ben Shetach. But Simon was not an ambitious man, and he determined to waive his own rights of precedence in favor of Judah ben Tabbai, who was then residing in Alexandria, of whose profound learning and excellent character he had formed a high estimate. The Alexandrian Jud?an community had probably entrusted this celebrated Palestinean scholar with some important office. A flattering epistle was sent to Judah, inviting him to return to Jerusalem and was couched in this form: "From me, Jerusalem, the holy city, to thee, Alexandria: my spouse dwells with thee, I am forsaken." Judah ben Tabbai responded to this appeal by hastening to Jerusalem. With the help of Simon he undertook the reorganization of the Council, the improvement of administration of the law, the re-establishment of neglected religious observances, the furthering of education, and generally the fashioning of such regulations as the times required. Like Ezra and Nehemiah of old, these two zealous men insisted upon a return to the strictest form of Judaism; and, if they were often obliged to employ severe and violent measures, these are not to be accounted to any personal malice, but to the sternness of the age itself. They were indeed scrupulously strict in their own conduct, and in directing those closely connected with them. From the days of Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetach, the rule of Jud?an Law, according to the views of the Pharisees, may be said to have begun, and it grew and developed under each succeeding generation. These two celebrated men have therefore been called "Restorers of the Law," who "brought back to the Crown (the Law) its ancient splendor."

Their work commenced with the reorganization of the Synhedrion. The Sadduc?an members were deprived of their seats, the penal code which they had added to the Biblical penal laws was set aside, and the old traditionary methods again made valid. The people had nothing to complain of in this change, for they hated the severity of the "eye for eye" punishment of the Sadducees. On the other hand, certain days of rejoicing, disregarded by the Sadducees, were proclaimed as half-holidays by the Pharisees. Witnesses in the law courts were no longer to be questioned merely upon the place where and the time when they had seen a crime committed, but they were expected to give the most detailed and minute evidence connected with it, so that the judge might be better able to pronounce a correct judgment and to detect the contradictory statements of witnesses. This was particularly designed as a protection against the charges of informers, who were numerous enough in an age when conquerors and the conquered were constantly changing parts. A salutary measure also was enforced to lessen the number of divorce cases, which the literal interpretation of the Pentateuchal divorce laws, as administered by the Sadducees, had failed in doing. The High Court, as reorganized by the Pharisees, ordered the husband to give his repudiated wife a certain sum of money, by which she could support herself, and, as there was but little current coin amongst a people whose wealth consisted principally in the fruits of the soil or in cattle, the husband would often pause before allowing a momentary fit of passion or excitement to influence his actions.

One of the reforms of this time expressly attributed to Simon ben Shetach was the promotion of better instruction. In all large towns, high schools for the use of young men from the age of sixteen sprung up at his instance. But all study, we may presume, was entirely confined to the Holy Scriptures, and particularly to the Pentateuch and the study of the Law. Many details or smaller points in the Law which had been partly forgotten and partly neglected during the long rule of the Sadducees, that is to say, from Hyrcanus's oppression of the Pharisees until the commencement of Salome's reign, were once more introduced into daily life. Neglected customs were renewed with all pomp and solemnity, the days of their re-introduction being celebrated with rejoicing, and any public mourning or fast thereon was suspended. Thus the ceremony of pouring a libation of water upon the altar during the Feast of Tabernacles, which had been mockingly ridiculed by Alexander, was in time reinstated with enthusiasm, and became a favorite and distinctive rite. Upon these occasions, on the night succeeding the first day of the festival, the women's outer court of the Temple was brilliantly illuminated until it glowed like a sea of fire. All the people would then crowd to the holy mount to witness or take part in the proceedings. At times these bore a lively character, such as torch-light processions and dancing; at others they took the more solemn form of musical services of song and praise. This jubilee would last the whole night. At break of day the priests announced with a blast of their trumpets that the march was about to commence. At every halting-place the trumpets gathered the people together, until a huge multitude stood assembled round the spring of Siloah. Thence the water was drawn in a golden ewer. In solemn procession it was carried back to the Temple, where the libation was performed. The water streamed over the altar, and the notes of the flute, heard only upon the most joyful occasions, mingled with the rapturous strains of melody that burst from countless instruments.

A similar national festival was the half-holiday of the wood-feast, held in honor of the wood that was offered to the altar of the Temple; it fell upon the fifteenth day of Ab (August). A number of white-robed maidens were wont to assemble upon this occasion in some open space among the vine-trees, where, as they trod the measure of the dance, they chanted strophes of song in the Hebrew tongue. It was an opportunity for the Jud?an youths, spectators of this scene, to select their partners for life. This festival, like the preceding one, was inaugurated by the Pharisees in opposition to Sadduc?an customs. The Synhedrion seized upon the sacrificial ardor of the people to introduce a measure which, above all things, was calculated to arouse feelings of patriotism in the nation, and which was diametrically opposed to the views of their rivals. The Sadducees had declared that the daily offerings, and in fact the needs of the Temple, should not be paid for from a national treasury, but with individual, voluntary contributions. But the Council, in the reign of Salome Alexandra, decreed that every Israelite from the age of twenty-proselytes and freed slaves included-should contribute at least a half-shekel yearly to the treasury of the Temple. In this way the daily sacrifices acquired a truly national character, as the whole nation contributed towards them. Three collections were instituted during the year: in Jud?a at the beginning of spring; in the trans-Jordanic countries, in Egypt and Syria, at the Feast of Weeks; and in the yet more distant lands of Babylonia, Media and Asia Minor, at the Feast of Tabernacles. These last collections were the richest, the Jud?ans who dwelt outside Palestine being very generous as well as very wealthy; thus, instead of the silver or copper shekel or denaria, they offered gold staters and darics. Central places in each land were chosen where the offerings should be deposited until they could be taken to Jerusalem. The most distinguished Jud?ans were selected to carry them thither, and they were called "holy messengers." In the Mesopotamian and Babylonian towns of Nisibis and Nahardea (Naarda), treasure-houses were built for these Temple gifts, whence, under a strong escort to protect them from the Parthian and Nabath?an robber-hordes, they were safely borne to Jerusalem. The communities of Asia Minor had likewise their treasure-houses, Apamea and Laodicea, in Phrygia, Pergamus and Adramyttium, in the country of Aeolis. From this stretch of land nearly two hundred pounds weight of gold was sent to Jerusalem about twenty years after the first proclamation had been issued. From this we may gather what an immense revenue poured into the Temple, leaving a large surplus after all the requisites for divine service had been obtained. The Temple of Jerusalem became thereby in time an object of envy and of greed.

So far, the revival, introduced by Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetach, bore a harmless character; it reinstated old laws, created new ones, and sought means of impressing them upon the memory and attention of the people. But no reaction can remain within moderate bounds; it moves naturally towards excesses. The Sadducees, who were unwilling to adopt the Pharisaic rendering of the Law, were summoned to appear before the seat of justice and were unsparingly condemned. The anxiety to exalt the Law and to banish all opposition in the rival party was so great that upon one occasion Judah ben Tabbai had a witness executed who had been convicted of giving false testimony in a trial for a capital crime. He was, in this instance, desirous of practically refuting the Sadduc?an views, forgetting that he was at the same time breaking a law of the Pharisees. That law required all the witnesses to be convicted of perjury before allowing punishment to be inflicted; and, as one witness alone could not establish an accusation, so one witness alone was not punishable. But the two chiefs were so clean-handed that Simon ben Shetach did not fail to upbraid his colleague on account of ill-advised haste, and Judah ben Tabbai evinced the profoundest remorse at the shedding of the innocent blood of the executed witness by resigning his office of president and by making a public acknowledgment of his contrition. A favorite maxim of Judah ben Tabbai reveals his gentle disposition. "Consider accused persons as lawbreakers only whilst before you for judgment; the moment that is rendered, look upon them as innocent."

Simon ben Shetach, who succeeded Judah as President of the Council, does not seem to have relaxed in severity towards the infringers of the Law. The rare case of witchcraft was once brought before him, when eighty women were condemned for the offense, and crucified in Ascalon. On account of his unsparing severity, Simon ben Shetach brought upon himself such hatred of his opponents that they determined upon a fearful revenge. They incited two false witnesses to accuse his son of a crime punishable with death, in consequence of which he was actually condemned to die. On his way to the place of execution the young man uttered such vehement protestations of innocence that at last the witnesses themselves were affected, and confessed to their tissue of falsehoods. But when the judges were about to set free the condemned, the prisoner himself drew their attention to their violation of the law, which enjoined that no belief was to be given witnesses who withdrew their previous testimony. "If you wish," said the condemned youth to his father, "that the salvation of Israel should be wrought by your hand, consider me but the threshold over which you must pass without compunction." Both father and son showed themselves worthy of their sublime task, that of guarding the integrity of the Law; for to uphold it one sacrificed his life, and the other, his paternal love. Simon, the Jud?an Brutus, let the law pursue its course, although he, as well as all the judges, were convinced of his son's innocence.

The severity of the Pharisaic Synhedrion had naturally not spared the leaders of the Sadducees. Diogenes, the favorite of Alexander, and a number of others who had advised or authorized the execution of the 800 Pharisees, expiated this act of cruelty with their lives. The most distinguished of the Sadducees began to be uneasy at this constant persecution; they felt the sword of justice hanging over their heads, ready to descend upon them if they were guilty of the slightest infringement of the Law. In fear of their lives they turned to Alexander's second son, Aristobulus, who, without being a warm adherent of the Sadducees, was prepared to be the protector of their party. He sent their chiefs to Alexandra, commending them warmly to her mercy. When they appeared before the queen they reminded her of their services to the late king, and of the terror with which their name had once inspired Jud?a's neighbors, and they threatened to offer their valuable services to the Nabath?an king Aretas or to the Syrian monarch. They implored the queen to grant them a safe retreat in some fortress where they would not be under the constant supervision of the Pharisees. The gentle-hearted queen was so much moved by the tears of these gray-haired warriors that she entrusted them with the command of most of the fortresses, reserving, however, the three strongest-Hyrcanion, Alexandrion, and Mach?rus.

No political events of any great importance occurred during Alexandra's reign. Tigranes, king of Armenia, master of nearly the whole of Syria, had threatened to invade some of the Jud?an provinces which had formerly belonged to the Syrian kingdom. The proximity of this ruler had greatly alarmed the queen, and she endeavored by gentle words and rich presents to prevent a contest with this powerful Armenian king. Tigranes had received the Jud?an embassy, and accepted the queen's gifts most courteously, but they would hardly have prevented him from moving upon Jud?a, had he not been compelled to devote himself to the defense of his own country from the attack of the Roman commander Lucullus (69).

Alexandra fell hopelessly ill, and her illness occasioned the saddest of entanglements. The violent and ambitious Aristobulus, supposing that his mother destined his weak brother Hyrcanus as her successor, left the capital secretly, and arriving at the Galilean fortress of Gabata in the neighborhood of Sepphoris, upon the friendship of whose governor, the Sadducee Galaistes, he could rely, insisted upon its being entirely given up to him. He garrisoned it with mercenaries, furnished by some of the minor Syrian trans-Jordanic princes and the robber-hordes of Trachonitis, and was thus enabled to hold a large force at his command. Hyrcanus and the chiefs of the Synhedrion, fearing an impending civil war, entreated of the queen to take measures to prevent it, but without avail. Alexandra bade them trust to the army, to the fortresses that had remained faithful, and to the rich treasury, and devoted herself exclusively to preparation for death. She expired soon after, in the year 69, leaving her people and her kingdom to all the horrors of a civil war which was ultimately to destroy their dearly won independence. Salome Alexandra had reigned for only nine years; she had witnessed the happy days of her people's freedom, and, when lying on her death-bed, may have felt in her troubled soul the presentiment that the coming night of slavery was at hand. She was the only queen in Jud?an history whose name has been handed down to us with veneration, and she was also the last independent ruler of Jud?a.

Brothers contend for the throne?-?Arrangement between the brothers?-?The Idum?an Antipater?-?Hyrcanus's weakness?-?Aretas besieges Jerusalem?-?Interference of Rome?-?Pompey at Jerusalem?-?The Jud?an colony in Rome?-?Flaccus in Asia Minor?-?Cicero's oration against the Jud?ans?-?Weakening of the power of the Synhedrion?-?Shemaya and Abtalion?-?Violent death of Aristobulus and his son Alexander?-?Julius C?sar and the Jud?ans?-?Antipater's sons Phasael and Herod?-?Herod before the Synhedrion?-?Operations of Cassius in Jud?a?-?Malich?-?Antigonus as King?-?Herod escapes to Rome.

69–40 B. C. E.

When Providence has decreed that a State shall be destroyed, no event is more certain to hasten its fall than the contentions between two rival parties for the possession of the throne. The noblest upholders of the nation's rights are then invariably arrayed against each other, until at last the civil wars in which they are engaged are usually referred to some foreign ruler, whose yoke is all the more galling as he appears invariably in the light of a peacemaker with the olive branch in his hand.

The death of the queen gave the first incentive to the war which broke out between the two brothers and divided the nation into two camps. To Hyrcanus II, her eldest son, the dying mother had, in right of his birth, bequeathed the throne. He, whose virtues would have graced the modest life of a private individual, but who would have been but an indifferent ruler even in a peaceful era, was certainly not fitted to govern in troubled times. He did more harm by his good nature than many another could do by acts of tyranny. His younger brother was the direct opposite to him in character. Hyrcanus's cowardice contrasted vividly with the reckless courage of Aristobulus, a quality in which he resembled his father Alexander. Added to this, he possessed unlimited ambition, which blinded him to practical considerations and quitted him only with his last breath. His aim was to be the mighty ruler of Jud?a, and with the means at his command to make the neighboring countries subject to his rule. But his rash impetuosity prevented him from being successful, and, instead of gathering laurels, he brought only contempt upon himself and his nation. Hardly had Alexandra expired when Aristobulus, at the head of his mercenaries and Sadduc?an followers, marched upon Jerusalem for the purpose of dethroning his brother. Upon Hyrcanus's side were ranged the Pharisees, the people and the army. The wife and children of Aristobulus had been imprisoned as hostages in the citadel of Baris in Jerusalem. The brothers met at Jericho, each at the head of his army. Hyrcanus was defeated and fled to Jerusalem, the greater number of his troops going over to Aristobulus. The younger brother attacked and took the Temple, where many of his opponents had sought refuge. Hyrcanus was obliged to lay down his arms when he saw that the invader was master of the sanctuary and the capital. The two brothers met again, agreed upon making peace, and signed their covenant in the Temple. Aristobulus, as the one more capable of ruling, was to wear the royal crown, whilst Hyrcanus was to retain the high priest's diadem. This agreement was ratified by the marriage of Aristobulus's son Alexander to Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus.

Aristobulus II, who had attained royal dignity by a successful stroke of arms, does not appear to have in any way excited the displeasure of the Pharisees. The position of the two parties in Jud?a now assumed a different character, and they might have become extinct as parties, had it not been for the advent of a man whose measureless ambition and personal interest brought him to the fore, and who, together with his family, became the vampire of the nation, sucking its noblest blood away. This man was Antipater, the descendant of a distinguished Idum?an family, who, in common with all other Idum?ans, had been compelled by John Hyrcanus to accept Judaism. Never had a mistaken action found its punishment more surely and swiftly. The fanaticism of Hyrcanus I was now to bring ruin upon his house and family. The wealth and diplomatic talents of Antipater had raised him to the post of satrap of Idum?a during the reign of Alexander Jann?us and of his queen. His courteous acts and generous presents had won the affections not only of his countrymen, but also those of the inhabitants of Gaza and Ascalon.

Hyrcanus II, who required a guide in his helplessness, bestowed his confidence upon Antipater, who abused it, and exerted his influence to his own advantage. The Idum?an lost no opportunity of reminding Hyrcanus of the degrading part that he had had to play in having been called to the throne only to relinquish it to his younger brother. So successfully did Antipater work upon his feelings, making him believe that Aristobulus was actually planning his death, that Hyrcanus was tempted into breaking the covenant he had sworn to respect, by calling in a foreign ruler to decide between the claims of the two brothers. Antipater had laid his plans beforehand with Aretas, king of the Nabath?ans. He fled one night from Jerusalem, bearing Hyrcanus with him, and arrived by forced marches at Petra, the capital of the Nabath?an king. Aretas was ready to help Hyrcanus, having been richly bribed by Antipater, and having the prospect of recapturing twelve cities east and south of the Dead Sea, which had been bought so dearly by the Hasmon?ans. He marched, therefore, upon Jud?a, with an army of fifty thousand men, whose numbers were augmented by the followers of Hyrcanus (66). Thus the peace which the nation had enjoyed for nearly three years was disturbed for many a long day by the scheming ambition of Antipater and the boundless folly of Hyrcanus.

Aretas laid siege to Jerusalem in the beginning of the spring. To escape so deplorable a sight, many of the most distinguished Jud?ans (probably some of the Pharisaic leaders amongst them) fled from the capital to Egypt. The siege lasted for several months, the strong walls of the city to a certain extent making up for the insufficient numbers of Aristobulus's warriors. But provisions began to fail, and, what was a far more serious consideration for the pious Jud?ans, the animals necessary for sacrificial purposes, particularly for the coming Paschal feast, were sensibly diminishing. But Aristobulus relied, and rightly so, upon the piety of the Jud?an besiegers, who would not dare refuse the required victims for the altar. He ordered baskets to be lowered each day from the walls, containing the price of the lambs that were placed in the baskets, and were drawn up in return. But as the siege dragged on, and as the end seemed far off, some counselor-we may imagine that it was Antipater-advised Hyrcanus to hurry on the final scene, and to desist from supplying the sacrificial lamb. The basket that was lowered after this advice had been tendered was found to contain, when received within the city walls, a pig. This insult to the Law created a feeling of disgust amongst the besieged, and so deeply affected them that subsequently the breeding of swine was forbidden by the Synhedrion.

The adherents of Hyrcanus were guilty of yet another enormity. Amongst those who had left the besieged city was a pious man called Onias, who had once successfully prayed for rain in a drought. The soldiers of Hyrcanus dragged him from his solitary retreat, and believing that Heaven would again answer his prayer, commanded him to pronounce a curse upon Aristobulus and his followers. But instead of giving vent to a curse, the old man exclaimed with fitting dignity, "Lord of the universe, as the besieged and the besiegers both belong to Thy people, I entreat of Thee not to grant the evil prayers of either party." The coarse soldiers could not understand the feelings that prompted such words, and murdered him as if he had been a criminal. In this way they thought they could silence the spirit of Judaism rising to protest against this civil war. But although the mighty ones of the land defied all right and proper feeling, the people were grievously distressed, and believed that the earthquake and the hurricane that devastated Palestine and other parts of Asia at that time were the visible signs of Divine wrath.

But more terrible than earthquake or hurricane was the harbinger of evil that appeared in Jud?a, "the beast with iron teeth, brazen claws, and heart of stone, that was to devour much, and trample the rest under foot," which came to the Jud?an nation, to drink its blood, to eat its flesh and to suck its marrow. The hour had struck when the Roman eagle, with swift flight, was to swoop down upon Israel's inheritance, circling wildly round the bleeding nation, lacerating her with cruel wounds and finally leaving her a corpse.

Like inexorable fate, Rome watched over the destinies of the people of western Asia, plundering, dividing and destroying. Jud?a was destined to the same lot. The bird of prey scented its booty from afar with astonishing precision, and hastened to put out the last spark of life. It came to Jud?a for the first time in the person of Scaurus, a legate of Pompey. In leaving for Asia, Scaurus hoped to exchange an insignificant position in his own country for a powerful one in foreign lands. He had imagined that in Syria he might acquire wealth and honor, but finding that country already in possession of other birds of prey, he turned his attention to Jud?a. There he was warmly welcomed by the rival brothers, who looked upon him as an arbitrator in their difficulties. They both sent ambassadors to meet him, and as they knew that the Romans were not indifferent to gold, they took care not to appear empty-handed before him. But Aristobulus's gifts prevailed; he sent three hundred talents, whilst Hyrcanus, or more properly speaking Antipater, gave little but promises. Roman interest accorded well with the greed of Scaurus. The Republic, fearing the growth of his power, began by insisting that the Nabath?an king should retire from the civil war in Palestine; Scaurus was therefore able to command Aretas to raise the siege of Jerusalem. Aretas complied, but was overtaken with his army at Rabbath Ammon by the troops of Aristobulus and defeated.

For the moment Aristobulus might fancy that he was the victorious monarch of Jud?a. The direction that Roman statesmanship had taken, and the slow, deliberate movements that the commander Pompey employed against Mithridates, lulled him into the delusion that his monarchy was one of lasting duration. A lover of war like his father, he began immediately to make inroads into neighboring provinces, and also organized a fleet for warlike purposes. For two years Aristobulus nursed this vain dream, and he may even have wished to establish a show of independence by ordering, during this interval, coins to be struck in his name. But Antipater's inventive genius soon dissipated this dream; for in the arts of bribery and diplomacy he was far superior to Aristobulus. Antipater had already induced Scaurus to side with Hyrcanus, and to win for him the favor of Pompey, who was at this time gathering laurels in Syria. Pompey looked upon the quarrel between the two brothers as an excellent means for adding another conquest to his long lists of triumphs. Although Aristobulus had made him a magnificent gift, valuable in point of art as of intrinsic merit, the contest had not been brought to an end. This gift consisted of a golden vine, bearing clusters of golden grapes and golden leaves, valued at five hundred talents, and it had probably been designed by King Alexander for the adornment of the Temple. This work of art aroused the admiration of all those who saw it, and for that reason Pompey hastened to send it to Rome, where it was placed in the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, as the harbinger of his triumphs. But the pious Jud?ans, naturally, would not allow their own sanctuary to be deprived of such an ornament, and spontaneously made contributions, some for golden grapes, others for golden leaves; so that another golden vine, in later days, graced the outer court of the Temple.

Although Pompey's vanity was flattered by this magnificent present, he was far from deciding in favor of the donor. He had the insolence to command Antipater and Nicodemus, the two envoys of the rival brothers, to bid their masters appear in person at Damascus, where the vexed question should be discussed, and where he would decide in favor of one of the two princes. In spite of the deep humiliation which each felt, both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus appeared, and upheld their individual claims; the one resting upon his rights of birth, the other upon his capacity for governing. But a third party had also appeared before Pompey, which was to represent the right of the nation apart from the angry princes. Weary of the Hasmon?an quarrels, a republican party had sprung up, which was ready to govern the Jud?an community, according to the letter of the Law, without an hereditary sovereign. The republicans especially complained that the last of the Hasmon?ans had changed the Jud?an form of government from a hierarchy to a monarchy, in order to reduce the nation to servitude. Pompey, however, gave ear neither to the murmurs of the republicans nor to the arguments of the two brothers. It was not his intention to put an end to the strife; what he desired was, in the guise of a peaceful arbitrator, to bring Jud?a under the Roman rule. He soon saw that the weak-minded Hyrcanus (under the tutelage of a designing minister) would be better adapted for the part of a ward of Rome than the daring Aristobulus, and he inwardly determined to support the weaker prince. But as he feared that by too rash a decision he would only be involved in a long contest with Aristobulus in an inaccessible country, and that he would only delay his triumphal entry into Rome, he endeavored to put off the younger brother with empty promises. Aristobulus, however, saw through the snare that was prepared for him, and determined to make sure of his freedom whilst there was yet time. He, therefore, entrenched himself in the citadel of Alexandrion, intending to oppose the invasion of the enemy from the walls of the fortress. But Roman greed of conquest was now to manifest itself in all its abhorrent nakedness.

The Roman commander was pleased to look upon this prince's justifiable act of self-defense as evidence of insubordination, and to treat him as an obstinate rebel. He crossed the Jordan at Bethshean, and taking the field against Aristobulus, commanded him to surrender, following up this command by a series of delusive promises and serious threats, such as would have induced a more wily man to take a false step. The unfortunate prince surrendered the fortress of Alexandrion, but soon repenting of this folly, returned to entrench himself behind the strong walls of the city of Jerusalem, whither Pompey followed him. When the Roman commander arrived at Jericho he heard, to his infinite satisfaction, of the suicide of Mithridates, the great and dangerous enemy of the Roman State, and he felt that he had now only to subdue Aristobulus before celebrating his triumphs in Rome. It seemed as if this end would be easily attained; for Aristobulus, impelled by fear, came penitently to the feet of Pompey, loading him with presents, and promising to deliver Jerusalem into his hands. For this purpose Aristobulus started for the capital, accompanied by the legate Gabinius; but their advance was repelled by the patriots, who closed the gates of Jerusalem upon them, and Pompey was compelled to lead his army against the city. The Hyrcanists, or lovers of peace, as they were called, opened their gates to the enemy; but the patriots entrenched themselves upon the Mount of the Sanctuary, and destroying the bridge that connected the Temple with the town, prepared for a desperate defense. Pompey, much against his will, found that he was involved in a regular siege, the Temple Mount being strongly fortified. Then he sent to Tyre for his battering-rams, and ordered trees to be felled for bridging over the moats. The siege lasted for a long while, and might have continued still longer, had not the storming of the fortress been rendered easier to the besiegers by the patriots' strict observance of the Sabbath-day. In accordance with either a Pharisaic or a Sadduc?an rendering of the Law, the besieged declared that they were permitted to resist an attack of the invaders on the Sabbath, but that they were infringing upon the sanctity of that day if they merely defended the walls from the enemy's onslaughts. As soon as the Romans were aware of this distinction, they turned it to their own advantage. They let their weapons rest on the Sabbath-day, and worked steadily at the demolishing of the walls. Thus it happened that upon one Sabbath, in the month of Sivan (June, 63 B. C.), a tower of the Temple fell, and a breach was effected by which the most daring of the Romans prepared a way for entering the Sanctuary. The legions of Rome and the foreign mercenaries crowded into the court of the Temple, and killed the priests as they stood sacrificing before the altar. Many of the unfortunate victims threw themselves headlong from the battlements into the depths below, whilst others lit their own funeral pyre. It is believed that twelve thousand Jud?ans met their death upon this day. Pompey then penetrated into the Sanctuary, in order to satisfy his curiosity as to the nature of the Jud?an worship, about which the most contradictory reports prevailed. The Roman general was not a little astonished at finding within the sacred recesses of the Holy of Holies, neither an ass's head nor, indeed, images of any sort. Thus the malicious fictions busily circulated by Alexandrian writers, and of a character so prejudicial to the Jud?ans, were now shown to be false. The entrance of the Roman conqueror into the Temple, though deplorable enough, was in a way favorable to Judaism. Whether he was penetrated by awe at the sublime simplicity of the Holy of Holies, or whether he did not wish to be designated as the robber of sanctuaries, we know not; but, wonderful to relate, Pompey controlled his greed for gold and left the treasury, containing 2000 talents, untouched. But the independence of the nation ceased forever from that hour. Exactly a century after the Maccabees had freed their people from the tyranny of the Syrians, their descendants brought down the tyranny of the Romans upon Jud?a.

What did Hyrcanus gain by his supplication for aid from the Republic? Pompey deprived him of his royal title, only leaving him the dignity of the high priesthood, with the doubtful appellation of ethnarch, and made him the ward of Antipater, who was named governor of the country. The walls of Jerusalem were razed to the ground, Jud?a put into the category of conquered provinces, and a tax was levied upon the capital. The territory was brought within narrower confines, and its extent became once more what it had been in pre-Hasmon?an times. Several seaports lying along the coast, and inhabited by Greeks, as well as those trans-Jordanic towns which Hyrcanus and Alexander had conquered after hard fighting, and had incorporated with Jud?a, were declared to be free towns by Pompey, and were placed under the guardianship of the Roman governor of Syria. But these cities, particularly the trans-Jordanic ones, joined together in a defensive and offensive league, calling themselves the Decapolis. Pompey ordered the most determined of his prisoners of war, the zealots, to be executed, whilst the rest were taken to Rome. The Jud?an prince, Aristobulus, his son Antigonus, his two daughters, and his uncle Absalom were forced to precede Pompey's triumphal car, in the train of the conquered Asiatic kings and kings' sons. Whilst Zion veiled her head in mourning, Rome was reveling in her victories; but the Jud?an prisoners that had been dragged to Rome were to become the nucleus of a community destined to carry on a new kind of warfare against long-established Roman institutions, and ultimately to modify or partly destroy them.

There were, without doubt, many Jud?ans living in Rome and in other Italian cities before Pompey's conquests, who may have emigrated into Italy from Egypt and Asia Minor for commercial objects. As merchants, bringing grain from the Nile country, or tribute money from Asia Minor, they may have come into contact with the Roman potentates. But these emigrants could hardly have formed a regular communal organization, for there were no authorized teachers of the Law amongst them. Probably, however, some learned men may have followed in Pompey's train of captives, who were ransomed by their compatriots, and persuaded to remain in Rome. The descendants of these prisoners were called according to Roman law libertini (the freed ones). The Jud?an quarter in Rome lay upon the right bank of the Tiber, on the slope of Mount Vatican, and a bridge leading across that river to the Vatican was known for a long while by the name of the Bridge of the Jud?ans (Pons Jud?orum). Theodus, one of the Jud?ans settled in Rome, introduced into his own community a substitute for the paschal lamb, which could not be eaten outside of Jerusalem, and the loss of which was a bitter deprivation to the exiles. This aroused the displeasure of the Jud?ans in the home country, who wrote to Theodus: "If thou wert not Theodus, we should excommunicate thee."

The Roman Jud?ans influenced, to a certain extent, the course of Roman policy. For as the original emigrants, as well as the ransomed captives, enjoyed the power of voting in public assemblies, they were able at times, by their combined action on a preconcerted plan, by their assiduity, by their temperate and passionless conception of the situation, perhaps also by their keen intelligence, to turn the scale upon some popular question. So important was their quiet influence that the eloquent but intolerant Cicero, who had learned to hate the Jud?ans from his master Apollonius Molo, was afraid on one occasion to give vent to his anti-Jud?an feelings in a public speech, for fear of stirring them up against him. He had to defend the unjust cause of a pr?tor Flaccus, who was accused of having been guilty of numerous extortions during his government of the Asia Minor provinces. Amongst other things, Flaccus had seized upon the votive offerings of the Temple (aurum Jud?orum) given by the community of Asia Minor-about two hundred pounds of gold, collected by the Jud?an inhabitants of the towns of Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyttium, and Pergamus (62). In order to justify his proceedings Flaccus cited a resolution of the Senate, by which all exportation of money was forbidden from Roman to foreign provinces; and although Jud?a had been conquered by Roman arms, yet she did not enjoy the honor of being enrolled amongst the provinces of the Republic. The Roman Jud?ans were intensely interested in this trial, and many of them were present among the populace. The cowardly Cicero was so much afraid of them that he would have liked to speak in a low tone in order to be heard by the Judges but not by the Jud?ans. In the course of his defense he made use of an unworthy piece of sophistry, which might have made an impression upon some bigoted Roman, but which could hardly satisfy an intelligent mind. "It requires great decision of character," he said, "to oppose the barbaric superstitions of the Jud?ans and, for the good of our country, to show proper contempt towards these seditious people, who invade our public assemblies. If Pompey did not avail himself of a conqueror's rights, and left the treasures of the Temple untouched, we may be sure he did not restrain himself out of reverence for the Jud?an sanctuary, but out of astuteness, to avoid giving the suspicious and slanderous Jud?an nation an opportunity of accusing him; for otherwise he would hardly have spared foreign, still less Jud?an, sanctuaries. When Jerusalem was unconquered, and when the Jud?ans were living in peace, they displayed a deeply-rooted antipathy to the glory of the Roman State, to the dignity of the Roman name, and to the laws of our ancestors. During the last war the Jud?an nation proved most effectually how bitterly they hate us. How little this nation is beloved by the immortal gods is now evident, as her country is conquered and leased out." What impression this speech made upon the audience, and what decision was given to Flaccus, are unknown. A year later Cicero was punished by a sentence of banishment. He was not allowed to be seen within eighty miles of Rome, and his villas were razed to the ground.

After Pompey's departure from Syria, the thraldom imposed upon dismembered Jud?a became more onerous than before, because she was left in the anomalous condition of a partly conquered province and a partly independent country. The powerful minister of Hyrcanus contributed to make this condition lasting and oppressive. He endeavored to strengthen his connection with Rome by munificent presents, trusting that the Republic would support him, in spite of his unpopularity with the Jud?an people, who hated him as the cause of their subjection. With the sweat from Jud?a's brow he sustained the Roman commander Scaurus, who had opened a campaign against the Nabath?an king, Aretas. Meanwhile Alexander II, the eldest son of Aristobulus, escaping from captivity and arriving in Jud?a, gained the support of the patriots, and putting himself at the head of fifteen hundred horse and ten thousand foot soldiers, marched upon Jerusalem. Hyrcanus, or more properly speaking his master Antipater, could not resist so great a force, and left the capital to Alexander, who entered and had it fortified. The great Roman power fought alternately upon either side, according to the bribes that were offered its officials. Alexander felt so secure of his position that he had coins struck with the following inscription in Greek and Hebrew, "King Alexander and High Priest Jonathan." Aulus Gabinius, however, the governor of Syria, and the most unscrupulous of the Roman extortioners of his times, succeeded in ending this revolt and in subduing Alexander. The death-stroke that awaited the latter was only warded off by his mother, who, embracing the knees of the Roman commander, entreated him to show mercy to her son.

Gabinius succeeded in weakening the unity of the Jud?an State, which had of late been so unworthily represented by the last of the Hasmon?ans, but the integrity of which had always been so jealously watched over by the Great Council. Jud?a was no longer to be an independent State with self-governing and legislative powers over the whole country, but was to be divided into five provinces, each having its own independent Senate or Synhedrion for the control of home affairs. These assemblies were held at specially appointed towns, at Jerusalem, Gazara, Emmaus, Jericho, and Sepphoris; and Jud?ans selected from the aristocratic party, who were well disposed towards Rome, were placed at the head of these councils.

Although the fact of having dismembered the State testified in favor of Gabinius's political insight, yet he deceived himself as regarded the ultimate success of his plans. As the Synhedrion had grown out of the innermost life of the whole nation and had not been forced upon it by outside influences, it was no easy matter to break its centralizing power. The new scheme of dividing Jud?a into five provinces was hardly introduced before it disappeared with Gabinius, leaving no trace of its existence. The Great Council remained as before the heart of the people, but its power was lessened by unfavorable circumstances. From that time it was called the "Synhedrion," and to distinguish it from the small Councils, the "Great Synhedrion." But it could not boast of any political power, for that was now entirely in the hands of the Romans. Simon ben Shetach, the celebrated president of the Council, was succeeded by his two most distinguished disciples, Shemaya (Sameas) and Abtalion (Pollion). We can trace the despairing sentiments of that generation in some of their sayings which have been handed down to us: "Love thy handicraft and shun governing; estrange thyself from worldly power." "Be prudent in your words," said Abtalion to the law-framers; "do not bring upon yourselves the penalty of exile, for your disciples would have to follow you into a land full of ensnaring influences (poisonous waters) which they would imbibe, and the sacred name of God would be through them profaned." These two presidents of the Synhedrion seem to have been Alexandrian Jud?ans, or at least they must have spent some years of exile in Alexandria, perhaps with their master Judah ben Tabbai.

During their twenty-five years of official life (60–35), whilst the political power of the Synhedrion was waning, their energy appears to have been directed towards its inner or moral power. They assembled a circle of eager disciples around them, to whom they taught the tenets of the Law, their origin and application. They were indeed accredited in after ages with so profound a knowledge of the Law, that to cite Shemaya or Abtalion in support of an interpretation was considered indisputable proof of its accuracy. One of their most distinguished and most grateful disciples called them "the two great men of the era," and the peculiarly careful study of the Law, for which the Pharisees became so justly celebrated, may be said to have originated with them.

For some little time the history of Jud?a contains nothing but accounts of insubordination to Roman despotism and its unhappy consequences, of scenes of oppression and robbery, and of acts of spoliation of the Temple. Aristobulus, who had succeeded in escaping from Rome with his son Antigonus, now appeared in Jud?a. The rule of the Romans was of so galling a character that Aristobulus, who had not been a favorite in the old days, was now received with unbounded enthusiasm. Sufficient arms could not be procured for the volunteers who flocked to his camp. He was joined by Pitholaus, a Jud?an commander, who had once served as a general to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus placed himself at the head of 8000 men, and began immediately to regarrison the citadel of Alexandrion, whence he hoped to exhaust the Romans by guerrilla warfare. But his impatient temper led him into open battle, in which a large part of his army was utterly destroyed, and the rest scattered. Still unsubdued, Aristobulus threw himself with the remnant of his followers into the citadel of Mach?rus, but at the approach of the Romans with their battering-rams he was obliged to capitulate, and for the second time was sent with his sons into captivity at Rome (56).

Another insurrection, organized by his son Alexander, who had obtained his freedom from the then all-powerful Pompey, was doomed to come to as disastrous a termination. Galled by the oppression of the Governor of Syria, the inhabitants of that unfortunate country sent an army of 30,000 men to join Alexander. They commenced by killing all the Romans who came in their way, Gabinius's troops not being strong enough to oppose them. But the Governor craftily succeeded in detaching some of Alexander's followers from his ranks, and then tempted the Jud?an prince into open battle. At Mount Tabor (in 55), the Jud?ans were signally defeated.

Meanwhile the three most eminent men of Rome-Julius C?sar, distinguished by his brilliant sagacity, Pompey by his martial renown, and Crassus by his boundless wealth-had agreed to break the power of the Senate, and to manage the affairs of the State according to their own will. The triumvirs began by dividing the fairest lands into provinces, which they separately appropriated. Syria fell to the share of Crassus, who was intensely avaricious in spite of his vast riches. Jud?a from this time on was annexed to Syria quite as a matter of course. Crassus went out of his way, when marching against the Parthians, to enter Jerusalem, being tempted thither by the rich treasury of the Temple. He made no secret of his wish to seize upon the two thousand talents that Pompey had spared. In order to satisfy his greed, a pious priest, Eleazer, delivered up to him a solid bar of gold, the existence of which, hidden as it was in a hollow staff of curiously carved wood, had been unknown to the priests. Upon the receipt of this gift, Crassus swore solemnly that he would spare the treasury of the Temple. But when was a promise known to be binding that was made by a Roman to a Jud?an? He took the golden bar, the two thousand talents, and all the golden vessels of the Temple, which were worth another eight thousand talents (54). Laden with these and other spoils of the Sanctuary, Crassus marched against the Parthians; but the Roman arms had always failed to subdue this people. Crassus was slain, and his army was so entirely disabled that his legate, Cassius Longinus, returned to Syria with scarcely the tenth part of the army of one hundred thousand men (53). The Parthians pursued the weakened army, and the Syrians, weary of the Roman yoke, lent them secret aid. To the Jud?ans this seemed an auspicious moment also for their own emancipation.

It fell to Pitholaus to call the army together, which he led against Cassius. Fortune, however, always deserted the Jud?an arms when they were turned against the Romans. Shut up in Tarichea on the lake of Tiberias, the troops were obliged to surrender. Upon the urgent demand of Antipater, Pitholaus was sentenced to death by Cassius, and thirty thousand Jud?an warriors were sold into slavery (52).

But the imprisoned Aristobulus looked forward once again to the hope of placing himself upon his father's throne and of banishing Antipater into obscurity. Julius C?sar, the greatest man that Rome ever produced, had openly defied the Senate, and broken with his associate Pompey. The bitter strife between the two Roman potentates lit the torch of war in the most distant provinces of the Roman empire. C?sar had given Aristobulus his freedom, and in order to weaken Pompey's influence, had sent him with two legions to Palestine to create a diversion in his favor. But the partisans of Pompey contrived to poison the Jud?an prince. His followers embalmed his body in honey and carried it to Jerusalem, where it was buried beside the bodies of the Hasmon?an princes. His eldest son, the gallant Alexander, was decapitated by order of Scipio, a follower of Pompey, at Antioch. The widow of Aristobulus and his surviving son Antigonus found protection with Ptolemy, prince of Chalcis, whose son Philippion had fallen in love with Alexandra, the daughter of Aristobulus, and had brought her to his father's court. But Ptolemy, out of criminal love to his own daughter-in-law, caused his son to be murdered and married the widow.

Antipater continued to be Pompey's faithful ally, until the Roman general met with a miserable end in Egypt. Then the Idum?an offered his services to C?sar. When the great general found himself in Egypt, without sufficient forces, without news from Rome, in the midst of a hostile population, Antipater evinced a touching eagerness to help him, which did not remain unrewarded. He provided the army of C?sar's ally, Mithridates, king of Pergamus, with all necessaries, and sent him a contingent of Jud?an troops; he aided him in conquering Pelusium, and conciliated the Egyptian-Jud?ans who had taken the part of his opponent. He was now well able to forego the favor of Hyrcanus. To no effect did Antigonus, the last surviving son of Aristobulus, seek an interview with C?sar, in which he dwelt upon his father's and his brother's loyalty to the Roman general; Antipater had but to display his wounds, which he had received in the very last campaign, to gain the victory over his rival. C?sar, who was an astute reader of men, and who had himself revolted from the legitimate order of things, knew well enough how to value Antipater's loyalty and energy, and did not support the rightful claims of Antigonus. Out of consideration for Antipater (47), Hyrcanus was proclaimed high priest and ethnarch, and to Jud?a was given some relief from her burdens. The walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt, the provinces that formerly belonged to Jud?a, namely, Galilee, the towns in the plains of Jezreel, and Lydda, were once more made part of her territory. The Jud?ans were no longer forced to provide winter quarters for the Roman legions, although the landowners were obliged to give the fourth part of their harvest every second year to the Roman troops.

C?sar was altogether benevolent to the Jud?ans, and rewarded them for their loyalty. To the Alexandrian Jud?ans he granted many privileges, confirming their long-enjoyed equality with the Greeks, and permitting them to be governed by a prince of their own (Ethnarch). Money was again liberally provided for the Temple. C?sar enabled the supplies to reach their destination. He prevented the Greek inhabitants of Asia Minor from molesting the Jud?ans of those provinces, from summoning them before the courts of justice on the Sabbath, from interfering with their public assemblages and the building of their synagogues, and in general from disturbing them in their religious observances (47–44). C?sar must also have extended his generosity to the Jud?an community in Rome, for they evinced the warmest devotion to his memory.

But in spite of all these favors, the Jud?an nation as a whole remained cold and distant. The foreign communities of Jud?ans might bless C?sar as their benefactor, but the Palestinean Jud?ans could see in him only the Roman, the patron of the hated Idum?an. So defiant was the attitude of the nation that Antipater felt himself compelled to threaten the disaffected with the triple wrath of C?sar, of Hyrcanus and of himself, whilst he promised liberal bounty to the obedient and loyal Jud?ans. Meanwhile, a small body of men taken from the army of Aristobulus had assembled under the command of Ezekias upon one of the mountain heights of Galilee, where they only awaited an opportune moment for raising the standard of revolt against Rome. The Romans, it is true, only looked upon this little army as a band of robbers, and upon Ezekias as a robber chieftain, but to the Jud?ans they were the avengers of their honor and their freedom. For they were deeply mortified that Antipater had placed the reins of government in the hands of his sons, and that he cared only for the growing power of his house. Of the four sons born to him by Kypros, the daughter of the King of Arabia, he proclaimed Phasael, the eldest, Governor of Jerusalem and Jud?a, and the second, Herod, a youth of the age of twenty, Governor of Galilee.

This prince was destined to become the evil genius of the Jud?an nation; it was he who brought her as a bound captive to Rome; it was he who placed his feet triumphantly upon her neck. Like an ominous cloud weighted down with misfortune, he seems from the very first to have thrown a dark shadow upon the life of the nation, which, as it slowly but surely advanced, quenched all light in the gathering darkness and withered all growth, until nothing remained but a scene of desolation. True to his father's policy, Herod began by basely flattering Rome and by wounding the Jud?an spirit. In order to gain favor with C?sar, and also to establish the security of his family, he undertook a campaign against the followers of Ezekias; he captured the leader of the band, and, without any trial or show of justice, sentenced him and his followers to decapitation. Eager were the words of praise and of thanks awarded to him by the Syrians and the Romans; he was called the "Robber-subduer"; but whilst he was loaded with favors by Sextus C?sar, the Roman Governor of Syria, all true patriots mourned.

The bitter degradation which the people suffered at the hands of this Idum?an family inspired some of the most distinguished Jud?ans to lay before the weak-minded Hyrcanus the true state of their own and of their High Priest's new position. They explained to him that his dignity was but an empty name, that all real power lay with Antipater and his sons. They pointed to the execution of Ezekias and his followers as an act of gross contempt for the Law. These bitter complaints would have had but little effect upon the weak Hyrcanus, had not the mothers of the slain torn his heart with their cries of anguish. Whenever he appeared in the Temple they threw themselves before him and entreated him not to let the death of their sons remain unavenged.

At last Hyrcanus permitted the Synhedrion to summon Herod before the seat of justice. But Antipater did not fail to warn his son of the terrible storm that was gathering over his head, and of the danger of entering Jerusalem alone and unarmed; while at the same time he cautioned him not to appear surrounded by too many troops, and so arouse the suspicions of Hyrcanus. Herod appeared at the appointed time, but with an armed escort, and with a letter from Sextus C?sar, making the king answerable for the life of the favorite. Thus the day arrived for the great trial to which all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were looking forward with feverish impatience. When the members of the court had taken their places, the accused, clad in purple, with aggressive demeanor, and escorted by his followers, appeared before them. At this sight most of the accusers felt their courage fail them; Herod's bitterest enemies looked downcast and shamefaced, and even Hyrcanus was embarrassed. A painful silence ensued, during which each man stood breathless. Only one member found words to save the waning dignity of the Council, the President, Shemaya. Quietly and calmly he spoke: "Is it not the intention of the accused to put us to death if we pronounce him guilty? And yet I must blame him less than the king and you, who suffer such contempt to be cast upon the Law. Know, then that he, before whom you are all trembling, will one day deliver you to the sword of the executioner." These words roused the fainting courage of the judges, and they soon showed themselves to be as determined as they had before appeared to be cowardly. But Hyrcanus was afraid of their growing wrath, and commanded the Council to adjourn the sitting. Meanwhile Herod withdrew from the anger of the people, and was cordially received at Damascus by Sextus C?sar, who proclaimed him governor of C?lesyria (46). Overwhelmed with honors, he was on the point of wreaking his vengeance upon the king and the Council, when his father and his brother Phasael urged him to milder measures. But he silently nursed his revenge, determined to gratify it upon some future occasion.

The wide-spread disturbance occasioned by the murder of C?sar (44) involved Palestine in new troubles. The Roman Jud?ans justly were so inconsolable at the death of this great man that they spent several entire nights mourning beside the grave that contained his ashes. The internal struggles, the bloody warfare, the constant proscriptions, were but the labor-throes of Rome previous to the birth of a new order of things; but for Jud?a they were to a certain extent a fresh attack of a fatal disease. The heads of the republican party supplanted those of the C?sarian party, but merely to be supplanted by them again in a short time; and this was the case not only in Jud?a, but in various parts of the Roman empire. The republican, Cassius Longinus, had arrived in Syria for the purpose of raising troops and money, and demanded that Jud?a should supply him with 700 talents. Cassius was in desperate haste, for any moment might deprive him of the supreme power with which he ruled at that time over persons and events in Syria. Thus he threw the inhabitants of four Palestinean cities into chains and sold them into slavery, because their contributions were not delivered quickly enough.

The eyes of the unfortunate monarch, Hyrcanus, were opened at last to the fact that the Idum?ans were seeking only their own interest under the cloak of warm partisanship for his cause. He began to be suspicious in his dealings with them, and turned for support to a true and faithful friend, Malich, who had long since recognized the duplicity of the Idum?ans. As yet Hyrcanus knew nothing of the fiendish plot by which he was to be dethroned, and which was to raise Herod, by the help of the Roman legions, to the throne of Jud?a. But this rumor had reached the ears of Malich. Determined to rid the king of the hated Antipater, he contrived to poison him when he was feasting at a banquet with Hyrcanus (43). In cutting at the root, he failed, however, to destroy the growing evil, for Herod surpassed his father, not only in determination and in audacity, but also in duplicity. He avenged the death of Antipater by the assassination of Malich. All attempts to ruin the Idum?an brothers were unsuccessful. Even when Herod fell suddenly and grievously ill, Phasael was fortunate enough to subdue his enemies. A plot conceived by Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus II, supported by his kinsman Ptolemy of Chalcis, to deprive the Idum?ans of their power, failed likewise, and Herod compelled Hyrcanus to crown him with the garland of victory when he made his entry into Jerusalem. As a means of disarming this terrible and mighty prince, Hyrcanus tried to attach him to his house, by betrothing him to his granddaughter Mariamne, celebrated in history no less for her beauty than for her misfortunes. The victim was to be bound to the executioner by the bonds of marriage, and her own mother, Alexandra, helped to bring about this miserable alliance.

Fortune smiled so persistently upon the Idum?an that all changes in the political world, however they might appear to damage his cause, only gave him greater power. The republican army was completely routed at Philippi (in 42), the leaders, Brutus and Cassius, committed suicide, and the Roman world lay at the feet of the second triumvirate-Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus. Herod and Phasael looked upon these changes with a troubled eye; for had they not displayed the warmest zeal for the opponents of the triumvirate? Besides this, some of the Jud?an nobles had hurried forth to meet the victor Antony in Bithynia, carrying to him their complaints of the rapacity of the Idum?an brothers. But Herod soon found the means to scatter the clouds. He also appeared before Antony with a smooth tongue and ready money. Antony did not fail to remember that he had formerly tasted of Antipater's hospitality. He turned a deaf ear to the Jud?an nobles, and dismissed Herod with marks of favor. The voice of the nation, which made itself heard through its ambassadors, was no longer heeded. Antony sentenced some of the unfortunate envoys to be thrown into prison, and others to be executed, whilst he proclaimed the two Idum?an brothers governors of Jud?a, with the title "Tetrarch."

At one time it seemed as if this constant good fortune were about to desert the Idum?an brothers and to return to the Hasmon?an house. The Parthians, stimulated by the fugitive Roman republican Labienus, had made, under the command of their king's son Pacorus, and his commander, Barzapharnes, an inroad into Asia Minor and Syria, whilst Mark Antony was reveling at the court of the bewitching queen Cleopatra. The Parthians, enemies of the Roman republic, were also violently antagonistic to Herod and Phasael; they became doubly so on account of their connection with Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, who was related to the house of Aristobulus, and who had promised great rewards to the Parthian commanders if they would sweep the hated brothers out of the way, dethrone Hyrcanus, and crown Antigonus. The Parthians agreed to this scheme, and, dividing their army into two detachments, marched by the sea-coast and the inland road upon Jerusalem. At every step they were met and joined by Jud?an troops, who outstripped them in their haste to arrive at the capital. Upon entering Jerusalem they besieged the Hasmon?an palace, and flocked to the Mount of the Temple. The common people, in spite of being unarmed, supported the invaders. The festival of Pentecost was at hand, and a crowd of worshipers from all parts of Jud?a were streaming into Jerusalem; they also declared themselves in favor of Antigonus. The Idum?ans held the palace and its fortress, and the invaders, the city. Hyrcanus and Phasael were at last persuaded by Pacorus, the king's cup-bearer, to go as envoys of peace to the general, Barzapharnes, whilst Herod was closely watched. Upon arriving at Ecdippa the two unfortunate ambassadors were thrown into prison, where Phasael committed suicide, and where Hyrcanus had his ears mutilated, in order to incapacitate him thereafter for holding his priestly office. Plots were also laid to ensure the downfall of Herod, but, warned by some faithful followers of his brother, he contrived to escape from his palace at night. Accompanied by his bride Mariamne, and by the female members of his family, he hurried to the fortress Masada, which he left in command of his brother Joseph, retiring first into Arabia, then into Egypt, and finally to Rome. He was followed by the execrations of the people. Antigonus was now proclaimed king of Jud?a (the Parthians carrying off Hyrcanus to Babylon), and feeling himself to be in truth a monarch, he had coins struck with his Hebrew and Greek names: "Mattathias, High Priest, and the Commonwealth of the Jud?ans," and also "King Antigonus." The Parthian auxiliary troops were dismissed, and Antigonus destroyed the last of the Roman contingent that still held some of the fortresses in Palestine. So Jud?a was once more freed from foreign soldiery, and could indulge in the sweet dream of regained independence after thirty hard years of internal troubles and terrible warfare.