New testament times
Introduction. 1, Distribution of the Jewish Population in the Holy Land. fi. Languages. fii, Political Constitution. iv. Social Conditions. v. Parties. vi. Education and Culture. vii. Art and Literature. viii. The Jews of the Diaspora. Literature. The Advent of Christ falls within the penulti- mate period of that era of Israclitish history which begins with the Return of the Jews from Babylon (B.C. 538) and ends with the Fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).
From both an external and an internal oint of view, this era marks a far-reaching trans- Pornmtion of the conditions of Jewish life. At the outset, Judza, which was not quite the same in extent as the ancient kingdom of Judah, forms a small province of the Persian, and afterwards of the Greek Empire. The population, at first scanty and poor, gradually increases, and, under the orderly arrangements of the Law, attains to a certain measure of prosperity.
But internal party-strife consumes its strength, and, under Antiochus Epiphanes, reaches such a height that this Seleucid monarch, in the pride of his Greek culture, but with political shortsightedness, forms the resolution of entirely rooting out the proper Jewish religion. This period of extreme danger is unexpectedly followed by a brilliant revival of the Jewish State, which recalls the flourishing period of pre-exilic history, and which struck the eople themselves in this light.
The nation shakes itself free from the foreign yoke, and the Has- monzean princes not only become high priests, but finally assume the title of ‘king.’ his glory, however, is of short duration, and the Jewish eople are rudely awakened from their dream. The internal dissensions that followed the death of queen Alexandra, hasten the intervention of the Romaas, and lead to the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey (B.C. 63).
The Romans do not, how- ever, destroy the Jewish State, but allow it to continae under a variety of changing forms, until at last the perpetual discontent of the Jews leads to the outbreak of the desperate war for freedom, NEW TESTAMENT TIMES 45 which issued in the destruction of the State and the Temple. From the spiritual point of view, this period marks the development of Judaism in opposition to the national life and the religion of the pre- exilic period.
The deeper foundation of this is found in the remarkable recasting which the Jewish spirit underwent during the Exile. No- where else in the history of mankind is there an instance of a people being transformed in so wonderful and radical a fashion as the Jews in the course of their captivity in Babylon. They left Babylon a body whose true life lay not in the actual state of things, but in future expectations and in a world of cultus-notions created out of recollections of the past.
To the actual world they sought to accommodate themselves upon certain abstract principles, and, when this attempt failed, they withdrew entirely into that spiritual world which was constructed wholly according to those dogmatic principles, They found their support in the Messianic expectation, for the sake of which they submitted to the burdensome prescriptions of the Law, which were intended to shield them from the heathen impurity of the world, and thereby render them worthy to hail the advent of the Messianic glory.
Yet it is not to be over- looked, in this connexion, that the noblest spirits in the Jewish community, especially during the earlier periods of the post-exilic era, filled those outward forms with a rich inward content.
There still survived in them the pure prophetic spirit, and the ideas created by men like Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah ; nay, the writings which emanated from this period, such as the Psalms and the Book of Job, touch us almost more nearly than the writings of those prophets, because the ideas con- tained in them have found simpler expression and are less closely bound up with the historical form.
But the conditions under which the Jews lived seldom permitted a lengthened enjoyment of this contemplative life. Not only were they disturbed in their rest by contact with the heathen world, but even amongst themselves there were men of a different disposition, whose recollections turned rather to their pre-exilic forefathers, and who, with a stronger sense of actualities, plunged vigor- ously into the relations of life, and sought to help themselves.
Between them and the ‘quiet in the land’ there grew up an ever-increasing opposition, which may be regarded as the moving factor in the post-exilic history. Through these conflicts with opposition without and within, not only was the stricter Judaism disturbed, but it was driven also to the discussion of the great religious problems and to new developments.
The fruits of these spiritual struggles may be seen in the entirely new conception of the state of man after death and in the transformation of the Messianic hope, which in the Apocalyptic litera- ture seeks to free itself from national limitations and takes a start in the direction of universal- ism. It may be safely concluded that, in this move- ment, contact with foreign forms of thought was not without importance—primarily contact with Parsism, secondarily with the Greek world.
i, DISTRIBUTION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION IN THE Hoty LAND. — Leaving out of account meanwhile those Israelites who were scattered in various lands, the Jewish population was at first confined to Judea proper, from which the Israel- ites derived their now universally current appella- tion (Gr. "lovdatn, Germ. ‘Juden,’ Eng. ews’. ossession of by the returning exiles was considerably smaller in the southern The land taken direction than in pre-exilic times. Whereas for.
merly Beersheba was regarded as the southern limit, the part of Judea that lay to the south had 46 NEW TESTAMENT TIMES been taken possession of during the Exile by the Edomites, and the post-exilic community was at first far too weak to drive back the intruders.* The boundary between this New-Edom and Judzea was formed in the 2nd cent. B.c. by the town of Beth-zur, and this was, in all probability, approxi- mately the division between the respective terri- tories also at an earlier period.
According to Neh 6?, the original N.W. boundary appears to have been the Plain of Ono (bik ‘ath ’On6, probably the modern Kefr-dnd). But at a later period the Samaritans, who lived at constant feud with the Jews, must have got possession of three places inhabited by Jews, namely Lydda, Ramathaim, and Aphzrema (1 Mac 11%). In the Maccabean period, however, Judea underwent considerable expansion.
The three places just named were taken from the Samaritans and restored to the Jews as early as the time of Jonathan. After- wards the boundary was extended still farther to the north, for, according to Josephus (BJ IIL. iii. 5 ; Ant. XIV. iii. 4), the N. boundary of Judea ran by Borkaos (prob. the modern Berkit) in the hill- country and Kore (now Kurdwa) in the Jordan Valley. The country in the south inhabited by the Edomites, which now bore the name Jdumea, was conquered by John Hyrcanus.
As it was originally Israelitish land, the inhabitants were compelled to adopt the Law and submit to circumcision. Accordingly, from that time onwards (in confor- mity with the prescription of Dt 23%), they were regarded as Jews, although-they continue to be called Idumeans. That they also regarded them- selves as genuine Jews is evident, for instance, from the words attributed to them by Josephus (BJ Iv. iv. 4, rv warploy lepdv .
THs Kowis marpldos), but of coyrse their foreign origin could not be wholly forgotten.t On the other hand, in the cities on the Mediterranean coast, which had only transitory periods of subjection to the Jews, the population was preponderatingly heathen, al- though considerable Jewish minorities existed in them. Only in Joppa (Jaffa) were the Jews in the majority, this city having continued after the death of Herod to be united with Judea.
During the war for freedom it played, accordingly, a prominent part, and had to be twice captured by the Romans (Jos. Ant. Vil. xi. 4; BJ U1. xviii. 10, III. ix. 2). To the north of Judea lay Samaria, which stretched as far as the Plain of Jezreel. The population of this district sprang partly from the ancient Israelites, but had received a strong inter- mixture through the heathen peoples who were settled ‘here by the Assyrian conquerors (cf.
2 K 17*#-), Jn course of time these heathen elements were absorbed by the Israelitish remnants, but the ill-will shown by the Samaritans towards the re- turning Jews kept the latter from ever forgetting the impure origin of their northern neighbours. Matters came to an open breach when the Samari- tans built a temple of their own upon Mt. Gerizim, and thus renounced all connexion with the com- munity at Jerusalem.
It is true that they, equally with the Jews, acknowledged the Law, but the breach remained irreparable, and the Samaritans continued excluded from the further development of Judaism. The contempt of the Jews which found vent in the nickname ‘ Cuth- seans’ (Jos, Ant, IX. xiv. 3, XI. iv. 4, and in the Talmud), and which finds very sharp expression on the part even of the otherwise mild Ben Sira * On Neh 1125f. cf. now, above all, E. Meyer, Entstehung des Judentums, 106f., 114 ff.
t Josephus says of Herod that, as an Idum#an, he was only half a Jew (Ant. xiv. xii. 2). On the other hand, when Agrippa I. once felt hurt by the epithet ‘foreigner’ in Dt 1715, the people, whom he had gained over by his friendly offices, tried out, ‘Thou art our brother’ (Meg. Sétd vii. 8).
NEW TESTAMENT TIMES (Sir 50%: ‘Two nations my soul abhorreth, and the third is no people: the inhabitants of Seir and Philistia, and the foolish nation that dwelleth in Sichem’), was repaid by the Samaritans with bitter hate. This manifested itself at times in the form of attacks upon the pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem, who, in consequence, frequented pre- ferred to take the long roundabout way by the east of the Jordan (Lk 9°, Mk 10!; Jos, Ant, xx. vi. 1).
The destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus made no change in these re lations, but rather embittered the feelings of the Samaritans still more. : As to Galilee, we learn from 1 Mac 5 that in the course of the post-exilic period Jews had settled in it, but that during the first half of the 2nd cent. B.C. these were still so few that they could not hold their own against the heathen popula- tion, and were consequently brought by Simon to Jerusalem.
It was not until the time of Aristobulus 1., as Schirer (GJV% i. 275f.) was the first to prove, that this portion of the land and its inhabitants, regarding whose nationality we have unfortunately no more precise informa- tion, were Hegre on the same ground as the Idumeans to adopt the Law (Jos, Ané. XIII. xi. 3). It is extremely probable, however, that there were further settlements of Jews of purer birth in these fertile districts, so that they became more com- pletely Judaized.
It is characteristic in this re- spect that Judith (8!) speaks of ‘our fathers,’ 7.¢. the ancient Israelites. At the time of Christ the land of Galilee was essentially Jewish, and had its Pharisees and scribes (Lk 7°, Mt 879), as well as its synagogues (Mt 12°, Lk 41675), The designa- tion ‘half-Jews’ is never applied to the Galileans as it is to the Idumeans.
* It may be added that the Judaizing of Galilee embraced only the southern portion of it, for Kedesh, lying to the west of Lake Hfleh, marked the boundary be- tween the land inhabited by Jews and the territory of the Tyrians. + A similar condition of things prevailed also in the country to the east of the Jordan. Here, too, there had been numerous settlements of Jews, who, however, were so hard pressed by the heathen that Judas Maccabeeus brought them to Jerusalem (1 Mac 5®).
But at a later period the middle portion of the trans-Jordanic tract was conquered by Alexander Jannzeus, and the Law imposed upon its inhabitants for the same reason as in the case of the Idumeans (cf. Jos. Ané. XIII. xv. 4). As the boundaries of Perwa (117! 73y), the district inhabited by the Jews, Josephus gives: Pella on the north, Philadelphia on the east, and Machzerus on the south.
Considerable tracts, however, of the trans-Jordanice country belonged to the Hellenistic cities, which were specially numerous here, and in which the Jews constituted only a minority. Also in the northern portion (Batanea, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, and Trachonitis) the population was half-heathen half-Jewish (Jos. BJ iu. iii. 5f.) But the Jewish element was strengthened by the Babylonian Jews whom Herod transplanted here in order to combat the plague of robbers (Jos. Ant. XVII. ii. 13).
The task which, since the time cf Ezra, had been assigned to strict Jews—the task of maintain- ing a complete isolation from the heathen world— was thus an extremely difficult one; for not only were they surrounded on all sides by the heathen, but Hellenistic cities intruded as enclaves in the midst of the Jewish country itself. Moreover, * Quite remarkable is the severe inde on Galilee attri- buted to Johanan b. Zaccai (Jerus.
Shabbath 16d): ‘Galilee, Galilee, thou hatest the Law, therefore thou shalt yet find ployment among robbers.’ t Cf. Buhl, GAP 72. NEW TESTAMENT TIMES NEW TESTAMENT TIMES 47 the rapid development of commerce brought the Jews into close contact with foreigners, while, finally, the foreign rule naturally introduced many non-Jewish elements into the land.
The attractive influence which Greek culture exercised over the Jews is shown by the history of events immediately preceding the Maccabeean era; and even the Has- monzans who originally came forward to oppose the ethnicizing of the Jews, were afterwards increasingly attracted by Hellenism, so that Aristo- bulus I. actually received the surname of d:\éAAny (‘friend of the Greeks’).
Herod the Great, too, in spite of his essentially barbarian nature, sought to pose as a patron of Greek culture, surrounded himself with Greek orators and writers, had his sons educated at Rome, and made his appearance as a pure Greek in the Hellenistic cities that were subject to him. Nay, even in Jerusalem, to the scandal of the Jews, he caused theatres, circuses, and other Greek buildings to be erected. The same course was pursued by his successors.
Tiberias, for instance, was a city with a perfectly pronounced Greek stamp, which may account for the fact that Jesus never visited it. The main- taining of Jewish uniqueness unimpaired was, we repeat, a very difficult task ; much more difficult in Palestine than for the Jews of the Diaspora, who found themselves in unequivocal opposition to their environment. ii. LANGUAGES.— The language of the Jews who returned to Palestine from Babylon was Old Hebrew.
But even during the Persian domination Aramaic, which was then the language of com- merce and diplomacy, began to force its way among the Jews as with the neighbouring peoples. The earliest traces of this are found in the extracts in the Book of Ezra drawn from an Aramaic historical writing. The Book of Daniel, composed in the 2nd cent. B.C., is written partly in Aramaic.
At the time of Christ the ordinary speech of the people had come to be Aramaic, as is evident not only from the New Testament, but from various cultus terms used by Josephus, and from state- ments contained in the iden Jewish literature. The necessary consequence of this change was the custom of having the passages of Scripture which were read in the synagogue followed by an Aramaic translation—a custom which the Mishna presupposes as an ancient inheritance.
The Aramaic spoken by the Jews was a dialect of the Etaioni the pronunciation of which, moreover, differed somewhat in different parts of the country, bia? her again amongst the Samaritans as compared -with the Jews.* The Old Hebrew language yielded, however, only gradually to the Aramaic idiom, and, before it disap saree it developed a final species, the so-called New Hebrew. Even after men had be to write in Aramaic, Hebrew writings were still composed ; e.g. the Book of Chronicles (c. 300 B.
C.), the Book of Sirach (not long after 200), various Psalms belonging to the Maccabean period, and the Book of Ecclesiastes. The Has- monean rulers, who above all laboured for a national reawakening, favoured the ancient speech, as the Hebrew legends on their coins show; and the First Book of Maccabees was unquestionably written in Hebrew. But the last remark applies also to the Psalms of Solomon, which emanated from the middle of the last century B.C.
, and to the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, composed after the Fall of Jerusalem. Later still, Hebrew continued to be for long the language of teachers of the Law, so that the Mishna (2nd cent. A.D.) is composed in New Hebrew. It was only after the date last named that Hebrew ceased to be a living Of. Mt 2673; Dalman, Grammatik des id.-pal. Aramdisch, 48f%., Die Worte Jesu, i. 64. language, and subsequently played the same réle as Latin did in the Middle Ages.
See, further, Driver, LOT® 503 ff. Along with the idioms just discussed, we have to take into account, for NT times, also the Greek language. The factors we noticed as favouring the introduction of Greek culture paved the way also for the language of Greece. The clearest evidence of this is afforded by the very numerous Greek words adopted into the languages of the Jews. A few of these are found even in the Book of Daniel, notably such as are names of musical instruments (Driver, /.c. 501).
In all probability ps of Ca 3° must also be considered Greek (=qopefov), and perhaps we should assign to the same category some other terms in the Song of Songs (/.c. 449 n.) In the Book of Ecclesi- astes, again, we have Heb. renderings of Gr. forms of expression, such as rim mivy=ed mpdr- Tew, Vow noA=vbP' HAlw, ete. In the post-Biblical literature we encounter a large number of Greek loan-words, especially in the domain of political administration, or of commerce, or of public institutions.
* It is characteristic, further, that, whereas on some of the later coins of the Hasmonzans we find Hebrew legends side by side with the Greek, the coins of the Herod family bear only Greek inscriptions, It may be held as certain that every Jew who made any claim to higher culture, and therefore in particular every one who was brought into contact with the court, understood and spoke Greek. Traders also must be assumed to have had a certain acquaintance with this tongue.
And those Jews who lived in the immediate vicinity of districts where Greek was spoken would doubtless acquire the habit from their youth of using the Greek as well as the Aramaic language. But how far it was customary elsewhere to learn Greek, and how far the know- ledge of this language had penetrated among the general body of the people, cannot be determined with certainty. According to Sétd@ ix.
14, durin the war with Quietus [so read instead of ‘ wit: Titus ’] in 115-117, it was forbidden that any one should teach his son Greek. From this we may infer that until then this had been a usual practice even within strict circles. It was also an import- ant circumstance that Jerusalem, upon the occasion of the great festivals, was the rallying-point not only of the Palestinian Jews, but of those whose homes were in all other lands.
Only a very small proportion of the latter can have been acquainted with Hebrew or Aramaic. And at times some of these, instead of returning to their homes, would settle in Jerusalem. It may also be supposed that the choice of the Alexandrian Jew, Boethus, to be high priest would draw a number of Alex- andrians to Jerusalem (cf. Jos. Ant. Xv. ix. 3). Special synagogues were built at Jerusalem for the use of those foreigners who did not understand the language of the country (Ac 6°; Tos.
Megilla iii. 6). Proselytes also would come from other lands to settle in Jerusalem. In this way some knowledge of Greek may be presumed to have been diffused in Juda as well. In Jn 12% we hear of Greeks (“E\Anves, i.e. either Jews of the Dia- spora [?] or proselytes) who asked Philip to intro- duce them to Jesus—a circumstance which implies that this disciple at least understood Greek.
That the same was the case with Jesus Himself cannot be * As examples may be cited: NI7DN irapyos, rh Bovas, [7770 cvvidpiov, NID xarhyep, ban sporBoarh, RODD x&arndros ‘DD tieh, nopbaop nat Atrté, }\PIIB savdoxsiov, 37D Badraveior, jV01N"9 Sxuecr», Less numerous are the Latin loan-words, the majority of which, moreover, came in through the Greek: e.g. ‘mip’? decumani, mo Dpo disciplina. Of. 8. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwérter im Talmud, Midraseh und Targum, 1-2 (1898-99).
48 NEW TESTAMENT TIMES proved with complete certainty from His conversa- tions with Pilate, for the services of an interpreter may have been utilized, although this is not ex- pressly mentioned in the narrative. We may compare the occasion when Josephus (BJ V. ix. 2) represents Titus as delivering an address to the people of Jerusalem, although we learn afterwards (VI. ii. 5) that on such occasions he availed him- self of the help of Josephus as interpreter.
T'rom the last cited passage it is evident, at all events, that the mass of the people in the Jewish capital did not understand Greek.* iii. POLITICAL CONSTITUTION. —The Greek rule, under which the Jews were brought by Alexander the Great, did not in general press very heavily upon subject peoples, who were left in the enjoy- ment of no small measure of self, government. The foreign domination confined itself mainly to the taxation of the provinces.
So high, however, were these taxes at times, and such was the rapacity of some of those entrusted with the col- lecting of them, that there was scope here for op- pression enough. In the Ptolemaic period Josephus (Ant. XII. iv. 3) tells us that the imposts were farmed out to the highest bidder, who could then claim military aid in recovering them. In the Seleucid period, on the other hand, the taxes were collected by officers of the king (1 Mac 1).
The internal administration, however, was in the hands of the native authorities, which meant for the Jews that henceforward, as before, they were governed by the high priest and the council associated with him (yepovcla, Jos. Ant. XII. iii. 3).t This council was originally an assembly of the heads of families (Neh 5"); but, after the high priest obtained the right of presiding over it, it came to be composed increasingly of members of the temple aristocracy (see art. SANHEDRIN in vol. iv.)
The succession of legitimate high priests (the ‘anointed’ of Dn 9*5t-) was violently interrupted under Antiochus Epiphanes. But after the Hasmoneans by their valour and address had raised the Jewish people to the rank of a Power that had to be reckoned with politically, the Syrian king nominated Jona- than high riest, and thus ruler of the nation of the Jews.
The grateful people afterwards handed over this dignity to the last of the Maccabee brothers as a hereditary prerogative: he was to take charge of the sanctuary, appoint the officials, etc., and in his name all instruments were to be executed (1 Mac 14“), Through the conquests which the Hasmoneans succeeded in making, the sphere of authority of the high priests (or, as they soon came to call themselves, kings) and of the Sanhedrin was materially enlarged.
An im- portant epoch for the internal administration was the reign of queen Alexandra, under whom the Pharisees succeeded in gaining a footing in the Sanhedrin and an influence upon the legislation. The independence of the country was brought to a sudden end by the conquests of Pompey. The Jews were henceforward under the Roman domi- nation, The extent of the land was materially diminished by Pompey’s withdrawing the numer- ous Hellenistic cities from Jewish rule.
On the other hand, he left to Hyrcanus, as high priest, a certain measure of political authority, so that the conditions were practically the same as those that * Of. Schirer, GJV% ii. 18 ff., 63ff.; Zahn, Hinleit. ins NT, i. 1-51; Delitzsch, Saat auf Hoffnung, 1874, p. 185 ff.; Kautzsch, Gramm. des bibl. Aram. 4ff.; Neubauer, Studia Biblica, Ox- ford, 1885, Me 39ff.; Dalman, Gramm. des jiid.-pal. Aram. 344 ff., Die Worte Jesu, i. 1ff., 63 ff. ; Biichler, Die Priester und der Kultus, 1895, p.
61ff.; A. Meyer, Jesw Muttersprache, 1896 ; T. K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the Original Teats of the Old and New Testament, 1891, p. 129 ff. t Biichler (Die Tobiaden und Oniaden, 1899) and H. Winckler (Orient. Ltzg. iii. 87 ff.) maintain that the pre-Maccabwan high priests had no political power ; but their arguments are artificial and not convincing. NEW TESTAMENT TIMES — existed immediately before the war for freedom. But in the year 57 B.c.
Gabinius deprived Hyrcanus of all political rule by dividing the whole country into five districts, whose principal cities stood in direct subordination to the Romans (Jos, Andé. XIv. v. 4; BJ I. viii. 5). Czesar, however, in 47 restored to Hyrcanus his former power and gave him the title of ‘ethnarch.
’ But the real ruler was not the weak Hyrcanus, but the crafty Idu- mean Antipater, who was made Procurator of Judea, and who succeeded in having his sons Phasael and Herod appointed strategot of Jeru- salem and Galilee. After the death of Antipater (B.c. 43), Antony named the two brothers ‘tetrarchs,’ a step whereby Hyrcanus was once more deprived of all secular power and became merely an ecclesiastical prince.
The attack made by the Hasmonzean Antigonus, with the aid of the Parthians, cost Hyrcanus and Phasael their offices, but Herod escaped to Rome, where he was nomi- nated king of the Jews. It was not until the year 37 that he succeeded in conquering his kingdom, but from that date onpaten he reigned undis- turbed till his death. His position was that of a rex socius.
Such a king was entrusted with rule only personally: after his death it was left open to the Emperor to decide as to the future lot of the particular country. For this reason Herod required the permission of the Emperor to put his own son to death. Nor could a rex socius wage war on his own initiative or conclude treaties, and, if the Romans were engaged in war, he had to furnish auxiliary troops. His right to coin mone was restricted, and included on y coins of sma value.
Otherwise he was an independent ruler, levied the various imposts of the country, was the supreme judge within his own land, and could execute capital sentences. Alongside of Herod there was still the Sanhedrin, but its authority was now, of course, very limited. The high priest was its president, but the setting up of an inde- pendent kingly authority had practically stripped this office of all significance.
The high priests were appointed and deposed by Herod in the most arbitrary fashion—a course of procedure quite con- trary to the Law, which intended this office to be held for life and to be hereditary. After the death of Herod, his kingdom was divided into three portions. Philip received, with the rank of tetrarch, the northern trans-Jordanic territory, over which he ruled till his death, in A.D. 37.
Herod Antipas, likewise as tetrarch, had Galilee and Persa assigned to him, but was deposed in 37. Archelaus had been destined to rule as tetrarch over Judea and Samaria, but as early as the year 6 the Emperor deprived him of his land. which he united more closely with the Roman Empire.
It was, however, subject only indirectly to the Imperial legate in Syria, having a governor of its own, a Roman Procurator (éml- tpomos, wyeudv) chosen from the knightly body, who attended to the administration except when any very special necessity called for the action of the legate.
The Procurator resided at Czesarea on the seacoast; but on the occasion of the great festivals, when the mood of the people was always most turbulent, he came to Jerusalem, where he took up his residence in the former palace of Herod on the west side of the city. The largest Roman garrison was stationed at Caesarea; but smaller bodies of troops were quartered in various towns throughout the land—amongst others in Jerusalem, where they had their barracks in the temple citadel of Antonia.
The troops consisted entirely of non-Jews, the Jewish pepsleies being, it would appear, exempt from military service, The taxes were now assigned to the Imperia! Of. Schtirer, GJV% i. 460, NEW TESTAMENT TIMES NEW TESTAMENT TIMES 49 “rsa and were levied by the Procurator, the ighest financial official, who in this work availed himself of the aid of the various communes. The duties, on the other hand, were farmed out at a fixed sum to private officials (pudlicant).
* Both these ‘publicans’ and their subordinates were often of Jewish extraction (cf. e.g. Lk 19); on account of the inordinate greed and dishonesty that yay characterized them, they were greatly hated and despised (‘publicans and sinners, Mt 9 e¢¢ al.) The taxation was probably connected with the division of the country into eleven toparchies, each with its capital.
The Roman taxation of Judea after the deposition of Archelaus led also in the year 7 to the visit of the legate Quirinius, for the purpose of having the inhabitants assessed.+ Finally, the Procurator was the highest judicial authority in the land, and had to attend to all important a suits ; in particular, no capital sentence could be executed without being confirmed by him.
In such cases he had sometimes associated with him a council made up of Romans (cvpBovdov, Ac 2512), In other respects the country enjoyed the right of self-government, which was exercised, as formerly, by the high priest and the Sanhedrin. Josephus (Ant. xx. 10) puts the matter very well when he says that the Jews, after they had had a monar- chical, had now again an aristocratic constitution.
But one essential and characteristic change was that the high priest was now appointed by the Roman Procurator, This condition of things underwent no interruption except when Agrippa I., under the title of king, gathered the whole land for a short time (41-44) under his sway. During this period the same arrangements were followed as under Herod the Great; the high priest, for instance, being appointed by the king.
After Agrippa’s death, not only Judiea, but the whole country of the Jews (with the exception of the districts to the east of the Jordan and in the north, which were assigned to Agrippa II.), came directly under the Roman sway. ‘The constitution was now quite the same as in Juda prior to Agrippa I., except that the Romans handed over the right of nominating the high priest first to Herod of Chalcis (44-48) and then to Agrippa II.
The regular order of things came to an end with the outbreak of the final war for freedom. The land was divided into various districts, each under a ruler invested with dictatorial authority. But this organization gave way before the advance of the Romans. The last high priest, Phannias, was shosen by lot by the Zealots. He was a man of humble extraction, who had lived all his life in the country, so that he understood nothing of the office (Jos. BJ Iv. iii. 8).
After the Iall of Jeru- salem, the relative independence of the Jews was gone for ever. The high priests disappeared along with the temple, and the Sanhedrin along with them. Henceforward the cohesion of the Jews was dependent solely upon those spiritual factors which lent such invincible strength to the Jews of the Diaspora and had been the real life-principle even of the Palestinian Jews—the Law and the Messianic hope.
From the foregoing sketch it will be evident that the whole of the properly Jewish administration throughout the period in question was concentrated in the high priest and the Sanhedrin (yepougia, later evvé5pov, hence j717730). The sway exercised by these authorities underwent change, however, in the course of time. It reached its culminating point under the Hasmoneans, when the high priest had become the ruler of an independent * Of. Schiirer, GJV'8 ii. 181f. ; ¢ Jos. Ant. xvi. i, 1.
On Lk 2145 cf., above all, Schiirer, Le. 1. ECS ff.